Here’s an interesting follow-up to last weeks post on training to failure. So far we’ve covered sets to fail versus proximity from failure and what that means for fatigue. What we haven’t explored yet are the effects under different loads.
Vieira, et al (2019) (1.) found that lifting to failure vs almost failure is equally effective for increasing strength in trained subjects. But, training to failure accumulates more fatigue.
These findings have been consistent across previous research however, what we should add is that this effect is specific to the load and rep ranges used.
Sets to Fail With Light vs. Heavy Loads
For example, data from a 2011 study (2.) showed that when training with heavy loads to failure, fatigue is higher than when not training to failure.
However, it’s also higher when training with light-moderate loads (10-12RM) and leaving 2 reps in reserve.
In fact, training with heavier loads (5RM) to failure caused the same or less fatigue than training with light to moderate loads for higher rep ranges with reps to spare.
So the benefits of leaving 2 reps in the tank are void if using a 10-12RM load rather than a 5RM load.
For my beloved coaching clients reading, this is why:
- We never really take sets to fail on volume blocks.
- Strength loss is greater after each set and workout with higher reps.
- Although heavy, five repetitions and under feels like a dream, while ten reps or more leaves you questioning why you do it. Often for days after.
For everybody else, this is one reason why getting your programming handled by a professional who is up to speed with the research can save you years of frustration. This game is up to the neck in nuance.
- Resistance Training with Repetition to Failure or Not on Muscle Strength and Perceptual Responses. Vieira, et al. 2019
- Velocity loss as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Sanchez-Medina, L., & Gonzales-Badillo, J.J. 2011.