Training to Failure
- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The following was posted on SuperTraining group:
DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF STRENGTH TRAINING LEADING TO FAILURE VERSUS
NOT TO FAILURE ON HORMONAL RESPONSES, STRENGTH AND MUSCLE POWER GAINS.J Appl Physiol. 2006 Jan 12;
Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Hakkinen K, Ratamess NA,
Kraemer WJ, French DN, Eslava J, Altadill A, Asiain X, Gorostiaga EM.The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of 11 weeks of
resistance training to failure vs. non-failure, followed by an
identical 5- week peaking period of maximal strength and power
training for both groups as well as to examine the underlying
physiological changes in basal circulating anabolic/catabolic
hormones.Forty-two physically-active men were matched and then randomly
assigned to either a training to failure (RF; n=14), non-failure
(NRF; n=15) or control groups (C;n=13). Muscular and power testing
and blood draws to determine basal hormonal concentrations were
conducted before the initiation of training (T0), after 6 wk of
training (T1), after 11 wk of training (T2), and after 16 wk of
training (T3). Both RF and NRF resulted in similar gains in 1RM bench
press (23% and 23%) and parallel squat (22% and 23%), muscle power
output of the arm (27% and 28%) and leg extensor muscles (26% and
29%) and maximal number of repetitions performed during parallel
squat (66% and 69%). RF group experienced larger gains in the maximal
number of repetitions performed during the bench press The peaking
phase (T2 to T3) followed after NRF resulted in larger gains in
muscle power output of the lower extremities, whereas after RF
resulted in larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions
performed during the bench press.Strength training leading to RF resulted in reductions in resting
concentrations of IGF-1 and elevations in IGFBP-3, whereas NRF
resulted in reduced resting cortisol concentrations and an elevation
in resting serum total testosterone concentration. This investigation
demonstrated a potential beneficial stimulus of NRF for improving
strength and power, especially during the subsequent peaking training
period, whereas performing sets to failure resulted in greater gains
in local muscular endurance. Elevation in IGFBP-3 following
resistance training may have been compensatory to accommodate the
reduction in IGF-1 in order to preserve IGF availability.Interesting that they both have similar percentages through all exercises. I prefer training to failure myself, but it seems to be nothing to bragg about, as the results RF/NRF equal each other. DA
Yep, it would seem that a bit of both is probably best.
Isn’t one of the main reasons for not training to failure the fact that recovery times are decreased, due to less neural fatigue, and therefore more frequent training can take place? Which this study, from what i can see, has not taken into account. The similar results make sense though as similar work is being perfromed yet adequate use of the non failure training has not been used.
I count my warm up set as not training to failure 😀
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.