MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Superiority of a Failure Based Routine
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

oldbutsteady

(Edited)
I have never seen a study on the growth potential difference between momentary failure and near failure. HIT insists to maximize growth momentary failure must be achieved but no proof has ever been offered. Even if there was a difference, how much of a difference? Is that difference worth the extended recovery of a momentary failure based routine? Would that difference have value for a noncompetitive trainee?

I forgot to mention injury in my original post. Does training to failure increase the long term risk of injury?

These are the questions long time HIT advocates should be asking but don't. For nearly 50 years HIT has had the opportunity to prove their theories but have failed to do so. Why?

Again this seems to be dogma originating with AJ.

OBS
Open User Options Menu

too old

I believe there are studies comparing the two. Results being similar. But one of the negative effects of failure training, as you noted , if recuperation.
Lots of trainers/trainees, stay 1-2 reps, away from failure.
Even Dr Darden use NTF days.
Open User Options Menu

Fatso

oldbutsteady wrote:
I have never seen a study on the growth potential difference between momentary failure and near failure.[\quote]

There are far too many variables to get any truly repeatable studies on any form of strength training. Additionally growth potential is very much related to muscle length, insertion points and so on not just the protocol. However, there is reams of visual (anecdotal) evidence over years and years that most forms of strength training work to a degree (ignoring the use of drugs) under the provisos that there is sufficient volume and stimulus and that adequate nutrition and recovery are both allowed. HIT is predominantly a time efficient form of training for me rather than the be all and end all of training variations.

HIT insists to maximize growth momentary failure must be achieved but no proof has ever been offered. Even if there was a difference, how much of a difference? Is that difference worth the extended recovery of a momentary failure based routine? Would that difference have value for a noncompetitive trainee?

Indeed - One of the primary tenets of HIT (which in the early 80's Nautilus adverts was also called Time Efficient Training) is that to achieve maximum stimulation then maximum effort is necessary BUT it is not the only factor. Your questions are missing these other tenets and trying to answer them can become a bit moot.

These are the questions long time HIT advocates should be asking but don't. For nearly 50 years HIT has had the opportunity to prove their theories but have failed to do so. Why?

Again this seems to be dogma originating with AJ.

OBS


I agree but it goes back to how do you PROVE anything in field with some many, many variables. I train in a HIT fashion because I enjoy it and that's got a lot to do with it. I feel you will get a lot of challenges to your questions (which are presented in a pretty dogmatic fashion BTW). Maybe a question you should be asking yourself is how much time and effort do you want to invest in the gym to get the results you want? If you like longer, easier sessions - then carry on!
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Fatso,

My questions are opposite of dogma. I'm also not saying if you like going to failure you should stop.

What I am saying is that there is no proof that going to failure has any tangible benefit for anyone. HIT advocates for decades have made the absolute statement that it does and I'm asking for proof.

Concerning my workouts, they are neither easier or longer (this is more HIT dogma on display). My sessions are short, hard, tiring, and include more than just weight training.

Unlike you, I don't have the need to completely exhaust myself to feel I've accomplished something and I train at home lest I run into Grant types or dogmatic HITters like you at the gym ;)

OBS
Open User Options Menu

Fatso

Carry on then!

BTW - that's the second time I've said carry on... hardly dogmatic :D
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

oldbutsteady wrote:
(Edited)
I have never seen a study on the growth potential difference between momentary failure and near failure. HIT insists to maximize growth momentary failure must be achieved but no proof has ever been offered. Even if there was a difference, how much of a difference? Is that difference worth the extended recovery of a momentary failure based routine? Would that difference have value for a noncompetitive trainee?

I forgot to mention injury in my original post. Does training to failure increase the long term risk of injury?

These are the questions long time HIT advocates should be asking but don't. For nearly 50 years HIT has had the opportunity to prove their theories but have failed to do so. Why?

Again this seems to be dogma originating with AJ.

OBS


I've seen two studies on that.
1) untrained - no difference
2) trained people - small difference, a bit more gains with failure

I heard a rumor Brad Schoenfeld was doing a study on this, I asked him and he told me they have two on this actually in review right now, coming out soon hopefully, so looking forward to those when released.

