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
Fatigue, Not Failure
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

michael


failure does not stimulate growth, fatuige(inroad) does, failure is a good way to measure fatuige (eg when failure is reached with 80% of 1rm youve roughly reduced your fresh strength by 20%), but it is the fatuige that actually stimulates growth

the body adapts when one of its functions is stressed, the funtion of a muscle is to produce force from muscular contraction. to stress that function the muscles ability to produce force must be stressed, this can only be done by reducing its ability to produce force, wich can only be done by fatuiging the muscle.

failure happens when the muscle can no longer produce enough force to lift a load, but failure doesnt actually stress the function of a muscle. failure can happen when a muscles fresh strength is only sligthly reduced , and therefore barely stimulates adaptation.


in my opinoin what arthur jones' called "inroad", and what he called "general and specific response to exercise" are the most important variables in reaching your genetic potential of size and strength.

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

failure does produce more growth because failure is the ultimate fatigue, and you say fatigue creates growth. therefore, failure creates even more growth.

Failure is the only logical endpoint of a set.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

michael wrote:

failure does not stimulate growth, fatuige(inroad) does, failure is a good way to measure fatuige (eg when failure is reached with 80% of 1rm youve roughly reduced your fresh strength by 20%), but it is the fatuige that actually stimulates growth

the body adapts when one of its functions is stressed, the funtion of a muscle is to produce force from muscular contraction. to stress that function the muscles ability to produce force must be stressed, this can only be done by reducing its ability to produce force, wich can only be done by fatuiging the muscle.

failure happens when the muscle can no longer produce enough force to lift a load, but failure doesnt actually stress the function of a muscle. failure can happen when a muscles fresh strength is only sligthly reduced , and therefore barely stimulates adaptation.


in my opinoin what arthur jones' called "inroad", and what he called "general and specific response to exercise" are the most important variables in reaching your genetic potential of size and strength.



failure does not stimulate growth, fatuige(inroad) does

==Scott==
I love it when someone comes on here and just states something like it is the undisputed fact. Perhaps I might be more willing to listen if you put "in my opinion" in the beginning, not the end. If failure is only a measure why was Jones so intent on pushing his subjects to the limit?
Open User Options Menu

chasbari

Ohio, USA

entsminger wrote:
michael wrote:

failure does not stimulate growth, fatuige(inroad) does, failure is a good way to measure fatuige (eg when failure is reached with 80% of 1rm youve roughly reduced your fresh strength by 20%), but it is the fatuige that actually stimulates growth

the body adapts when one of its functions is stressed, the funtion of a muscle is to produce force from muscular contraction. to stress that function the muscles ability to produce force must be stressed, this can only be done by reducing its ability to produce force, wich can only be done by fatuiging the muscle.

failure happens when the muscle can no longer produce enough force to lift a load, but failure doesnt actually stress the function of a muscle. failure can happen when a muscles fresh strength is only sligthly reduced , and therefore barely stimulates adaptation.


in my opinoin what arthur jones' called "inroad", and what he called "general and specific response to exercise" are the most important variables in reaching your genetic potential of size and strength.



failure does not stimulate growth, fatuige(inroad) does

==Scott==
I love it when someone comes on here and just states something like it is the undisputed fact. Perhaps I might be more willing to listen if you put "in my opinion" in the beginning, not the end. If failure is only a measure why was Jones so intent on pushing his subjects to the limit?


