Training To Failure. [Forum Archive]

-->

Pages: 1

Training To Failure.

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: P-funk

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF STRENGTH TRAINING LEADING TO FAILURE VERSUS NOT TO FAILURE ON HORMONAL RESPONSES, STRENGTH AND MUSCLE POWER GAINS.

J Appl Physiol. 2006 Jan 12;

Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Hakkinen K, Ratamess NA,
Kraemer WJ, French DN, Eslava J, Altadill A, Asiain X, Gorostiaga EM.

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of 11 weeks of
resistance training to failure vs. non-failure, followed by an
identical 5- week peaking period of maximal strength and power
training for both groups as well as to examine the underlying
physiological changes in basal circulating anabolic/catabolic
hormones.

Forty-two physically-active men were matched and then randomly
assigned to either a training to failure (RF; n=14), non-failure
(NRF; n=15) or control groups (C;n=13). Muscular and power testing
and blood draws to determine basal hormonal concentrations were
conducted before the initiation of training (T0), after 6 wk of
training (T1), after 11 wk of training (T2), and after 16 wk of
training (T3). Both RF and NRF resulted in similar gains in 1RM bench
press (23% and 23%) and parallel squat (22% and 23%), muscle power
output of the arm (27% and 28%) and leg extensor muscles (26% and
29%) and maximal number of repetitions performed during parallel
squat (66% and 69%). RF group experienced larger gains in the maximal
number of repetitions performed during the bench press The peaking
phase (T2 to T3) followed after NRF resulted in larger gains in
muscle power output of the lower extremities, whereas after RF
resulted in larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions
performed during the bench press.

Strength training leading to RF resulted in reductions in resting
concentrations of IGF-1 and elevations in IGFBP-3, whereas NRF
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. Elevation in IGFBP-3 following
resistance training may have been compensatory to accommodate the
reduction in IGF-1 in order to preserve IGF availability.

Posted by: Zinthar

so effectively the training to failure was better for endurance, while not training to failure was better for overall power?

Posted by: njdevil13

i dont really like training to failure much anymore. i bought a few books and got educated. i dont feel as burnt out anymore after my workouts. cumulative fatigue works for me.

Posted by: ST240

Pretty much the last set of every exercise i goto failure so i dont feel regret

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinthar

so effectively the training to failure was better for endurance, while not training to failure was better for overall power?

yea, pretty much. I liked this study because in most studies it offers the benefit of only one side. This study was good because it showed how both can be used effectively in a training program (especially towards the end of a peaking phase as indicated in the begning of the last paragraph).

Rarely do I train to failure (unless I accidently hit it in a set due to fatigue or picking a weight that was to heavy an dthen trying to grind it out.) in most of my programs however, I do have periods will I will go to failure once a week on some things like say a 5 rep max of squats every friday (a breathing set),etc...

I thought it was a good study.

Posted by: squanto

Nice read. thanks Master P.

Posted by: TJ Cline

Good read, seemed to me their was very little differance in the results of each type of training.....not enough to really matter that is.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

Good read, seemed to me their was very little differance in the results of each type of training.....not enough to really matter that is.

The results are pretty big if you are considering an athlete and peaking for a season or a contest given that your strength and power outputs are greatest with non-failure training.

Posted by: Dale Mabry

For someone on the cusp of greatness like P-funk and I, it is a big difference. For someone of Foreman's ilk, it prolly doesn't matter.

If you do 5 things that are of very little significance, they will add up.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

For someone on the cusp of greatness like P-funk and I, it is a big difference. For someone of Foreman's ilk, it prolly doesn't matter.

If you do 5 things that are of very little significance, they will add up.

Yea, that is a good point. A lot of times people try and show me studies and say...."look at this. the difference is only 1-2sec or 1%" or something like that, and I am like "yea, 1-2% is like the difference between a gold medal and not even getting on the platform."

things like this are huge.

Posted by: TJ Cline

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

The results are pretty big if you are considering an athlete and peaking for a season or a contest given that your strength and power outputs are greatest with non-failure training.

Both RF and NRF resulted in similar gains in 1RM bench
press (23% and 23%) and parallel squat (22% and 23%),
For one rep maxing it is all but identical....in other areas very close.....I would need to see his exact training data to see how much 1-3% on some of the reps/exercises really was...

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

How many times do athletes do a 1RM on the field? Unless we are talking about weightlifters or powerlifters.

Check out the last paragraph:

Quote:

Strength training leading to RF resulted in reductions in resting
concentrations of IGF-1 and elevations in IGFBP-3, whereas NRF
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,

Also, the power output and max number of reps in the lower body is a 3% increase which is pretty big when you are talking about athletics.

