bodybuilders - should you train to failure?

[drdankenstein]

so like the title says, should you train to failure? every set? last set of every exercise? ty

[t-gunz]

personally i dont think so. well in saying so not all the time.

the idea is to shock the muscles into spurting new growth.

if you train to failure all the time then muscles will get use to this

keep em guessing

with saying this also. you have to eat like a bodybuilder to look like a bodybuilder. diet and training work hand in hand.

[Johan]

IMO training to failure is training to fail. That last rep on each set wont make much of a difference in growth or strength gains, but it will tax you like hell, it will make form deteriorate and it will increase recovery time tremendously. This is especially important for the compound movements like deadlifts, squats, cleans.

I feel much better and get more consistent results when I avoid failure and stop one rep short. This is a point emphasized both my modern powerlifters and weightlifters and the old time strongmen of the past. I think bodybuilders should take it to heart as well.

The whole HIT mentality has kind of made going to failure a necessity, but in most cases its volume that makes people grow, not mental intensity put into a set.

Exception is different work on machines. Doing machine curls or machine triceps extensions or similar exercises to failure is probably as taxing for the body as walking the dog. Same with isolation exercises like one arm triceps extension. So if one wants to go to failure in those exercises for fun, then I guess it wont hurt. It's also far less taxing to go to failure in leg press compared to squats.

[Johan]

^^ There is of course different methods, doggcrapp training is based on going beyond failure and it works like a charm. But even then one should never do it on free weight compound movements.

[Narkissos]

I think everything works... but nothing works forever.

So do I believe in training to failure? Yes.

Do I believe in training short of failure? Yes

I also believe in training way past failure.

It's about understanding and implementing systems in a cyclic fashion IMO.

No one should continually train one specific way IMO.

Development isn't linear... and, as such, neither should training be.

-CNS

[Travis Tilley]

^^^ yes...I also feel anyone who doesn't attempt different types of training is robbing themselves of not only finding out what may work best for them,but the experience and knowledge that it may yield.

[drdankenstein]

i agree with you all. i guess i find it kind of hard to make my own "program" per se, so i usually switch up training programs (and this usually accomplishes the goal). for example ill do HST for 8-12 weeks and then MAX OT for another 8-12, and then rinse and repeat. Anyone else switch training programs like this? i feel its very effective (and the HST cycle really helps me focus on building my mind muscle connection even further).

edit: reason i brought up the two different training programs, because in HST there are periods where you dont work up to failure, whereas MAXOT is always hitting failure.

[Narkissos]

^^that is a decent way to approach training.

I think 8-12 weeks is way too long to be doing the same thing though.

Development follows a curve... not a straight line.

[Johan]

^^ I think change doesn't have to be very dramatic though. If change is incorporated in the program then one can plausibly stay on that program indefinitely and gain. The constant switching and rotating of exercises like in Doggcrapp or Westside training would be good examples or different kinds of perodization schemes like Wendlers 5/3/1. Change can also be very subtle, like how Ivan Abadjiev managed to keep his athletes gaining, even though they only ever did 3-4 different exercises, by just changing rest periods, number of reps etc. I guess its all a matter of what the goal is.