Q&A: Criticisms of Training to Failure

Question:

Hey Drew,

I’m really looking forward to your new book. I read a few comments from people who advise against HIT and I hope you could respond to them. I’m hoping your book will respond to similar questions and comments as well. Here they are:

Noted exercise scientist Paul Ward warns that training to failure results in ischemic reperfusion, or oxygen deprivation, followed by oxygen perfusion. This results in massive free-radical damage to DNA and cell membranes.

International Sports Sciences Association co-founder Dr. Sal Arria cautions that many soft tissue injuries occur when failure terminates a repetition in mid-stroke. “When the weight on the bar exceeds the muscle’s ability to lift it, something has to give and usually, it’s the musculotendinous junction.

Louie Simmons, well known coach to many elite-level power lifters finds that taking sets to failure “has an ill-effect on the central nervous system,” which delays recovery. Simmons is noted for producing scores of high-ranked lifters with relatively low-intensity training.

I know you’ve seen these comments in the past. Could you be kind enough to give a response to these comments?

Answer:

Regarding training to failure and ischemic reperfusion, consider that concentric failure is simply the point in an exercise where fatigue has reduced the strength of the muscles involved to the point where they are no longer capable of shortening against the selected resistance. If a slightly lower resistance was selected and the exercise was stopped just short of failure, the same degree fatigue and associated physiological effects including ischemic reperfusion could have been achieved without failure. There is nothing about training to failure in particular that would make this more or less likely. If anything, overtraining is far more of a problem where free-radical damage is concerned than intensity of training.  If someone is worried about free radical damage they would do better to focus on limiting volume of exercise rather than intensity.

The same goes for the effects on the CNS. The negative effects on the CNS are not due to training to failure, but rather overtraining. The microtrauma caused by training leads to an inflammatory response. If the body is not allowed adequate recovery time between workouts, chronic inflammation results, and cytokines involved in inflammation start to act on the CNS causing the various symptoms associated with overtraining. These cytokines can also affect the hypothalamus, causing increased cortisol levels. I suspect the myth about training to failure and CNS “burnout” resulted from attempts at increasing the intensity of exercise without the necessary reduction in volume.

There is no increased risk of injury when muscular failure occurs during mid stroke. This is complete nonsense. Fatigue reduced the amount of force the muscle can contract with, but has little affect on the amount of strain it can withstand.  A weight you can lift in good form for several repetitions is not heavy enough to tear the involved muscles, whether fresh or fatigued.

Also, muscles are capable of producing more force during static contractions than concentric because slower a muscle shortens the more force it is capable of producing (static is as slow as you can go), and the muscles are stronger in the mid-range position. Both of these have to do with cross-bridges; slower movements allow more cross-bridges to be formed than faster movements (force/velocity curve) and there is more optimal overlap of myofibrils in the mid-range of the exercise also allowing for more cross-bridging. So even if you’ve fatigued the muscles enough to prevent further positive movement, you are more than strong enough to hold the weight as well as to lower it under control.

Over the past 15 years I have put hundreds of people through tens of thousands of high intensity training workouts, and with a few exceptions (initial “break-in” period, working with certain physical problems, etc.) all of them trained to muscular failure on a consistent basis. Not once have any of them been injured or suffered “CNS” burnout as a result of training to muscular failure, and I’m confident whatever free-radical damage they may have incurred as a result of training is far less than what a more conventional, higher-volume routine would have caused, and much of that would be offset by diet if they’re eating enough antioxidant rich vegetables and fruits.

Join the discussion or ask questions about this post in the HIT List forum

Like it? Share it!

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Paul Wylie Mar 11, 2009 @ 5:25

    Another good read Drew, that’s why your book will be excellent. All that about Free-Radical damage would like you say just be offset with Fruits/Veg high in Vit’s A,C,E, Minerals like Selenium etc. It’s always someone out there that dosen’t like working hard so they hit out at HIT pardon the pun.

  • Marc Mar 11, 2009 @ 12:41

    Hi Drew,

    What are your thoughts on the safety of performing squats and deadlifts to failure? I am somewhat concerned that in taking these lifts to failure that I my lower back might begin to round or move out of the proper position.

    Thanks,

    Marc

    • Drew Baye Mar 11, 2009 @ 14:19

      Marc,

      Both squats and deadlifts can be safely performed to muscular failure. Your static and negative strength are both significantly higher than your positive strength. When you have reached the point where it is no longer possible to continue positive movement in strict form (including maintaining proper posture in the case of squats and deadlifts) you will still be strong enough to hold the weight at the position you failed in and safely lower it under control.

      If squats are performed in a squat or power rack with the safety pins set to just below the position of the bar when you are in the bottom position, when you reach failure you can set the bar down on them. The position of the safety pins should be recorded in your workout chart or journal so that each time you squat you can set them to a consistent depth.

  • Markus Reinhardt Mar 12, 2009 @ 0:00

    Hi Drew,

    I agree with your post in regards to the deadlifts. I actually just started including the deads into my own workout again and the results have been incredible! – Deadlifts are by far the most productive upper body exercise period and if used properly and performed not to frequent will produce insane results. It is however a dangerous exercise and requires perfect technique. I have uploaded some youtube clips that i update weekly on my deadlifts all the way to my contest in June (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl085oFgAxo) – go check em out guys!!

    My form in the first week was slightly off but I cleaned it up a lot and will continue to try to get stronger each week. I am not using a weight belt…what are your thoughts on a weight belt Drew?

    still debating on wether i should start using it or not.

    HIT HARD!
    MR

    • Drew Baye Mar 12, 2009 @ 9:50

      Hey Markus,

      Thanks for sharing the video and I’m with you 100% on deadlifts – tremendously productive when done properly and dangerous if not. You’re looking great and I’m sure you’ll do well in June. Feel free to stop by and post more videos.

      I’ve never used a belt for deadlifting or squats, as I’ve always felt it was better to train the trunk muscles to stabilize the upper body during those lifts rather than depending too much on a belt so whenever someone had to pick up, move, or carry something heavy outside of the gym they would be able to do it more easily and more safely.

  • austin Mar 12, 2009 @ 9:08

    One recent citicism of doing only one set to failure is that it doesnt hit all the available muscle fibers. Steve Holman of ironmind fame even quotes Arthur Jones and suggests that 2 sets is probably ideal and any more then that is overkill. I was curious what you thought about this. Thanks in advance!

    • Drew Baye Mar 12, 2009 @ 9:53

      This is also false. As long as the weight is heavy enough (at least 60% of 1RM according to some studies) all available motor units will be recruited in a single set to failure. Multiple sets are not necessary for this purpose.

  • nate Mar 12, 2009 @ 23:38

    Drew Baye :This is also false. As long as the weight is heavy enough (at least 60% of 1RM according to some studies) all available motor units will be recruited in a single set to failure. Multiple sets are not necessary for this purpose.

    Drew, the arguement is not that a ‘all available motor units will be recruited in a single set to failure’ it is that one set may or may not be enough to fatigue the muscle.

    Do you feel that fatigue is important in regards to muscle growth.

    thank you

    • Drew Baye Mar 13, 2009 @ 9:18

      Some fatigue may be important, however an extremely deep level of fatigue is not necessary for growth stimulation. I believe tension and microtrauma are far more important factors.

  • overfiftylifter Mar 14, 2009 @ 9:54

    Research seems to show that 2A fibers are the dominant fiber type that contribute to hypertrophy in bodybuilders.(Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008 Jul;103(5):579-83)
    If I understand, this fiber type is involved in muscular endurance and thus if one is primarily training for hypertrophy, a program more geared toward fatigue(multiple sets/higher rep sets) would be desirable?

    Overfiftylifter-looking forward to your new book and trying to digest Body by Science.

    • Drew Baye Mar 14, 2009 @ 17:24

      Most research also shows no significant difference between single and multiple sets for improving muscular strength or size, and there are studies which show if tension is high enough very, very little duration is required to stimulate growth. German physiologists Dr. Erich A. Muller and Dr. H.H. Hettinger demonstrated back in the 1950’s that if the intensity was high enough, the duration required was actually very short. This and related research by Dr. Arthur Steinhaus is discussed in detail in John Little’s Max Contraction and Advanced Max Contraction books.

      While empirical evidence and research shows individuals vary in the volume and frequency of exercise required for best results, very few people would get better results from, much less require multiple sets if they are training with a sufficient level of intensity.

  • Steven Turner Mar 16, 2009 @ 5:36

    Hi Drew,

    Just a couple of comments,

    HIT is more than just training to failure – “HIT is almost for everyone”.

    Do any of these “exercise experts” ever train or consult with an “HIT expert” such as yourself – I suspect not.

    Drew you mentioned that in 15 years of HIT training that you have had virtually no injuries.

    Most physiotherapist I speak to tell me that 90% their business is from current “fitness mania” high explosive activities – “where are the exercise experts now”.

    To set the record straight – The statement that Arthur Jones made in 1973 was, “At first we produced what we considered to be very good results by performing only three sets then we found that we got better results from only two sets – and now we seldom if ever perform more than one set of each exercise in a workout, and our results are far better than they previously were.”

    Thanks
    Steven

    • Drew Baye Mar 16, 2009 @ 8:34

      Steven,

      As long as I’ve been doing this I’ve never had a client injured as a result of any exercise I’ve had them do, regardless of how intensely they train. Training to failure absolutely does not cause injuries, poor form does – like moving in a fast, jerky manner, holding your breath, not maintaining proper positioning and alignment, etc.

      I have trained many people who were previously injured while working with other trainers, including trainers certified by Sal Arria’s organization the ISSA. These injuries were never a result of training to failure. Instead, they were typically the result of performing exercises in a fast or explosive manner or doing exercises that were just plain stupid – often involving inflatable balls, bosu, or similarly ridiculous gimmicks.

  • Steven Turner Mar 16, 2009 @ 18:20

    Hi Drew,

    Thanks for the quick response. I train people from a huge cross section of society from elite athletes to the unfit and unhealthy. I also have had not one injury and all clients train to “failure”.

    Many of my clients have previuosly trained very similar to the the “stressed out person” that Doug McGuff outlines in chapter 2 – “Global Metabolic Conditioning”. What gives me the greatest satisfaction with HIT once a week training is that I give my clients back their lives – they are no longer “slaves” to the gym. More importantly the production of results increase dramatically regardless of client goals. With HIT I have learnt the importance of recording client progress as most clients can’t believe their progress.

    Can’t wait for your book.

    Thanks
    Steven

  • Ramboris Jul 15, 2009 @ 21:54

    Hi Drew,

    First of all I do DC training which is very close to HIT except the frequency is higher.

    You say that none of your clients have suffered CNS burnout as a result of training to failure. The only way to prevent this is to take long breaks between workouts, minimum of 3-4 days. The problem with this (and this is where Mentzer went wrong) is training frequency. As you already know muscles recover relatively quickly, even big muscles such as the thighs can fully recover within 3-4 days. But the CNS takes much longer to recover so if you wait for the CNS to recover every time your gains will be very slow.

    So my question is do you use any type of periodization to overcome this CNS problem and train with a higher frequency?

    What I do is I train to failure and beyond for 6-8 weeks (until I plateou and notice signs of overtraining.) Then what I do is an ‘active recovery’ or ‘cns recovery’ phase that lasts for 1-2 weeks. I train each body part every 4-5 days and I train 3 times per week. You see once you plateou and burnout your CNS you take it easy and let it recharge. This way you can train more often and get faster gains.

    • Drew Baye Aug 23, 2009 @ 11:16

      Ramboris,

      The CNS is not burned out by training to failure. Most of the immediate effects of exercise are on the PNS, which recovers rapidly. The CNS may be negatively affected by elevated levels of certain cytokines, but this is the result of overtraining, not training to failure.

      How quickly muscles recover varies significantly between individuals and can even vary between muscle groups within an individual. During his presentation on sarcopenia at the 2005 high intensity training seminar in Indianapolis exercise physiologist Ryan Hall discussed research showing some individuals’ muscles require as long as ten days or more to completely recover from intense exercise. The highest frequency anyone should train for physical reasons would be one that allows adequate time for complete recovery and adaptation, and for some people this may not be very frequent.

      The real issue is overtraining, not any kind of CNS “burnout”. The solution is to pay close attention to how the body responds between workouts and adjust the volume and frequency to avoid overtraining. Periodization is unnecessary.

  • Steven Turner Aug 23, 2009 @ 20:23

    Hi Drew,

    I totally agree with you the real issue is overtraining, not any kind of CNS burnout.

    If I could use my own experiences when I first started training with HIT I thought I could train with increased frequency and volume. As I developed the ability to inroad more into the muscles I also exhausted my recovery ability more – in effect I started overtraining.

    I reduced my workouts from three days to two days per week and now train only one day per week.

    I keep accurate training records for myself and all my PT clients if progress slows/stalls then I have a complete picture and can make adjustments immediately in terms of reducing volume and/or frequency.

    Periodization means that your workouts are preplanned; days, weeks, months or even years ahead from my experience with periodisation you will need to write your future workouts in “pencil”.

    Ramboris my advice or for that matter anyone else buy Drew’s book when it is released it should be a must read for anyone interested in health and fitness. Not only have I gained immensely from his accurate advice and immense knowledge on proper training but also all of my clients have as well.
    Thanks

  • Mike Popper Oct 13, 2009 @ 21:56

    Hi Drew,

    Just discovered your site today, and feel like it’s going to be very valuable to me as I work to build the body of my dreams. I’m 27yrs old and have been training off & on since college…I’ve recently gotten to the point, however, where I’d really want to pack on some serious mass because I really don’t like the thin look that I have now. I like your suggestions as far as rep range & the one set principle, but I just want to clarify one thing: knowing my goal and that I’m a classic hardgainer, how many times a week should I be doing a full-body workout? I was thinking about starting on a MWF basis, but would really appreciate your input. I kind of get the feeling that you’ll say 3 days a week is too much, but since it’s only 1 set per exercise, I was thinking it’d be okay. Btw, I’m consuming a lot of calories & protein, in fact I’m taking about 4 servings a day of a weight gainer to help make sure I’m getting everything I need to pack on the muscle. I look forward to hearing from you.

    Thanks for your time,

    Mike.

    • Drew Baye Oct 20, 2009 @ 13:20

      Mike,

      Optimal frequency varies between individuals. As long as you’re progressing from workout to workout you’re getting enough recovery time in between. If not, and if there are no other factors negatively affecting recovery, take a week or two off to ensure you’ve completely recovered, then resume training with an extra day of rest between workouts.

  • Gordon Mar 26, 2010 @ 16:17

    Done any research recently on not-to-failure workouts? Might it be a good idea to include them at some point during the typically long HIT recovery-periods of 4-9 days?

    • Drew Baye Apr 10, 2010 @ 16:25

      Gordon,

      The only time I usually have trainees stop short of failure is when teaching new exercises and the emphasis is more on learning and practicing proper form than muscular stimulation. I do not think inserting not-to-failure workouts between the regular high intensity workouts is necessary or beneficial in most other cases.