I didn't post the study to choose a side. I like the study because it shows there are benefits to both training protocols and each presents a different adaptation.

Posted by: TJ Cline

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

How many times do athletes do a 1RM on the field? Unless we are talking about weightlifters or powerlifters.

Check out the last paragraph:

Also, the power output and max number of reps in the lower body is a 3% increase which is pretty big when you are talking about athletics.

I didn't post the study to choose a side. I like the study because it shows there are benefits to both training protocols and each presents a different adaptation.

Like I said ....good post, the fact that I'm training for a one rep lift is the reason I'm interested with the findings in that area, if I were in the NFL or NHL I might not care about one rep maxes.

I agree that 1% can be the differance betweed gold and bronse at the Olympics....and usually is.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

yes, I know. I realize what your goals are as they are more inline with my own (competitive lifting).

Posted by: Dale Mabry

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

bronse at the Olympics

What place is that, 4th? I know bronze is 3rd, but what is bronse? Isn't that Balkie from Perfect Strangers?

Posted by: P-funk

haha....Balkie Bartakomuus....what a great show! then he went on to do Domino Pizza comercials.

Posted by: DOMS

The Dance of Joy!

Posted by: shiznit2169

so basically it would be a good idea to periodize (is this the right term?) by alternating between the two to achieve maximal results in strength and size?

Like for a bodybuilder, he would go through a phase focusing on training to failure and when his body adapts and reaches his peak, he would start to focus on non-failure training and work on his power and alternate between the two every so often?

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiznit2169

so basically it would be a good idea to periodize (is this the right term?) by alternating between the two to achieve maximal results in strength and size?

Like for a bodybuilder, he would go through a phase focusing on training to failure and when his body adapts and reaches his peak, he would start to focus on non-failure training and work on his power and alternate between the two every so often?

I think for the bodybuilder, that does more volume, staying away from failure would be even better! It would not only maintain steady gains in strength which can lead to greater hyperophy gains if you are bulking and eating enough or help to maintain muscle when you are dieting as you can lift heaivier and stimulate your muscles to preven yourself from wasting away. As a bonus to that is that not training to failure reduced resting cortisol concentrations and an elevation in resting serum total testosterone concentration.

Posted by: TJ Cline

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

What place is that, 4th? I know bronze is 3rd, but what is bronse? Isn't that Balkie from Perfect Strangers?

If you don't have anything positive to post in the training section, you might consider going over to open chat.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

If you don't have anything positive to post in the training section, you might consider going over to open chat.

Posted by: LexusGS

Good shit.

Posted by: CowPimp

Cool study. That's the kind of shit I like readin'. Good find P.

Posted by: shiznit2169

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

My goal is to get as big as possible .. to the point where i'm satisfied so therefore i train as a bodybuilder but i often do push/pull/leg or upper/lower splits. Training bodyparts is boring. Would you recommend that i do not train to failure and just focus on what you just said above?

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiznit2169

UM....yes! That is why I recommended it. That is how I train. I train to cumulative fatigue but not to failure (unless I have a max effort day). So if I am doign 3 sets of 8 reps I will use my 10RM (75%) as working weight. that way I can complete all 3 sets. maybe I hit failure in the last set and maybe not. My strength increases are much greater doing it this way though then if I just go all out.

Posted by: CowPimp

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

I used to go out all the time. I find the same thing, unless I am starting with some strength work as I am currently. Then that will be to failure. Going to failure all the time left me feeling a lot more drained than now. I never noticed until I stopped doing it. I think I'm going to start deloading more frequently now too, maybe every 5 or 6 weeks. I find it more necessary with a routine involving a lot of CNS-intensive stuff.

Posted by: GymJamo

I said this before but a study was done with a bunch of guys doing 6 sets of faliure on benching it took only 48-60 hours for protien synthesis in the body to return to normal after training, Although CNS damage can take muchlonger to get over.

The old timers got strong doing 3x fullbody workouts per week not to faliure on the big exercises. :P (read some stuff on chad waterbury)

Lots of stuff out now but I suppose they gotta sell magazines.

