Study: Strength Training to Failure Improves Cardio Function

docktorfokse

I reviewed the study carefully. There are some things that need to be further tested. Because the IGF-1 and testosterone where lower, doesn't mean it's a bad thing. For example, lets say we where testing fatty acids in the blood stream. After an intense workout there would be more fat in you blood stream. Does that mean you're going to have a Heart attack? No. It just means you can oxidize more fat easier. I could be wrong but what i am speculating is that IFG-1 and testosterone would be lower due to the fact they are being used for anabolism(muscle growth). So the concentrations would be lower.

I see what you're saying here. However, the blood samples were taken after a 12-hour fast and no strenuous exercise for 36-48 hours, so I think the hormone tests can be taken as resting concentrations.

And the "heart attack at twenty" was a poor jab at a semi e-famous bodybuilder.

jetscreaminagain

So I started this thread at the beginning of a very busy weekend for me. As a result i'm not much of a participant in the debate I started, which kindda sucks.

I would note that there's been some parsing of the study here and the studies it references and going through to see if one agrees or not with the findings of both the current and previous studies. I would note, however that in the introduction and methods sections, it goes through great detail to describe the kinds of resistance training they mean (to failure) and that the use of the phrase "resistance training" doesn't always mean the same thing in the reviewed studies. One example is that they did not include "high resistance" or a phrase to that effect when it was referring to an ergometer in an original study, as that isn't weight lifting to failure, its a cardio exercise like a bike going up a hill. Good stuff, just not the same stuff as what they are looking at.

I'd suggest that the differences in definition, and specifically the narrowly focused definition of resistance training to failure is likely to be a reason for an interpretation difference between the study authors of the original studies, and one of us sitting around on a lovely Saturday and reading a 30 year old exercise physiology article.

Continue with the good debate. I'm so glad it happened with the non-ridiculous name and I didn't have to retitle the thread "you're a dope if you don't do this" or something like that.

monty619

more important than cardio function, it is my belief that training til failure increases muscle size the quickest.. drop sets, negatives, forced reps, etc.

Unless you want to have a heart attack in your twenties, I wouldn't put muscle mass above cardiovascular health (but that's beside the point).

Regularly training to failure reduces the production of the growth hormone IGF-1, while training without going to failure decreases cortisol and increases testosterone. Don't go to failure if your goal is adding mass.

http://www.jappl.org/content/100/5/1647.full#abstract-1
"Strength training leading to RF [rep failure] resulted in reductions in resting concentrations of IGF-1 and elevations in IGFBP-3, whereas NRF [non-rep failure] resulted in reduced resting cortisol concentrations and an elevation in resting serum total testosterone concentration. This investigation demonstrated a potential beneficial stimulus of NRF for improving strength and power, especially during the subsequent peaking training period, whereas performing sets to failure resulted in greater gains in local muscular endurance."

every set you do should be til failure... you dont stop doing a set if you can still do more reps if the goal is building muscle mass. common sense here.. go til failure.

LabRat529

every set you do should be til failure... you dont stop doing a set if you can still do more reps if the goal is building muscle mass. common sense here.. go til failure.

I don't think that's common sense. I'm new to lifting, but I've been reading about it and none of the stuff I've read says you have to go to failure. You have to push yourself. You lift until you are really struggling/break form, but you don't have to go to failure.

I personally will NOT go to failure because I lift alone. Failure means I drop the barbell on my chest or something scary like that.

docktorfokse

every set you do should be til failure... you dont stop doing a set if you can still do more reps if the goal is building muscle mass. common sense here.. go til failure.

dude... did you even read any of that?

jetscreaminagain

This study, and the trainers that sent the summary to me believe strongly in going to failure. It is a good idea.

What it isn't is common sense. I've read recently from a writer that seemed very knowledgeable that she believes in "no ugly reps" and that she absolutely doesn't train for failure suggesting that training for failure gets you used to failing. Obviously I disagree with her, but I bring this up to point out that not only is it not common sense, it is not even universal practice on the part of professionals.

