|
|
Post by John A. Casler on May 31, 2008 14:20:55 GMT -8
Why the fatigue to Failure Model?
While I support High Intensity Training, I was wandering why many thought that training to failure in a single set was superior to training to a slightly lower intensity standard.
While it is relevant that I'm sure many will point to "the grandfathered" ideas of the Classical HIT concept, I might be more interested in if you really know why failure (concentric) is relevant.
To add to that, I would also be interested in why many have stated that it makes no difference how you get to that "last rep" (failure) as long as you get there, the results are all the same.
The reason I ask this, is because it has been suggested that "current" HIT suggests that one might use 8-12 reps in a set. It is also suggested that the first "few" (1? 2? 3? 4?) be performed in a rather slow fashion (2Con and 4Ecc) and then the remaining reps be attacked with "maximum effort", (while still maintaining the 2Con and 4Ecc speed) till failure.
While I am all for applying maximum intensity (Arthur Jones - "Intensity" is best defined as "percentage of momentary ability.") it seems that under examination this practice demonstrates only "high intensity" during a small portion of reps. Now that is not a "primary concern" but it is a party to the ultimate accumulative stimulus of the set. It may taint the description of being High Intensity to more accurately escalating intensity, but again that is not the answer I am looking for.
If we take a set of reps and suggest that each rep in an opportunity to inflict stimulus, then we can evaluate each rep and its contribution to the overall stimulus and how, or "IF" it contributes to the conditions required for "overload".
I think we can all agree that once we have milked the inital gains from our beginners gains, that "overload" is required to stimulate further gain. It is a matter of Corresponding Compensation.
It cannot be denied that the initial reps are "Intentionally" lower effort, and cannot be claimed as rising to the level of a high % of momentary ability ability. It is then suggested that the reps after that are in some way modified to transform into HIGH INTENSITY efforts while maintaining the exact same rep speed (sometimes referred to as cadence).
While to be certain, the inital reps will create metabolic and motor response at a low level, and fatigue will begin to cause a cost to the ability of the muscle, and at some point suppress strength, which will cause weakness and require a higher % of ones current strength to be required to complete the reps, and ultimately cause a cessation in ability.
This lead me to suggest that this model of a set is fatigue based failure. Many like to use the term "inroad".
I am not criticizing this model, but only analyzing it to the mechanism and metabolic engine that drives it, as well as the resulting stimulus package.
Let me contrast this model with one that is slightly different.
First assume that even a beginner knows that the first reps are FAR easier, when the muscle is fresh and it is no problem to lift and lower the load.
If we consider that it is during THIS stage, that we can actually create the largest forces and apply our physiology to cause larger tensions and all the elements of stimulus, would it not seem to logical that using these "Rep Opportunities" for greater stimulus would be far superior to wasting them in an under-effort and using them to create fatigue?
And if we examine the final reps, it is perfectly clear, that they are clearly the "least" capable of supplying tension stimulus. Now I am not neglecting recruitment retirement strategies, nor the fact that Motor Impulse Strength will likely be higher during these latter reps, as the CNS attempts to recruit a fatiguing muscle(s) but that does not change on any set taken to failure.
I simply suggest that we are "wasting" (or not taking advantage of) significant opportunities to create far greater stimulus and overload opportunities in these early underloaded/undereffort reps.
I might add that while I haven't offered a direct explanation in the ROGUE HIT program about this, it is one of the underlying principles and elements of ROGUE HIT, to tend to take those early opportunities, and harvest them to the stimulus package.
Comments?
|
|
|
|
Post by John A. Casler on May 31, 2008 14:26:00 GMT -8
As an addendum, if one agrees that the stimulus potential of the intial reps in the areas of recruitment and muscle tensions is greater, would it also not offer significant consideration to perform additional sets of the same exercise focused to provide additional opportunities in that more "fertile" group of reps?