I think there might be a real and valid struggle to clarify something here. It is possible to select a weight that is high enough to cause failure in a short amount of time or low number of repetitions that fails to inroad sufficiently. Let's say my 1RM is 100 for a given exercise and I am a general responder who should be working in the 10 to 15 rep range. I throw 90 pounds on the exercise and fail after 5 reps. I have not really created much fatigue nor depth of inroad.
Let's then say that I put 50 pounds on and am able to do 25 reps before I "fail" only I haven't really failed but had to stop because of fatigue issues. It would appear that I have now made a 50 percent inroad. This may or may not be the case dependent on a number of factors. Muscle fiber type and neurological efficiency will be determinant as to the effectiveness of this.
Now say that I put 75 pounds on for the exercise and that this happens to hit the sweet spot/intersection for all pertinent factors and I fail after 13 reps. I might then believe that in reaching failure I have inroaded 25 percent. It may be that the duration and intensity was just right for this particular muscle and that the load was sufficient to involve as much muscle as possible before fatigue created failure.
This still leaves so much guess work. The musculature is, perhaps, adaptable enough that were the subject to change rep schemes and weights, they would experience a short term adjustment and renewed response without ever really learning to reach optimal failure thus creating inroad.
When you add a dead stop mechanism to any exercise you potentially make the exercise far more effective at creating inroad but it won't be due to the work done between dead stops as much as it will be due to the actual duration of and intensity of effort in the dead stop position. This is hard to quantify and harder to understand as it creates a disconnect from the weight or the need for weight. Infimetrics make the dead stop possible at any and all positions of movement but the quantification of work done (or lack thereof) will drive the muscle accountants crazy. But, with this it is possible to work at a much closer percentage of momentary ability on a sliding scale to the degree that you work nearly at 100 percent of your momentary maximum while on your way to a very fast descent to less than 50 percent of your maximum in short order creating in roads of 50 percent or more very routinely.
Open User Options Menu

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA

Fatigue, not failure, as a mantra, might also be a good way to prevent overtraining, especially when training during SUB-FAILURE WORKOUTS that I was promoting in the late 1990s, until some bozo stole my articles right from my e-mail account and released them. I sure learned a lesson about updating Internet-security programs on a daily basis! Anyway, since then, I have not discussed (what people now call, NOT-TO-FAILURE) much since then. In fact, I probably have violated the concept way too much myself, cause myself more harm than good.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

southbeach wrote:
failure does produce more growth because failure is the ultimate fatigue, and you say fatigue creates growth. therefore, failure creates even more growth.

Failure is the only logical endpoint of a set.


I have come to learn that failure is the point where one has failed to realise their muscular threshold and have entered into the realms of nervous fatigue.
This threshold is identifiable by an inability to accelerate ( or a stuttering of ) the cadence on the concentric rep. Thereafter is where our CNS ( that which is responsible for muscular innervation ) is working at full capacity and muscular failure will ensue soon after.
To-date I train only to a point up to this threshold , and prefer a second set of such ( after respite ) on some exercises than a single set that pushes the CNS to exhaustion.
Ive experienced no loss of muscle size as a result ( quite the contrary , along with strength gain ) and much better recovery.

T.
Open User Options Menu

tompuderbaugh

Hold on for a second guys, before we "kill the newcomer"....

A couple of his statements hold some merit and bear thinking through.

I am one who also believes that all this emphasis on training to "failure" is often misunderstood -- As training to failure is NOT the same thing as inroad. (With inroad being the primary determinate of muscle stimulation.)

Now don't get me wrong. While I do train to "failure" in every exercise, I do also attempt to achieve a high level of muscular "inroad" in that set.

What is the difference? Pick a (very) heavy weight, something so heavy that it will not allow you to complete even one rep in good form.

Attempt to lift it (strain mightily until your neck veins bulge), but ultimately fail.

You will now have taken that set to "failure". But you will have attained very little (if any) muscular "inroad".

Arthur Jones himself told me that (especially during the early-mid years of promoting Nautilus) he talked almost constantly about training to failure. The reason was simple -- "Failure is easy to explain and the average moron (read: Bodybuilder.) can understand it. Inroad is the real measure, but I'm afaid it's too difficult a concept for these knuckle-dragger's to grasp."

....Gotta love Arthur, he was always blunt, colorful and to-the-point!

Good training to all!

Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

michael wrote:

failure does not stimulate growth, fatuige(inroad) does, failure is a good way to measure fatuige (eg when failure is reached with 80% of 1rm youve roughly reduced your fresh strength by 20%), but it is the fatuige that actually stimulates growth

the body adapts when one of its functions is stressed, the funtion of a muscle is to produce force from muscular contraction. to stress that function the muscles ability to produce force must be stressed, this can only be done by reducing its ability to produce force, wich can only be done by fatuiging the muscle.

failure happens when the muscle can no longer produce enough force to lift a load, but failure doesnt actually stress the function of a muscle. failure can happen when a muscles fresh strength is only sligthly reduced , and therefore barely stimulates adaptation.


in my opinoin what arthur jones' called "inroad", and what he called "general and specific response to exercise" are the most important variables in reaching your genetic potential of size and strength.



Deadtrap/Bob Float/RwHawk strikes again yet another alias. lol
Open User Options Menu

hdlifter

southbeach wrote:
failure does produce more growth because failure is the ultimate fatigue, and you say fatigue creates growth. therefore, failure creates even more growth.

Failure is the only logical endpoint of a set.


This has to be the best post I have ever read from you!

I have gained on both failure and su-failure, but my personal choice is failure. Talking with John Heart (the modern voice of Heavy Duty), he stated it suited our personalities...I think he is onto something there.
Open User Options Menu

michael

entsminger wrote:


failure does not stimulate growth, fatuige(inroad) does

==Scott==
I love it when someone comes on here and just states something like it is the undisputed fact. Perhaps I might be more willing to listen if you put "in my opinion" in the beginning, not the end. If failure is only a measure why was Jones so intent on pushing his subjects to the limit?


it is a fact, jones' own research proves that.

if you dont take fiber type and therefore inroad into consideration you can train to failure all you like but growth wont be stimulated to any real degree unless there is enough (but not to much) inroad.
Open User Options Menu

michael

southbeach wrote:
failure does produce more growth because failure is the ultimate fatigue, and you say fatigue creates growth. therefore, failure creates even more growth.

Failure is the only logical endpoint of a set.


but how does failure create fatigue?, its possible to lift to failure, until you faint,throw up etc, but only reduce your strength by 2 or 3 percent. why is failure important?
Open User Options Menu

douglis

Just to make sure that I understand the term inroad...

A set to failure with 80% has 20% inroad.
A set to failure with 60% has 40% inroad.

Does that mean that there's a difference in stimulus between those sets?
Open User Options Menu

garethit

You can look at this another way though, you could take a very light weight and "inroad" your starting strength quite deeply without getting near failure.

What would stimulate the most growth a) taking 80% of your max and training to failure (20% inroad) or b) taking 40% of your max and training to nowhere near failure but getting 20% inroad??

"Inroad" alone means nothing, it's simply fatigue, run 5 miles and you will inroad your leg muscles but will it stimulate any growth?

The idea is to use the fatigue you build in a set to recruit more motor units and work them at a high rate coding to provide enough stimulation, this is only done when approaching high effort or failure with any particular resistance.
Open User Options Menu

garethit

You can look at this another way though, you could take a very light weight and "inroad" your starting strength quite deeply without getting near failure.

What would stimulate the most growth a) taking 80% of your max and training to failure (20% inroad) or b) taking 40% of your max and training to nowhere near failure but getting 20% inroad??

"Inroad" alone means nothing, it's simply fatigue, run 5 miles and you will inroad your leg muscles but will it stimulate any growth?

The idea is to use the fatigue you build in a set to recruit more motor units and work them at a high rate coding to provide enough stimulation, this is only done when aproaching high effort or failure with any particular resistance.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Mr Strong wrote;

Training should not be looked at as failure and NTF, a workout should be approached with a clear target in ones mind, you should be able to write out your workout with 100% certainty before you even do it. There is no room for guesswork and uncertainty in successful training. Taking a set to failure is neither needed or optimal.

You do realise you can progress without training to failure, don't you?

