Should Every Set be Done to Failure?
Replies
-
My apologies. I just logged in, again.
@dbmata - Thank you for your help. I have a trainer who tells me to keep going until I cannot go anymore. Pain is the burning (I assume this is lactic acid building)... I push through the burn until there is nothing left to give and the weight does not move. I have no program I am following other than doing what I am told.
@ Yoovie - Thank you, too. I guess if I can curl a specific weight 15 times, but go only 10 times, as long as I continue to increase the amount of weight weekly or biweekly, I may avoid injury.
@ Others. Thank you. Good tips.
One last question, besides losing form is there really a risk to injury to the muscle when lactic acid is causing the burn and the lifter keeps pushing anyway? Doesn't this stimulate growth and strength more? Sorry, if this is a dumb question to some.0 -
Ah ok, so working with a trainer who is actively spotting, I can see it. I do that with my strength coach EVERY workout. But his job is to extract every last ounce of life essence and power out of me. It's done in a really controlled manner though.
I wouldn't advise it in a situation where you're a solo lifter, and doing it all the time. Lactic acid isn't a big deal, your ability to mitigate it will increase as you increase your training level. Lactic acid doesn't impact growth of muscle or strength, in fact, I've read it can be quite deleterious to ability to move while working out.
Just make sure you know the difference between, "Ouch that burns." and "Holy *kitten*, that hurts, and what the eff just snapped in my arm?!"0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Why are you in pain? Lifting to failure doesn't mean pain...it just means you can't get the weight up.
Also wondering what program you're working...I only very occasionally work to failure. My training sets and reps are never to failure...only when I'm doing 1 RMs.
Pain is the burning in the muscle that is happening when the lactic acid is pouring in, and then I cannot get the weight up any further. I don't have a specific program.
So, let's said aside the pain concept; you do not lift to failure except when maxing out. Okay, how do you know when to stop lifting then? Do you pick an arbitrary rep count? How do you determine the amount of weight to lift? I am being told to lift what I "think" I can lift 10 times. The amount of weight changes depending on how long I have been resting between sets, what set I am on, etc. For example, I warm up (no going to failure) with a set, then increase the weight. If I do 10 reps without going to failure, I increase, again, the weight. Then, I decrease the weight, again. The amounts look like a pyramid. I am going to failure at the top of the pyramid and coming down the other side. Is this bad? I do not hurt later, after the workout... well, a little DOMs, but not much. I am getting stronger, but is this okay to lift this way?0 -
Ah ok, so working with a trainer who is actively spotting, I can see it. I do that with my strength coach EVERY workout. But his job is to extract every last ounce of life essence and power out of me. It's done in a really controlled manner though.
I wouldn't advise it in a situation where you're a solo lifter, and doing it all the time. Lactic acid isn't a big deal, your ability to mitigate it will increase as you increase your training level. Lactic acid doesn't impact growth of muscle or strength, in fact, I've read it can be quite deleterious to ability to move while working out.
Just make sure you know the difference between, "Ouch that burns." and "Holy *kitten*, that hurts, and what the eff just snapped in my arm?!"
Okay dbmata. I will follow the trainer, and if he is not there, I will stop 3 reps before I will not be able to move the weight any further. I am not sure how one can forsee snapping something in an arm. I hope that never happens. That would be more painful than lactic acid for sure. Thank you for your great advice. I hope you will be here, again.0 -
-
after a little thought, try to be precise, in keeping records. Also though, become effective at reading what your body can do. For example, if you aren't at least 80% sure you can do that rep, don't do it.
I have a problem with this with bench. Also, talk with your trainer, your trainer knows you. All we know about you is this thread, and your other one. If you can do it, talk to your trainer, tell him what you want to do, and ask for a program for you to use when you aren't with him.
Then follow it. that's a good place to start.0 -
My definition of failure: regardless of form, I cannot complete a full rep without assistance.0
-
Till__I__Collapse wrote: »My definition of failure: regardless of form, I cannot complete a full rep without assistance.
that's failure in my book.
