What is the value in doing low reps with high weights?
I've done plenty of programs that utilize different reps/sets (5x5, 3x10, 2x15, etc), but I've never tried doing say a 3x3 or 3xWhatever with the heaviest weight that I could lift. I guess the reason is I lift by myself, and although I do have some safeties built into my bench, I guess that's the primary reason for never trying it.
But, I don't suppose there's any adavantage to that type of program, would primarily be just for variety, yes? Or would that be more of a fat burning or bulking type of w/o plan?
for a heavy set (ie max 1 or 2 reps) you got to go by feel.
say your max is 500 for 2
maybe do
135 x 10
225 x 5
315 x 1
405 x 1
455 x 1
505 x 2 * see how this feels and maybe go heavier.
the longer you are at it the better understanding you have of how strong you are. Sometimes in my training ill go up in big increments when i am confident i can lift the weight. Sometimes you are bound the fail, but thats not the goal.
The point would be to get strong. DO NOT lift to "failure" if you want to get strong...that just teaches your CNS how to fail under load.
Once in a long while going for a new max, OK, but not as a regular part of a workout.
Bench is tough to lift heavy, safely, without a spotter. Of course, a wobbly 10th rep under a medium load isn't necessarily safer than a wobbly 3rd rep under a heavier load anyway. You can dead lift heavy by yourself in a safe manner.
The point would be to get strong. DO NOT lift to "failure" if you want to get strong...that just teaches your CNS how to fail under load.
Not quite.
What it does is teach you to produce force under conditions of fatigue, since motor unit recruitment is altered somewhat at failure. This is actually quite good for those that need to produce force under slow or near-isometric conditions (straining under weight).
The issue comes up for those that need to maximize speed and power, hence all the NSCA-driven anti-failure arguments (which were just made as a counter to HIT idiocy in the first place). But it's hardly going to hurt strength.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
DO NOT lift to "failure" if you want to get strong.
I am going to have to agree with this. Outside of contest, there is no reason to go to failure. At least on purpose. Sometimes failure will be reached by accident, but there is not reason for failure to be a goal.
Aside from the increased chance of injury that comes along with failing at a heavier load, failure as a whole does not increase strength faster than not failing.
I definitely subscribe to the "training to failure is training to fail" mindset.
Not to say failure should never be reached, it is something that should not be done on a regular basis.
Of the powerlifter and strongman folks I know and train with, failure is rarely ever reached. Sometimes when training for timed events, like log clean and press for reps in 60sec or something along those lines failure is reached. Almost never with a near maximal load.
There is also the argument of "the better you are the more risky failure is" argument.
Sure, failing a squat at 500lbs is really not a big deal. But there is a higher risk of injury. How about failing at 800lbs? 900lbs?
So failing may be ok in the beginning, but, as strength and skill increase, it should occur less and less often.
Really, there are many more risks with training to failure on a regular basis than there are benefits.
These are my observations after being in the game a while at many different levels.
I like how we distinguished between main exercises and assistance exercises, and different rep ranges and loads, too. Certainly there's no difference in developing strength in an exercise and strength in specific muscle groups.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Ive failed my fair share of heavy squats, it happens if you are pushing the limits, a few times a year at least. key is, to know how to fail which many people do not.
I'm intrigued by this 'don't go to failure' philosophy. Personal experience tells me it is wrong, to the point where strict proponents could cost themselves gains.
However, I'm not too hip on the CNS, etc. ramifications of failing lifts consistently and freely admit that I don't know if that has cost me and I didn't know it.
If those who argue against going to failure cite the mental ramifications, then I don't think I could ever be convinced it has merit. I may be pissed off after a failed bench to break a previous max, but I don't see it damaging my mental makeup or somehow teaching my body to miss lifts.
I think every PR I've ever set was preceded by failing at the same weight sometime before!
__________________
Since most of your life is already complicated, why make your training the same way? Jim Wendler
When I train, if I fail a rep, it means I fucked up, and chose a weight too heavy.
However it's not the end of the world when i fail a rep, but it does suck, when pushing yourself it is bound to happen. But I think it should be minimized.
I don't think it's good for you mentally either, it's much better to go for, and get new PR's nearly every time, and get lots of quality reps in.
I don't think it teaches the body to fail, it just sucks and burns you out quicker.
Simon, its not always a matter of picking to heavy of a weight. for instance - a squat - if your arch is not as tight as it should be, knees are comming in, look down, put bar on wrong spot on back, get hunched over in the hole, foot slips, etc etc
you wont make the lift.
i cant count the number of times ive failed a lift because of something like above, only to try it again 5 minutes later and smoke it (or, sometimes ill increase the bar weight a bit after failing it. makes me look real dumb if i dont get it then). Lifting is so technical if you analyze every bit of it, its not near as simple as picking to heavy weights.
I don't argue "for" or "against" failure. I'm simply making the point that it's OK in some cases, and probably not such a good idea in others.
I wouldn't classify you as one I've seen arguing against ever going to failure.
Simon, I see what you're saying, but again, there are days when my bench max for that day may fluctuate 5 kilos- I just don't know which day is which until I try.
__________________
Since most of your life is already complicated, why make your training the same way? Jim Wendler
Simon, I see what you're saying, but again, there are days when my bench max for that day may fluctuate 5 kilos- I just don't know which day is which until I try.
Peaking and periodisation
I won't go for anything heavy in the month after a meet. I'll work up the weights weekly, so I know when I'm ready for more.
Only fail attempting all time PR's.
Some days do feel better than others yes, and I think that's a problem with maxing too often. Rest is good
DMW - Training to failure sometimes is not a bad thing. If done week in and week out stagnation will occur. It is the nature of failing. I am not just talking about failing maxes. But going to failure in any aspect on a regular basis will cause stagnation in a much shorter amount of time than one would think.
That being said. People who are still in the beginning stages of training (within the 1st 3 years) will have results with training to failure.
As progression is made, training to failure will be something that happens less and less.
From personal experience I can say that the biggest gains I have ever made happened when I set myself up to never fail a rep. That is what happened, I gained strength consistently over years and only hit failure on occasion during competition or when it was necessary in strongman events. Even on the occasional "burn out" set, I do make sure I do not hit failure.
I find training to failure burns me out in a very short amount of time. Among my training partners and people I know, I can't think of one who would even think of training to failure on a regular basis. Most of those guys are competitive at a higher level in sports.
I know there are those out there who have had good results failing all the time. I just believe that the results will generally be better if failure is not reached on a regular basis.
That might have been a lot of stuff where I just repeated myself.
Missing a 1RM isn't something I would consider failure. You test yourself along the way and sometimes you get it and sometimes you don't.
In my mind, going to failure means doing enough reps and sets to where you can't do anymore. This might be fine for some workouts, but I would advise against doing it every workout. My personal reasoning is that if I don't go to complete failure then I recover more quickly and can lift again sooner than if I go to complete failure. I would rather get more lifts in than have to wait longer for recovery.
__________________
"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -- T.S. Eliot
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit."-- Aristotle
And that's where I was confused. I'm a big advocate of pushing myself to the point where I may miss a lift, but I'm not talking about failing every workout on the 8th or 10th rep. I got caught up in the thread title and thought people were including 1-3 RMs and missing those as the devil.
__________________
Since most of your life is already complicated, why make your training the same way? Jim Wendler
What is the value in doing low reps with high weights?
Linear Mode
