As anyone who has been in the physical transformation space for a few decades will note, trends are cyclical, and what’s old is new and vise versa. Hell, anyone who has read this BLOG has already noted that, for I started off an advocate for abbreviated training, went through a phase of absurd volume and frequency, and have settled back to abbreviated training (almost as though there was some form of periodization at play…). In turn, it appears that the likes of Mike Mentzer and the HIT crowd have popped back up in popularity as a result of TikTokers attempted to fleece undiscerning babes in the woods with “cutting edge” 1970s methodology, attempting to market it as “training secrets from 50 years ago that the pros DON’T want you to know”. I, personally, am a fan of Dave Tate’s philosophy in that the reason things ARE “training secrets” is because they sucked back then so we all forgot about them, but let’s explore just a little bit here. The principle, I find, that is causing the most difficulty with new trainees is the overvaluing of training to failure, seen as THE sole method necessary in order to secure sweet precious “gains” from training. Training to failure is THE objective of training, according to those “in the know” on such matters, and whenever someone is NOT obtaining results, it’s purely because they’re not training hard enough. I, of course, am a fan of a “no true scotsman” whenever encountered in the wild, because the circular reasoning is the perfect defense for attacks against the efficacy of one’s method. “Oh no, the method definitely works: you were just doing it wrong”, which was the calling card for many an Aikido practitioner (shots fired!) However, let me discuss WHY it is that the very PURSUIT of failure is, in itself, a pyrrhic victory. Even when we win: we lose.
Keep chasing after failure and you eventually catch it
Ok, so
first, the phrase “training to failure” is already way more of a clusterf*ck
that it ever really should be. There is
only ONE way to fail: unsuccessfully attempt to succeed. What does that mean? That means, you have the bar on your back for
a squat, you squat down, you attempt to stand back up, but you don’t make
it. You either dump the bar over your
head (poor form in a competition) or it falls behind you or crashes onto the
safety pins, but in either capacity, you FAIL the rep. That’s training to failure. …right?
No! In order to make “training to
failure” more approachable, we’ve decided to allow MULTIPLE definitions of
failure to exist in the sphere of physical transformation. Apparently, you can have “technical failure”,
which means once you’re so fatigued that you can no longer execute a repetition
with perfect technique. Folks, you’ve
most likely SEEN how my technique looks: if I operated off technical failure,
all my sets would end at the first rep.
And if we’re advising new trainees looking to grow to train to TECHNICAL
failure, they’re simply NEVER going to achieve any manner of meaningful
training volume, because they’re going to cut ALL their sets short. Some, instead, decide to focus on bar speed,
and say that we’ve reached failure once we experience a significant slowdown in
repetition. Once again, I stand before
you as the mutant that proves the rule, because I am effectively slow twitch
given sentience, and even my warm-ups move slow. But I also know I’m not the only one out there. We are legion: those of us that can take the
first rep and have it look like a 1rm only to manage to eek out 8 more
reps. If we terminated the set based on
slowdown, we, simply, would never train.
So, already: failure has failed us.
But it gets
worse my friends! Let’s say a trainee
DOES decide to take “training to failure” to it’s most literal (and correct)
definition: we find that these trainees construct the TRAINING to suit the
method, rather than the other way around.
What do I mean? I gave the
example of a squat for training to failure, and with that, you can already see
the issue at hand. If we’re training
3x10 in the squat “to failure”, this means, on set 1, we attempt to squat the
weight, fail, let the weight crash onto the pins of the safety bar, strip all
the weights off the bar, re-rack the bar, reload the bar, and then repeat this
WHOLE process for 2 other sets, before moving onto the rest of our
workout. For one, this is going to flat
out be EXHAUSTING, and for two, your gym owner is most likely going to kick you
out of the gym after set 2. So the
method is non-viable right? WRONG! The solution is simple: let’s just pick ONLY
movements that we can “safely fail” on.
What does this mean? Basically
all machines and isolation exercises. Failing
on a bench press can quite literally end your life: failing on a set of lateral
raises results in a small cramping sensation in the deltoids. There’s practically ZERO risk of injury…and
practically zero opportunity for success…
Whereas some movements have no opportunity for success but MASSIVE risk of injury
Folks, I
don’t care who this upsets: a program of all machine isolation exercises is NOT
going to result in successful physical transformation. I don’t want to denigrate exercise: if you’re
getting out there and being active, I am happy for you. HOWEVER, if your goal is meaningful physical
transformation, such an approach is NOT how you get there: it’s more suited for
senior citizens looking to stave off sarcopenia. Look at ANYONE that has ever achieved
meaningful success in regards to physical transformation, and almost 100% of
them have spent SOME time under a heavy barbell with a set of squats, or did
SOME manner of heavy pulls, or in some way, shape or form, performed training
with a movement that was NOT ideal to train to absolute failure. These big, heavy and hard movements FORCE the
body to grow, because they place such a significant demand on the body to
change, whereas a set of curls with an elastic band until you “feel the burn”
is most likely just going to cause you some elbow tendinitis. But again, because the trainee has
prioritized failure above all else, they are excluding the very movements that
are crucial to their development BECAUSE they can not use them to achieve
failure.
Because what
is fundamentally happening is that trainees are seeking “feedback” WITHIN the
training session, due to our intense need for instant gratification and
inability to appreciate long term investment/growth. The reality is, the mark of success from a
training program does not occur WITHIN the workout, but OUTSIDE of it. We grow when we RECOVER from the training:
not within the training itself. This, in
turn, means monitoring and tracking our outcomes to determine the efficacy of
our training…which is wholly unsatisfying for a trainee who “wants it
now”. Instead, it’s FAR more satisfying
to completely obliterate a muscle by smashing it to failure, walking out of the
gym and saying “I had a good workout: my muscles are exhausted”. But did we come here to exhaust our
muscles…or did we come here to grow? And
if it’s the latter…is that happening? Or
are we, instead, just constantly exhausting our muscles in our pursuit of
failure and achieving exactly that which it is that we pursue: failure. Perhaps, instead, a fight wherein we “live to
fight another day” is more what we shall endeavor to?
If you know, you know
Training to
failure is a TOOL in our toolbox that we can employ in order to achieve a
desired outcome: it is not the outcome itself.
If all we do is chase after failure, we will eventually catch it. Instead, we must understand the context
wherein such an approach CAN work, which is, most likely, within a limited
window of a training block. It must be
employed strategically, within a given context, under the consideration of
recovery, with a goal of achieving growth.
Look at male gymnasts, weightlifters, powerlifters, sumo wrestlers,
American football players, etc: we can clearly see many instances wherein
strong, muscular bodies were built WITHOUT needing to approach failure in
training. Training to failure can be A
way, but it is certainly not THE way: don’t let it get in YOUR way.