If I can't complete the lift- or I have to dump it.
not having perfect form isn't a failed lift- it was just an ugly one. LOL0 -
Wow, I posted one comment in this thread last night and looked at it today and a bunch of people freaked out lol. No I do not have a second account, just the one. As far as lifting to failure on every set, has nobody ever heard of lifting with a spotter? No roll of shame required when there's someone there to pull the weight off your chest. I've been lifting using a reverse pyramid type system for about a year now and I couldn't be happier with my results. I didn't know everybody was so touchy about this lol.0
-
Still waiting to see this program that says every set is an AMRAP.
http://www.musclehack.com/reverse-pyramid-training-start-at-max-strength/
So you're the op, and you're posting from your main account now?
Also, I didn't see any programming there, but it reads like a picture book for idiots. I wouldn't touch that "program" when there are a lot of legit programs out there that don't come across like the creepy zombie of Billie Mays.
It's not really a lifting program, it's a way to adjust a lifting program you're already using. I lift for hypertrophy so I'm on a 4 day muscle group split with 3 sets of each exercise in the 8-12 rep range. I adjusted my old program and started using a reverse pyramid scheme incorporated into my program.0 -
I didn't know everybody was so touchy about this lol.
Reading through all of the responses it's interesting that everyone's so touchy about the subject but yet no one has mentioned a legitimate reason (not having a spotted excluded) as to why lifting to failure is a bad - only that it causes injuries (?), is bad for long term training (?), is just generally "a bad idea", etc. - all of which is incorrect. As long is form is good, lifting to failure is fine. It's when reps are forced and form is sacrificed is when you run into problems, and that's true regardless if you go to failure or not.
It's amazing this is the way I've always trained & I have not had ONE injury and my lifts continue to increase and yes, I've been at this a while.
0 -
I dont see lifting to failure as bad at all, i just dont lift to failure on every single set I do. If i lifted to failure on my warmups, my heavy sets would suffer later.0
-
Leadfoot_Lewis wrote: »I didn't know everybody was so touchy about this lol.
Reading through all of the responses it's interesting that everyone's so touchy about the subject but yet no one has mentioned a legitimate reason (not having a spotted excluded) as to why lifting to failure is a bad - only that it causes injuries (?), is bad for long term training (?), is just generally "a bad idea", etc. - all of which is incorrect. As long is form is good, lifting to failure is fine. It's when reps are forced and form is sacrificed is when you run into problems, and that's true regardless if you go to failure or not.
It's amazing this is the way I've always trained & I have not had ONE injury and my lifts continue to increase and yes, I've been at this a while.
First, let me admit that I'm by no means an expert on this... so what I'm about to say is based on what I've read from what I consider trustworthy sources.
It's not so much that there's anything inherently wrong with it, it's that there's no benefit to it. Doing 3-5 sets where you're just barely squeezing out the last rep isn't any different than doing 3-5 sets to failure. I've read that it's not any different than doing 1 set to failure, but I'm not sure I believe that.
To me, the problem with going to failure (failure defined as not being able to move the weight), is that just before you get to failure, you get run into form degradation, and most everyone will say that's a problem.
So going to failure, but having 2 reps at poor form, vs not going to failure and "missing" those last 2 reps... which is better?0 -
I dont see lifting to failure as bad at all, i just dont lift to failure on every single set I do. If i lifted to failure on my warmups, my heavy sets would suffer later.
Why not try your first set as a warm up (light weight, not to failure) then jump to the heaviest weight that causes failure in your rep range for your next set. Once you fail drop some weight off, then lift again to failure, repeat. You have your maximum amount of energy on your first set before you've lifted any weight so doesn't it make sense to go heavy on that set? It just seems logical to me and if you warm up correctly, you're not going to hurt yourself.0 -
Leadfoot_Lewis wrote: »I didn't know everybody was so touchy about this lol.
Reading through all of the responses it's interesting that everyone's so touchy about the subject but yet no one has mentioned a legitimate reason (not having a spotted excluded) as to why lifting to failure is a bad - only that it causes injuries (?), is bad for long term training (?), is just generally "a bad idea", etc. - all of which is incorrect. As long is form is good, lifting to failure is fine. It's when reps are forced and form is sacrificed is when you run into problems, and that's true regardless if you go to failure or not.
It's amazing this is the way I've always trained & I have not had ONE injury and my lifts continue to increase and yes, I've been at this a while.
