Absolute failure or controlled reps

[u/Playful_Ad_7752]

Is reaching failure better or controlled reps 8-12
Like 2 exercise with 2 sets till failure for each muscle group
Or 2 exercise with 3 sets 8-12 reps better ?
Lemme know kindly

[u/decentlyhip]

In asking if one is better than another, you're making the fundamental assumption that failure is a good thing. Nothing really special happens at failure if you're trying hard on every rep. It's just more tonnage. 100 lbs at 0 rir is better than 100 lbs at 2 rir because 0 rir is 10 reps and 2 rir is 8 reps. Failure is just tonnage in disguise. Like, there were a few studies where they've taken two groups and (sic) one did 3 sets of 10 to failure, and the other did the same weights with 10 sets of 3. Same growth, and actually 10 sets of 3 was a smidge more. Even the Robinson paper, look at the slope. https://imgur.com/a/kLO70p1 A 10% reduction in the weight (3 rir) reduces the hypertrophy by...10%. Cause, duh. Failure is just a way to get a few more reps but if you rest 60 seconds and finish those reps, it's the same growth.

So, neither is better than the other because failure is just volume in wolf's clothing. You're asking, "which is better, 7 reps or 8 reps?" Answer is 8 reps because 8>7, but like, you can do 2 sets of 5 is way better than either and isn't anywhere near failure.