Comments?
|
|
|
|
Post by carruthersjam on Jun 2, 2008 6:49:39 GMT -8
As an addendum, if one agrees that the stimulus potential of the intial reps in the areas of recruitment and muscle tensions is greater, would it also not offer significant consideration to perform additional sets of the same exercise focused to provide additional opportunities in that more "fertile" group of reps? Comments? Louie Simmons / Westside Barbell have produced some extremely strong lifters using a method known as the dynamic method (usually with bands) - use of submaximal loads at maximum velocity / force. The popular strategy is to do 8 sets of 3 reps of a particular exercise with the bands. The submaximal loads enable one to train with maximal peak power / RFD. Fast contractions require high rates of motor unit firing rate. Some coaches optimise the most "fertile" reps by using training systems where training volume is dictated by performance e.g., when your performance decrease by X% on a lift you should move on to the next. From what I understand this is the rational behind the www.asrspeed.com system developed by scientists at Rice University. Taken from their website: Runners receive their workout instruction in this simple format: 45 meters < 5.20 seconds. What this means is the runner should run as many repeats of the distance (45 meters) under the time (5.20 seconds) allowed. In the book Explosive Power and Jumping Ability the authors discuss a similar method when weight training. |
|
|
|
Post by John A. Casler on Jun 3, 2008 13:57:42 GMT -8
As an addendum, if one agrees that the stimulus potential of the intial reps in the areas of recruitment and muscle tensions is greater, would it also not offer significant consideration to perform additional sets of the same exercise focused to provide additional opportunities in that more "fertile" group of reps? Comments? Louie Simmons / Westside Barbell have produced some extremely strong lifters using a method known as the dynamic method (usually with bands) - use of submaximal loads at maximum velocity / force. The popular strategy is to do 8 sets of 3 reps of a particular exercise with the bands. The submaximal loads enable one to train with maximal peak power / RFD. Fast contractions require high rates of motor unit firing rate. Some coaches optimise the most "fertile" reps by using training systems where training volume is dictated by performance e.g., when your performance decrease by X% on a lift you should move on to the next. From what I understand this is the rational behind the www.asrspeed.com system developed by scientists at Rice University. Taken from their website: Runners receive their workout instruction in this simple format: 45 meters < 5.20 seconds. What this means is the runner should run as many repeats of the distance (45 meters) under the time (5.20 seconds) allowed. In the book Explosive Power and Jumping Ability the authors discuss a similar method when weight training. Hi Jamie, Yes, I think there may be two main models of Strength Training: 1) Fatigue Based, where you perform "underloaded/lower effort" reps until fatigue causes the termination of the set 2) High Effort Reps that are "Tension Targeted", which means the target goal is to create large tension forces " BEFORE" fatigue limits the ability to do so. More recently I was critical of a couple T-Nation writers for suggesting that you should "cease" your rep efforts, when rep speed slowed due to fatigue. I think I see what they were suggesting in that model. While it doesn't change the Rogue HIT Model, I can certainly see experimenting in those areas, and why to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by carruthersjam on Jun 4, 2008 11:11:14 GMT -8
Tony Shield wrote the below on the Supertraining list sometime ago:
This concept is not new (Ingwall, 1976; Rogozkin, 1976). There
are also a number of
empirical reasons to believe that the metabolic consequences of resistance
training (and other forms of exercise)
may stimulate hypertrophy. For example, the training practices of many
bodybuilders (moderate resistances,
medium to high reps/set, continuous tension and short inter-set rest periods)
appear geared to maximising
metabolic stress rather than muscular tension. Furthermore, I was surprised by
the reticence of many list
members to accept the idea that metabolic stress had a role in mediating muscle
hypertrophy. Thus, despite
coming in late on this discussion I wanted to add my 2 cents worth.
Exercise scientists have been interested, for some years now, in understanding
the mechanisms by which
resistance training stimulates hypertrophy (eg Jones and Rutherford, 1987;
Takarada et al., 2000a;
Takarada et al., 2000b; Takarada et al., 2000c) and strength gains (eg
Carey-Smith and Rutherford, 1995;
Rooney et al, 1994; Schott et al., 1995; Shinohara et al., 1998). Particular
attention has been given to the
question of whether tension and metabolic stress might both act to stimulate
muscle growth, either in synergy
or via parallel mechanisms.
No one is suggesting that tension is not an important stimulus. We know that
tension, in the form of chronic
stretch, can stimulate muscle growth in the absence of metabolic stress (Antonio
and Gonyea, 1993). However,
there are a number of reasons to believe that metabolic stress acts as an
additional stimulus, particularly when
resistance training takes the form of medium to high reps with short rest
periods between sets.