I'm in the same boat as you. I don't understand why everybody kinda freaked out. I've been training like this for a while now lifting heavy weight with no injuries at all. It's not as if there's no warm up.0 -
First, let me admit that I'm by no means an expert on this... so what I'm about to say is based on what I've read from what I consider trustworthy sources.
It's not so much that there's anything inherently wrong with it, it's that there's no benefit to it. Doing 3-5 sets where you're just barely squeezing out the last rep isn't any different than doing 3-5 sets to failure. I've read that it's not any different than doing 1 set to failure, but I'm not sure I believe that.
To me, the problem with going to failure (failure defined as not being able to move the weight), is that just before you get to failure, you get run into form degradation, and most everyone will say that's a problem.
So going to failure, but having 2 reps at poor form, vs not going to failure and "missing" those last 2 reps... which is better?
First, thank you for actually explaining your reasoning.
As mentioned in my post/s, when form goes I'm done. It's pretty obvious when I'm at failure. Take the Overhead Press for example - I know I'm done when I can't get that last rep past my forehead - at that point I've reached failure and the bar is racked.
The main reason why I personally like going to failure is I obviously know that's the last rep I can possibly do, with good form, which helps with my weight progression for next workout more so then "well, I'm going to stop now before failure but I think maybe I have 2-3 reps left, but then again, I'm not really sure...?!" It just makes sense to me when I lift to go all out. When I fail at 6 reps & I was going for 5 reps I know with absolute certainty that next workout I can add more weight to the bar. Hopefully that makes sense.
0 -
It does. I think the big difference is the people talking about failure as an inability to move the weight vs those who think of failure as an inability to move weight with proper form.Leadfoot_Lewis wrote: »First, let me admit that I'm by no means an expert on this... so what I'm about to say is based on what I've read from what I consider trustworthy sources.
It's not so much that there's anything inherently wrong with it, it's that there's no benefit to it. Doing 3-5 sets where you're just barely squeezing out the last rep isn't any different than doing 3-5 sets to failure. I've read that it's not any different than doing 1 set to failure, but I'm not sure I believe that.
To me, the problem with going to failure (failure defined as not being able to move the weight), is that just before you get to failure, you get run into form degradation, and most everyone will say that's a problem.
So going to failure, but having 2 reps at poor form, vs not going to failure and "missing" those last 2 reps... which is better?
First, thank you for actually explaining your reasoning.
As mentioned in my post/s, when form goes I'm done. It's pretty obvious when I'm at failure. Take the Overhead Press for example - I know I'm done when I can't get that last rep past my forehead - at that point I've reached failure and the bar is racked.
The main reason why I personally like going to failure is I obviously know that's the last rep I can possibly do, with good form, which helps with my weight progression for next workout more so then "well, I'm going to stop now before failure but I think maybe I have 2-3 reps left, but then again, I'm not really sure...?!" It just makes sense to me when I lift to go all out. When I fail at 6 reps & I was going for 5 reps I know with absolute certainty that next workout I can add more weight to the bar. Hopefully that makes sense.
I also think the conversation is slightly different depending on the lift we're talking about. If your form starts to suffer on the bench press, then it's a sloppy rep or 2 and you move on. If your form starts to suffer on deadlifts, then the chance of injury increases, and that's obviously bad.
And in the name of full disclosure - I do 3 sets, the first 2 are to a set number or reps, the last is to failure.
Good discussion - thanks!
0 -
It does. I think the big difference is the people talking about failure as an inability to move the weight vs those who think of failure as an inability to move weight with proper form.Leadfoot_Lewis wrote: »First, let me admit that I'm by no means an expert on this... so what I'm about to say is based on what I've read from what I consider trustworthy sources.
It's not so much that there's anything inherently wrong with it, it's that there's no benefit to it. Doing 3-5 sets where you're just barely squeezing out the last rep isn't any different than doing 3-5 sets to failure. I've read that it's not any different than doing 1 set to failure, but I'm not sure I believe that.
To me, the problem with going to failure (failure defined as not being able to move the weight), is that just before you get to failure, you get run into form degradation, and most everyone will say that's a problem.
So going to failure, but having 2 reps at poor form, vs not going to failure and "missing" those last 2 reps... which is better?
First, thank you for actually explaining your reasoning.
