My book SWEAT is still 50% off. Can grab a copy here: www.verityfit.com/product-page/sweat Feedback has been excellent, second book in progress! Appreciate the support and allowing me to keep the channel going!
Just a reminder that these are two old-ish men fighting over how they lift things up and put them down. Also a man with a PHD clearly butthurt over criticism even though with a PHD he should be pretty aware of and comfortable with criticism. Amazing. Spectacular. Illuminating. Great video as always Geoffrey. Although is this not a “shit tier” video as it’s covering drama?
Hey Geoff, nice work on the video. I have one small point that may or may not be relevant or correct. If you look at mike and the gang, they all have absolutely immaculate form on every single rep of every exercise shown. Your first counter example of you doing cable crossovers is... well, not immaculate (you admit this yourself haha). It’s not really so much a cable crossover as it is a cable decline press. You’re getting TONS of tricep and delt involvement, especially at the end, as your form deteriorates and your pecs give out. You even get your hips and legs involved on the last few reps. This raises the fundamental issue: how much technique breakdown is acceptable when getting to 0RIR? If you kept your elbows locked on those “crossovers” (keeping the emphasis on the pecs that Mike et al would have had) would you have been able to crank those extra 3-4 reps? I suspect not. Now, maybe that just wasn’t your best example to drive your points (your form was definitely better on the DB presses and leg curls, although I THINK I can still detect “sloppier” cadences and less focus on MMC) but I do think this reveals a small blind spot in your analysis - that consistent technique might be taking a back seat to rep speed. At least in some of your own training. Maybe this isn’t such a bad thing. But it definitely muddies the analysis a bit. Again, I suspect that if you kept your form tight, and kept emphasis on your pecs, you would have not only hit that wall a lot sooner, but would have seen more of an abrupt change in concentric rep speed rather than the long, drawn out, grindy, exorcist-style reps you did. And again, BECAUSE the RP guys place so much more emphasis on technique and mind-muscle connection, I wouldn’t be surprised if they had less reps to failure than you think, simply because they are less willing to allow technique deviations than you are. Just a quick thought I had while watching. Keep up the good work. Love this topic!
Hey Jeff, Thanks for stopping by! All your points are certainly both correct and relevant. The crossovers were beyond technical failure, but then again that's sort of how I always do them, as a bit of a decline press with triceps and delts along for the ride. And then the last 2-3 reps there was some hip flexor to the rescue. Probably not the best example, was just a recent set I had. As for the mind muscle connection, at failure, that becomes tougher. On the curls, the focus is still squeezing the hamstrings, though on the presses, it sort of just becomes "get the weight up". If the MMC is lost, is that failure? If slight momentum is used, is that failure? If another muscle group helps slightly, is that failure? If the reps even *slow,* is that failure, as a few people said in comments? If the muscles burn and you decide to stop, is that failure? Agree that it's very hard to accurately assess exactly how many reps someone has left, it's even hard to assess during the set sometimes for oneself. I still think RIR has value, at least conceptually, it's just inherently very difficult to standardize it, and this means that a lot of research may be all over the place with regards to optimal volume recommendations. At the end of the day, there are people getting good results on fairly low volume, even to a high level, but the bulk of the research shows that high volume is superior, and there don't even seem to be diminishing returns for some studies. Anyway, agree that it's an interesting topic, and there's no "right" answer! There's always a give and take from training closer or further from failure. And it's somewhat individual, too.
That was my 2-3 RIR week. I just partake in the videos. I don't put up the cards ;) I had two more weeks of training after. I agree. Very few of the sets were 0-1 RIR but also.... your technique breakdown is beyond failure as I'd consider technical failure actual failure when you're truly good at training the target muscles with the exercise. Cool video! I'd consider more than just rep speed when looking at failure as well.
Gotcha. That makes sense, and for a 2-3 RIR week, it looks spot on (though as you say, it can be hard to judge). It's part of the reason that when you have 3 guys training at different phases, putting 0-1 RIR on the screen can draw criticism. And yes, in hindsight, the crossovers were beyond technical failure and a poor choice of footage. Finally, and most importantly...congrats on the pro card!
@@GVS Totally man! The criticism makes sense to me, because we weren't all training that way! I am also only partially joking while giving them both shit in these videos 😜 I tell Mike to push harder all the time. Lol. THANK YOU MY MAN!! Hope to bring some of the positives of scientific rigor over to the enhanced realm.
@@JAREDFEATHERRP "THANK YOU MY MAN!! Hope to bring some of the positives of scientific rigor over to the enhanced realm." It's working, excited to see your progress over the years to come! 👊👊👊
Exactly Jared, all of your sets were great working sets. Grinder reps were coming if you and Mike kept pushing here so many consider grinder reps to be a point of failure. Are we having some stupid hard work contest here now for Lyle? Ok why not just train for 3 hours until we all puke, doesnt mean that was any more effective than leaving some reps in the tank. I dont get what Lyle is going for here. No one can say that was a half ass effort.
Most ppl who criticize proximity from failure landmarks disregard controlled eccentrics and concentric technique. Lyle and his flock are perplexed that ppl don't body English 5 more horrible concentrics with dive bombed eccentrics to absolute failure.
Lyle McDonald might be an asshole but he’s super smart and quite right most of the time. He’s right here as he was about the Schoenfeld study with 45 sets.
He pukes on sets pretty regularly, and promotes implementing progressive overload which he feels is more optimal when you take a training cycle from 3 rir to 0 rir over the course of 3-6 weeks. Some people burn out and don't move forward with the 6-7(?! 7 days means you have a cushy ass job and you have the recovery capabilities of the smallest women lifters imo) days a week taking each set to failure. How the hell do you survive your third week? Insanity
@ShawnGetty-eb1gj fake pukes for clout eh? You could be right. I follow advice more from natties anyways, rps channel has shown how many massive roiders don't even train hard which puts into perspective the relevance of the info
God I wish channels like this actually got the credit they deserved but ppl just want entertainment not great advice. I’m a fan man thanks for your videos!
Appreciate the support. I'm financially stable, doing what I love, haven't sold out at all, and am doing things the right way. I can sleep easy at night, I have no real need for massive exposure or millions of followers. :)
Does it make a difference if they're using "technical failure" instead of "true" failure? Mike always points out that as soon as his form isn't perfect, the rep doesn't count and he stops.
But that does make me question the definition of failure for alot of the evidence based folks, because helms, nippard, etc all seem to use "technical" failure whether they're using barbells or machines. Meadows on the other hand takes his machine work to true failure
I always divide failure in three. First comes speed failure, when you cannot complete reps at a given speed/cadence. Then technical failure. Finally true failure, which usually ends in a partial rep. Technical failure is a bit subjective, the other ones not. It is also highly dependant on the nature of the exercise and the goal of it.
I was gonna say this. They definitely mean technical failure, otherwise they’re just making asses of themselves. They’re pretty close if you consider that the last rep of most of the sets he timed only slowed down a little bit, I’d guess that means they could get those last 2-3 reps out IF their form went to shit which seems to be the issue in this beef, semantics
From my own experience ("old" guy, 52 year old, with some destroyed joints from playing Football a long time ago) failure is particularly brutal on free weight exercises : the reps stay in a given time then brutally stop - I cannot lift at all, there is no 4s, 8s rep... (I cannot force more reps, longer reps... being out of the proper form is simply too harsh on my joints) It is a bit different with machine exercises where indeed I can "force" 1 or 2 more reps...
They are also huge gear heads, they make everything look easy... and I’m saying this as a huge fan of dr Mike and love all his knowledge, presentation, and content
I like Mike a lot as well, but his volume recommendations have never gotten me anywhere. It's simply too much volume to get stronger week after week and most of it, for me, was junk sets with half-assed effort. Ever since I scaled-down the volume and focused on adding weight to the bar, I've seen actual growth.
@@JoeMama-sd2kl I'm not ArsEN but I tend to agree- and to give my personal example, I tried to just add sets to chest, week on week, and found that my strength was stagnating, and I wasn't looking much better. Instead I scaled back to a somewhat-arbitrary 4 sets of flat bench, 4 sets of flys (plus some other stuff more accessory-focussed) and in the space of a few weeks my bench went up 10kg. Some of that was *maybe* helped by the initial volume weeks, but there is definitely something to be said for just scaling back volume, reducing that fatigue, and focussing on in-set intensity.