Azdak

So I started this thread at the beginning of a very busy weekend for me. As a result i'm not much of a participant in the debate I started, which kindda sucks.

I would note that there's been some parsing of the study here and the studies it references and going through to see if one agrees or not with the findings of both the current and previous studies. I would note, however that in the introduction and methods sections, it goes through great detail to describe the kinds of resistance training they mean (to failure) and that the use of the phrase "resistance training" doesn't always mean the same thing in the reviewed studies. One example is that they did not include "high resistance" or a phrase to that effect when it was referring to an ergometer in an original study, as that isn't weight lifting to failure, its a cardio exercise like a bike going up a hill. Good stuff, just not the same stuff as what they are looking at.

I'd suggest that the differences in definition, and specifically the narrowly focused definition of resistance training to failure is likely to be a reason for an interpretation difference between the study authors of the original studies, and one of us sitting around on a lovely Saturday and reading a 30 year old exercise physiology article.

Continue with the good debate. I'm so glad it happened with the non-ridiculous name and I didn't have to retitle the thread "you're a dope if you don't do this" or something like that.

If you disagree with any of my comments, you are more than welcome to challenge them directly instead of hiding behind oblique comments. My profile isn't hidden, so you are more than welcome to read it to see if I am qualified to make the statements I do.

jetscreaminagain

Mr. dak. The post you quoted was written when I had about 7 minutes between activities and obligations and I was interested in what the group had to say about the post. I read several posts at once and then summarized my thoughts from the WHOLE conversation. Specific personalities, even you, were not foremost in my thinking about the ideas presented. I was not being oblique to target you or whatever nefarious purpose you are implying. As I said in the post you quoted and are complaining about, I didn't have a great deal of time, so I was responding to the thread where it was as a whole. It is the case that the study spent a fair amount of words explaining their precise definition of resistance training and it was different from what some of the original studies had for a definition I was simply making that point. That was the idea I was responding to.

If I am having a busy weekend and am regretting that I can't be more involved in the conversation I started due to time constraints, why on earth would you think that I should have the time to go perusing your profile? I did not criticize you personally in any way, nor did I suggest that you didn't know what you were talking about. I have pointed out in other posts that the study itself said the opposite of what a different poster assumed, and also that someone assumed weight lifting and increased body weight were the same thing. I didn't criticize them personally either.

You are reading into my statements in this thread some sort of purposeful insult to you. You then criticize me for not being direct in my non-existent insult. That's just weird. I was talking about ideas.

What you have done is direct off-topic criticism towards me in a direct manner that seems to imply something wrong with my personality or character because of my "obliqueness". This seems to me to be retaliation for the perceived slight (that I don't believe I'm guilty of) and because I didn't directly call you out. 1) calling you out would have been rude even if I was targeting you rather than commenting on ideas it turned out you put forth and 2) this type of retaliatory post is not in keeping with the community guidelines. I ask you kindly to edit your post so that it does not derail the topic. I also note that without reading your profile I find you to be a smart individual. I ask you kindly to please limit yourself to discussing ideas rather than discussing people. Your intellect is of that level, from my experience of reading what you write over time in these boards.

So, that being the case, I still am pleased that with little exception this has been an interesting discussion that hasn't and hopefully won't devolve into the ridiculous bashing we often find on other threads of this board. I trust that after this hiccup, this thread will either return to a cordial discussion or it will die as there may not be anymore to discuss.

monty619

every set you do should be til failure... you dont stop doing a set if you can still do more reps if the goal is building muscle mass. common sense here.. go til failure.

I don't think that's common sense. I'm new to lifting, but I've been reading about it and none of the stuff I've read says you have to go to failure. You have to push yourself. You lift until you are really struggling/break form, but you don't have to go to failure.

I personally will NOT go to failure because I lift alone. Failure means I drop the barbell on my chest or something scary like that.

dumbells are best, you can go to failure on those.