To me though, if we use the definition of HIT as just 'high intensity training' as in, high effort, to failure, there are a lot of success stories out there. People who did get huge using very low volume and failure training. Look at all the people who use DC training, it may not be 'HIT' per se', but it's brief 'to failure' killer intensity training. A few competitive bodybuilders used it, like John Heart, and quite a few members on here from long ago had some great gains, like TSG I think his nickname was on here. If a person can thrive on the high effort, then seems they can gain with it pretty well.
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

the only proof I need is n=1

I have trained from Arnold and franco style, lee haney and lee labrada style, yates style and Mentzer style and then I started following dardens new style of 30-10-30 and my results have been far better than before along with some running

however, I am also not looking to become huge either as I am 55 an only looking to slim down, maintain muscle and heart strength and being able to play some good golf
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

From a muscle recruitment standpoint, if you want to train with light loads, then you need probably need to hit failure, otherwise you will fail to recruit some higher threshold muscle fibers. If you keep the loads heavy enough, you recruit most of your muscle fibers from the start, and then it matters less if you reach failure. In that case, you just need to accumulate sufficient volume (which is probably low, but ill-defined) to trigger an adaptation. At least that is my understanding of the science side of things.

Whether or not there is better growth potential for one vs the other, that is probably very hard to prove. No matter how you train, the law of diminishing returns kicks in forcefully. Initial gains come fast, then you get less and less results for your efforts. Given all the other factors that influence progress, it can be pretty difficult to determine the contribution of one variable.

As for injury potential on going to failure: it depends very much on which exercises you are doing. I would never consider doing heavy squats or deadlifts to failure. I would be much too likely to let my low back flex and cause an injury. On a leg press, or hip belt squat, or any machine based exercise, I have much less concern.

The basic questions are these: When I reach failure, can I maintain good form and keep the tension on the targeted muscle? Or am I going to let my form go to hell in order to keep moving the weight, and then put myself in a dangerous position?
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Fatso,

Thank you for agreeing with me but I had planned on continuing regardless of your approval.

Let us know how many years you took one set to failure for each muscle before you had to stop.

OBS
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Nwlifter,

Thank you for the info, I appreciate it, and I look forward to seeing his conclusion.

As for what you posted about the other studies, they agree with what I've observed. For me personally failure never had any noticeable benefit but to increase my recovery dramatically.

The most productive program I followed, when trying to build mass, was a mix of 3x5 and 5x5. I used the basic compound exercises and limited the routine to 4 or 5 exercises. However, I'm into the maintaining stage of my life now, being old but steady ;)

OBS
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

hit4me and Avg. Al,

You both make good points and thank you for the input.

If it works for you, you should stick with it, all that matters is that you reach the goal you've set for yourself.

OBS
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

oldbutsteady wrote:
hit4me and Avg. Al,

You both make good points and thank you for the input.

If it works for you, you should stick with it, all that matters is that you reach the goal you've set for yourself.

OBS


OBS,

Here is a physiology paper which reviews the available evidence on the importance (or lack thereof) of training to failure:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...les/PMC4731492/

Perhaps you will find something of value in it...

Open User Options Menu

Chris H

oldbutsteady wrote:
(Edited)
I have never seen a study on the growth potential difference between momentary failure and near failure. HIT insists to maximize growth momentary failure must be achieved but no proof has ever been offered. Even if there was a difference, how much of a difference? Is that difference worth the extended recovery of a momentary failure based routine? Would that difference have value for a noncompetitive trainee?

I forgot to mention injury in my original post. Does training to failure increase the long term risk of injury?

These are the questions long time HIT advocates should be asking but don't. For nearly 50 years HIT has had the opportunity to prove their theories but have failed to do so. Why?

Again this seems to be dogma originating with AJ.

OBS


OBS, - interesting question

my 40 plus years of lifting for me say to failure is not required, but bloody hard is.
Your recovery point resonates as well, as i can train cumulative fatigue 3 -4 sets say per ex, and recovery better than 1 -2 to failure

Again N = 1 only.

Looking forward to the results of Brad's study.
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Thank you Al.

I will definitely read the document.

OBS
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

oldbutsteady wrote:
Nwlifter,

Thank you for the info, I appreciate it, and I look forward to seeing his conclusion.

