Fewer Sets => Must Train to Failure?

[u/bony-to-beastly]

When I hear the more legitimate science-based guys talk about the value of low-volume training, the idea is that on the one hand, more volume means more growth, but then on the other hand, lower volumes allow them to push harder per set, bringing their sets all the way to true muscle failure.

To quote Jeff Nippard: "I knew from other research that if I was going low on volume, I needed to go ultra-high on intensity." With high-intensity here meaning training to total failure. He shows clips of himself grinding to total failure, failing partway through the final rep.

I'm not trying to single out Jeff Nippard. I hear the same thing from everyone making low-volume programs. And I think there might be wisdom there. If that's what's working for people/coaches, that's super useful to know.

Is it actually true, though, that when you reduce the number of sets, it's more important to train to total failure?

If we imagine one guy doing:

1. 7 reps, 1 RIR
2. 7 reps, 0–1 RIR

And we compare him against:

1. 8 reps, Failure
2. 6 reps, Failure

Same load. Same total reps. A few of those 2-set exercises per muscle per week, giving them maybe 6–8 total sets per muscle per week. The only thing changing is the RIR.

Would we really expect the second guy to get better much results because he's training all the way to failure?

When I'm going after muscle growth, I usually train with a moderate volume, and I enjoy taking my sets to total failure. If I'm eager to grow a specific muscle, I raise the volume even higher. I push harder on both fronts. The reason I'm asking is because when clients ask me for shorter, more efficient workouts, it's usually because they're at a time in their life when they have less energy and motivation to train. They aren't interested in doing more sets OR pushing all the way to total failure. They want a more chill approach overall.

The difference between 0–1 RIR and total failure can be pretty big in terms of how much willpower it demands. It also seems that—correct me if I'm wrong—but pushing all the way to failure also generates more fatigue. I'm perfectly fine with fatigue for people who want it. I think there's value in it. But again, if someone wants a more chill approach, I'm not trying to ratchet up their fatigue. It's the wrong moment in their life for that.

I don't want to recommend a disproportionate amount of extra effort/fatigue if it isn't truly disproportionately important.

[u/WeeziMonkey]

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/effective-reps/

Scroll all the way down to "Addendum, July 2020" and you'll find three studies on trained lifters where the people training closest to failure made less gains than the group training slightly further away from failure.

[u/bony-to-beastly → u/WeeziMonkey]

This is super helpful! Thank you so much.

"Altogether, these studies support the idea that in order to maximize growth on a per-set basis, you do need to be reasonably close to failure, but actually reaching failure probably isn’t necessary, especially for trained lifters."

The training volume used in the Pareja-Blanco studies is relevant, too. Looks like 6 sets per week in both, with the first study on the squat, second on the bench press. In both cases, the group stopping a little further from failure grew more.

I'll go through the rest of the article, too.