Working out to failure or not?

[GamePlan]

Okay, so I've been working out for 9 years and always to failure (though for the past 4 years Ive only been doing maintaining..and getting my legs+back to catch up, because I was silly and didnt work them out in the beginning).

Now, here's something that makes me wonder:

My dad who is 56 years old (and crazy about sports+a sports teacher) has an upperbody similar to my own (maybe a bit less muscle, but really not much, especially his arms are on par with mine). He is also fairly lean (he plays sports pretty much every day) and his body type is probably mesomorph leaning towards ectomorph.

And all he does is pull ups, dips, crunches (and occasionally he uses the butterfly machine/leg extensions). I asked him in detail about it and when I asked him if he had ever worked out to failure in the weight room he went "No...never..." ( sort of like why would I do that?) ..I used to go to the weight room with him when I was in my teens and I remember that it's actually true that he never worked out "to failure" or anything like that (like I do...).

He also doesn't know that technically he would have needed to eat a lot of protein (though he eats a lot in general) to gain muscle mass and that playing lots of sports every day mgiht be counterproductive.

So..dont get me wrong, my Dad doesnt exactly look like hulk, but considering his natural body type is not the "strong", bulky kind of guy, but just average/lean built, and that he doesnt really have much of a clue about working out, I'm surprised at the muscles he has developed that way (particularly b/c he never worked out to failure).

Have any of you guys seen decent/good results from working out regularly (for a year or a few years) without ever actually going to failure? By decent/good results I simply mean being clearly somewhat more muscular than the average guy/than before?

PS: What I'm mostly wondering about is if working out to failure is necessary as you can see!

 

[Drum&Bass]

If you want to look like your dad does you'll train like him.

You said yourself, your dad looks like a regular guy and he's probably not strong, so obviously he's doing something wrong.

 

[GamePlan]

I said he wasnt "hulk" and that his "natural bodytype" (aka ectomorph vs. mesomorph vs. endomorph) wasn't the "strong" type.

Actually I don't get along very well with him (so this isnt a "my dad is the best" elemtnary type of thread), but if at 56 I still have a sixpack and look significantly more muscular than the average guy without spending a lot of time lifting weights or eating a ton of protein ,I woudlnt mind doing the same things wrong.

Anyway, Im not going to want to start another discussion whether 220lbs at 6' will get the girl or if they prefer the Brad Pitt type blabla, I'm simply wondering if anyone has gotten decent results without going to failure when working out.

 

[WalkingStick]

Muscles grow as an adaptation to stress. They grow so they can protect themselves from future "attack". When you work out, you are deliberately harming your own muscles so that they grow back stronger. In order for them to grow, they must be threatened. The best way to do this is to lift to failure.

Lifting to failure is not necessary for muscle growth, but it is the quickest and most effective way.

 

[user43770]

It isn't necessary, but if you have a spotter, go for it.

 

[kickureface]

what kind of #s are you lifting?

if they're big on compounds, you'll overtrain. starters lifting to failure doesn't matter since the poundage is low.

training to failure is definitely not the most effective way because of the overtraining it could produce

 

[Drum&Bass]

over training is ONLY caused by not enough food and rest between workouts. Overtraining is NOT caused by lifting to failure on compound lifts.

 

[kickureface]

i disagree. at some point the nerves need a rest and no amount of food will make you recover fully.

 

[mrRuckus]

There's no significant difference in strength/hypertrophy between lifting to failure or lifting one short of failure. Most all cookie cutter type programs that i see specifically say to go one short of failure since there's no point in destroying your CNS since it gets you no benefit.

 

[GamePlan]

Interesting. What do you mean by cookie cutter programs (sorry English isnt my first language, and I havent heard this expression before).

Do you stop one short of failure or know anyone who has been doing this and gotten pretty much the same results?

 

[mrRuckus]

Cookie cutter programs are the ones laid out without considering the individual. "Cookie cutter" means it treats each person as the same as would each cookie be if it were cut by the same cookie cutter.

So, pretty much any program you see on the internet or books.

A program you or a trainer designed just for you wouldn't be cookie cutter.


Yes, i stop one short of failure. All it means is that you don't try a rep you're pretty sure you will fail on. One short of failure should still be very hard. Failure would be if you tried a rep but couldn't finish it. If i gave it my all to finish a rep and barely did, i'm not going to try for another one. Theoretically, i COULD possibly finish the next rep but if it's way more likely that i won't, i stop.

3 sets of 5 usually means the first 2 sets you just go to 5 reps and stop regardless if you can do more or not. The 3rd set you are more tired for, but often if you *can* do 6 reps you do them but you stop at 5 if you think there's no way you can do the 6th. So really what you are mostly trying to do is beat the last set from last time while the previous 2 sets are just adding volume to the workout.

I used to do as many reps as possible in a 3x5 routine and would end up with like 7,5,3 reps going to failure each set, and it didn't work nearly as well as doing 5,5,4 or 5,5,5 or 5,5,6 with the goal really being to get 5,5,5 ideally.

 

[Bible_Belt]

fwiw, I met am orthopedic surgeon who was very against weightlifting, at least the way most guys do it. He has spent decades repairing joint and bone injuries. He says lifting very heavy weights like in power lifting and also lifting light weights to muscle failure both cause injuries.

Obviously, none of us are going to quit lifting weights, but my point is that the danger of injury is often under appreciated. Lifting to failure would only increase that risk.

 

[GamePlan]

What did the orthopedic surgeon say? Did he simply say "weight lifting is bad for your health" like in general or did he say something more specific about it/what kinds of exercises increase injury?

Actually, Im going to take a step back from lifting, because Ive been concerned about my health for a while, now and know a guy who had a veine pop in his eye lifting weights.

However, Ive been assessing the situation/risks for a while and if you think about how many people do lift weights regularly (every other hollywood actor and almost every athlete has some visible muscle that doesnt just come from playing sports), I think the risk can be kept very low.

Actually, I found some studies about it..one that showed me how ridiculously low the number of injuries in college football players under supervised strength training were..

Im going to try to find out some more about it (and which exercises to avoid, etc.) and will then most likely to stick to that kind of routine. That's also why Im wondering how I should change my work-out (not going to failure anymore being one idea).

However, I've also seen that strength training (to "almost failure" - until you can't breathe out properly anymore (your muscles still could get one rep done, but for this youd have to breathe rather unnormally - at least in my case) - this for me is usually the last rep I can somehow still get done)...is done for people who have Osteoporosis, etc. and generally seen as a good thing if done in a healthy way..and actually up to 70-80% of one's 1 RM seemed to be considered safe (even for old people).

However, I doubt most people will never care much about that only care about getting results (as I used to until a month ago, to be honest). Kind of silly, if youthink about it..risking big time injuries to impress women ;-)

 

[mrRuckus]

Orthopedic surgeons only see the unhealthy and ignore the millions who don't get obliterated in the gym.

Soccer has more injuries than lifting does, yet our 5 year olds run around playing that without doctors getting worked up.

So far i've had 2 minors from lifting. Tweaked my back doing CALF RAISES of all things rather than deadlifts and squats like they say. And i pulled some muscle in my upper back doing a pullup at body weight. So neither injury has been caused by going against the norm and being weird really... just injuries from every day life. Could've just as easily twisted my ankle walking down the stairs as i could've pulled that muscle in my back from something trivial like doing a pullup.

I get several injuries from softball every summer though.

 

[GamePlan]

I must say I agree with you. The injury rates I saw from weight lifting were way lower compared to other sports. The main question (to me) is just at what level they are when it comes to serious injuries..the type of injuries that really mess you up. Can't really speak for serious power lifters/bodybuilders, but I must say I guess that for soccer (let alone american football) serious injuries would probably be on a similar if not higher level..a friend of mine has had 3 really severe injuries from it (dont know the English expression but those that leave you unable to play for a year)

 

[kickureface]

fwiw, I met am orthopedic surgeon who was very against weightlifting, at least the way most guys do it. He has spent decades repairing joint and bone injuries. He says lifting very heavy weights like in power lifting and also lifting light weights to muscle failure both cause injuries.

Obviously, none of us are going to quit lifting weights, but my point is that the danger of injury is often under appreciated. Lifting to failure would only increase that risk.

Good form = safe!
He did say MOSt people, look around in a commercial gym and you'll see his point. Learn form, and no problem!

 

[Bible_Belt]

Good form = safe!
He did say MOSt people, look around in a commercial gym and you'll see his point. Learn form, and no problem!

I agree. Form is important, so is a little common sense. I lift at home, but a friend of mine always tells me about the fat dumbasses at his gym. They'll walk in, no warmup or stretching, place a giant amount of weight on the bench press, then do three or four reps with poor form, grunting and groaning, and their eyes about to pop out of their head. Then they leave and go brag to everyone who will listen about how much weight they just lifted.

 

[GamePlan]

He says lifting very heavy weights like in power lifting and also lifting light weights to muscle failure both cause injuries.

Out of curiosity, did he really say exactly this (the last part)? To be honest, I can see how lifting to failure might give you problems with your muscles such as a pec rupture, if you got really bad luck, but I'm wondering how it would affect the bones/joints in a more negative way than not lifting to failure (if you're using the same weights).

Actually, I've read about weight training for people with osteoporosis(exp?) and weight training for senior citizens, which suggested going to failure (with good form). The "only" concern Ive read about it is problems with muscle (tears/ruptures..risk being increased) and blood pressure peaks. But now I'm curious if it would be worse for the joints to lift 100lbs for 8,6,5,5,5 reps to failure each than it would be to lift the same 100lbs for 3 reps, but 10 sets. Dont know enough about joints (in the human body) to be honest.

 

[mrRuckus]

I agree. Form is important, so is a little common sense. I lift at home, but a friend of mine always tells me about the fat dumbasses at his gym. They'll walk in, no warmup or stretching, place a giant amount of weight on the bench press, then do three or four reps with poor form, grunting and groaning, and their eyes about to pop out of their head. Then they leave and go brag to everyone who will listen about how much weight they just lifted.

I knew a guy who told me in the gym that warming up caused him an injury so he wasn't going to do it anymore.

 

[kickureface]

Out of curiosity, did he really say exactly this (the last part)? To be honest, I can see how lifting to failure might give you problems with your muscles such as a pec rupture, if you got really bad luck, but I'm wondering how it would affect the bones/joints in a more negative way than not lifting to failure (if you're using the same weights).

Actually, I've read about weight training for people with osteoporosis(exp?) and weight training for senior citizens, which suggested going to failure (with good form). The "only" concern Ive read about it is problems with muscle (tears/ruptures..risk being increased) and blood pressure peaks. But now I'm curious if it would be worse for the joints to lift 100lbs for 8,6,5,5,5 reps to failure each than it would be to lift the same 100lbs for 3 reps, but 10 sets. Dont know enough about joints (in the human body) to be honest.

Lifting to failure pretty much makes your form worse and worse => injury.
If you bench like 95% of the goons in the gym, don't bench to failure. If you bench PL style, don't bench to failure as PL style gives you maximum weights.
So do not flat bench to failure.