Failure is very arbitrary, and should not be the goal of a set, you may reach failure but should be hitting a target numbers of reps.


Yay ... you tell em Mr Strong , cyclical effort with clear targets each workout culminating in increased performance over some weeks is the way to go.

You should have stuck to this mind set. So where does Ren-ex fit in with this thinking ?

T.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

chasbari wrote:
entsminger wrote:
michael wrote:

failure does not stimulate growth, fatuige(inroad) does, failure is a good way to measure fatuige (eg when failure is reached with 80% of 1rm youve roughly reduced your fresh strength by 20%), but it is the fatuige that actually stimulates growth

the body adapts when one of its functions is stressed, the funtion of a muscle is to produce force from muscular contraction. to stress that function the muscles ability to produce force must be stressed, this can only be done by reducing its ability to produce force, wich can only be done by fatuiging the muscle.

failure happens when the muscle can no longer produce enough force to lift a load, but failure doesnt actually stress the function of a muscle. failure can happen when a muscles fresh strength is only sligthly reduced , and therefore barely stimulates adaptation.


in my opinoin what arthur jones' called "inroad", and what he called "general and specific response to exercise" are the most important variables in reaching your genetic potential of size and strength.



failure does not stimulate growth, fatuige(inroad) does

==Scott==
I love it when someone comes on here and just states something like it is the undisputed fact. Perhaps I might be more willing to listen if you put "in my opinion" in the beginning, not the end. If failure is only a measure why was Jones so intent on pushing his subjects to the limit?

I think there might be a real and valid struggle to clarify something here. It is possible to select a weight that is high enough to cause failure in a short amount of time or low number of repetitions that fails to inroad sufficiently. Let's say my 1RM is 100 for a given exercise and I am a general responder who should be working in the 10 to 15 rep range. I throw 90 pounds on the exercise and fail after 5 reps. I have not really created much fatigue nor depth of inroad.
Let's then say that I put 50 pounds on and am able to do 25 reps before I "fail" only I haven't really failed but had to stop because of fatigue issues. It would appear that I have now made a 50 percent inroad. This may or may not be the case dependent on a number of factors. Muscle fiber type and neurological efficiency will be determinant as to the effectiveness of this.
Now say that I put 75 pounds on for the exercise and that this happens to hit the sweet spot/intersection for all pertinent factors and I fail after 13 reps. I might then believe that in reaching failure I have inroaded 25 percent. It may be that the duration and intensity was just right for this particular muscle and that the load was sufficient to involve as much muscle as possible before fatigue created failure.
This still leaves so much guess work. The musculature is, perhaps, adaptable enough that were the subject to change rep schemes and weights, they would experience a short term adjustment and renewed response without ever really learning to reach optimal failure thus creating inroad.
When you add a dead stop mechanism to any exercise you potentially make the exercise far more effective at creating inroad but it won't be due to the work done between dead stops as much as it will be due to the actual duration of and intensity of effort in the dead stop position. This is hard to quantify and harder to understand as it creates a disconnect from the weight or the need for weight. Infimetrics make the dead stop possible at any and all positions of movement but the quantification of work done (or lack thereof) will drive the muscle accountants crazy. But, with this it is possible to work at a much closer percentage of momentary ability on a sliding scale to the degree that you work nearly at 100 percent of your momentary maximum while on your way to a very fast descent to less than 50 percent of your maximum in short order creating in roads of 50 percent or more very routinely.


==Scott==
I think I agree with you but as usual it will take me a week to figure out what you mean, ha ha.
I do think that a muscle can be worked as much as needed to dig a deep enough inroad to promote growth with out going to failure. Sometimes failure can be to much of a drain to recover from properly so it might not be something you would exclusively strive for in a workout.
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

Turpin wrote:
Mr Strong wrote;

Training should not be looked at as failure and NTF, a workout should be approached with a clear target in ones mind, you should be able to write out your workout with 100% certainty before you even do it. There is no room for guesswork and uncertainty in successful training. Taking a set to failure is neither needed or optimal.