Posted by: Zinthar

I've been training to failure/near failure on most sets for the past couple of weeks and I'm starting to think that it was a big mistake -- over the past 3-4 days I've been tired pretty much ALL the time...I think I'm going to need to take a week off to let my CNS recover, then stop training to failure when I go back to the gym.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowPimp

me too. My body feels better and my strength progresses in a safer and easier manner. Going all out my strength would progress, then halt quickly and then I would have some sort of injury or pain. Now, I can allow my strength to progress at an even pace more effeciently. Obviously there are times when you have to fail...training for anything like olympic weightlifting, powerlifting or strongman, there are days when you have to hit failure (max effort days for the first two and event training days for the third one). It is a neccessary evil of these types of sports. But, if I can avoid it as much as possible, I do. Also, that study shows exactly why the fitness fatigue model for training works....de-load before your meet adn you will have better strength adn more power as your fitness level races to catch up to the fatigue that has set in over the previous weeks of hard training.

good stuff guys.

Posted by: Tough Old Man

I'm sure there are a few Professional trainers that would disagree. One in mind would be Dante of DC Training.

Note: I'm also training to failure on all exercises and my strength has increased faster on this type of program then any other training program I have used. So to each the own. What works for some may not work as good for others.

Posted by: shiznit2169

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tough Old Man

I'm sure there are a few Professional trainers that would disagree. One in mind would be Dante of DC Training.

everyone is entitled to their own opinion

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tough Old Man

I'm sure there are a few Professional trainers that would disagree. One in mind would be Dante of DC Training.

Note: I'm also training to failure on all exercises and my strength has increased faster on this type of program then any other training program I have used. So to each the own. What works for some may not work as good for others.

Training bodybuilders and training athletes are two different things. Dante isn't training anyone that is playing professional or collegiate sports. Two different things.

Posted by: TJ Cline

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

I kind of do this. I will do for example incline perss and start with 275X6....then jump to 285x6...then 295x6...so each set is hard but only the last one do I go all out to hit 6 reps.

My problem has been that I keep going heaver for singles/doubles or tripples and hitting failure on those.......and that might be (is) the reason for my continuing injuries....think I will step it back a bit and see if "not going to failure at all" helps me stay healthy.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

yep, going for max doubles and triples all the time ends up injuring me in the long run too.

Posted by: Tough Old Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

Training bodybuilders and training athletes are two different things. Dante isn't training anyone that is playing professional or collegiate sports. Two different things.

Very true. You hit that ball right out of the park.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tough Old Man

Very true. You hit that ball right out of the park.

Not to say that dante doesn't have a good template and that people that train on his template don't see great resutls...they do! People also see good results with HIT training too and that is to failure.

the study doesn't say that training to failure is bad..it just points out the different adaptations that are happeneing with each protocol. The subject is better geared towards athletes or those competing in strength sports.

Also, the study showing what happens hormonally when training to failure could be of benefit to a bodybuilder preparing for a contest as they would want their test levels to remain as high as possible since they drop a lot when you are dieting down (considering we are talking about a natural competitor).

Posted by: Rocco32

I have to say, this helped my mentality about westside out quite a bit. I've always had trouble NOT training each set to failure or close to. Tonight I really tried to work to just cumulative fatigue rather than even failure on the last set of each exercise (except my ME exercise of course) and I feel much better and feel I had a more productive w/o. No injury feeling either which I usually have. Thanks for this thread!

Posted by: ST240

Very interesting thread... I'm going to start doing as P suggested.

Posted by: IRON MAN

For what's it worth...My arms did not hit the 22 inch mark until I started doing every set to failure.

The BIG thing is the CNS. If your training 5 days per week then no you should not train to failure every set after warm ups but if you only train 3 days per week then you can get by with training to failure most of the time and benefit greatly from it.

There's always going to be studies trying to prove this or prove that but the simple fact is REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES are what count. Trust me when I tell you there will always be some study saying to do this or do that. Go with what works!

Posted by: Squaggleboggin

Agree and disagree, but mostly disagree.

Sure, real life experiences count, but they differ with each and every person. No two people will see the exact same results from the same methods. So, you see how many people react to the methods in question. Doesn't that make sense? Doesn't that also sound like science? It does to me...

Obviously do what works for you individually, but don't just rule out one thing or another because someone else says it's not the best thing for them.

Posted by: Dale Mabry

I think what you have to look at is that BBers typically use a higher rep range and lower rest periods that result in higher levels of lactate. Higher lactate concentration typically means higher GH output which could combat the drop in IGF-1.

Posted by: IRON MAN

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin

Agree and disagree, but mostly disagree.

Sure, real life experiences count, but they differ with each and every person. No two people will see the exact same results from the same methods. So, you see how many people react to the methods in question. Doesn't that make sense? Doesn't that also sound like science? It does to me...

Obviously do what works for you individually, but don't just rule out one thing or another because someone else says it's not the best thing for them.

I think you may have mis-understood what I am saying. Let me try and explain myself further.