@@jackd4067 lol nooo my point was when he mentioned Mike in the original comment how his high volume recommendations didnt get him anywhere...well its painfully obvious the RP crew are on drugs...alot of the people following them and in this comment section...myself included are naturals....im surprised Geof didnt address this .....drugs.. is a different type of training ...working out twice a day not going to failure etc :)
Great video Geoff! I love how thorough, critical, and unbiased you were with this review. I saw Jeff Nippards comment and although I agree that there are many considerations that can be made when discussing the nuances of “training to failure”, your review was very well done. Thanks for the quality content!
Nice work with the editing and I loved the topic and the way you presented and discussed it. I totally agree with your way of assessing those RIR 1-0 sets, nobody does 150 sets a week to RIR 1-0 and recovers afterwards, not even Ronnie Coleman nor Branch Warren taking grams of PEDS were able to do that. I think that two great examples of going to total failure with immaculate technique while keeping the volume moderate are Jordan Peters and Corinne, and if you compare their way to approach and perform a set to RIR 0 to the way that Mike or Jared do, there's a world apart of difference, so it's not a matter of technique as Jeff Nippard argumented based purely on your form. In my own experience, I completely lost 2 years training without progressing and with constant aches on my joints with the RP methodology of high frequency, high volume and going from RIR 4 to 0 during the mesocycles. I think that for advanced people (+315 bench, +405 squat, +445 deadlift) less than a true RIR 2 isn't going to stimulate any hypertrophy gains and thus, you'll be training for maintenance for 3 weeks of each mesocycle (deload and first two weeks) and then you'll have 2 weeks of a good stimulus for growth with too much volume and frequency to be able to recover properly if you go to true RIR 2-0, so you won't make any decent strenght gains. My takeaway points: - You don't need to start a mesocycle with RIR 3-4, you could continuously go for RIR 1-2 during the mesocycle and get stronger on the basics while going to complete failure in some machines and recovering fine with a moderate volume approach. - You don't need to manipulate volume during a mesocycle if you're progressing in your lifts. - If you don't manipulate volume you could deload less often because you never find yourself overreaching. - You don't need more than 10 sets for ANY muscle group to make your best gains if you train with a true RIR 1-0.
I agree with your general conclusion. Many people think they’re 1-2 reps away from failure when in reality they’re 5 or 6, That said, I think it should probably be a trade off between that and acceptable technique (not every rep has to be super strict but not completely disregarding everything) Your videos just keep getting better. I hope you get the recognition you deserve soon.
That explains why my failures look so terrifying. Also i've been killing myself by using programs by people who don't know what "real failure" is & have constantly told me to improve my work capacity. I remember when people said 194 squat is my max but i cranked a 212 kg squat mere minutes later.
To be fair to PR folk, they define failure as not being able to do a perfect form and same tempo rep. You are working off of a different definition than them. (I do agree with your definition though)
This is a fantastic video. I sincerely appreciate the debate on both sides, even if it gets acrimonious at times- it's much needed, and nuanced takes like this are extremely helpful.
Man love this, nice to see people taking sets to failure and well actually taking them to failure, especially leg training it feels like people underestimate how much they can do until they reach actual failure, like higher rep squats I feel like most people would be suprised if they had safety measurements like those side bars (don't know what they are actually called but you know what I mean hopefully) and well literally squatted until they physically weren't capable of getting the weight up, not just until it hurt for a few reps, leg extensions are another great example, if I do my last set and I get 15 that means from rep probably like 6 it started to burn, by rep 10 my legs were on fire but that feeling of being uncomfortability doesn't mean I reached failure, that's when I actually just can't do more no matter how hard the weight just doesn't budge past a certain point, I feel like alot if not most people don't realize how far they can push. I guess I could attribute this to doing alot of sports when I was younger (well im 20 so im still young but still) , my dad always used to say "what's the worst thing that could happen, you get tired" I feel like more people need to realize this or just actually push themselves beyond they think they are physically capable of, and not because "bro you gotta be tough and push yourself bro" it's just a liberating feeling knowing you can do so much, and furthermore, out of all the things you can do athletically to failure I would argue that pushing a few sets to failure in a workout is not that hard compared to most sports where lets say you run until you cant walk, like the time frame is extremely small, not saying it's easy but it's more realistic for probably most people to be able to push themselves to that limit consistently when it comes to weighttraining, which is one reason why it's a great resource to build confidence for anyone. Great video as always keep it up
Excellent video. It shows crystal clear what is sets to failure and why low volume (3-9 sets per body part per week) CAN generate muscle hypertrophy as far as you train to failure or very near to it.
I have to agree with the overall assessment by Geoff on this video. I might not be as experienced, certainly not as jacked and, most importantly here on YT, not as popular, but I think I can do a much better job in gauging proximity to failure (like I do in my latest video btw). I understand the emphasis RP places on technique, but a slight break down (as long as it's safe for the athlete) as well as a slowing-down in tempo (due to sticking points) in a set is neccessary to determine that the lifter is approaching concentric failure. Maybe my definition (or threshold) is flawed, but I am confident to say that the RP crew could have gotten 2-5 extra reps (on average) in each of those sets for them to call those RIR 0-1. In my books, that efforst is nowhere close to RIR 0-1. Open to hear other people's thoughts on this issue, but I am of the opinion that effort takes priority over pristine technique execution towards the end of a set AS LONG AS IT'S SAFE FOR THE ATHLETE (and the stimulus to fatigue ratio is not detrimental to the remaining workout nor the overall fatigue accumulation during the mesocycle) Keep it up Geoff 💪
Hmm...interesting topic & video! I think it might be important & instructive to distinguish between 3 things: 1) technical failure vs muscular/true failure (although the RP guys almost always mean technical failure when they calculate RIR), 2) 'free-form' barbell/dumbbell-based compound exercises vs more 'fixed'/'rigid' machine-based compound exercises, as were in these cases (am deliberately not including isolation-style exercises in this, for obvious reasons), and 3) bodyweight exercises (vs others). I think using rep speed as a surrogate for 'failure' will mean different things to different people *on/for different exercises* (both in style/type and actual exercise/movement pattern), and also the *order* of these exercises... esp. when 'systemic failure' starts to take a toll...(What I mean is that maybe they're trying to 'save energy' -- after all these clips are from different workout videos, not a single, longitudinal video...) Again, not taking any sides...I just think there's merit to both. But, yeah, I agree with you reg. the 0-1 RIR nomenclature being (mis)used, although, that *may* depend on the aforementioned points as well...
Mike needs to ""Train Harder Than Last Time!" People who don't go to failure don't have a reference for programming RIR or RPE. Me: "How much is two plus two?" Accountant: "How much do you want it to be?" Bodyfat percentage, RPE, and RIR are like that.
I agree with Lyle on this one too, but for me personally I often end up going to failure with most exercises by accident because my rep speed doesn't slow down until I reach 1 and sometimes 2 RIR, so sometimes I'll barely fail a tough grind thinking I probably had 1 RIR
Geoff, please come back to Quora! Blood has been spilled. Writers are fighting amongst themselves to be the top fitness writer. If you're not going to return for your fans, at least do it for me.
I think especially with heavy compound movements, it's possible to have no reps in the tank after a rep that didn't _look_ slow and grindy. Sometimes, because each rep just produces so much more fatigue than the last, your last rep looks pretty clean so you try one more, and you end up pinned to the bench.
Good video and I like you admit bias and still criticize RP. The *failure* probably lacks formal definition, so we have to rely on sort of "I know it when I see it", but I think we all can agree that if someone does repetitions without slowing down and suddenly stops, it's not even close to failure. I also share the sentiment that studies with absurd amount of sets to "failure" can't be to failure in any reasonable sense, especially in "laboratory" setting where subjects have spotters in case of true failure occurring. Regarding Lyle - he's right more often than people would like to admit, especially if they are under scrutiny of his bi-polar brain. Anyone remembers GOMAD effects on that poor Zack kid, Rippetoe claiming that he gained mostly muscle, and Lyle calling bs? Fun times...
