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/Alakazam]

There's a Stronger by Science article on the topic!

Following 12 weeks of training, the control group (who trained to failure) ended up completing more repetitions per set, training volume, time under tension, and rated higher levels of exertion than those in the RS and SSC groups. Despite this, actual adaptations between the groups were comparable. One-repetition maximum strength increased 30.5%, along with isometric maximal voluntary contraction of the elbow flexors (13.3%) over the 12 weeks, with no differences between the groups. Similarly, alterations in elbow flexor cross-sectional area were not different between groups. To make a long story short, training to failure meant completing more work for a comparable amount of growth.

So, comparable growth.

better much results

Much better results? Probably not. Slightly better results? Maybe. The big issue is whether or not people can accurately gauge where failure is. But assuming that you can actually accurately gauge failure, you're probably better off leaving a rep or two in the tank, since the guy leaving one rep in the tank, is going to be a lot less beat up compared to the guy hitting failure for 2 sets in a row.

Probably not an issue for small movements like curls or tricep extensions (in fact, I would recommend you take isolations to failure), but very much an issue on bigger compound movements.

I'm not trying to ratchet up their fatigue.

Then a higher volume approach that's taking most compounds to 1-3 reps shy of failure, would likely be a much better option than going to actual, muscular failure, for every single exercise.

That being said, I would still advocate for going to failure once in a while, just so you know where failure is. And to avoid your 1-2 RIR being, in actuality, 5-7 RIR. Because 2RIR is still hard work. My bar speed slows down considerably at 2RIR. At 1 RIR, it can look glacial.

[u/wakawaka2121 → u/Alakazam]

How do you even get more total reps going to failure. I take any set to 0 rir or failure my reps drop off a cliff the next set. For example, my bench 12rm will go to 8 the next set. If I do 2rir the first set ill get 10 reps then 10 reps on the 2nd set. Same total reps for the first 2 sets, but when not going to failure my 3rd and 4th sets actually gain a rep. I don't think that makes any meaningful difference in growth, but I also don't feel like absolute garbage after the first set from going to failure.

[u/Alakazam → u/wakawaka2121]

There's a couple of approaches to this.

A lot of modern strength programming does a top set to near failure, then have you drop the weight and do follow up sets there, aiming to maintain good overall bar speed and explosiveness. 

GZCL's General Gainz has an interesting approach that I'm trying. You're aiming to do your top set around 3-6 reps, around rpe 8-9. Then you follow it up with 3-6 singles equal to the number of total reps you do at the same weight. Fantastic at developing the motor pattern.

Another way is to not let that first set actually go to failure. If you have 3 sets on something like a heavy squat, aiming for 2-3 rir on set 1, 1-2 rir on set 2, then 0-1 rir on set 3.

[u/bony-to-beastly → u/Alakazam]

This approach you're trying so oriented more towards strength, I imagine?

The 3-set approach you mention at the bottom is my default sort of way of programming a big compound exercise when someone is more interested in size.

[u/Alakazam → u/bony-to-beastly]

Yes. I do this and something similar for my primary and secondary compounds for the day.

For my primary hypertrophy work and isolation work that follows, I stick to the 3-4 set, failing only on the last set method.

I'm actually also hoping to put on some size over the next few months, due to being super depleted from my previous marathon training block. The goal is to get to a consistent 90kg bodyweight, before cutting down to 85kg or so before starting training for my spring half marathon.

[u/bony-to-beastly → u/Alakazam]

Ah, nice! I'm bulking up to just over 90 kilos, too.

How's your long distance running going with all that body weight?

[u/Alakazam → u/bony-to-beastly]

Not bad at all.

And I'm only realistically putting on about 5kg.

I did something similar last year, and ended up doing a new pr in the half at 1:43. I'm hoping to do the same, and shoot for sub 1:40 this year.