41:16 Been thinking about this exact same thing a lot recently. There's certainly intraindividual variation as well between different muscle groups. If I take squats or bench to 0RIR for more than 2 weeks they start regressing, but taking back exercises even past failure just makes them progress faster.
I'm been doing a more HIT style, low volume block and have found similar results that vary muscle to muscle. Its very interesting to take into account as I start reincorporating more volume and lowering the intensity where sensible.
A pragmatic approach to programming always seemed intuitive to me, and I think that is what was conveyed here. From listening to Zac, Eric, Kas, Mike, and others talk about the pre-print, to reading the pre-print to listening again, it seems as though we are getting closer at describing a few things: 1. The range of volume in which failure is appropriate. 2. Under what circumstances(holistically speaking) is failure appropriate. 3. How it isnt just "proximity to fail" or "volume" one at a time, but rather that they are both dependent on eachother in some way. Lastly, my 2 cents(literally 2 cents) as of recently reading and now sort of digesting(i dont claim to fully understand the reading) the pre-print, I came to the conclusion that proximity to failure can be manipulated in such a way as to allow for recovery between bouts of high proximity to fail training. I got me thinking that maybe maintenance phases could be rephrases as "low stimulus" phases where recovery is high but progress is still being made.
"There's a potential benefit to training closer to failure, all the way to failure etc that somebody should consider, and then there's these negative effects that you need to try to identify to know when to diverge away from that. And just understanding that's an iterative process that isn't just de facto in either way that failure is good all the time or not failure is good all the time and there's a little bit of fuzziness on the individual level that are ultimately going to determine these decisions." 👍
Steve, you spoil me lately like little fitness baby - Layne, now whole Fitness Avengers Assemble with Captain American Eric Helms himself and hilarious as always Mike 😊😅 Jeez, is it Christmas already and Santa has come to town? 😂
Realy REALLY appreciate you Steve getting these three brilliant minds together. We demand more of it! ✊🏽 Eric's modulation approach is rather interesting. Although it leans towards seeking what is more adaptive vs challenging a less adaptive muscle into becoming adaptive to a higher intensity and/or volume?
How I'm going to apply Take fist few sets of each exercise to technical failure Take last set to muscle failure incorporating partials Kinda what John Meadows preached, Take last set to failure. Nice balance
Eric's question early on is a good one: Do you start with a higher proximity to failure and then individualize other variables to make that training work or start with a volume you think makes sense and then adjust the other variables to make that training effective? Obviously you can adjust everything over time but usually you still need to make some assumptions. Looking at it from the standpoint of "the meta-regression doesn't support training closer to failure if you're training very frequently, with high volumes and so on" doesn't fully work for me because if you could know that you can train a little bit more like they do in the studies where the relationship does applies and make better gains than you're doing now by training closer to failure, a lot of people would pick that option. It's not an all or nothing, either train 2 or 3 days low volume or train 2 a days 6 days/per week high volume, you can start with the former and increase the training challenge until failure training doesn't work, then back it off a bit and you have potentially an efficient way to train for maximum gains.
1:02:32 The expressions on everyone's face when Dr. Mike says "he lost something in those 5x347kg squats, he didn't get back for a long time"... The look of 3 men who have all at some point crashed with fatigue and felt like a truck ran over them, is real.
Have you seen this meta regression study on a person's likeability as it relates to the presence and color hue of the person's sunglasses indoors? The result will not surprise anybody!
I think this new meta-analysis is important for those of us who live busy lives where we can only train 3-4 days a week and time-restricted where we may only be able to train certain muscle groups once or twice per week. In this case, doing sets at 3 RIR for 6-10 sets per muscle group will take too long. I've been doing 3-4 supersets targeting a given muscle group (say incline press to decline deficit pushup stressing the stretch position) going almost to, at, and even beyond failure on each set (volitional failure, momentary muscular failure, and lengthened partials or myo reps). Even then I get moderately sore the next day, but since I know I'm not training chest again for 4 days that fatigue will dissipate. Another thing is that often 3RIR is more like 6-7RIR in reality and going to volitional failure is more like 1-2 RIR where the stimulus is much greater. Doing lengthened partial reps also helps clear up reps in reserve as well because they allow you to get all those reps that full ROM witholds increasing overall stimulus. Again this is only useful if your volume is rigidly restricted due to time restraints where you have forced recovery days all the time. I've been getting the best gains of my life doing this, even in a deficit.
Do you notice that doing too many sets with those forced reps hinders adaptation basically just asking how many sets per muscle group. Chest for example?