As mentioned in my post/s, when form goes I'm done. It's pretty obvious when I'm at failure. Take the Overhead Press for example - I know I'm done when I can't get that last rep past my forehead - at that point I've reached failure and the bar is racked.
The main reason why I personally like going to failure is I obviously know that's the last rep I can possibly do, with good form, which helps with my weight progression for next workout more so then "well, I'm going to stop now before failure but I think maybe I have 2-3 reps left, but then again, I'm not really sure...?!" It just makes sense to me when I lift to go all out. When I fail at 6 reps & I was going for 5 reps I know with absolute certainty that next workout I can add more weight to the bar. Hopefully that makes sense.
I also think the conversation is slightly different depending on the lift we're talking about. If your form starts to suffer on the bench press, then it's a sloppy rep or 2 and you move on. If your form starts to suffer on deadlifts, then the chance of injury increases, and that's obviously bad.
And in the name of full disclosure - I do 3 sets, the first 2 are to a set number or reps, the last is to failure.
Good discussion - thanks!
I think you hit the nail on the head. When I lift to failure, I don't keep lifting after my form breaks down, I lift as many reps as I can with good form and then my spotter grabs the weight, or I drop it (depending on the lift). As Lewis mentioned, I hate lifting to just a set number and stopping because then I'm never really sure how many more reps I could have done. I actually used to lift right up to when I thought I would fail on my next rep and then stop. After I started lifting to actual failure, I realized that often times I'd be able to do a couple more reps after the point I thought I was done. My personal feeling is that's the only way to know that you've left it all out there at the end of your workout.
As I mentioned before, the reason I like failing on every set is because it allows you to lift more weight for more reps on your heaviest set, and that's how you get stronger. If you work up to your heaviest weight with multiple full sets before it, there's no way you're going to be able to lift as much weight for as many reps if you hadn't done this preliminary sets.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I dont see lifting to failure as bad at all, i just dont lift to failure on every single set I do. If i lifted to failure on my warmups, my heavy sets would suffer later.
Why not try your first set as a warm up (light weight, not to failure) then jump to the heaviest weight that causes failure in your rep range for your next set. Once you fail drop some weight off, then lift again to failure, repeat. You have your maximum amount of energy on your first set before you've lifted any weight so doesn't it make sense to go heavy on that set? It just seems logical to me and if you warm up correctly, you're not going to hurt yourself.
because I follow a legit program that gives me consistent and continuous results and progress that Im in love with.
0 -
Still waiting to see this program that says every set is an AMRAP.
http://www.musclehack.com/reverse-pyramid-training-start-at-max-strength/
It says in your given rep range. That's not AMRAP (as many reps as possible). Also, reverse pyramid training would mean that you wouldn't be going AMRAP for every set either.
Not sure why you posted the link in response to dbmata's response.
0 -
I dont see lifting to failure as bad at all, i just dont lift to failure on every single set I do. If i lifted to failure on my warmups, my heavy sets would suffer later.
Why not try your first set as a warm up (light weight, not to failure) then jump to the heaviest weight that causes failure in your rep range for your next set. Once you fail drop some weight off, then lift again to failure, repeat. You have your maximum amount of energy on your first set before you've lifted any weight so doesn't it make sense to go heavy on that set? It just seems logical to me and if you warm up correctly, you're not going to hurt yourself.
because I follow a legit program that gives me consistent and continuous results and progress that Im in love with.
Oh gotcha, thanks for informing me that your lifting program is legitimate and mine isn't. All this time I had no idea. Luckily somehow I keep getting stronger and stronger...
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »Still waiting to see this program that says every set is an AMRAP.
http://www.musclehack.com/reverse-pyramid-training-start-at-max-strength/
It says in your given rep range. That's not AMRAP (as many reps as possible). Also, reverse pyramid training would mean that you wouldn't be going AMRAP for every set either.
Not sure why you posted the link in response to dbmata's response.
0 -
-
Kristinemomof3 wrote: »
So now all heavy lifting is bad for you?0 -
Kristinemomof3 wrote: »
I hate this kind of response. You have no idea if they are from lifting, and even if they are, this is faaaar from the norm for the average lifter.
