Yanick

Well here goes, i've been doing some reading recently on different training protocols, and i've have come upon some serious theories, i used to concentrate almost 100% on nutrition research. I have come upon the theory that taking a muscle to concentric muscular failure will yield negative results and lead to CNS overtraining.

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.

Anyway, anybody have any opinions about this (empirical evidence or anything will be greatly appreciated) ? I am of course after muscular hypertrophy and couldn't really care less about strength.

I have a few problems with this method of training but have adopted it anyway because i'm cutting and am afraid of overtraining.

Well thanks in advance guys.

"...we have to remember that training is a complicated dance of stimuli and response. Our goal is to understand how to manipulate the stimuli in order to evoke the responses we desire." -Nathan J. Polenchek

Training God

*** That about sums it up.

mama's boy

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.

raider6969

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?

EarWax

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.

"Love is a fruit in season at all times, and within reach of every hand." -Mother Teresa

shooter

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.

If you wanna piss with the big dogs, you'd better lift your leg high.

Yanick

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?

"...we have to remember that training is a complicated dance of stimuli and response. Our goal is to understand how to manipulate the stimuli in order to evoke the responses we desire." -Nathan J. Polenchek

shooter

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.

If you wanna piss with the big dogs, you'd better lift your leg high.

Yanick

Yes, but a stronger muscle is not necessarily bigger.

"...we have to remember that training is a complicated dance of stimuli and response. Our goal is to understand how to manipulate the stimuli in order to evoke the responses we desire." -Nathan J. Polenchek

Mudge

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

Kinesiology Vote @ Top 25 Deads Comp Bench
Motivation Bench form MaxCalc Charles Poliquin
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. Lao-Tzu
I don't know any sources so don't ask - thanks

shooter

The point I was trying to make is in order to get bigger which will almost always come with getting stronger, is you have to progress each time out. If you just keep lifting the same amount each week, you will not progress very quickly.

If you wanna piss with the big dogs, you'd better lift your leg high.