@@waynejones1996 I think that's going to vary based on your capacity to recover workout to workout. So with chest I'll do 3-4 supersets with Incline barbell press and decline deficit pushups every 4 days with a lower body workout done in between. Basically Upper-Lower but only three days a week so it rotates week to week. So my last chest session was Friday and today is Monday and only now do I feel like I could train it again, but I can't due to scheduling or else I'd neglect my lower body. So basically I'll get another couple days of rest (because I wasn't going to train on Sunday on principle) so connective tissue gets extra time and fatigue dissipates to such an extent that it rarely builds to the point where I need a deload. After around three months I felt some nagging tendon pain and basically just ate in a small surplus (I'm in a fat loss phase atm) and didn't train for 5 days and was good as new. This is not an optimal way to train for max muscle growth. If I tried this 5 or 6 days a week or with moderate volume I'm sure I would tear myself up quickly. When I get to do a mass gain phase at some point I will increase my volume but only to what the extra food buys me in my capacity to recover. I do like I can do less volume and hence more quickly but get the same stimulus when compared to straight sets. So to answer you question, for chest if you count only the supersets it's only from 3-8 sets per week. If you count each exercise then it's 6-16 sets. Standard triple progression applies (increase in weight, reps, or sets to present overload stimulus).
Love your platform and your search for the best information out there for your viewers. Also, are those glasses those blue light ones and if so could share with me the name of the brand you got those at?
I do a 2 day a week upper / lower, low volume program where I take my working sets to technical failure or extremely close to. Definitely wouldn’t be able to train higher volume with this style training, it wouldn’t be sustainable. I even take a week off every so often when fatigue from the last session did not resolve. I do get great results from this approach though, I believe others could also get far like this but I realize most lifters find it hard to spend so much time away from the gym.
Awesome episode with heaps of great information. HIT cultists should definitely watch this to get their mind opened up and realise there’s other levers you can pull other than just training intensity or failure training.
Wrong high intensity to failure is the best method for nattys to train you are clueless bud. Keep leaving 3 reps in reserve and doing 20 sets 6 days a week 😅😅
@@analogcrunch4716 HIT cultists who don’t know how to manipulate training variables such as volume, intensity, frequency and host of other variables to get the best results results for each individual are the clueless ones. Aligning your whole training identity to just one way such as HIT or just high volume or some other way that is “this is the only way to train” is just dogmatic and ignores individual differences between people. Each individual grows the best to different volumes, intensities and frequencies etc.
QUESTION: Zac made a comment which suggested that, generally, hypertrophy is negatively affected by shorter rest times (leading to a significant drop in reps at the same load). How would this be rationalized with "rest/pause" training and, in particular, what Dr Mike refers to as "myorep sets". In the myorep approach rest times can be extremely short with a huge decrease in number of reps. So, my questions are whether: 1) In general, if time is not a factor, is it best to rest sufficiently long to remain in the desired rep range. (8-12 for example), or, ... 2) If using slightly shorter rest times drop the load slightly to remain in the desired rep range, or ... 3) Are myorep sets approximately just as stimulative for hypertrophy because, in spite of the rapid rep drop, all of those reps are extremely close to failure - I.E. "effective reps" ..., or, 4) Are these all, more or less equivalently effective methods that can and should be employed at various stages of training as long as the rep range is within 5-30 reps etc .... Thanks for your time. I really enjoy these discussions.
When data shows that shorter rest times perform worse they are typically comparing 1 minute to 3+ minutes (At least from what I recall of James Krieger's analysis). Since myo-reps rest times are much shorter than 1 minute they should probably fall into a different category, and the conclusion of "short rest times are worse" wouldn't necessarily apply for them. 1 Probably 2 Maybe. If time is a factor then antagonist paired sets would likely solve it. 3 I'm pretty sure I've heard Borge Fagerli (myo-reps creator guy) say that almost verbatim 4 1+3 for sure. 2 is likely unnecessary. A down set is fine, but still get a good rest, no need to rush. I also wrote a bunch of stuff about rest pause / drop sets before I realised that wasn't actually the question you were asking, but I'll leave it here anyway: A study on drop sets showed that 1 activation set and 3 drops were not significantly different to 3 straight sets. So that means each mini set would count as roughly 2/3rds the stimulus of a straight set. Mike has said in the past that when counting myo-rep volumes it is more the fatigue you have to consider than the stimulus. So even if the two groups in the study got the same stimulus, the drop set group would have more fatigue so should probably count each mini set as a full set. Borge Fagerli recommends counting an activation set with at least 2 mini sets as 3 regular sets on his site.