Recently those interested in the training of the elderly and frail have taken up
this work because if metabolic
stress is a stimulus it should be possible to stimulate some hypertrophy in
populations that might otherwise
not be able to engage in conventional resistance training because of the heavy
loads involved. (This is hardly a
'trivial' issue if you have osteoporosis or joint degeneration)
The hypothesis that is actually being tested in these studies (Jones and
Rutherford, 1987; Takarada et al., 2000a;
Takarada et al., 2000b) is that the metabolic stress induced by resistance
training is a stimulus for hypertrophy.
Metabolic stress takes the form of substrate depletion (eg. creatine phosphate
breakdown) and the consequent build
up of metabolites such as creatine, Pi, ADP, AMP, H+, lactate or something else!
The exact stimulant is not
identified any more clearly than this and it is probably naive to consider
whether any one of these products acts
alone as a stimulus. (Lactic acid gets blamed for almost everything in exercise
science despite a distinct lack of
evidence). Clearly, there is a lot more going on at the cellular level than
acidosis! For example, it has been
hypothesised that the occlusion of blood flow in a contracting muscle and the
resulting hypoxia stimulates free
radical production (Takarada et al., 2000b). In addition to causing tissue
damage, there are good reasons to believe
that free radicals may have a role in the regulation of muscle growth (see
Takarada et al., 2000b for the references).
The most convincing evidence that metabolic stress acts as a powerful stimulant
for hypertrophy comes from Takarada
et al., (2000b) (as pointed out previously by Gus Karageorgos). In this study a
fairly conventional moderate-resistance
training program (employing ~80% 1 RM) for the elbow flexors was compared to a
light-resistance program
(employing ~50% 1 RM) with partial vascular occlusion, a light-resistance
program (employing ~50% 1 RM)
without vascular occlusion and no training (control group). The vascular
occlusion (applied via a blood pressure cuff)
ensured that metabolites produced during exercise were not removed from the
muscle, thus maximising metabolic stress.
After 16 weeks training the changes in muscle CSA for biceps brachii and
brachialis were significantly greater for the
80% 1 RM group and 50%-with-occlusion group than the 50% without occlusion
group. No significant differences were
found between the 80% 1 RM group and 50%-with-occlusion group but the trend was
for the 50% with-occlusion group
to exhibit greater hypertrophy, particularly in the brachialis. Interestingly,
the triceps of the occlusion group increased
in size by approximately 13-14% without being trained.
The major limitation of the study is that vascular occlusion may have had its
anabolic effects directly via increasing the
metabolite load or indirectly by raising the level of recruitment necessary to
lift the light loads. However, the former
possibility remains plausible when one considers other findings (Takarada et
al., 2000a and 2000c). Firstly, growth
hormone (GH) release has been observed to increase 290 fold over rest levels
when extremely light (~20% 1 RM)
resistance training is combined with vascular occlusion. Exercise alone resulted
in negligible changes in GH (Takarada
et al., 2000a). Secondly, a study of young subjects demonstrated that the disuse
atrophy caused by bed rest was prevented
by occasional vascular occlusion in the absence of exercise (Takarada et al.,
2000c). Presumably both effects were
mediated by GH's action on IGF-1 which has potent anabolic and anti-catabolic
effects.
It might also pay to consider some observations regarding creatine that could
arguably unify the creatine's ergogenic
effects with the metabolic stress hypothesis. Firstly, creatine induces
significant hypertrophy in unexercised embryonic
chick muscle (Ingwall, 1976). Secondly, creatine appears to stimulate protein
synthesis by increasing MRF4 and myogenin
expression in adult humans undergoing resistance training (Hespel et al., 2001).
Finally creatine is a metabolite produced
during high intensity exercise such as resistance training. One might therefore
hypothesise that creatine accumulation acts
to stimulate hypertrophy after resistance training and that supplementary
creatine magnifies this effect.
Regarding some of the valid critiques offered by list members.
1.. It is true that most of the work so far has been carried out on the
relatively untrained elderly. Work is clearly needed
on younger and more highly trained groups. However, in the aforementioned study
the effect of light resistance training
without occlusion was almost zero so it can not be said that the 50% load was
sufficient in the absence of vascular occlusion.