People get different results because of their "genetics" not their training methods. I also agree that bodybuilding and powerlifting should be approached in a different manner but the same workout plans for both sports will work for all given the training program has a proven track record.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRON MAN

For what's it worth...My arms did not hit the 22 inch mark until I started doing every set to failure.

The BIG thing is the CNS. If your training 5 days per week then no you should not train to failure every set after warm ups but if you only train 3 days per week then you can get by with training to failure most of the time and benefit greatly from it.

There's always going to be studies trying to prove this or prove that but the simple fact is REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES are what count. Trust me when I tell you there will always be some study saying to do this or do that. Go with what works!

this thread didn't real have much to do with hypertrophy. It was more about athletic performance and training, that is why I posted it. It has nothing to do with being a BB'er (non-athlete) and there fore has nothing to do with hypertrophic gains (it wasn't one of the variables testd in the study although maybe it should have been. it would have been cool).

You may take every set to failure on your arms and see great gains. You also use gear.

Posted by: Tough Old Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

You may take every set to failure on your arms and see great gains. You also use gear.

I use gear and my arms aren't 22". Maybe I should buy brand name stuff. My wrist straps and weightlifting belt came from Walmart. I'll try changing my gear bought from Walmart to a big 5. Maybe that will help.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tough Old Man

Posted by: Dale Mabry

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tough Old Man

Yeah, but you're like a hundred years old, you prolly only produce estrogen, grandma.

Posted by: TJ Cline

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

How did you know about that??? Did my cycle log give it away

Posted by: Tough Old Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Yeah, but you're like a hundred years old, you prolly only produce estrogen, grandma.

Lets get it right. I won't be a 100 year old granny for 2 more years. You must be ashamed of yourself knowing this old granny can out bench your ass. This is probably what's causing you to drink so much.

Posted by: Tough Old Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

True Tale..

Posted by: Dale Mabry

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tough Old Man

If by out bench you mean sit on a park bench then you are right, you can outbench me. BTW, shouldn't you be hitting on John H. in open chat again?

Posted by: NEO_72

P-Funk, I know hypertrophy wasn't the focus of the study, but from what you've said I'm concerned about my habits - My goal is size only, and I've been taking every final set of every exercise to failure for the past 3 years - my whole gym mentality is based on that. I increase the weight every set for every exercise until I fail on the last set. Have I been shooting myself in the foot? Should I be going with lighter weights and finishing the final set feeling I could have done more? I could really use some advice please!

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEO_72

P-Funk, I know hypertrophy wasn't the focus of the study, but from what you've said I'm concerned about my habits - My goal is size only, and I've been taking every final set of every exercise to failure for the past 3 years - my whole gym mentality is based on that. I increase the weight every set for every exercise until I fail on the last set. Have I been shooting myself in the foot? Should I be going with lighter weights and finishing the final set feeling I could have done more? I could really use some advice please!

Like others who have provided anecdotal evidence have said....failure has worked for hypertrophy. I would say you need to cycle through your training. to much of a good thing is counter productive. If you have been training to failure in your last set for the past 4-6 weeks then the next 4-6 weeks you may want to not train to failure and train using cumulative fatigue and load your intensity a different way....ie, increase a set each week, increase reps each week, decrease rest interval, alter rep tempo, etc......As we have been pushing for a long time, a periodized program is the way to go in order to continually progress. Planning is a must.

Posted by: NEO_72

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I will try and plan something better.

Posted by: GreenMan

These differences are very small, and with sample sizes of 13-15, I can't see them being statistically significant.

I suspect the small differences between the two groups would be masked by the noice of individual variations.

Personally, I consider training to momentary muscular failure to be 'normal', and training beyond to be a hard workout. Over the years, I've tried all sorts of training protocols, hi-rep, hi-set, hi-intensity, supersets & all sorts of stuff, and I find that, for me at least, the heavy-duty approach gives consistent results & gains.

For me, the high-volume approach just doesn't work - it's extremely fatigueing without being particularly productive. The exception is for occasional muscle-shock workouts

Yet in the years I ran a gym, I realised that most people are suited to the higher volume approach. I suspect you need a particular combo of physiological & mental attributes for hi-intensity to work.

I think the fact that some bodybuilders train with volume & others with intensity demonstrates that what works for one won't neccessarily work for another.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Great post, P-Funk, very informative

Posted by: Tough Old Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

If by out bench you mean sit on a park bench then you are right, you can outbench me.

Correct and you better leave my birds alone that I feed. Now time for me to go to open chat and find John boy....