Probably a week or two. I like to space out similar content/series a bit. Plus that type of thing requires a LOT of time to put together, possible 20-30 hours per video.
@@GVS it will be awesome to see full body guide video, even though i know how to put on a decent simple full body program, but since i know i will learn more from your video, i can't wait to see it! Also i'm a big fan of full body training, it's really logical way of training and enjoyable. I do train upper/lower split time to time, but i always end up coming back to full body
This video (specifically when you talk about the high volume studies) highlights a pretty important point in that in a lot of these studies the scientific method employed is greatly impacted and I'd argue hindered, through underlying subjectivity built into the experimental design. As someone who studies science its important to understand that all models are incorrect and that blindly following science may not be the most optimal thing to do. Taking a knowledgeable yet reasonably skeptical approach may be best and its through critical analysis of research that scientific boundaries are pushed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." Essentially, you have basically ALL the data on untrained normal people pointing to high volume being key. Because they cannot train close to failure, because most people cannot. Heck, even trained people often can't actually go to true failure in many cases. So the trained data also points to volume being "the driver" of hypertrophy. So, as an exercise science based coach, you attempt a high volume training protocol. Because that is optimal, according to the data. Obviously! However, to do so, you need to not train very close to failure. You cannot. Otherwise how do you get in all that volume you need? So you always keep 3-6 reps in reserve. For the volume. You also need higher frequency to fit everything in. You have to work out 12 times a week just to achieve that tasty volume! Volume becomes the only target, and thus it's easy to lose sight of everything else.
@@GVS interesting explanation but it makes total sense! Goodharts law reference makes me think you studied economics or stats so you definitely know more about statistical errors than me. I'm a biologist so what you described reminds me kind of like how fischerian runaways are hypothesised to lead to extreme traits in sexual selection (a bit of a strech). The same principle though is that such intense selection on a certain parameter which has given a payoff in the past (in this case volume) leads to it becoming exaggerated, even at the expense of what would be assumed reasonable (and thus the absurdly high training volume). Like a peacock's tail! I found for my own training the exact same thing though. High volume was said to be key but my strength just wasn't there. Cutting back my volume and sets has helped me so much in improving my bench and squat (before gyms closed). Anyways great video and glad to see Jeff Nippard commented, hopefully it gives your channel the attention it deserves!
This is why I’m skeptical of all these studies. It’s impossible to control all of the variables. Exercise science really can’t be considered a hard science.
@@DaveD1868 I think healthy skepticism. Whilst it may not be a hard science you can definitely take away general principles from the studies. However if something works for you and there's no science to back it up, I wouldn't worry about it. John Meadows echoed a similar point when discussing his Meadows row variation; no science saying its EMG activation is best but it works for him and thats ultimately the most important
Fenrir God Agreed. Brett Contreras is always doing experiments on himself. I think we all need to be open minded and try different things and then take what works best for ourselves.
Well that sure explains why I feel like I can never do some of those volumes I read/hear about. On the other hand I don't go to failure very often, only to noticeably slower reps. True failure takes too big a toll on my recovery time.
I’ve also noticed that it’s very subjective and that the people who advocate higher frequency and volume have a different definition of failure than those who advocate abbreviated training.
Yup. There has to be. If you only have 1-2 sets to get it done, they better be damn hard. 0 RIR, maybe to failure on safe exercises and possibly past it. If you have 3-5 sets, they can't be damn hard, by definition. Maybe kinda hard. 1-2RIR. At 6-10 sets, usually people are at 3-5 RIR. If doing that much volume with true 1-2 RIR, it takes 4-6 days to recover. And at true failure, EASILY a week, though this depends on the muscle group. 11+ sets for a muscle group in a workout...that's where you start seeing the "is that a warmup or working set?" phenomenon. If an observer can't tell the difference between working set and a warmup, it wasn't a 0-1 RIR working set.
Mike describes failure as even the slightest technique breakdown. He said so in one of his videos. I think most people would disagree on that one and use a different criteria
@@pavelandonov3345 yup. Extremely strict technical failure means that at any point any part of the range of motion gives out or any other muscle comes into the picture at all, the set is now beyond failure. My cable crossovers? Beyond failure, I used slight momentum. Eyeballs also activated. My arnold presses? Beyond failure, I arched back slightly to get through that last sticking point. Client's Squats? Beyond failure, his mid back rounded/elbows came back slightly. My hamstring curls? Beyond failure multiple reps, as I bobbed my head and winced. Can't have active facial muscles.
@@GVS I guess there is some merit by following such strict rules on exercises with high risk ratio However, I can see how that can also lead to undertraining or the need to have very high frequency + volume. Which is essentially what RP suggests as you pointed out.
@@pavelandonov3345 for sure. For example, after I got that video of my client squatting I told him good job, but hold back next time. Because it's not worth pushing that close on squats. And yes, if some sets stop at technical failure (and most 1-3 reps away from it) you are gonna have to do a TON of sets to get the same results.
I relate to the “you don’t train hard accusations” lol. Unless I deliberately slow a rep down I’m just not capable of 3 second reps, I absolutely suck at grinding 😂 my 1 rir looks like most peoples 2/3 rir I think it’s cause I’m a little type 2 fibre dominant but yeah. For some of us approaching failure just isn’t as dramatic until we hit it, not saying you’re wrong about them cutting sets short prematurely if their goal was 0-1 rir, only they know really but yeah just thought I’d share my own experience with this. Keep up the good videos Geoff!
There is some individual variation, for sure, which may be partially fiber type dependant. But part of it is a skill. You can develop the ability to train closer to actual failure if you practice it. Can also depend on the exercise, and the strength curve as well.
Depends on the exercise. Something like a lateral raise where the hardest part is the top and it's very safe, extremely often. Almost certainly the majority of my sets. As "technical failure" means just not being able to get the dumbbells all the way up. Failing is still hard, but you really are only failing a tiny little part of the range of motion so it doesn't really have the same stress, as the bottom 90% of the ROM wasn't at failure. Things like bench/squat/deadlift, very seldom, as the sticking point is in the middle or bottom part of the range of motion (for me) and thus going closer to failure is relatively more stressful. It's mostly exercise dependant.
@@GVS fantastic answer...if you do mostly body building work which is what I do I fail every single set 30 to 50 sets per body part...but no big lifts here deads squats bench press...no I dont go all out there
@@soofitnsexy High rep isolation training should almost always be to failure for best results. The stress in those rep ranges don't usually result in a technical mechanical failure but are cut a bit short of that by the metabolic stress/acid buildup/pain and the overall stress on the system is many times less than that of a heavy compound.
@@jonduke4748 agreed but for my purposes and what I teach and preach daily they are tons better then heavy compounds...I never mentioned high rep light weight!
I think it's great that you can look at the people you admire and look at their claims objectively. Also as you mentioned, this should cause us to look into some of the volume recommendations based on research currently done. I wonder if there's any videographic records supporting the research studies which can give us an idea of what the RIR considered by the participants look like, especially for ones mentioning that the participants went to very close to failure
I've never been able to find such footage, and I've actually checked before, as I am very, very, very curious, especially for these studies on 20, 30, 40+ sets per week to "failure" and seeing increasing gains. It'll just say "to failure" or "momentary muscular failure" or "concentric failure" or "technical failure" but what if the person stops because they just *wanted* to? That's BY FAR the most common reason people stop a set, after all. They just...want to. It starts to get hard, and they stop. Do the researchers throw out that set? That individual? Or do they do nothing? Often it says that if they can't get into a rep range, they reduce the weight on subsequent sets. So someone could end up doing a ton of just really light, submaximal sets. The average person has the willpower of a teacup so I'm guessing many studies have a ton of 5-10 RIR junk thrown in, and it's impossible to throw that out. It's entirely possible that there are studies where a lot of individuals are MORE than 10 reps away from true failure. That means that a large part of exercise science just doesn't apply to those people that CAN push themselves, which explains why many very big and very strong people just don't put much value in studies.