I think it still boils down to the coach monitoring their clients ability to recover btw sessions and modulate criteria to achieve that balance that allows the client to recover btw sets.
In my own experience, I just don’t notice any extra fatigue day to day training to failure. I eat my 1.2g of protein per lb of bw, train 6x per week, 10-12 sets per bodypart in a week, hit every muscle about every 4 days…it just doesn’t affect me. I also sleep 8 hours a night…I think when you take the entire picture into account, someone with an extremely stressful job, lacks sleep, doesn’t eat enough protein will likely not recover the same. But when everything is executed well, I think training to failure is the best.
So meta-analysis doesnt really apply to more advenced lifters and all mikes arguments agains failure (besides cumulative fatique) that he throw around all the time doesnt have any scientific support? Do i have it right? We know nothing after all?
So why not involve rep cadence into the failure/volume question. For example, most people I workout alongside do a max of 3 second reps, and usually 10-12 reps per set for at least 3 sets per exercise - I can't tell if to failure, but I can tell they peacocking by trying to use as many plates as can. Whereas, I do 2 sets per exercise of 6 second reps to failure using a weight that I hit complete failure at a minimum of 1 minute. Once I get to 80-90 second sets I know it's time to up weight. I seem to progress in adding load more often, but obviously I am starting from slightly less load than my maximum lift ability. They train each muscle group twice per week. I train them once per week.
My additional nuance to this question is the individuals proximity to genetic peak. Yeah, almost impossible to gauge or quantify, I get it. Hands up if you're an IFBB Pro or wannabe Pro that hasn't used absolute intensity in order to reach within a small magnitude of your genetic peak. Once you are at your genetic peak, then possibly DC/Dorian/Platz training isn't ideal, unless you use the injectable super-creatine....
There's an inverse relationship between successful pros (natty or not) who train to failure at low frequency to complete beginners who employ ascending RPE based mesocycles who are form robots that mutter quotes of studies like verses from the bible as if they mattered in the real training world.
Sorry, but how does Israetel always manage to support his theses? If bodybuilding is like any other sport, let's take his football (soccer) example, where are the weekly competitions in bodybuilding that require 100% performance? Soccer has matches, while hobby bodybuilding doesn't even have competitions. There is also no need for technical training. Using his soccer analogy, if the next match is in 5 years, wouldn't the training be of a very different nature? What is the benefit of a 50-70% training week in bodybuilding? And why should a 4-week mesocycle followed by a 1-week deload be better than regular training? In this case, you're actually training for only 2 out of 5 weeks.
There is no research on training to failure because researchers +and their subjects) don't know what training to failure is. Brad Schoenfeld is one of the top researchers in this area. Schoenfeld did a training video series with John Meadows. In the videos it becomes painfully obvious that Schoenfeld has no idea what to failure is. All the endless discussion on training to failure vs RIR just shows people's laziness. Each person could try out different levels of training intensity, frequency and volume to see what produces the best progress. But then, not many people are even willing to train to failure.
Moving goalposts. There is no super-duper secret "they don't want you to know about it" failure that mere mortals don't understand. Eric noted that when studied, people who actually lift accurately assessed failure. At most, people can adjust their so-called 'central governor' but I'd suspect that many strength adaptations over time as 'central governor' adaptations as well.
Again, the problem in research is that the researchers do not understand what training to failure is. Their definition of it is inaccurate. That confounds the results of the research they do. Training to failure isn't a secret. It seems that researchers can't conceive of giving that much effort. Another example is researchers claiming that they have frail, elderly women training to failure. The elderly women aren't training to failure, the researchers don't understand what training to failure is.
@@ericjames7819 Have you actually actually been in the lab to observe how they do the research or are you basing all of your claims based off one RU-vid video of Brad Schoenfeld training with John Meadows?
All this science stuff makes me so confused, i think its the best way just do less VOLUME, hit failure, try to progress, eat in surplus, it should be that simple, i wonder how people trained in the past:)) they definetley didnt cared about this deep science stuff. 5-6 intensive sets per muscle group is All you need to stimulate muscle growth.
Helms clueless as well. Ok so after first set to failure you lower weight accordingly and train to failure again 2 or so sets then move on. Your CNS is more fatigued by high volume with reps in tank than low volume to failure how you do not understand this is beyond me 😅😅
Two personalities, both of them hilarious and smart af, on the same person. Eric: He's a great guy, great physique, also addicted to meth and not capable of rational thought anymore. Mike: Booooo! I love them both to bits 😄
