How close to failure should you train?

A recent meta-analysis has shaken up the fitness community by concluding that you should train pretty much to failure every set. That seems to be the conclusion. If you read the results at face value. And this has also led to a resurgence of the effective reps model. So in this video, I'd like to cover that meta-analysis, the science of how close to failure you should train, and also go into associated terms like junk volume.

*Chapters*
00:00 Introduction
00:26 Effective reps model
03:33 Greg Nuckols's critique
04:19 Paul Carter's response to Greg's critique
07:22 New meta-analysis
13:33 Why are these results odd?
16:44 Previous meta - Refalo et al.
18:47 Why is the effective reps model flawed?
22:53 Two previous meta-analysis - Vieria et al., Grgic et al.
24:30 Studies on the topic - Martorelli et al., Da Silva et al.
26:02 Conclusion - does volume matter?
29:11 Outro

*References*

#mennohenseelmans #trainingtofailure #exercisescience #bodybuilding #hypertrophytraining #trainingvideos #exercisescientist #strengthtraining #strengthandconditioning

[azulsimmons]

Greg Nuckols seems like a nice guy who has spent a lot of time giving away great information for lifters with a reasonable viewpoint that provides real world ways to use the information. You have to be a real jerk to take shots at Nuckols.

[fncdmoz]

Also, thank you for pointing out that 0 RIR does not logically imply failure, but rather the last rep you could have successfully completed. We all know 0 RIR is used to indicate failure, so there's not actual vagueness, but my inner logician shakes his fist angrily whenever I see it.

[kamo]

it's always interesting to see the freak outliers in these studies. the person who made the best gains was about 7 RIR and the one with the worst gains was 2 RIR.
the reason I find these interesting is that no matter what the research can show through trends everyone is individual.

[Gwynbleidd]

Bro this is insane, cannot imagine more detailed explanation to the topic, thanks a lot. There are tons of social media account that posted referencing this meta analysis and directly concluded that you must train to failure and watching your video it's obvious that it's not a must, just a preference. You can still make up all those reps with additional sets. Thanks again for this top video🙌

[mikehoncho]

“This is supposed to be a straight line” got me😂

[richardtrass]

Super helpful analysis Menno. I strongly prefer lower volume (fewer sets) closer to failure than extra sets further from failure. Ultimately progressive overload is key and for me, adding weight and/or reps trumps additional sets. Adding sets is unsustainable and creates session duration issues. Adding weight and reps is still adding volume of sorts of course but it’s more manageable in my opinion. But agree that the there’s more than one way to skin the cat😂

[Neducation]

Nice to see you discussing the different meta's in the same video. You're far from alone with regards to Chris and Paul. I also don't understand why anyone would follow or request the opinion of people that behave in such a manner. The fact that PC routinely misquotes the research (paraphrasing) "upper traps are slow twitch dominant", "lat's don't use the rib cage" for example makes it even harder to understand. Also, Paul isn't tall, probably just below average height...

[thor]

Great discussion. I've always attributed my lifelong "failure to progress" to advanced fitness to the fact that I don't have the attitude/drive that I assumed others to have; thinking they can get themselves to train at failure threshold continuously year in year out, whereas I can manage a few sets that way for a few weeks, but eventually, it gets too daunting and I just go back to moving weights around intermittently and being content with the middling results I get.

This information encourages me to seek out alternative approaches that are not only more sustainable from my psychological standpoint, but supported by decent evidence and a real incentive to pay attention to what I'm doing and come up with strategies that may be helpful, and not just assume I'm one of the few who didn't do some p90x program or equivalent for 3 months and obtain that next level of fitness.
This is very good information, and I appreciate Dr. Mike heading me your way. Cheers!

[a_woman_who_loves_to_lift]

This is why Menno is the best resource available for interpreting the data. I took statistics in undergrad and graduate school, and I still can't retain all the concepts. It is rather complex. Menno's explanation at 27:00-29:00, among other points, is top-notch.

[ssdabel]

26:58 - This is my issue with these studies these days. It doesn't just mean that volume doesn't matter, it sort of implies that nothing matters at all. Failure? Non failure? Far from failure? 6 RIR? All good! Now, the fact that volume didn't matter here either is kinda new, but I like it lol. I'm waiting for that one study where it will turn out that even lifting doesn't matter.
27:10 - that said, saying "we know more sets stimulate more growth" is also something that is potentially a bit strong, no? I mean, it stimulates more growth if you were still at that point in your individual volume-tolerance curve, but if youre someone who responds better to lower volumes, we would expect it to even potentially backfire.

Anyway, I'm typing up an email to request a podcast interview with you now! :D pls pls

[greenwavefitness]

excellent analysis. quick note: whatever Chris Beardsley's model is, wherever I've seen his programming recommendations, they look like the chart at 17:03, i.e., sets with 2 RIR.

[WinkelmanSM-]

ik waardeer het harde werk dat je in deze hulpzame videos steekt

[climbscience]

This is fantastic, thanks very much for putting this out! I have to say, for practical programming, the effective reps model can still be helpful as a simplified guidance if you modify it. I feel if you were to choose a cut off at about 7 reps (i.e. 8RIR would equate "no gains"), not 5, it would probably resemble a linear fit of the red curve you showed. That would still be a simplification, but probably acceptable for practical programming.

[gerym]

An absolutely brilliant breakdown of studies.

[Axel-prls]

Thanks for the video lots of good information and a great review of this topic. A Big point in favor of staying a 3-5 RIR may be that this enable lifter to do so much more volume in comparaison to the failure group due to good recovery that they will experience better gains overall.

[Shibbyify]

See,
This is what I've been seeing both anecdotally or with people that follow the science and their personal results. It's kind of split, higher intensity or higher volume both work.
I can't get myself to do volume training. My body just hates it. But the Mentzer extreme failure work feels absurd too.
I've found a more moderate version of HIT with a heavy set/back off set, 7 exercises/full body/ 3x's a week, agnostic about failure but close it most of the time. And my results have been remarkable. I'm sure a high volume approach would work just as well too.

[CosmicAminos]

Appreciate the deep dive on this topic.

[Cenotph]

Paul doesnt seem like a likeable person or interested in an honest debate 😂

[scaryfat]

So much good data here I almost missed the horizontal flip at 9:18. Keep up the great work Menno!

[robertobonilla_clinicamedex]

Incredible explanation as Always Menno
Thanks a lot ❤