@@GVS Thanks for the really long insightful reply. I guess you have already thought about and looked into this before. I guess the one point I can think of then is that since most people are quite a few reps shy of failure the studies conducted in this manner do actually apply to them. Since they'll never approach close to true failure so the recommendations match the user. But as you have rightly pointed out, then there would be a separate sub set of individuals who do reach close to actual failure and the general research studies will not apply to them. They'll maybe be better off treating the studies with a pinch of salt.
@@harshivmahajan5311 I read quite a bit of research, and occasionally do use it to guide my training or coaching decisions. But at the same time much of it doesn't quite translate all that well to the "real world".
When I think of failure and what it looks like, I tend to categorize it in certain ways. 1) concentric failure with good form 2) concentric failure with good form and partials or isolations at the end. 3) concentric failure with good form and a few forced reps with assistance. 4) concentric failure with good form, partials, isolations, forced and eccentric failure. Typically I employ # 1 or # 2 as I usually have no training partner. When to employ failure is of course another topic all together. I just want to clarify, I am not a trained fitness professional, have no certifications, but very much enjoy weight training. Great video!
Watching your set on the cable machine I was worried you were RE-enacting the scene in “Bad Grandpa” where he sh!ts himself so bad that he sprays the wall in the restaurant with 💩. That my friend is failure.....
It's kind of hard for people not doing the exercise to judge RPE/rir to be honest. For instance, my triceps movements look like they're at RPE 4-5 when they're in fact at 9-10. How do I know? Well because I often take them to failure where no next rep can be completed even though the previous rep looked like a RIR 5 or so. But I agree some of these looked like they were RIR 2++
I thought RIR measures how many reps you have in reserve WITHOUT form breakdown. There is a huge difference between 0-1 RIR with clean form and 0-1 grind reps
BS. It's just excuses. And Neither does Mike Israetal or anyone in the whole world have PERFECT FORM. Form is an IDEAL .. There is no Possibility of Form Breakdown on Barbell Curls. And are not these HIGH Volume enthusiasts who always say "Don't be too much Science Based" and then make excuses of FORM BREAKDOWN for not even going close to failure. That then even makes sense to do like 15 sets for a particular muscle group in a session, when You are having like 4 reps in reserve on each set. I mean, a little form breakdown here n there on Machine movements is not even noticeable. And it is just a myth that training to complete failure and having great form can't be done together. I mean I wouldn't say You train hard if you can't focus, It is not just reps and weights increase, Your Concentration should also increase progressively. If You could Focus till last reps with 50 lbs Barbell curls, but with 100 lbs, if You can't keep good form, You are shit man. I would say these are just new things made up to back up their SCIENTIFIC STUDIES on High Volume, to show that their Studies are Novel and these conclusions are something meaningful... Full BS. I don't support HIT training now... But go watch Mike Mentzer's Model for Heavy Duty footage - Markus doing sets to failure, with so great form and even with Non-Effective reps with 10 seconds cadence, which is harder even if not more effective... Mike Israetal's approach is nowhere near it, neither is Brad Schoenfeld's. People are defending them just bcz they are considered "EXERCISE SCIENTISTS" ... If these were random people, whole RUclips Fitness community would be making fun of them.
Great video, as always! Makes me think and re-asses my own effort levels :) One thought regarding Brad's pulldown clip - is it possible that his arms/forearms gave out? I can see the fingers sliding down from the bar. I can relate to that, I often use straps on pulldowns, otherwise my grip will fail way before my lats. So it won't be a lat failure per se, but still a muscular failure, right?
Nice vid, could you maybe look into stretching and benefits of doing 15 mins of stretches per day if any? Recently I have got into stretching and feel really good, what’s your opinion
I've never seen anyone grind a rep on a lat pulldown machine. Machines usually offer a different strength curve which requires the muscle to produce peak forces at full concentric contraction. And while on the squat and the bench press the most difficult portion of the lift is not at peak conenctric contraction and actually usually around midway up and it gets easier past that point (because the moments on the joints reduce hence way you can "grind" throught it) on machines the most challenging part is at the end of the rep (in the lat pulldown squeezing at the bottom). And so my point is that the analogy or more accurately the measurement of proximity to failure based on "grinding" might not be applicable in the Schoenfeld example. I mean you know you've hit failure on a lat pulldown machine if you no longer can fully depress your scapulae. It rarely happens with grinding. It just happens. On rep 9 you barely go all the down and rep 10 you can't even move the handle 1/2 of the way down. I still don't think Schoenfeld was at 0 RIR. Based on my perception of technical failure he was at 1 or maybe 2 RIR.
Probably 2-4 RIR in my book but yes that last few inches of ROM are the hardest. I still don't think it looked like an honest effort. Meadows was talking to him like he was mid-set, not at the last rep.
Dorian Yates blood & guts is how I would define training to failure, not that dude doing the pull down who had a lot more reps in him. Anybody who follows that guys studies on training to failure is being misled
Holy smokes, those are some slow grindy reps! I think on a machine, you can probably do that safely, but on a heavy compound lift (like squats) that would make me uncomfortable. I judge my RIR by how much I slow down (and sometimes those 5 or 7 second reps feel like an absolute eternity). If I'm doing an AMRAP, my face is beet red (making some type of weird face I can't even describe), I usually have one or more hard sticking point / bit of shaking, and I'm usually yelling for that last bit of extension / lock out. Either I call it done after that rep, or I try another and have to leave it on the safeties / drop it because I can't push or pull any more. Since I mostly do compound lifts I really try to avoid going this far, I think that's just asking for injury at some point down the road. I think my form is still quite good at 3 RIR but the reps have slowed enough that I'm good ending the set. Interesting discussion.
Anyway, I alternate between 2-4 weeks with about 60-75 work sets per week with an average of about 3 RIR and 2-4 weeks with about 30-35 work sets with 0-1 real RIR. The higher RIR is a lot easier on my nervous system, and by that, I mean I feel like the 0-1 RIR makes me put out a lot more adrenaline and cortisol. Another thing, I strive to make the first rep of a work set hard by flexing antagonist muscles and increasing forces that are perpendicular to the load, like squeezing together on a machine press, and doing mechanical drop sets where I can slightly alter my posture, or let up with my antagonists as the reps get harder. By the way, Brad's best data today shows that 1 set 1-3 RIR (pre week) yields about 50% of most people's maximum hypertrophy an that each additional set up to 9-12 or so adds about 5%. Doing more than about 9-12 has only been done in routines where the volume was raised in 1-2 muscle groups at a time.
From personal experience, I go close to absolute failure (not being able to lift the weight anymore) while maintaining the technique, and I feel like sometimes my last reps are the same speed. It's rare for me to have a grindy rep in an exercise that isn't the bench press
There is working hard and working to failure. Just say you are working hard and don't BS. Much more respect for that than falling on the ground like an idiot.
I had to see this video, you replied to my comment addressing this topic on other videos but i didn't see this one prior to that. So, i have to retract what i said because you clearly know their content and dug throw a lot, and reached your own conclusions. I, as a newcomer to your channel, assumed that you were just trolling; is still a hot debate and you are contributing to the community with your valid points and being respectful. Hope you can see this comment although the video is 3-month-olds, and sorry if i was being rude
ok, let me add to this and this is pretty obvious but most movements except movements where the neutral part is also adding tension to the muscle significantly like Bench , when done over with a weight/resistance where you do over 15 reps with it, the RIR becomes hard to judge simply because when you breathe for a 2-3 seconds you squeeze more reps, this process may be done 2-3 time and depending on how much hell you wish to endure, like leg pressing becomes hell with a weight you normally do 15 reps but hitting failure on that would require like 20-22 reps simply because you can lock out knees and breathe and then push more .
For sure. I've done 40 reps with 315lbs in the deadlift, but it took a few minutes. That's where failure gets blurry. As you can maybe do 12+3+3+3+3=24 reps with your "to failure" 20 rep max, and it's both beyond failure (as you got MORE REPS) but also in a way easier (as you avoided grindy reps by resting slightly).