You do realise you can progress without training to failure, don't you?

Failure is very arbitrary, and should not be the goal of a set, you may reach failure but should be hitting a target numbers of reps.

Yay ... you tell em Mr Strong , cyclical effort with clear targets each workout culminating in increased performance over some weeks is the way to go.

You should have stuck to this mind set. So where does Ren-ex fit in with this thinking ?

T.




My comments are pretty awesome aren't they. I don't advise cycling though, thats for you, not me.

Don't see where I've contradicted myself.

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

michael wrote:
southbeach wrote:
failure does produce more growth because failure is the ultimate fatigue, and you say fatigue creates growth. therefore, failure creates even more growth.

Failure is the only logical endpoint of a set.

but how does failure create fatigue?, its possible to lift to failure, until you faint,throw up etc, but only reduce your strength by 2 or 3 percent. why is failure important?


Failure doesn't create fatigue...failure is the ultimate endpoint of fatigue.

if as you suggest fatigue is necessary for better result than how would stopping several reps shy of failure be superior? How is less more?

let me ask you a question. Which is superior for growth, two sets of 5 reps with 100lbs OR one set of 10 reps to failure with 100lbs?
Open User Options Menu

michael

garethit wrote:
You can look at this another way though, you could take a very light weight and "inroad" your starting strength quite deeply without getting near failure.

What would stimulate the most growth a) taking 80% of your max and training to failure (20% inroad) or b) taking 40% of your max and training to nowhere near failure but getting 20% inroad??

"Inroad" alone means nothing, it's simply fatigue, run 5 miles and you will inroad your leg muscles but will it stimulate any growth?

The idea is to use the fatigue you build in a set to recruit more motor units and work them at a high rate coding to provide enough stimulation, this is only done when approaching high effort or failure with any particular resistance.


so you think that a combination of failure and fatigue is what stimulates growth. you could be right, but failure alone will not stimulate growth, and growth will not be stimulated unless enough inroad is achieved, that im sure of.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Mr. Strong wrote:
Turpin wrote:
Mr Strong wrote;

Training should not be looked at as failure and NTF, a workout should be approached with a clear target in ones mind, you should be able to write out your workout with 100% certainty before you even do it. There is no room for guesswork and uncertainty in successful training. Taking a set to failure is neither needed or optimal.

You do realise you can progress without training to failure, don't you?

Failure is very arbitrary, and should not be the goal of a set, you may reach failure but should be hitting a target numbers of reps.

Yay ... you tell em Mr Strong , cyclical effort with clear targets each workout culminating in increased performance over some weeks is the way to go.

You should have stuck to this mind set. So where does Ren-ex fit in with this thinking ?

T.




My comments are pretty awesome aren't they. I don't advise cycling though, thats for you, not me.

Don't see where I've contradicted myself.




Where does this tie in with your Ren-ex training ?
Open User Options Menu

fbcoach

southbeach wrote:
let me ask you a question. Which is superior for growth, two sets of 5 reps with 100lbs OR one set of 10 reps to failure with 100lbs?




A more realistic comparison would be 2x5 with 130lbs or 1x10 TF with 100lbs. My guess would be the former, simply due to less accumulated fatigue in the NS (better recovery for future workouts), stronger contractions due to less lactic acid produced (stimulates the MU to fire harder leading to more fiber recruitment), and obvious higher tension and load.

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

fbcoach wrote:
southbeach wrote:
let me ask you a question. Which is superior for growth, two sets of 5 reps with 100lbs OR one set of 10 reps to failure with 100lbs?



A more realistic comparison would be 2x5 with 130lbs or 1x10 TF with 100lbs. My guess would be the former, simply due to less accumulated fatigue in the NS (better recovery for future workouts), stronger contractions due to less lactic acid produced (stimulates the MU to fire harder leading to more fiber recruitment), and obvious higher tension and load.