2.. Powerlifters and weightlifters may trigger hypertrophy almost solely via
tension mediated mechanisms while programs
employed by bodybuilders may trigger hypertrophy via a combination of tension
and metabolic stress mechanisms. The recent
research shows that those who employ lighter loads (<50% 1 RM) may still
stimulate muscle growth via maximising the
metabolic stress of the workout - even if the tension levels alone are
insufficient.
van Cutsem, M., Duchateau, J., and Hainaut, K., (1998). Changes in
single motor unit behaviour contribute to the increase in contraction
speed after dynamic training in humans. Journal of Physiology, 513
(1): 295-305.
This group showed that after repeated efforts to contract as fast as
possible subjects were able to generate higher firing rates during
ballistic contractions. Higher firing rates = greater rates of force
development (RFD)= more power. The capacity to raise firing rates to
higher levels probably represents one of, if not the most significant
adaptation for improving maximal rates of force development.
Whether you are performing the so-called olympic lifts or any other
contraction which demands high RFDs you are training the nervous
system.
|
|
|
|
Post by John A. Casler on Jun 4, 2008 15:23:34 GMT -8
Great stuff Jamie, and how interesting regarding the "occlusion" reference and result. I may need to re-write the MEGA ARMS system to include that as an option. I use very snug (compressive) elbow supports that no doubt provide an occlusive effect and had no way to determine that they might have been contributing to the results via "compressive occlusion". Check the "results video" and you will see that in the "pre-pumped" arm poses I already have the elbow supports on, but have removed them for the pumped video since I had completed the routine. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojxul2FOmME |
|
|
|
Post by John A. Casler on Jun 4, 2008 15:34:11 GMT -8
And as an additional thought regarding the ROGUE HIT use of HIGH(ER) FORCE efforts from the first rep;
It is thought that taking advantage of these "HIGH FORCE/HIGH EFFORT" opportunities, DOES NOT preclude the inclusion of the Fatigue Model.
That is why I disagreed with the T-Nation direction of cessation at the signs of fatigue.
In Rogue HIT, you take advantage of both "tension" and "fatigue" models in the same set. The metabolite production, particularly in the higher rep sets should be the equal if not better than that in any "fatigue based" model.
The "Rogue HIT tensions" rival all the tensions only models for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by carruthersjam on Jun 8, 2008 5:19:41 GMT -8
As an addendum, if one agrees that the stimulus potential of the intial reps in the areas of recruitment and muscle tensions is greater, would it also not offer significant consideration to perform additional sets of the same exercise focused to provide additional opportunities in that more "fertile" group of reps? Comments? Rather than performing additional sets of the same exercise one could possibly use the concept known as a cluster set interspersing a short rest interval in between successive repetitions in a set. Cluster sets offer a means to (Haff, 2007): – Introduce additional training variation into the training program – Combat fatigue induced alterations in lifting technique – Enhance velocity of movement with higher loads / tensions – May stimulate positive hormonal adaptations |
|
|
|
Post by John A. Casler on Jun 9, 2008 18:08:18 GMT -8
As an addendum, if one agrees that the stimulus potential of the intial reps in the areas of recruitment and muscle tensions is greater, would it also not offer significant consideration to perform additional sets of the same exercise focused to provide additional opportunities in that more "fertile" group of reps? Comments? Rather than performing additional sets of the same exercise one could possibly use the concept known as a cluster set interspersing a short rest interval in between successive repetitions in a set. Cluster sets offer a means to (Haff, 2007): – Introduce additional training variation into the training program – Combat fatigue induced alterations in lifting technique – Enhance velocity of movement with higher loads / tensions – May stimulate positive hormonal adaptations Interesting. While I feel that for my personal goals and physiology, I need both tension and fatigue based stimulus and thus the "high tension" of fast (high effort) reps, blended with the "fatigue" of higher reps. Additionally the mulitiple exposures to those high tensions prior to fatigue are hard to acheive with less "violent" load variations. Another favorite technique is to warm up well and "attack" from rep one, and RUSH the reps as quickly as possible to a goal, then transition to a strict of dead stop rep or reps. This is evident in the SQUAT videos, and I did it tonight in my DB pullovers. Using a 100# db perfromed 20 rather quick touch the floor reps, and then perfromed the last 5, with a complete stop at the floor. for a total of 25 reps. My all-time PR is 27 reps touch and go. Tonite is probably much more impressive, and I think I could have pushed it to 20 touch and go, and 10 Dead stop reps without too much difficulty. |
|