I'm sorry you've got heart issues, I really am... but that .00001% chance occurrence isn't really applicable. I'm sure someone, somewhere, at some time, dropped a plate on their head, and split their head open because of it. That doesn't mean that everyone is going to do it and that no one should lift because of it?
Yes, I'm intentionally using an absurd example, but it does illustrate my point.
A couple of weeks ago some guy tried to argue that no one should cycle in clipless shoes because he once heard of someone riding clipless who crashed, their body ended up 10' away from their bike, but that their shoe (with foot still inside it) were still clipped to the bike. Did it happen? Maybe. Is that a reasonable fear for the average cyclist? No way.
IMO, you can't go through life worrying about those types of ifs.
0 -
Kristinemomof3 wrote: »
I hate this kind of response. You have no idea if they are from lifting, and even if they are, this is faaaar from the norm for the average lifter.
I'm sorry you've got heart issues, I really am... but that .00001% chance occurrence isn't really applicable. I'm sure someone, somewhere, at some time, dropped a plate on their head, and split their head open because of it. That doesn't mean that everyone is going to do it and that no one should lift because of it?
Yes, I'm intentionally using an absurd example, but it does illustrate my point.
A couple of weeks ago some guy tried to argue that no one should cycle in clipless shoes because he once heard of someone riding clipless who crashed, their body ended up 10' away from their bike, but that their shoe (with foot still inside it) were still clipped to the bike. Did it happen? Maybe. Is that a reasonable fear for the average cyclist? No way.
IMO, you can't go through life worrying about those types of ifs.
^Agreed. If you don't know whether or not your medical condition was legitimately caused by something (in this case heavy lifting) then you shouldn't go around making the claim that it did because, well, the reason should be obvious.
I'm going to bet that it wasn't the lifting that was the cause, but rather some other medical issues. Lifting "MIGHT" (big might) have aggravated it, but I'm highly doubtful it was the sole cause.0 -
Some things I will do to failure, but most of the time, I will stop before the rep that will most likely fail.
On bench press, I am not afraid of failure if I have a spotter. If I don't have one, the only time I'll actually fail is if I mis-judge my ability to get that last one done. Since the roll of shame comes with a certain amount of discomfort (psychologically and physically), I avoid it. There's a reason it's called the roll of shame
With squat, I have the rack, but no way am I going to purposely put myself in a situation where I need to dump it.
Then there are things like chin-ups where if I fail on the way up, I can just let myself down. No tears.
TL;DR- I'll lift to failure anytime it isn't too inconvenient or embarrassing.0 -
Showcase_Brodown wrote: »Some things I will do to failure, but most of the time, I will stop before the rep that will most likely fail.
On bench press, I am not afraid of failure if I have a spotter. If I don't have one, the only time I'll actually fail is if I mis-judge my ability to get that last one done. Since the roll of shame comes with a certain amount of discomfort (psychologically and physically), I avoid it. There's a reason it's called the roll of shame
With squat, I have the rack, but no way am I going to purposely put myself in a situation where I need to dump it.
Then there are things like chin-ups where if I fail on the way up, I can just let myself down. No tears.
TL;DR- I'll lift to failure anytime it isn't too inconvenient or embarrassing.
Why not? Assuming you've got safety bars positioned appropriately, what's the big deal? If there's any lift I'm willing to fail at, it's the squat for that very reason.0 -
It's the scheme he's following. I had kinda of a mental revolt when I saw AMAZING bolded so many times. I just discounted it, it might be great.PikaKnight wrote: »Still waiting to see this program that says every set is an AMRAP.
http://www.musclehack.com/reverse-pyramid-training-start-at-max-strength/
It says in your given rep range. That's not AMRAP (as many reps as possible). Also, reverse pyramid training would mean that you wouldn't be going AMRAP for every set either.
Not sure why you posted the link in response to dbmata's response.
I think our definitions of failure are different in this thread too, which is interesting.
For me, I define failure as, that rep fails, I push, I push, I fight, I can't lock out, and the weight slowly wins its way to the ground. Total physical failure. I do work like that a couple times of week with my trainer, but I wouldn't do that alone. AMRAP is a step back from failure, and setting a weight for 5 reps when it's my 6RM isn't failure either.
Failure is, I fought the law, and the law won. Granted, that's why I bench in the squat rack, so I can test failure.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions