failure training

How close to failure should you train?

Theses are some of the most common questions asked when deciding if training to failure is good or bad.

It has been proposed that training to failure is a necessary strategy to maximize muscle growth.

This Article examines the research behind these claims, and attempts to draw evidence-based conclusions as to the practical implications for hypertrophy training.

Failure Training for hypertrophy and strength

Resistance training is well-established as a primary exercise-based strategy to enhance muscle mass in humans.

The manipulation of program variables is believed to be a key factor in optimizing muscular gains.

Variables such as volume, load, and frequency have been well explored in the literature.

One variable that has not received as much attention is the set endpoint, operationally defined as the point at which a set of repetitions is terminated.

The intensity of effort expended during a set is best estimated by how close an individual comes to reaching muscular failure, which can be defined as the point where the activated muscles are incapable of completing another complete repetition without assistance.

Training to muscular failure has been promoted since the 1940s when Thomas DeLorme, a physician in the US Army at the time, published a series of papers advocating the use of this method in resistance exercise.

While training to failure has long been employed in resistance training programs,particularly by bodybuilders, the number of well-controlled studies that have explored this topic is small.

Initially, Rooney et al. (21) indicated a benefit for training to failure (versus not training to failure) for gains in strength; however, these results were not corroborated by others.

Recognizing the equivocal body of evidence, Davies et al. recently conducted a meta-analysis for strength gains, and concluded that similar increases in strength might be attained with both muscle failure and non-failure training.

However, this meta-analysis (as well as the majority of original studies) only focused on gains in strength; the effects of training to failure on muscle hypertrophy have been less explored.

Training to Failure for Muscle Hypertrophy

Some researchers claim that training to failure is necessary to maximize muscle growth.

This contention is at least in part based on the underlying belief that training to failure elicits full motor unit recruitment, which is considered an essential component for increases in muscle size.

However, the applicability of this claim may be load-specific.

High-threshold motor units are recruited almost immediately when lifting very heavy loads as high levels of force are required from the onset of the exercise.

This is in contrast to low-load training, where recruitment of the larger motor units is delayed because a high level of force is not initially needed to lift the weight; as the set becomes more fatiguing, higher threshold motor units are then recruited to maintain force output.

This physiological response has been demonstrated in studies showing that fatiguing concentric contractions produce a corresponding increase in surface electromyography activity during low-load training, but the effect diminishes with the use of progressively heavier loads.

It therefore could be hypothesized that the need to train to failure becomes increasingly less relevant when training with high intensities of load.

Training to Failure & Metabolic Stress

It also has been hypothesized that training to failure augments muscular growth by increasing metabolic stress.

There is some evidence that the buildup of metabolites – byproducts from anaerobic energy production – enhances the anabolic response to resistance training, although this claim remains speculative.

Research shows that continuing a set to the point of volitional fatigue heightens energy demands, thereby resulting in a greater metabolite accumulation.

This seemingly supports a beneficial metabolic effect of training to the point of failure.

However, it is not clear whether the additional metabolic stress produced during an ‘all-out’ set leads to a meaningfully greater accretion of muscle proteins compared to a set stopped short of failure.

It is conceivable that a threshold exists for metabolic stress beyond which no further beneficial effects are real.

Little Research Exist for training to failure

There is surprisingly little longitudinal research investigating the topic of training to failure.

Training to muscle failure Study 1)

An often-cited study in support of training performed to failure compared muscle growth in recreationally-trained men performing a multiple set protocol of 10 reps with 60 seconds rest between sets, whereby one group trained to failure and the other did not (11).

Exercises consisted of the lat pulldown, shoulder press, and leg extension, with 3-5 sets performed per exercise.

Results showed that the group training to failure gained significantly more muscle over the course of the 12-week study than the group that did not train to muscle failure (+13% vs. +4%).

While on the surface these findings may seem intriguing, the caveat here was that one group performed all sets continuously to failure while the group that did not train to failure took a 30- second break at the mid-point of each set.

This protocol does not replicate traditional non-failure training regimens where sets are stopped at a given number of repetitions from fatigue; thus, it has limited ecological validity.

Training to muscle Failure study 2)

In a study by Schott et al. one group trained using a low-fatigue training protocol that included 4 sets of 10 contractions (each contraction lasted 3-seconds followed by 2-seconds of rest) with 2 minutes of rest between sets while another group trained with high levels of fatigue induced by performing 4 sets of 30-second contractions with 1 minute of between-set  rest.

Only the latter group experienced significant increases in muscle size after 14 weeks of training, adding further support for the importance of fatigue for gains in muscle mass.

However, as in the Goto et al. study, the protocol did not mirror resistance exercise performed in the practical context as it included only isometric muscle actions.

Furthermore, the protocol in the low fatigue group included inter-repetition rest which, again, is not often employed in traditional resistance exercise.

Training to muscle failure study 3)

Sampson and Groellier compared the effects of exercising to muscle failure using a more traditional resistance training protocol.

Twenty-eight untrained young men performed 4 sets of arm curls at 85% one repetition maximum (1RM).

Subjects were randomized either to carry out sets to failure using a 2-second concentric and 2-second eccentric action or to stop approximately 2 reps short of failure while employing either rapid shortening (explosive concentric and 2-second eccentric action) or stretch-shortening (explosive movement on both concentric and eccentric components).

After 12 weeks, the average gain in biceps muscle cross- sectional area was ~11% for all subjects combined, with no significant differences noted between groups.

A key point to keep in mind here is that subjects trained with heavy loads equating to a 6RM.

It therefore can be hypothesized that training to failure becomes less important when using heavy weights, which is consistent with the previously mentioned research on muscle activation.

The study did have a potential confounding issue: the non-failure groups actually performed a single set to failure at the end of each week to determine the load for the subsequent week of training.

Whether this had a significant effect on the results is not clear.

Training to Muscle failure study 4)

Martorelli et al. randomly assigned 89 active women to one of three groups:

  • (1) a group that performed three sets of repetitions to failure at 70% 1RM;
  • (2) a group that performed four sets of seven repetitions not to failure, but with volume equalized to the failure condition, and;
  • (3) a group that performed three sets of seven repetitions not to failure. Training consisted of free-weight biceps curls performed two days per week for ten weeks.

The authors observed significant main effects for time and for the interaction between the groups.

However, the authors did not perform further post-hoc analyses to determine where the differences between the groups occurred.

The relative changes substantially favored the group training to muscle failure (17.5% versus 8.5% in the group not training to failure, with equal volume).

The magnitude of differences between groups raises the possibility of a type II error, whereby statistically significant differences went undetected.

The group that performed repetitions not-to-failure without matching volume to the two other groups did not significantly increase muscle thickness.

Even if there indeed was an advantage favoring the group that trained to failure in the Martorelli et al. study, it should be noted that the included participants were young women and therefore, the results cannot be generalized to older adults.

Older adults might experience slower post-exercise recovery, training to failure and may warrant a different approach to their program design.

Training to Muscle failure study 5)

da Silva et al. essentially used the same study design as Martorelli and colleagues while including older men (66 ± 5 years) as participants.

In this study, the group training to failure and the group that did not train to failure with equalized volume experienced similar increases in quadriceps muscle thickness; no significant pre-to-post changes occurred in the group that did not train to failure and that performed less volume than the two other training groups.

These results may indicate that age (and the age-related recovery from exercise) is an important factor to consider when prescribing resistance exercise performed to muscle failure.

Furthermore, the study by da Silva et al. indicates that training to muscle failure may not be needed for increases in muscle size in older adults.

Finally, the totality of findings also suggest that volume load may be an important variable when considering the relevance of training to failure.

Training to Muscle Failure Study 6)

Most recently, Nobrega et al. allocated 32 untrained men to perform 3 sets of leg extension exercise at either a high load (80% 1RM) or low load (30% 1RM), twice per week.

The study employed a within-subject design whereby each lower limb was randomized to  execute these conditions either to failure or terminated at the point at which participants voluntarily interrupted training.

After 12 weeks, increases in muscle cross-sectional area were statistically similar between conditions.

It should be noted that the differences in volume load between failure and non-failure training were rather slight in both the high-load conditions (training to failure: 26,694 kg; training not to failure: 26,042 kg) and in the low-load conditions (training to failure: 21,114 kg; training not to failure: 20,643 kg), suggesting that the non-failure condition performed sets at close to full fatigue (likely only one to two repetitions shy of failure).

These results, therefore, may indicate that training close to muscle failure may be similarly effective for increasing muscle size as training that includes reaching actual muscle failure.

Practical strength training Implications

A primary issue when attempting to draw evidence-based conclusions on the topic is qualifying the alternative endpoint to failure.

Specifically, if failure is not the chosen option, then at what point should a set be terminated?

One option may be to use the “repetitions in reserve” (RIR) scale proposed by Zourdos et al. , whereby a RIR of 0 equates to training to failure, a RIR of 1 equates to stopping one repetition short of failure, a RIR of 2 equates to stopping two repetitions short of failure, etc.

However, as indicated by Hackett et al. individuals may underestimate the number of repetitions to failure during the earlier sets and the accuracy of prediction may increase with subsequent sets.

Other researchers also show that resistance training experience may increase the ability to accurately predict repetitions to failure and therefore, when using this scale, a period of familiarization should be incorporated in the study design in order to keep the comparison between the groups valid.

Does Training to muscle failure cause mental burnout?

true will aesthetics

A potential issue with continuous training to failure is that it may increase the potential for overtraining and psychological burnout.

This hypothesis was supported by a study from Izquierdo et al. , who randomized members of the Spanish Basque ball team to perform 3 sets of 8 resistance exercises targeting the body’s major muscle groups either to failure or non- failure using 70-80% of 1RM.

Training was carried out twice a week for 16 weeks.

Results showed that training to failure blunted resting levels of anabolic hormones (IGF-1 and testosterone); an outcome indicative of non-functional overreaching.

Thus, if failure training is employed in a program, it seems prudent to do so judiciously.

There is no research on the topic, but one strategy would be to limit its use to the last set of an exercise.

For example, if muscle failure is incorporated in the first set of a given exercise, it is likely that the performance (concerning the total number repetitions) would be hindered on subsequent sets.

By limiting the use of a muscle failure only on the last set of a given exercise we may ensure that sufficient volume is achieved, although the effects of failure training on volume remain somewhat equivocal.

As with all resistance training variables, failure training could also be periodized so that it is used more extensively in a short training block (i.e. the peaking phase of a mass- building program) and less so during other training cycles.

Based on the limited available evidence, it would appear that stopping a couple repetitions short of failure when training with moderately heavy loads (6-12 RM) does not seem to compromise hypertrophy, at least when training volume is equated.

Velocity loss while training to failure?

Velocity loss also requires attention in this context.

Your velocity is at which rate you carry the load while training, It’s about measuring effort with the metric of speed, or velocity.

In one study, Pareja-Blanco et al randomized resistance- trained men to one of two protocols that differed only in the amount of repetition velocity loss allowed in each set: 20% vs. 40% of velocity loss.

The 40% velocity loss group trained in close proximity to muscle failure while the 20% velocity loss group performed approximately half of the maximum number of repetitions.

After the 8-week training intervention, greater hypertrophy in the vastus lateralis and intermedius was observed in the 40% velocity loss group.

These findings suggest that training to failure (or very close to it) might be indeed of importance for maximizing increases in muscle size.

One limitation here is that the groups were not matched for total volume in terms of the total number of performed repetitions as the 40% velocity loss group also performed more total repetitions.

This may be relevant given the linear dose-response relationship between volume and muscle hypertrophy.

It would be interesting for future studies to use a similar protocol while adding more sets to the small velocity loss group in order to equate the volume load comparison.

Do advance lifters need to train to failure?

true will aesthetics

An important limitation with the current body of literature is that the majority of studies to date have been carried out in untrained subjects.

A case can be made that as a lifter gains more training experience, there is an increasing need to challenge the neuromuscular system with higher levels of effort.

Support for this hypothesis can be inferred in the results of the study by Pareja-Blanco and colleagues, but additional research is needed to draw stronger conclusions.

Closing Thoughts

true will aesthetics failure training
Ultimately, training to failure also needs to be considered in the context of the whole resistance training program.

One variable that is likely important to take into account here is training frequency.

In a recent study, training to failure in each set using a 3 x 10 repetitions protocol (compared to training without reaching failure using a 6 x 5 repetitions protocol) slowed down the recovery up to 24-48 h post-exercise.

This attenuated post- exercise recovery will not likely be of practical importance if the training program is performed with a low weekly training frequency per muscle group (e.g., training each muscle group once per week).

However, when training with a higher training frequency (e.g., training a muscle group +4 times week), training to failure should likely be used sparingly to allow a better neuromuscular condition before the subsequent training session.

Slower rates of recovery may be more pronounced when exercising with a higher number of repetitions, which is another component that needs to be taken into account in program design.

It also is important to consider the specific exercises performed.

Multi-joint movements, particularly those performed using free weights and of a structural nature, are substantially more taxing on the neuromuscular system than single-joint exercises.

It therefore seems pragmatic to limit the use of training to failure in exercises such as squats, deadlifts, presses, and rows.

Alternatively, failure can be employed more liberally when performing single-joint exercises as they are much less physically and mentally demanding.

In other words a well designed program should have major compound lifts hitting a sweet spot for muscle development of 6-12.

While at the same time have single joint movement exercises sprinkled throughout the workout.

You would stop shy one or two reps of failure for your major compound lifts while working to or close to failure for your single joint exercises.

Your Program should utilize failure training and stopping just shy of failure, while simultaneously incorporating progressive overload for maximum muscle development.

Example Workout, training to failure Intelligently

Designed around Reverse Pyramid Training.

Incline Bench Press- RPT 6-8, 8-10, 10-12 (Stopping just shy of failure for each set)

Standing Military Press- RPT 6-8, 8-10, 10-12 (Stopping just shy of failure for each set)

Cable Chest Flys- straight sets 8-12, 8-12, 8-12, 8-12 ( working to or close to failure for each set)

Lateral Side Raises-straight sets 8-12, 8-12, 8-12, 8-12 ( working to or close to failure for each set)

Weighted Dips- RPT 6-8, 8-10, 10-12 (Stopping just shy of failure for each set)

Single dumbbell triceps extensions-straight sets 8-12, 8-12, 8-12, 8-12 ( working to or close to failure for each set)

Intelligently designed programs

If your want a full program, intelligently designed for failure while utilizing KEY compound lifts for strength and MAX muscle development: Check out True Will Aesthetics Premium Programs.

Join Our Team, Additional Fitness Tips Via Email

Michael Worley

HI, My name is Michael Worley creator of True Will Aesthetics. My Website is deigned to help men and women around the world build their dream body.A system built specifically for the anatomy of the body and laws of attraction.A shape universally respected and admired throughout the centuries.The Lean, fit, and defined body, The Ideal Physique.
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.