Aug 24, 2018Training to Failure
Training to failure is a common practice in the weightroom. Performing as many reps as possible might seem like an effective way to maximize strength gains, but recent research suggests that this type training might not be quite as effective as it seems.
Coaches often operate on the belief that when athletes push their bodies to the brink it will only make them stronger, as long as they rest and recover properly. But a 2018 study published in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance challenges this idea. An article on stack.com breaks down the study and what coaches need to know.
The study included fifteen well-trained male participants who were divided into two groups: a Repetition Maximum (RM) group and a Relative Intensity Using Sets and Repetitions (RISR) group. The RM group followed a program based on completing maximum repetitions and trained to failure with at least their last set of each exercise. They also consistently trained at 100 percent relative intensity. The RISR group, on the other hand, followed a program based on percentages and avoided training to failure. They trained at around 80 percent relative intensity on average throughout the study.
Both groups lifted weights three times per week for a total of 10 weeks, with loads tapering off during weeks nine and 10. They were tested on various exercises five times throughout the study. Tests in power included unweighted squat jumps, 20kg squat jumps, and countermovement jumps. Tests in strength and rate of force development included isometric mid-thigh pulls.
The results from these tests showed that weekly volume load (defined as the number of repetitions multiplied by the weight of the load) was similar between groups, but weekly strain (based on Rating of Perceived Exertion scores) was significantly greater for the RM group. While both groups performed similar amounts of work throughout the 10 weeks, the RM group, which usually trained to failure, experienced more strain. In addition, the RISR group performed better in all of the tests that were conducted.
“This study demonstrated that RISR training yielded greater improvements in vertical jump, rate of force development and maximal strength compared to RM training, which may partly be explained by differences in the imposed training stress and the use of failure/non-failure training in a well-trained population,” concluded the researchers.
Other studies have made similar conclusions about extensively training to failure. This supports the idea of stopping with “reps in reserve,” meaning that an athlete feels they could perform a few more reps at the conclusion of a set but stop anyways. That may seem like a missed opportunity to get even stronger, but for power and speed development, stopping sets further from failure allows athletes to consistently train at a higher velocity. If athletes adopt this training method, they will put less strain on their bodies and still make just as many strength gains. Training to failure can still be done occasionally, but it doesn’t seem to offer any benefit if done consistently.
