Is Training To Failure Enough to Maximize Muscle Growth?

[@MicahSmart]

Comment for the algorithm bc this is one of the best strength training-related channels on yt when it comes to giving practical science-based takeaways!

[@homeboy11153]

This channel is back full force. I love it.

[@dariusdarden9670]

Great content

[@georgesarreas5509]

I actually love your content. Maximising hypertrophy is my main goal as i shifted away from powerlifting (looking better makes me more comfortable tbh)

[@brutusdrobny4633]

Congrats on the PhD and Keep the content coming. Especially interested in insights for strength gains. As a masters lifter, recovery seems to be my constraint, and a moving target!

[@justinsavs]

One way I would go about the Full Reps vs Partials debate would be just give the Partials their own exercise slot. Say Pec Deck, for One Exercise where we do x15@9, Then MyoReps 1-5x4, Then Pec Deck Partials After that Exercise for x15@9, Then MyoReps 1-5x4. Then attempt to Increase performance week to week On those two exercises in their own slot. Both ways, you train pretty close to failure, and you can have measurable ways to track each's performance. The measurable ways to track each's performance was always something that I hated about partials on movements where you don't know what exactly would be called a "partial"

[@10xmz6]

Thanks a Lot! :⁠-⁠) Does it also make sense to do long partials on chin ups, where there is nearly no challenge in the bottom position??

[@billyshavers7806]

Its been proven in multiple studies that you dont have to go to failure to build muscle

[@TypicallyUniqueOfficial]

He would know, he was apart of the latest meta analysis of said studies.

[@santicruz4012]

You dont have to, but going to failure from time to time its great

[@Strassenschlaeger]

Geoffrey Verity Schoefield does this for mist exercises and his results are quite compelling

[@FrogmortonHotchkiss]

So do I, but I don't have his genetics... I'm not saying this just to be a doomer. My point is that 'results' don't reflect much about such small nuances of technique & programming. I knew a gifted outlier at school, and his approach was uninformed and haphazard, while his results were incredible.

[@JohnProph]

This would be called "Platz failure"....thats when u cant move the weight at all

[@MrModguru]

To summarize. Everything is questionable and there are no definitive conclusions. This is the major gap in “science-based” training. This is also why people gravitate to guys with simplistic, yet effective, messages like Eric Bugenhagen.

[@datadrivenstrength]

We appreciate your thoughts! Honestly, I think this is biggest advantage of "science-based" (I'd probably use science informed personally) training. Over time, we figure out what things are worth the additional effort (and size of their effects) and what things aren't. This initial complexity is what for allows for the straight forward recommendations you speak of. That said, communicating the assumptions / uncertainty of a topic is always part of the game with this stuff to make sure someone doesn't overhaul their training overnight for something that has limited (but potentially promising) evidence behind it - can think of tons of supplement examples that fit the bill here. Ultimately, I agree that the simple recommendations are going to be the things that lifters are looking for, but a) communicating them with a bit more nuance keeps expectations realistic and b) I think the scientific process is the most effective means of deriving those recommendations in a way that isn't potentially biased by the countless things that cloud our judgment as humans (myself included). Will be sure to take your comments into account when constructing content going forward, we appreciate the feedback! If interested, we actually talk about this at length in our most recent podcast episode - kzbin.info/www/bejne/oJzYg2eMr6ucgas - Zac