I agree. I'm a huge RP/Mike fan but I've often said to myself that they aren't training as close to failure as they say. I can say that when I worked out 6 days per week (and even 5 per week) I THOUGHT I was going close to failure but when I cut down to a bro split 4x per week I realized that I wasn't really that close to failure at all. I'm disappointed that Mike can't just play it off or laugh about it...he's got to get defensive...not good.
Yup watching someone's face is a really good way to see their effort levels, in almost all cases. If they don't look wrinkly, they're not near failure.
I don't think Lyle is arguing that you have to train to failure, just that they are not. Similarly, I'm not saying training to failure is necessary or even optimal. My hamstrings are gonna be sore for 4-5 days from that set of curls, which can impact the next leg day. I'm just assessing the sets and comparing them to the claim of 0-1 RIR.
@@GVS does that not call the whole rir method into question though. because RP are probably the #1 at pushing this method or rather advocating it, so if its too hard to implement even for them i dont think i would recommend it. like, i think i can estimate rir well for myself, but im probably wrong
@@00HoODBoy I agree that it really calls RIR into question, yes. If the guys who are advocating for it clearly can't use it properly, can the average person? That's not shade or anything. At this point it's very clear that they are far enough off on their RIR that it's suddenly a useless metric. They still train hard and get GREAT results without it.
I was thinking exactly the same thing as Nippard down in the comments. I've been watching Mike for some time and I know that as soon as his form's about to break of any kind he stops. He doesn't qualify the "broken" reps as reps, because he is all about strict reps with full ROM. A lot of us probably know that anyone can push out more after the strict reps with 2-3 sec reps at the end and even more, like you showed @11:50.
Doesn't explain or excuse the leg curls, where technical failure isn't an issue. And for many of the sets, they were clearly not even at or near technical failure. Jared himself commented that this was a 2-3RIR week, I think. And he was pushing THE HARDEST out of the 3.
I think rep speed CAN be a decent indicator of failure for SOME muscles, and this probably also varies individually. For me, I can maintain rep speed for all reps, and then BAM I fail and can't finish the next rep... For a few muscles. Hamstrings, forearm flexor, calves. I could be on my 12th rep of a hamstring curl, and it looks nearly identical to my first rep, but then all of a sudden, I can't get my 13th rep. That said, it's not like it comes as a shock to me. I can feel when I'm close to failure, but speed isn't really affected for those stated muscle groups. For the others, yeah, it's in line with the rep speed dropoff. My speed slows down on bench probably 6 or 7 reps shy of failure. I start to show down, but i can just keep trucking on, it's crazy. Did this just last night. Top set of bench, goal of 9 reps. By the third rep, i noticeably started to slow down. Kept going through that 9th rep, which was an absolute grinder, but still got it up.
Yes, there will be some individual variation, and some variation within the body as well. So it's tough to truly say how many reps someone has left. A lot depends on the strength curve. So in a sumo deadlift, the hardest part is typically at the bottom. If you break the bar off of the floor, it actually gets easier and easier. So often the weight flys up, or just doesn't move. Could go from 2 seconds for a rep to just failing. Pressing/Pushing movements are almost always hardest in the middle. So you'll slow but can keep grinding. Many pulling movements are hardest at the end. So with a technical failure approach, you'll fail all of a sudden, as you can't get that last bit. But with a muscular failure mindset, you can keep getting reps. Finally, a constant strength curve is the most grindable of all. It is equally difficult everywhere, so things just slow very predictably and gradually. Most machines are built this way (or at least try to) and so when I see someone stop on a 1s concentric on many machines, I know that they probably had multiple reps left. Maybe 3, maybe 4 or 5, hard to say. But not 0-1.
Really? Have you looked at his workouts, they are horrible lol. He uses his upper rhomboids on every movement and he refers this to the stretch but he goes past stretch into rhomboid activation all the time. Look at his body. Huge rhomboids and everything else is totally out of proportion. He doesn’t ever isolate one muscle group. Cool dude but overrated, has the “I’m a Dr.” vibes so i’m righ.
Solid vid. And the fact that you admitted if you did have a bias, it would be RP, shows you still were able to view this as unbiased as possible. I very much agree with much of what you said. Lyle is an asshole, everyone knows that, he even knows it. Mike and co. Clearly have a much better personality, they’re more likeable, etc. however, as you demonstrated, that doesn’t matter here. In the end, they both have VERY good info and you’d get very good results going up to the advanced stage following either one Having said all of that, I think it’s very obvious Mike isn’t training 0-1 RIR. Yes they’re all training very hard, but it’s important to keep in mind that Jared feather is on the floor partly or mostly due to lower back pumps caused by anabolics. He even made a post about it. Anyone who takes anabolics knows that you can get AWFUL lower back pumps. I’m not saying he’s not training hard, he clearly does but that factor should be noted. In the end this may be a very nuanced topic (or may not be depending upon how you look at it). But like you stated, how much can we take seriously the research ‘going to failure’ if that’s how they really train? I think Mike should really address these with taking his ego out of it. It would show a lot
Yes from what I've garnered, steroids enhance the mind muscle connection and the pump, particularly in the lower back. So with higher rep sets it makes volitional failure much more likely. At the end of the day, they are certainly getting results. And they are definitely working hard. But you are right that I don't think a lot of these sets are 0-1 RIR, technical or otherwise.
I don't think the majority of those are 0 to 1 RIR or RPE 9. However, I would submit that, for some movements, you can be close to or at 0 to 1 RIR without a dramatic speed reduction. Experimenting on myself (anecdotally) I found that my speed on squats, deadlifts, leg extensions, et al, slowed dramatically, but I was not prevented from doing 2 to 4 more reps. However, when performing standing OHP, lying leg curls, and lying tricep dumbbell extensions, I reached failure, suddenly, sometimes mid rep, without slowing substantially (also, without rounding over or using "body english" to get the reps.)
I am some kind confused. I have one video, where I am benching 315 on 5*5, and on 5th set i had such timelines: 1 st rep - 1,06 2 nd and 3rd - around 1,27 4th rep - 1, 67 5 th rep - failure, cannot go through deadpoint, barbell on chest So.... the question is not only in miliseconds... I am powerlifter, so I have very good explosive power, and can bench heavy weights with good speed, and then just click, muscles knocked out
Interesting, even if they are going to technical failure, the machine reps still look a relatively quick and easy. A little strange, since I've watched video named "Chest and Triceps Training: Until The Arms Give Out" from RP a few days ago, where they have guest, and he actually pushes to failure (or closer than what is shown here), and they encourage him to do so. So I'm not sure at this point what is acceptable failure to them, after watching this one.
Yes Geoff I agree, those guys are working out hard but thats like 3-4 RIR, at 1 RIR you should be banging your head on the bench, absolute grinder reps. I rarely do 1-2 RIR because you usually don't gotta go that far.
What needs to be taken into account is that Mike and the others are enhanced so they do stimulate MPS enough with 5-6 RIR but the downside is that PEDs don't help your connective tissue, on the contrary. So basically that's a 1 RIR for enhanced people who don't want to bust their tendons/rip muscles. And that other guy just isn't in the zone, clearly doesn't like pain. My take atleast.
That's fair. I just wish they sort of mentioned that more, rather than claiming it's 0-1 RIR. As PEDs really DO change a lot of the training, perhaps more than they let on.
it's funny how the second guy knows all this theory about lifting but when the going gets though he quits. Really shows the importance of working on pain tolerance so you dont become this guy.
Instead of him just saying "f#@k you Lyle!", explaining why he considers that muscular failure would be a better response. Now they just came across as RUclips bullies. Hell, I was thinking I train harder than those guys! And I'm tiny compared to them!
It's as if they are calling "not perfect, not explosive" the mark of failure rather than actual muscle failure. Or maybe it's a "this burns real bad, I'mma quit" type of failure.
A few comments have actually said that when the reps even slow, it's failure. Like if you can't get those .7-1.0 second reps, that's failure. Can't say I agree.
Depends on the exercise and goal. for lots of powerlifting cycles you aim for all fast snappy reps and stop when you lose proper form or speed. But for other exercises and hyperthory, grinding out those last few reps for some people I believe is required at stages.
@@Max-mm1sl but that doesn't mean it's failure. It just means they had more RIR. That's like having a top speed of 12 miles per hour, but only going to 11 miles per hour because you don't want to fatigue, but calling it your max speed.
Mike had repeatedly said: by failure he means technical failure, not "I cannot possibly move this weight no matter what terrible form I use even with gun to my head" failure. They have a strict focus on technique and do not consider grindy, shaky, twisty reps to be even remotely useful for training...because crappy reps aren't useful in training. The RP crew has specific muscles in mind to hit when it does exercises and they focus on those specific muscles, not on breaking rep PRs that do little to build muscle but do a lot in terms of adding fatigue.
My book SWEAT is still 50% off. Can grab a copy here:
www.verityfit.com/product-page/sweat
Feedback has been excellent, second book in progress! Appreciate the support and allowing me to keep the channel going!
Are u planning to do a video on hormones , so that we know what to expect from the book ?
@@user-zk4dv2nx8k perhaps some short videos on specific ones. A video on all hormones would be...really long haha
Just a reminder that these are two old-ish men fighting over how they lift things up and put them down. Also a man with a PHD clearly butthurt over criticism even though with a PHD he should be pretty aware of and comfortable with criticism. Amazing. Spectacular. Illuminating.
Great video as always Geoffrey. Although is this not a “shit tier” video as it’s covering drama?
@@ryanmorrissette27 strong argument for this video to be in the shit tier, especially given the thumbnail. But also perhaps educational.
Mike faiuler mean technecal failure donot feel jeouls
Hey Geoff, nice work on the video. I have one small point that may or may not be relevant or correct.
If you look at mike and the gang, they all have absolutely immaculate form on every single rep of every exercise shown. Your first counter example of you doing cable crossovers is... well, not immaculate (you admit this yourself haha). It’s not really so much a cable crossover as it is a cable decline press. You’re getting TONS of tricep and delt involvement, especially at the end, as your form deteriorates and your pecs give out. You even get your hips and legs involved on the last few reps.
This raises the fundamental issue: how much technique breakdown is acceptable when getting to 0RIR? If you kept your elbows locked on those “crossovers” (keeping the emphasis on the pecs that Mike et al would have had) would you have been able to crank those extra 3-4 reps? I suspect not.
Now, maybe that just wasn’t your best example to drive your points (your form was definitely better on the DB presses and leg curls, although I THINK I can still detect “sloppier” cadences and less focus on MMC) but I do think this reveals a small blind spot in your analysis - that consistent technique might be taking a back seat to rep speed. At least in some of your own training. Maybe this isn’t such a bad thing. But it definitely muddies the analysis a bit.
Again, I suspect that if you kept your form tight, and kept emphasis on your pecs, you would have not only hit that wall a lot sooner, but would have seen more of an abrupt change in concentric rep speed rather than the long, drawn out, grindy, exorcist-style reps you did.
And again, BECAUSE the RP guys place so much more emphasis on technique and mind-muscle connection, I wouldn’t be surprised if they had less reps to failure than you think, simply because they are less willing to allow technique deviations than you are.
Just a quick thought I had while watching. Keep up the good work. Love this topic!
Hi jeff
Didn't expect to see one of the youtube fitness GOATs Jeff Nippard here
My exact thoughts too Jeff! 👍 love your stuff too bro!
Hey Jeff,
Thanks for stopping by! All your points are certainly both correct and relevant. The crossovers were beyond technical failure, but then again that's sort of how I always do them, as a bit of a decline press with triceps and delts along for the ride. And then the last 2-3 reps there was some hip flexor to the rescue. Probably not the best example, was just a recent set I had.
As for the mind muscle connection, at failure, that becomes tougher. On the curls, the focus is still squeezing the hamstrings, though on the presses, it sort of just becomes "get the weight up".
If the MMC is lost, is that failure?
If slight momentum is used, is that failure?
If another muscle group helps slightly, is that failure?
If the reps even *slow,* is that failure, as a few people said in comments?
If the muscles burn and you decide to stop, is that failure?
Agree that it's very hard to accurately assess exactly how many reps someone has left, it's even hard to assess during the set sometimes for oneself.
I still think RIR has value, at least conceptually, it's just inherently very difficult to standardize it, and this means that a lot of research may be all over the place with regards to optimal volume recommendations.
At the end of the day, there are people getting good results on fairly low volume, even to a high level, but the bulk of the research shows that high volume is superior, and there don't even seem to be diminishing returns for some studies.
Anyway, agree that it's an interesting topic, and there's no "right" answer! There's always a give and take from training closer or further from failure. And it's somewhat individual, too.
Jeff recognises good content like Geoff’s he also knows which content is not so great (Greg)
That was my 2-3 RIR week. I just partake in the videos. I don't put up the cards ;) I had two more weeks of training after. I agree. Very few of the sets were 0-1 RIR but also.... your technique breakdown is beyond failure as I'd consider technical failure actual failure when you're truly good at training the target muscles with the exercise.
Cool video! I'd consider more than just rep speed when looking at failure as well.
Gotcha. That makes sense, and for a 2-3 RIR week, it looks spot on (though as you say, it can be hard to judge). It's part of the reason that when you have 3 guys training at different phases, putting 0-1 RIR on the screen can draw criticism.
And yes, in hindsight, the crossovers were beyond technical failure and a poor choice of footage.
Finally, and most importantly...congrats on the pro card!
@@GVS Totally man! The criticism makes sense to me, because we weren't all training that way!
I am also only partially joking while giving them both shit in these videos 😜 I tell Mike to push harder all the time. Lol.
THANK YOU MY MAN!! Hope to bring some of the positives of scientific rigor over to the enhanced realm.
@@JAREDFEATHERRP
"THANK YOU MY MAN!! Hope to bring some of the positives of scientific rigor over to the enhanced realm."
It's working, excited to see your progress over the years to come! 👊👊👊
Exactly Jared, all of your sets were great working sets. Grinder reps were coming if you and Mike kept pushing here so many consider grinder reps to be a point of failure. Are we having some stupid hard work contest here now for Lyle? Ok why not just train for 3 hours until we all puke, doesnt mean that was any more effective than leaving some reps in the tank. I dont get what Lyle is going for here. No one can say that was a half ass effort.
Most ppl who criticize proximity from failure landmarks disregard controlled eccentrics and concentric technique. Lyle and his flock are perplexed that ppl don't body English 5 more horrible concentrics with dive bombed eccentrics to absolute failure.
I finally understand the MEV/MRV recommendations coming from these guys. 45 sets to "failure" per week.
Lyle McDonald might be an asshole but he’s super smart and quite right most of the time.
He’s right here as he was about the Schoenfeld study with 45 sets.
Maybe that's why Mike advocates high volume, coz the intensity is low! I agree with your assessment.
He pukes on sets pretty regularly, and promotes implementing progressive overload which he feels is more optimal when you take a training cycle from 3 rir to 0 rir over the course of 3-6 weeks. Some people burn out and don't move forward with the 6-7(?! 7 days means you have a cushy ass job and you have the recovery capabilities of the smallest women lifters imo) days a week taking each set to failure. How the hell do you survive your third week? Insanity
@@rockyevans1584 *fake pukes
@ShawnGetty-eb1gj fake pukes for clout eh? You could be right. I follow advice more from natties anyways, rps channel has shown how many massive roiders don't even train hard which puts into perspective the relevance of the info
God I wish channels like this actually got the credit they deserved but ppl just want entertainment not great advice.
I’m a fan man thanks for your videos!
Appreciate the support. I'm financially stable, doing what I love, haven't sold out at all, and am doing things the right way.
I can sleep easy at night, I have no real need for massive exposure or millions of followers. :)
Does it make a difference if they're using "technical failure" instead of "true" failure? Mike always points out that as soon as his form isn't perfect, the rep doesn't count and he stops.
But that does make me question the definition of failure for alot of the evidence based folks, because helms, nippard, etc all seem to use "technical" failure whether they're using barbells or machines. Meadows on the other hand takes his machine work to true failure
It does make a difference, especially on some movements.
I always divide failure in three. First comes speed failure, when you cannot complete reps at a given speed/cadence. Then technical failure. Finally true failure, which usually ends in a partial rep.
Technical failure is a bit subjective, the other ones not. It is also highly dependant on the nature of the exercise and the goal of it.
I was gonna say this. They definitely mean technical failure, otherwise they’re just making asses of themselves. They’re pretty close if you consider that the last rep of most of the sets he timed only slowed down a little bit, I’d guess that means they could get those last 2-3 reps out IF their form went to shit which seems to be the issue in this beef, semantics
From my own experience ("old" guy, 52 year old, with some destroyed joints from playing Football a long time ago) failure is particularly brutal on free weight exercises : the reps stay in a given time then brutally stop - I cannot lift at all, there is no 4s, 8s rep...
(I cannot force more reps, longer reps... being out of the proper form is simply too harsh on my joints)
It is a bit different with machine exercises where indeed I can "force" 1 or 2 more reps...
They are also huge gear heads, they make everything look easy...
and I’m saying this as a huge fan of dr Mike and love all his knowledge, presentation, and content
I like Mike a lot as well, but his volume recommendations have never gotten me anywhere. It's simply too much volume to get stronger week after week and most of it, for me, was junk sets with half-assed effort. Ever since I scaled-down the volume and focused on adding weight to the bar, I've seen actual growth.
Can you give an example?
@@JoeMama-sd2kl I'm not ArsEN but I tend to agree- and to give my personal example, I tried to just add sets to chest, week on week, and found that my strength was stagnating, and I wasn't looking much better. Instead I scaled back to a somewhat-arbitrary 4 sets of flat bench, 4 sets of flys (plus some other stuff more accessory-focussed) and in the space of a few weeks my bench went up 10kg. Some of that was *maybe* helped by the initial volume weeks, but there is definitely something to be said for just scaling back volume, reducing that fatigue, and focussing on in-set intensity.
how much steroids are you running curently?
@@soofitnsexy If that was aimed at me, I'm not on steroids of any kind.
@@jackd4067 lol nooo my point was when he mentioned Mike in the original comment how his high volume recommendations didnt get him anywhere...well its painfully obvious the RP crew are on drugs...alot of the people following them and in this comment section...myself included are naturals....im surprised Geof didnt address this .....drugs.. is a different type of training ...working out twice a day not going to failure etc :)
Love your video man, such a class and you gave your point of view respectfully, regardless of you being right or wrong. Keep it up man!💪🏻
Appreciate it!
Great video Geoff! I love how thorough, critical, and unbiased you were with this review.
I saw Jeff Nippards comment and although I agree that there are many considerations that can be made when discussing the nuances of “training to failure”, your review was very well done.
Thanks for the quality content!
Nice work with the editing and I loved the topic and the way you presented and discussed it.
I totally agree with your way of assessing those RIR 1-0 sets, nobody does 150 sets a week to RIR 1-0 and recovers afterwards, not even Ronnie Coleman nor Branch Warren taking grams of PEDS were able to do that. I think that two great examples of going to total failure with immaculate technique while keeping the volume moderate are Jordan Peters and Corinne, and if you compare their way to approach and perform a set to RIR 0 to the way that Mike or Jared do, there's a world apart of difference, so it's not a matter of technique as Jeff Nippard argumented based purely on your form.
In my own experience, I completely lost 2 years training without progressing and with constant aches on my joints with the RP methodology of high frequency, high volume and going from RIR 4 to 0 during the mesocycles. I think that for advanced people (+315 bench, +405 squat, +445 deadlift) less than a true RIR 2 isn't going to stimulate any hypertrophy gains and thus, you'll be training for maintenance for 3 weeks of each mesocycle (deload and first two weeks) and then you'll have 2 weeks of a good stimulus for growth with too much volume and frequency to be able to recover properly if you go to true RIR 2-0, so you won't make any decent strenght gains.
My takeaway points:
- You don't need to start a mesocycle with RIR 3-4, you could continuously go for RIR 1-2 during the mesocycle and get stronger on the basics while going to complete failure in some machines and recovering fine with a moderate volume approach.
- You don't need to manipulate volume during a mesocycle if you're progressing in your lifts.
- If you don't manipulate volume you could deload less often because you never find yourself overreaching.
- You don't need more than 10 sets for ANY muscle group to make your best gains if you train with a true RIR 1-0.
100% agree. At the end of the day, PROGRESS is the most important.
I agree with your general conclusion. Many people think they’re 1-2 reps away from failure when in reality they’re 5 or 6, That said, I think it should probably be a trade off between that and acceptable technique (not every rep has to be super strict but not completely disregarding everything)
Your videos just keep getting better. I hope you get the recognition you deserve soon.
Appreciate that! And yes, there's probably a happy medium between closer to failure and with strict technique.
That explains why my failures look so terrifying. Also i've been killing myself by using programs by people who don't know what "real failure" is & have constantly told me to improve my work capacity. I remember when people said 194 squat is my max but i cranked a 212 kg squat mere minutes later.
To be fair to PR folk, they define failure as not being able to do a perfect form and same tempo rep. You are working off of a different definition than them. (I do agree with your definition though)
This is a fantastic video. I sincerely appreciate the debate on both sides, even if it gets acrimonious at times- it's much needed, and nuanced takes like this are extremely helpful.
Man love this, nice to see people taking sets to failure and well actually taking them to failure, especially leg training it feels like people underestimate how much they can do until they reach actual failure, like higher rep squats I feel like most people would be suprised if they had safety measurements like those side bars (don't know what they are actually called but you know what I mean hopefully) and well literally squatted until they physically weren't capable of getting the weight up, not just until it hurt for a few reps, leg extensions are another great example, if I do my last set and I get 15 that means from rep probably like 6 it started to burn, by rep 10 my legs were on fire but that feeling of being uncomfortability doesn't mean I reached failure, that's when I actually just can't do more no matter how hard the weight just doesn't budge past a certain point, I feel like alot if not most people don't realize how far they can push. I guess I could attribute this to doing alot of sports when I was younger (well im 20 so im still young but still) , my dad always used to say "what's the worst thing that could happen, you get tired" I feel like more people need to realize this or just actually push themselves beyond they think they are physically capable of, and not because "bro you gotta be tough and push yourself bro" it's just a liberating feeling knowing you can do so much, and furthermore, out of all the things you can do athletically to failure I would argue that pushing a few sets to failure in a workout is not that hard compared to most sports where lets say you run until you cant walk, like the time frame is extremely small, not saying it's easy but it's more realistic for probably most people to be able to push themselves to that limit consistently when it comes to weighttraining, which is one reason why it's a great resource to build confidence for anyone. Great video as always keep it up
Excellent video. It shows crystal clear what is sets to failure and why low volume (3-9 sets per body part per week) CAN generate muscle hypertrophy as far as you train to failure or very near to it.
I have to agree with the overall assessment by Geoff on this video. I might not be as experienced, certainly not as jacked and, most importantly here on YT, not as popular, but I think I can do a much better job in gauging proximity to failure (like I do in my latest video btw). I understand the emphasis RP places on technique, but a slight break down (as long as it's safe for the athlete) as well as a slowing-down in tempo (due to sticking points) in a set is neccessary to determine that the lifter is approaching concentric failure. Maybe my definition (or threshold) is flawed, but I am confident to say that the RP crew could have gotten 2-5 extra reps (on average) in each of those sets for them to call those RIR 0-1. In my books, that efforst is nowhere close to RIR 0-1.
Open to hear other people's thoughts on this issue, but I am of the opinion that effort takes priority over pristine technique execution towards the end of a set AS LONG AS IT'S SAFE FOR THE ATHLETE (and the stimulus to fatigue ratio is not detrimental to the remaining workout nor the overall fatigue accumulation during the mesocycle) Keep it up Geoff 💪
Hmm...interesting topic & video!
