Thread: Concentric Muscular Failure?

Originally posted by Yanick

Basically the people that say are saying that when a muscle reaches failure, the muscle itself is not reaching failure, its the CNS that fails, and when you always train to failure you wind up overtraining your CNS and burning out. I have also noted the some of the biggest guys in my gym (thanks to a guy named Neeker for pointing that out) never really reach failure. They also say that strength is due to CNS efficiency not the size of the muscle etc.

*** That about sums it up.

Yan,

I have played around with your theory for a while, going from HIT (still going to failure, but only once per week max, sometimes less), and now working with a variation of HST.

I used to do all or most sets to failure several sets, several times a week and this lead me to burn out and overtrain. I got really sick, lost 5 lbs muscle, etc. (:World's smallest violin plays just for MB

I'm currently now doing 2 sets per exercise per week max to failure on Mondays (F-Day!), as well as other near-failure sets on Wednesday and Friday.

Your post summed it up quite well. Failure is kind of overratted and if done in too high a quantity or too often you can definately overtrain very easily. I think my current routine is a good comprimise.

i always do my sets till i cant no more and my partner helps me for a couple of more reps. is there anything wrong with that?

I don't think there is any right or wrong, so long as you are getting the results you want.

I'm no expert on training by any means raider, but I think what you are doing is good. By training to failure, I believe that you are training your CNS to handle more reps. If you want bigger muscles, I find heavier weights do more than higher number of reps. I would, and this is my opinion, switch between the two schemes every month or so. This is what I am doing and it is working for me.

Failure, or no failure, try to make sure you are increasing the amount lifted a little each week. IMO this is how to train the CNS to lift heavier.

I get the same answer from everyone that i ask this question. Do whatever works for you. This does seem to make a lot of sense to me, so i guess that i'll stick with this for a while.

Earwax,

By high reps what do you mean? For me high reps means 12-15, but for others it could mean 20-25. And about the high weights, what rep range are you talking about here? 2-4? i never really go under 5 reps, and if i hit 5 its because i overestimate myself and pick a weight that is too high. The CNS theory also says that the higher the weight the more stress you put on your CNS and that optimal muscular hypertrophy can be achieved with moderate weights, ie rep range of 6-12 or so.

Shooter,

I totally agree with you, however i'm not interested in lifting big weights. I'm into pure bodybuilding, so if i can get 20" arms by curling 15's or if i can get an Arnold calibre chest by benching 115lbs i'll be happy

MB,

Great to see you around here, did you get in touch with TT?

Shooter,

I totally agree with you, however i'm not interested in lifting big weights. I'm into pure bodybuilding, so if i can get 20" arms by curling 15's or if i can get an Arnold calibre chest by benching 115lbs i'll be happy
[/QUOTE]


LOL, I think we all would. Usually though a bigger muscle is also stronger.

Yes, but a stronger muscle is not necessarily bigger.

True, plenty of small, very strong powerlifters. Big guys are often strong, but small guys are not always weak.