You're comparing apples with oranges. A set or 5 with 130lbs places you closer to complete fatigue (ie failure), otherwise why would you want to use 130 rather than 100.

If you're going to insist on using 130lbs then why not go for 7 or 8 reps rather than arbitrarily ceasing stimulation @ 5reps?
Open User Options Menu

michael

southbeach wrote:
michael wrote:
southbeach wrote:
failure does produce more growth because failure is the ultimate fatigue, and you say fatigue creates growth. therefore, failure creates even more growth.

Failure is the only logical endpoint of a set.

but how does failure create fatigue?, its possible to lift to failure, until you faint,throw up etc, but only reduce your strength by 2 or 3 percent. why is failure important?

Failure doesn't create fatigue...failure is the ultimate endpoint of fatigue.

if as you suggest fatigue is necessary for better result than how would stopping several reps shy of failure be superior? How is less more?

let me ask you a question. Which is superior for growth, two sets of 5 reps with 100lbs OR one set of 10 reps to failure with 100lbs?



im saying that its inroad that stimulates growth, not just training to failure, if you train to failure with the wrong rep range/tul for your fiber type, failure can be reached without without much fatigue therefore without much growth stimulation.

"let me ask you a question. Which is superior for growth, two sets of 5 reps with 100lbs OR one set of 10 reps to failure with 100lbs?"

completely depends on your fiber type and how much inroad is made.

to clear things up i have been using fatuige and inroad interchangeably, perhaps i should have called the thread "inroad, not failure" to make my point more clear.


"failure is the ultimate endpoint of fatigue."

no, it is the "end point" of intensity/percentage of momentary ability
Open User Options Menu

fbcoach

southbeach wrote:
fbcoach wrote:
southbeach wrote:
let me ask you a question. Which is superior for growth, two sets of 5 reps with 100lbs OR one set of 10 reps to failure with 100lbs?



A more realistic comparison would be 2x5 with 130lbs or 1x10 TF with 100lbs. My guess would be the former, simply due to less accumulated fatigue in the NS (better recovery for future workouts), stronger contractions due to less lactic acid produced (stimulates the MU to fire harder leading to more fiber recruitment), and obvious higher tension and load.



You're comparing apples with oranges. A set or 5 with 130lbs places you closer to complete fatigue (ie failure), otherwise why would you want to use 130 rather than 100.

If you're going to insist on using 130lbs then why not go for 7 or 8 reps rather than arbitrarily ceasing stimulation @ 5reps?


Actually, you were comparing apples and oranges. The 2x5 is based on objective, scientific terms. You are using a very vague and subjective term based on how you feel at the moment. I answered your question completely in my previous post.

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

fbcoach wrote:
southbeach wrote:
fbcoach wrote:
southbeach wrote:
let me ask you a question. Which is superior for growth, two sets of 5 reps with 100lbs OR one set of 10 reps to failure with 100lbs?



A more realistic comparison would be 2x5 with 130lbs or 1x10 TF with 100lbs. My guess would be the former, simply due to less accumulated fatigue in the NS (better recovery for future workouts), stronger contractions due to less lactic acid produced (stimulates the MU to fire harder leading to more fiber recruitment), and obvious higher tension and load.



You're comparing apples with oranges. A set or 5 with 130lbs places you closer to complete fatigue (ie failure), otherwise why would you want to use 130 rather than 100.

If you're going to insist on using 130lbs then why not go for 7 or 8 reps rather than arbitrarily ceasing stimulation @ 5reps?

Actually, you were comparing apples and oranges. The 2x5 is based on objective, scientific terms. You are using a very vague and subjective term based on how you feel at the moment. I answered your question completely in my previous post.



How i "feel at the moment"? Nah, don't think so. My sets end because my muscle is shot and can't contract anymore not because of any subjective feel. your mileage may vary certainly.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Jump'n Jack, Ellington Darden
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy