Training to Failure Is a MUST for Hypertrophy (Or Is It?)

[@jetnowh1te]

I love these videos, they are trurly very informative. You obviously put a lot of effort in them, collecting several different studies, comparing them and applying your own rational logic on them. Would love to see a video on how different training styles could have different hormonal responses and their effects on hyperthrophy. Keep it up!

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

I definitely plan on making a few videos around training and hormonal responses :)

[@robertspence7766]

Another great video with a roll up of studies and simplified graphics that are far more effective to consumers of this information than overly fancy, distracting, and complex graphics. As a teacher I notice that you are nailing what is most effective. Also glad to see your channel subscriptions are growing. Good job.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Hey dude, your kind words and support truly mean a lot to me, thank you so much!

[@toni-kristianpuska9100]

Definitely the Best youtube channel for trainer. ❤️

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thanks dude, awesome to hear. I appreciate you!

[@gonzayare]

This content is pure gold, this kind of studies are the holly Grail in the subject of muscle hypertrophy but people still go for influencers and opinions from their charismatic weight lifter. Thanks for summarizing all this valuable information for us.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

I appreciate that so much, thank YOU for the kind words!

[@Gengh13]

Thanks for the video, I wasn't aware of the muscle fibers recruitment pattern. It definitely seems to offer a good possible explanation of why it is not needed nor optimal to train to failure for maximum hypertrophy.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

No problem, and yep, I think that probably explains the findings of these studies :)

[@nickbyrne7738]

As a upcoming PT... thank you so much for all this information - absolute gold!! I wish more people knew about this instead of all the crazy half truths on other channels!

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

No problem! thank you for the kind words and support :)

[@joaofd2043]

Clicked on this video.. never knowing it would be this good!!!! Amazing work!!!

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you for the kind words! :)

[@ogdreamgirl]

I am so grateful for this channel , my absolute favorite

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you, that's awesome to hear!

[@ogdreamgirl]

@@HouseofHypertrophy do you have an Instagram ! I’d love to follow on multiple platforms

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Yep: instagram.com/houseofhypertrophy/

[@vvlaunay]

They are doing 12+ sets per muscle group per week in those studies. So even if you stop short of failure you have plenty of high intensity repetitions. If they were doing only 1-5 sets per week then training short to failure would probably be less effective. If there are 3 effective reps in a set to failure and you are doing 12 sets per week, that’s 36 effective reps. If you stop each set 1-2 reps short of failure that’s still 12-24 effective reps. Probably that over 15-20 effective reps per muscle group per week are too much. It would be very interesting to see a study with low volume and non failure training…

[@iiJDSii]

Great vids, love the straightforward presentation. I think the studies on untrained individuals (first 3) really need to be taken with a grain of salt, as pretty much any stimulus will create reasonable hypertrophy for the first few months (and none of the studies lasted over 3-4 months). In the 4th study with experienced lifters, I worry the failure group was doing way too many sets, and therefore couldn't possibly be hitting total muscle failure the way a "one set is all you need" type advocate would do. So to me this looks like it's is studying something completely different - given that you're doing tons (10+) sets of something per week, should you try to failure or 1-3 reps in reserve? Because the volume is so high, I reckon both sides end up averaging out the same intensity on all the sets.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Yeah, there certainly are limitations with studies. But I think the data + mechanstic reasoning is sufficient to believe failure may not be essential. With the 4th study, the rep numbers provided in the study lead me to believe they were almost certainly getting to failure.

[@cv0669]

great video - good explanation of mechanical tension and motor unit reruitment which is the reason I have been going to failure following Chris Beardsley's research and what Paul Carter says

[@cv0669]

Would love to see a study that was not isometric

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Hey, thank you! I'm not too sure I agree with Chis Beardsley's thinking of mechanical tension. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he generally states that mechanical tension is maximized with full muscle fiber recruitment and slow muscle fiber contracting speeds (because the force-velocity relationship indicates muscle fibers produce most force when they are shortening slowly). He states this would occur as you get closer and closer to failure (more muscle fibers are recruited and the rep speeds slow down, meaning muscle fiber shortening speed slows down). However, I think this is probably inaccurate. The force velocity relationship (muscle fibers produce the most force when shortening slowly) probably only applies to unfatigued muscle fibers. For example, compare lifting one rep as fast as possible with 30% one-rep max load to a 90% one-rep max load. In this example, the force velocity relationship does likely apply. That is, your muscle fibers would contract slower against a 90% one-rep max load (despite maximal effort) and consequently produce more force compared to the maximum speed rep witha 30% one-rep max load. However, when considering fatigue across a set, this logic probably fails to apply. For instance, taking a 30% one-rep max load to failure, with intended maximal repetition speeds, will ultimately slow repetition speeds down (and thus muscle fiber shortening speeds). But, it's quite likely your muscles fibers do not linearly increase their force production as they slow down in shortening speed. Rather, some of your muscle fibers will actually gradually produce less and less force. The Povtin and Fuglevand motor unit model demonstrates this, the muscle fibers assocated with motor units 80, 100, and 120 experienced fatigue (a drop off in force) before the point of failure, meaning that despite the slower muscle fiber shortening speeds that would occur when approaching failure, the muscle fibers of these motor units would not be producing more force (as Chirs thinks due to the force-velocity relationship), rather they would just be fatiguing. I have to credit Greg Nuckols of Stronger by Science who composed an excellent article on this: www.strongerbyscience.com/effective-reps/ Hope this makes sense!

[@cv0669]

@@HouseofHypertrophy Fantastic explanation makes a lot of sense. Currently I'm training to failure with lower volumes than I have previously done and seeing good progress but I have changed other variables as well...may have to change this in the future

[@jaimemendez2150]

Great content 👍. Do you think this training approach applies to isometric exercises (exercise to failure or few secs to failure)?

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

I think it probably will

[@adamoto1927]

Nice vid man, I'd like to ask if you have any information comparing using longer rest periods or even spacing out training throughout the day to accumulate more volume Vs less volume but pushed close to failure like say with a few drop sets for better hypertrophy. I've been curious to know if doing a higher number of push ups throughout the day would be better for muscle growth compared to doing a number of sets close to failure in a short amount of time, what would be enough to recruit the high threshold motor units? (with push ups) Thanks

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Getting within 3-0 RIR is probably needed to optimally stimulate those higher threshold motor units. If, throughout the daty, you perform sets of an exercise, but they are farther than 3RIR, I think it's quite likely it would be suboptimal to less volume performed closer to failure. I hope this answers your question, let me know if I missed anything!

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

What's up all, hope the video was helpful or informative in some way. I hate to be one of those KZbinrs, but liking the video, dropping a comment, or sharing can significantly help out the channel. I appreciate you all! 00:00 Intro 0:31 Failure vs Stopping Short of Failure 5:17 Wait, What About Research in Trained Individuals? 7:47 Mechanical Tension & Motor Units (Probably) Explains These Research Findings 13:54 Closing Thoughts

[@rickyfitness252]

Drop

[@robertobonilla_clinicamedex]

Fantastic Video. COngrats

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you :)

[@lessismorefitness6789]

Thanks for the video, look forward to the next two to come. With regards to the study that had subjects train with a 30% 1RM load to failure, how many reps constituted failure?

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

They did not provide the precise repetition numbers unfortunately

[@danielwehbe6684]

Do you or will you start doing videos about nutrition? I’m obsessed w this channel thanks for the content

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you dude I appreciate your support. I don't have any plans currently to make nutrtion videos, haha. It's not something that interests me that much

[@danielwehbe6684]

@@HouseofHypertrophy fair enough. I see lots of potential using the same type of logic for diet optimization so everyone can get more utility out of the channel. Maybe something to consider for future growth. Keep up the great work👌🏼

[@Eternalvision34]

Do one on isometric vs isotonic for hypertrophy

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Yep, I plan to make a video on that at some point :)

[@bryantbaus1769]

Thanks for another great video

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

No problem, thank you for the kind words.

[@zicko2699]

Keep it up mate ✌🏻

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you, I'll do my best :)

[@teegees]

This is what I was looking for, thank you 🙏 What does the body of research out there say about training to failure or almost failure, using high load (70%+ 1RM), vs medium load (40-60% 1RM), vs low load (10-30% 1RM)? Which results in more Hypertrophy?

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Generally, loads between 30 and 80% one-rep max are similar for muscle growth provided those reps are performd to or close to failure. Loads below 30% might not be optimal: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5SyZ2uDh8h9mrM + loads above 80% one-rep max might not be efficient for gains: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZTPdKKdqMikl68

[@wagggy]

Excellent video. What does this mean for rest pause sets, are they pointless? And therefore counter productive, due to unnecessary extra fatigue before the next proper sets? I've been taking each set to failure, followed by a rest pause set to failure, which now looks to have been unnecessary.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Unfortunately, there really isn't a solid research on rest-pause training, so it's difficult to say. There are only two studies exploring them, but there are both somewhat limited (I detailed them in a "does the 3/7 method build more muscle" video on this channel. From a stricly tension perspective, rest-pause training probably offers no benefit, rather just additional fatigue. As mentioned, tension is the best categorized stimulus for growth, the role of fatigue really isn't clear (to my knowledge, no study indicates more fatigue is better). Based on this, I can't really think of any reason as to why rest pause training would be truly superior. However, aside from tension, there presumably are other ways in which a muscle can grow (I believe the literature hasn't truly identified them yet, metabolic stress and muscle damage have been put forth as canditates, but there are reasons to believe both of these may be minimally involved in hypertrophy, but in my opinon, more research is still needed). Neverthless, if rest pause training elicts higher levels of some currently unknown muscle building stimulus, maybe this is a route which is builds more muscle. Ultimately, I think we can't be certain rest pause training builds more muscle or not, I think a lot more research and mechanistic research would be needed :) (sorry for the long winded reply, haha)

[@wagggy]

​@@HouseofHypertrophyThanks for the detailed reply. I'll drop the rest-pause sets from now on.

[@G.Bfit.93]

Trying to figure out how far away you are from failure is pointless and counterproductive because you're trying to figure out how to be lazy and not put enough work just train to failure

[@jamesfountain8616]

I take all the guesswork out by training till the muscle just stops! I personally find it satisfying to leave knowing I've done my best!

[@DanRichter]

Makes sense to use low rep, high intensity training when you look at it this way. You should be able to do about 4 reps with 90% of your 1RM. If you only do 2 reps, that's 50% of what you're capable of, yet you're 2 reps from failure, the so called hypertrophy sweet spot, at half effort. At 60% 1RM, you'd have to do about 18 reps to get 2 reps from failure, or 90% of what you're capable of. That sounds exhausting.

[@israel984]

Most people’s failure is 2 reps away anyways. I can always squeeze 4 reps once I think I failed. I also workout 9 times a week😅

[@thunderkat5282]

It is a must. But there’s a way to work around PNS fatigue.

[@edwhite2255]

A few great body builders have trained mostly 1set to failure including Mike Mentzer, Dorian Yates,

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Yep!

[@noahm5953]

Now knowing that as you get closer to failure, central fatigue exponentially rises. If I were to train to failure to more accurately measure progress and then progressively overload. Would this be considerably worse than train shy of failure and progressively overloading in a slower fashion?

[@ayor3829]

My personal experience When I try 3 reps shy of failure I progressed way alot faster I hope it helps

[@hashemamin2970]

I feel like you should just train with high intensity and hit the recommended time under tension. If you do that, you probably are working close enough to failure as you should be.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

I see what you're saying. Although, I'm not too sure there's really a solid time under tension recommendation, if such a thing would exist, it would probably be quite wide, as a wide range of time under tensions can build muscle similarly. For example, reps as low as 5 (and in one study as low as 3) can likely build muscle equivalently to reps as high as 35 (and potentialy even slightly higher). The time under tension achieved with these different rep ranges would be very different. Furthermore, using slower repetition speeds (which typically prolong time under tension) does not appear to be more effective than faster repetition speeds for hypertrophy (which typically results in less time under tension). Feel free to check out the time under tension video on this channel where I detailed the research on this topic :)

[@hashemamin2970]

@@HouseofHypertrophy That's the problem with the gym. So many different methods work, so I think everyone should just stick to what brings them results.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

100% agree :)

[@sword-and-shield]

Absolutely Not Needed. In fact, it has probably wrecked more lifters than it has done good. What is needed is progression, and there are many ways to achieve it without grinding up reps or pushing up against the wall. It's viability may be important for peaking certain sport specific qualities, but surely not muscle building. Now, that is not saying it can't be used, or that it does not work, the statement is that it is NOT needed.

[@lukeskovira1559]

Out of curiosity, could training 2 to 3 reps before failure allows you to train that muscle group more often? Allowing you to grow “quicker”

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Leaving 2-3 reps in reserve likely is easier on recovery. But the "repeated bout effect" also exists, whereby you body quickens your recovery regardless of what you do. So in the long-term, individuals can probably recover well from training to failure itself (provided they don't overdo it, but it's also possible to overdo it with leaving 2-3 reps in reserve as well). All in all though, it would be great to see long-term research comparing different volumes of training while also comparing different proximites to failure in them. This would answer your question :)

[@sword-and-shield]

Absolutely. It could? depends on other factors. Intensity Volume Frequency Recovery will always need to be manipulated by you tailored "personally" to keep progression consistent. Learn to adjust those parameters to keep progression moving forward. There are many ways to blend them, and whats best now will change as you progress.

[@OtzuZarkie]

@@sword-and-shield Exactly, there isn't a single way out for everyone. Outside from training, factors such as the physical demand of a job, will need you to tweak your workout setting accodringly.(from personal experience, don't take this as a fact)

[@sword-and-shield]

@@OtzuZarkie Oh its a fact brother, especially if workout consistency is valued, and it better be. I would even go as far as saying a sub optimal split does less to hinder progress than improper consistency because of some "so called" optimal split.

[@luis112]

🐐🐐👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you :)

[@balazsdobronte6468]

The group who trained to faliure was stronger right?

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

No, the overall research shows training to failure is not more effective for strength gains versus stopping a couple of reps from failure pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33497853/

[@rafael_ellanios2708]

I find something new about hypertrophy it's not study is from my experience 14 years.. I found close connecting movements like ( dumbell press. Dips push ups squats...) is better for Muscle mass than open connecting moments like bench press military press... I can explain why but it's not about the weight I always like to train with 15-25-30 reps

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Interesting, personal experience is definitely useful, and if you find this to be the case, nice! But at the moment, there does not seem to be any reason to believe closed kinetic movements are superior to open chain. Electromyographic studies typically generally find similar muscle recruitment between them (like push-ups producing similar recruitment of the main muscles to the bench press). Also, stablization differences probably do not matter that much, free weights (which need more stability like open kinetic movements) produce similar growth to machines (which are more stable like closed kinetic exercises).

[@rafael_ellanios2708]

@@HouseofHypertrophy yess I see all your videos I like it. This is only my experience we will see in feature if we have some new research 💪

[@alvodin6197]

It isn't essential, and it affects your recovery and your next sets. Going close to failure, on the other hand, probably is. Going to failure on every set is just stupidity, not "hardcore"

[@Makindealz]

But that's for subjects that never worked out. That's useless information

[@Claframb]

I'm commenting for the KZbin algorithm. Don't bother even reading this.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you dude, I appreciate YOU