As for what you posted about the other studies, they agree with what I've observed. For me personally failure never had any noticeable benefit but to increase my recovery dramatically.

The most productive program I followed, when trying to build mass, was a mix of 3x5 and 5x5. I used the basic compound exercises and limited the routine to 4 or 5 exercises. However, I'm into the maintaining stage of my life now, being old but steady ;)

OBS


I'm curious and can't wait for his studies too, I also have had absolute best results with
3x5 and 5x5
3x8 Gironda
set close to failure plus rest pauses

Never had great results with just 'a set to failure', never enough to get me growing.
Open User Options Menu

1958

Texas, USA

Exercise studies with human subjects are contaminated from the outset,since the human subjects instinctively know what the researchers are trying to prove/disprove.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

1958 wrote:
Exercise studies with human subjects are contaminated from the outset,since the human subjects instinctively know what the researchers are trying to prove/disprove.


I don't think they can mentally will themselves to grow or not based on their preconceived bias if they have one though...
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

I think the Grimek article "Is Heavy Training Best" is much more accurate than what I originally thought. Cycling light, moderate (the standard routine), and heavy days, instinctively for advanced trainees, may be the best way to train, without going to failure. Regardless if one is maintaining or building mass (that can be regulated with the weight being lifted).

OBS
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

1958,

That is why tight controls and accurate measurements are necessary. Bias won't/can't affect true scientific measurements.

Why is it most of these studies always stop short of covering all the bases? They always leave gray areas and then reflect further research is needed for conformation. If they fully and truly evaluated the subjects we would know the truth by now.

OBS
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Unlike you, I don't have the need to completely exhaust myself to feel I've accomplished something and I train at home lest I run into Grant types or dogmatic HITters like you at the gym ;)

==Scott===.
Besides having to wait for a machine the worst part of working out at a Gym is having to listen to all the guys who think they know everything . Sort of like being on here, ha ha!!
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Nwlifter wrote:
oldbutsteady wrote:
Nwlifter,

Thank you for the info, I appreciate it, and I look forward to seeing his conclusion.

As for what you posted about the other studies, they agree with what I've observed. For me personally failure never had any noticeable benefit but to increase my recovery dramatically.

The most productive program I followed, when trying to build mass, was a mix of 3x5 and 5x5. I used the basic compound exercises and limited the routine to 4 or 5 exercises. However, I'm into the maintaining stage of my life now, being old but steady ;)

OBS


I'm curious and can't wait for his studies too, I also have had absolute best results with
3x5 and 5x5
3x8 Gironda
set close to failure plus rest pauses

Never had great results with just 'a set to failure', never enough to get me growing.


Agreed. It always took more than one set a muscle for me...no matter how hard it was...for the best results.
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

I think everyone on this forum needs to list to the Jim Bryan interview on Mindforce Radio. Episode 15 titled "Arthur Jones in Deland, Kim Wood, Dr.Ken, Casey Viator, Jim Flanagan, Dick Butkus"

https://soundcloud.com/bob-whe...

His information is priceless. It discusses the Nautilus Principles and much more.

OBS


Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Per Jim Bryan:

"HIT is one set per Body part...only.
Never was! Remember Pre-Exhaust? This is just another example of Internet experts opinion."

Jim was the first person to develop a HIT certification using Nautilus principles with AJ's blessing. I wonder how many here are aware of that fact?

I guess facts don't matter any longer...

OBS
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Look up the AJ interview from June 1970 about his Ideal Workout routine.

Please note the number of multiple sets he recommends.

OBS
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

I have never seen a study on the growth potential difference between momentary failure and near failure. HIT insists to maximize growth momentary failure must be achieved but no proof has ever been offered. Even if there was a difference, how much of a difference?

==Scott==
I've seen this question and others like it asked a million times and never is it answered definitively and I think that is because it's next to impossible to give absolute answers in this business of building muscle. One study can say this and another study can say that. Everybody reacts differently to things. Like the question going around in circles right now, what is HIT? To one person it means this, to another it means that. There is no easy definitive answer.What we can hope for since Dr, Darden coined it that maybe some day he can come out with a concise explanation that once and for all wraps up what he considers it to be.Even then the argument will continue as others will question that.There's no end to it.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy