|
2002/07/11, 11:41 AM
What's all this talk about working a muscle to failure? I understand what failure is (in more ways than one) :0) but I'm confused about when and when not to do this. Shouldn't every set end in failure so you know you worked that muscle to it's max? I'm really having trouble finding the correct weight for all my different exercises; I know it can't be that complicated. If I have to do 4 sets of a particular exercise with say, 15 reps, then 12, and so on, do I keep adjusting the weight until I reach my target reps? What if a reach failure before I hit the target? What if I don't reach failure by the end of my reps? Now I just finished a set only to find out I screwed-up the weight amounts I've added. Plus these amounts keep changing as I grow stronger. Would somebody please educate a brother so I can get this right?
|
|
|
|
2002/07/11, 12:00 PM
Yeah, I think I asked this a few weeks ago and the answer I got (which makes perfect sense) is to only go to failure on your last set of the exercise.
Here's how I do it. Each exercise consists of 4 sets. I use the first set as a "warm-up". I pick a weight that I can very easily do - basically just enough to get a stretch of my muscles I'm going to work. I also use this set to practice good form, like practice swings in golf :-) Practice performing the exercise so you do it in good form as you stretch. I then increase the weights for set 2 and 3 to get a good workout. set 4 becomes the tough one - increase the weight where you can just complete it, or reach failure within 1 or 2 reps of the total. Reach failure only at the end of the last set.
Seems to work for me.
|
|
2002/07/11, 12:02 PM
FWIW - the following is an excerpt from a fairly long write up. It's worth the time to read it all no matter which side of the fence you're on.
http://weightrainer.virtualave.net/training/failure.html
Your body responds to demands that you place on it. If you don't take your sets to failure, then the message your body gets is that it is already strong enough to perform the tasks being required of it (lifting that particular weight for the number of sets and reps that you performed). Similarly, in order for your body to respond by getting stronger and bigger, you must attempt the momentarily impossible, and take your reps to failure. This will send a clear signal to your body that it is presently insufficiently equipped to do the tasks that it is being presented with and your muscles will, therefore, adapt and grow/get stronger.
The logic seems bullet-proof. But you really don't have to look very far to dispell it. Top Powerlifters, Olympic-stlye Weightlifters and many Bodybuilders rarely, if ever, train to momentary concentric muscular failure, yet I probably don't have to tell you that they haven't had a problem with realizing muscular growth and/or strength increases. I recall reading an article by Ed Coan from about ten years ago in which he stated that he never went to failure on any of his sets. Bill Pearl says the same thing. "But they were on steroids", some of you will say. Well, of course they were. But most pre-steroid era bodybuilders didn't train to failure and they never had a problem with muscular growth either. "But they weren't that big" some more of you will say. That's precisely because they weren't on steroids. As most people can appreciate, the drug-bloated addicts that are now presented as bodybuilders have raised people's definition of 'heavily-muscled' to the point where any man less than 250 lbs. with 4% bodyfat is small and fat. If you really think that men such as George Eiferman, John Grimek and Steve Reeves weren't that big, maybe you should see them standing next to 'normal' men, or in more normal circumstances than oiled up on a posing dias.. If that doesn't convince you, compare your own overhead lifts to what the Olympic Lifters were doing years before the advent of steroids. 180 pound Weightlifters were routinely pressing well over 300 pounds overhead in the early 1950s! The level of strength that these men possessed was developed without steroids and without training to failure. The success of these people in building muscle, power and strength while not training to failure proves that such training is not necessary (at the very least, for some) to realize muscular conditioning and growth.
|
|
2002/07/11, 12:04 PM
Dude, it's not at all complicated. As a beginner, you may not be able to complete the recommended number of reps. This is especially true if you add more weights as the number of reps decrease.
As an example, say you are working on an exercise that calls for 20-12-8-6 and you start out with 10 pounds for your first set. You may be able to to only 15 reps. That's fine. Go to the next set and increase to 15 pounds...or even 12.5 if you have 2.5lb. plates. Maybe you'll do 10 reps or maybe even the full 12. Great. Do the third set at 15 or 20 pounds...and so on.
FT's program is a GUIDE! Once your body gets used to the weights, you'll be able to lift heavier and be able to complete the recommended number of reps. Just increase the weights incrementally and in time, you'll be lifting heavy.
--------------
**_Robert_**
Pain is temporary; glory is forever!
|
|
2002/07/13, 07:37 PM
BRETTO, I work my arms to failure once a week. In sets of 4 or 5. First set 20 reps with a relatively light weight for an aerobic pump to the area. Second set 15 with a weight that will have you failing at about that count. Third set 10 to failure. Fourth set 6 to failure. Now I use the Almighty Arnold (the real one that smokes Cohibas and drives a Hummer) as a guide for this. As your muscles reach failure more and more muscle fiber are called in by the body to back up the failed tissue. Thats when I go back down the rack and fail through the same amount of drop sets. Its a very powerful workout and truly blasts the total arm. Its the last workout I do before a weekend off, you need the recovery time. I start a Monday with legs anyhow so they get a real 3-4 day lay off.
|