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

training to failure in your last set for the past 4-6 weeks then the next 4-6 weeks you may want to not train to failure and train using cumulative fatigue and load your intensity a different way....ie, increase a set each week, increase reps each week, decrease rest interval, alter rep tempo, etc......As we have been pushing for a long time, a periodized program is the way to go in order to continually progress. Planning is a must.

There were about 7 people on this forum that kept me staying around, and Funk was at the top of the list

Such good advice.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

There were about 7 people on this forum that kept me staying around, and Funk was at the top of the list

Such good advice.

thanks Duncan. glad to have you back (or still around). Your posts were always helpful to many of the IM readers.

Posted by: SuperFlex

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF STRENGTH TRAINING LEADING TO FAILURE VERSUS NOT TO FAILURE ON HORMONAL RESPONSES, STRENGTH AND MUSCLE POWER GAINS.

J Appl Physiol. 2006 Jan 12;

Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Hakkinen K, Ratamess NA,
Kraemer WJ, French DN, Eslava J, Altadill A, Asiain X, Gorostiaga EM.

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of 11 weeks of
resistance training to failure vs. non-failure, followed by an
identical 5- week peaking period of maximal strength and power
training for both groups as well as to examine the underlying
physiological changes in basal circulating anabolic/catabolic
hormones.

Forty-two physically-active men were matched and then randomly
assigned to either a training to failure (RF; n=14), non-failure
(NRF; n=15) or control groups (C;n=13). Muscular and power testing
and blood draws to determine basal hormonal concentrations were
conducted before the initiation of training (T0), after 6 wk of
training (T1), after 11 wk of training (T2), and after 16 wk of
training (T3). Both RF and NRF resulted in similar gains in 1RM bench
press (23% and 23%) and parallel squat (22% and 23%), muscle power
output of the arm (27% and 28%) and leg extensor muscles (26% and
29%) and maximal number of repetitions performed during parallel
squat (66% and 69%). RF group experienced larger gains in the maximal
number of repetitions performed during the bench press The peaking
phase (T2 to T3) followed after NRF resulted in larger gains in
muscle power output of the lower extremities, whereas after RF
resulted in larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions
performed during the bench press.

Strength training leading to RF resulted in reductions in resting
concentrations of IGF-1 and elevations in IGFBP-3, whereas NRF
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. Elevation in IGFBP-3 following
resistance training may have been compensatory to accommodate the
reduction in IGF-1 in order to preserve IGF availability.

Complete BS... TRAIN BEYOND FAILURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BITCHES!!!

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperFlex

Complete BS... TRAIN BEYOND FAILURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BITCHES!!!

thanks for your intelligent conversation to the discussion you stupid mother fucker. By the way....if you can go beyond it then it isn't failure your moron so go back and read some more of your weider principles. Jackass.

Posted by: CowPimp

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

Weider doesn't have any principles:

GO HIGH VOLUME HIGH INTENSITY ALL THE TIME. OVERTRAINING DOESNT EXIST.

Posted by: GreenMan

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowPimp

Weider doesn't have any principles:

GO HIGH VOLUME HIGH INTENSITY ALL THE TIME. OVERTRAINING DOESNT EXIST.

Thanks dude - your considered & erudite contribution to this discussion has been noted.

Now, about your medication..

Posted by: CowPimp

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenMan

Thanks dude - your considered & erudite contribution to this discussion has been noted.

Now, about your medication..

Pfft, I sell off my meds for crack money. That's capitalism for ya.

Posted by: GreenMan

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowPimp

Pfft, I sell off my meds for crack money.

That explains a lot

Don't you have a sister you could pimp out ?

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenMan

That explains a lot

Don't you have a sister you could pimp out ?

where do you think he got the name?

Posted by: DOMS

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenMan

That explains a lot

Yes, it does: You're an asshat.

Posted by: The Monkey Man

Posted by: bulldogge

personally i get better gains in strength and size going to failure it keeps my workouts shorter and it makes me spend less time in the gym,but i also think it is a personality thing.because when i was doing volume training going all out on a volume workout didn`t allow me to recover to get stronger or to grow there is a fine line between enough work and too much work.

but on the same lines on going to failure for strength work. aren`t westside max effort days to failure?That is the idea of rotating excercises every 3-4weeks so you don`t burn out going to failure it is the same as accomadating resistance[using chains and bands] this is variable resistance just with a new improved tag on it.

They have integrated a lot of concepts into there training instead of getting stuck on what one expert pushes as the best way to train.The whole idea is to experment and find what works for you.Everything works just not forever so that is why it is good to try new training concepts and experiment you never know you might discover the next training fad.

P-funk good article keep them coming

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38