I think it might be important & instructive to distinguish between 3 things:
1) technical failure vs muscular/true failure (although the RP guys almost always mean technical failure when they calculate RIR),
2) 'free-form' barbell/dumbbell-based compound exercises vs more 'fixed'/'rigid' machine-based compound exercises, as were in these cases (am deliberately not including isolation-style exercises in this, for obvious reasons), and
3) bodyweight exercises (vs others).
I think using rep speed as a surrogate for 'failure' will mean different things to different people *on/for different exercises* (both in style/type and actual exercise/movement pattern), and also the *order* of these exercises... esp. when 'systemic failure' starts to take a toll...(What I mean is that maybe they're trying to 'save energy' -- after all these clips are from different workout videos, not a single, longitudinal video...)
Again, not taking any sides...I just think there's merit to both. But, yeah, I agree with you reg. the 0-1 RIR nomenclature being (mis)used, although, that *may* depend on the aforementioned points as well...
Mike needs to ""Train Harder Than Last Time!"
People who don't go to failure don't have a reference for programming RIR or RPE.
Me: "How much is two plus two?" Accountant: "How much do you want it to be?" Bodyfat percentage, RPE, and RIR are like that.
I agree with Lyle on this one too, but for me personally I often end up going to failure with most exercises by accident because my rep speed doesn't slow down until I reach 1 and sometimes 2 RIR, so sometimes I'll barely fail a tough grind thinking I probably had 1 RIR
True failure is a 10 second concentric (on compounds). I’ll die on this hill.
You'll die from the added unintentional eccentric on that hill
Geoff, please come back to Quora! Blood has been spilled. Writers are fighting amongst themselves to be the top fitness writer.
If you're not going to return for your fans, at least do it for me.
Game of Thrones: Quora Fitness Edition
I think especially with heavy compound movements, it's possible to have no reps in the tank after a rep that didn't _look_ slow and grindy.
Sometimes, because each rep just produces so much more fatigue than the last, your last rep looks pretty clean so you try one more, and you end up pinned to the bench.
That's me on ohp and BB Rows, sometimes bench
Good video and I like you admit bias and still criticize RP. The *failure* probably lacks formal definition, so we have to rely on sort of "I know it when I see it", but I think we all can agree that if someone does repetitions without slowing down and suddenly stops, it's not even close to failure. I also share the sentiment that studies with absurd amount of sets to "failure" can't be to failure in any reasonable sense, especially in "laboratory" setting where subjects have spotters in case of true failure occurring.
Regarding Lyle - he's right more often than people would like to admit, especially if they are under scrutiny of his bi-polar brain. Anyone remembers GOMAD effects on that poor Zack kid, Rippetoe claiming that he gained mostly muscle, and Lyle calling bs? Fun times...
I tend to agree with you here. I`m still binge-watching all your old videos:)
You're a lot like me man 😂 "That was a warm up set" If the bar ain't moving slow as hell it wasn't to REALLY to failure.
Hey Geoff.When is the Ultimate Full Body Guide video coming out?
Probably a week or two. I like to space out similar content/series a bit. Plus that type of thing requires a LOT of time to put together, possible 20-30 hours per video.
@@GVS Ok.Thanks for the answer.Appreciate the work
@@GVS it will be awesome to see full body guide video, even though i know how to put on a decent simple full body program, but since i know i will learn more from your video, i can't wait to see it! Also i'm a big fan of full body training, it's really logical way of training and enjoyable. I do train upper/lower split time to time, but i always end up coming back to full body
This video (specifically when you talk about the high volume studies) highlights a pretty important point in that in a lot of these studies the scientific method employed is greatly impacted and I'd argue hindered, through underlying subjectivity built into the experimental design. As someone who studies science its important to understand that all models are incorrect and that blindly following science may not be the most optimal thing to do. Taking a knowledgeable yet reasonably skeptical approach may be best and its through critical analysis of research that scientific boundaries are pushed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
Essentially, you have basically ALL the data on untrained normal people pointing to high volume being key. Because they cannot train close to failure, because most people cannot. Heck, even trained people often can't actually go to true failure in many cases. So the trained data also points to volume being "the driver" of hypertrophy.
So, as an exercise science based coach, you attempt a high volume training protocol. Because that is optimal, according to the data. Obviously!
However, to do so, you need to not train very close to failure. You cannot. Otherwise how do you get in all that volume you need? So you always keep 3-6 reps in reserve. For the volume.
You also need higher frequency to fit everything in. You have to work out 12 times a week just to achieve that tasty volume!
Volume becomes the only target, and thus it's easy to lose sight of everything else.
@@GVS interesting explanation but it makes total sense! Goodharts law reference makes me think you studied economics or stats so you definitely know more about statistical errors than me. I'm a biologist so what you described reminds me kind of like how fischerian runaways are hypothesised to lead to extreme traits in sexual selection (a bit of a strech). The same principle though is that such intense selection on a certain parameter which has given a payoff in the past (in this case volume) leads to it becoming exaggerated, even at the expense of what would be assumed reasonable (and thus the absurdly high training volume). Like a peacock's tail!
I found for my own training the exact same thing though. High volume was said to be key but my strength just wasn't there. Cutting back my volume and sets has helped me so much in improving my bench and squat (before gyms closed).
Anyways great video and glad to see Jeff Nippard commented, hopefully it gives your channel the attention it deserves!
This is why I’m skeptical of all these studies. It’s impossible to control all of the variables. Exercise science really can’t be considered a hard science.
@@DaveD1868 I think healthy skepticism. Whilst it may not be a hard science you can definitely take away general principles from the studies. However if something works for you and there's no science to back it up, I wouldn't worry about it. John Meadows echoed a similar point when discussing his Meadows row variation; no science saying its EMG activation is best but it works for him and thats ultimately the most important
Fenrir God Agreed. Brett Contreras is always doing experiments on himself. I think we all need to be open minded and try different things and then take what works best for ourselves.
Well that sure explains why I feel like I can never do some of those volumes I read/hear about. On the other hand I don't go to failure very often, only to noticeably slower reps. True failure takes too big a toll on my recovery time.
Very bold video. Respect.
I’ve also noticed that it’s very subjective and that the people who advocate higher frequency and volume have a different definition of failure than those who advocate abbreviated training.
Yup. There has to be.
If you only have 1-2 sets to get it done, they better be damn hard. 0 RIR, maybe to failure on safe exercises and possibly past it.
If you have 3-5 sets, they can't be damn hard, by definition. Maybe kinda hard. 1-2RIR.
At 6-10 sets, usually people are at 3-5 RIR. If doing that much volume with true 1-2 RIR, it takes 4-6 days to recover. And at true failure, EASILY a week, though this depends on the muscle group.
11+ sets for a muscle group in a workout...that's where you start seeing the "is that a warmup or working set?" phenomenon.
If an observer can't tell the difference between working set and a warmup, it wasn't a 0-1 RIR working set.
Mike describes failure as even the slightest technique breakdown. He said so in one of his videos.
I think most people would disagree on that one and use a different criteria
@@pavelandonov3345 yup. Extremely strict technical failure means that at any point any part of the range of motion gives out or any other muscle comes into the picture at all, the set is now beyond failure.
My cable crossovers? Beyond failure, I used slight momentum. Eyeballs also activated.
My arnold presses? Beyond failure, I arched back slightly to get through that last sticking point.
Client's Squats? Beyond failure, his mid back rounded/elbows came back slightly.
My hamstring curls? Beyond failure multiple reps, as I bobbed my head and winced.
Can't have active facial muscles.
@@GVS I guess there is some merit by following such strict rules on exercises with high risk ratio
However, I can see how that can also lead to undertraining or the need to have very high frequency + volume. Which is essentially what RP suggests as you pointed out.
@@pavelandonov3345 for sure. For example, after I got that video of my client squatting I told him good job, but hold back next time. Because it's not worth pushing that close on squats.
And yes, if some sets stop at technical failure (and most 1-3 reps away from it) you are gonna have to do a TON of sets to get the same results.
I relate to the “you don’t train hard accusations” lol. Unless I deliberately slow a rep down I’m just not capable of 3 second reps, I absolutely suck at grinding 😂 my 1 rir looks like most peoples 2/3 rir I think it’s cause I’m a little type 2 fibre dominant but yeah. For some of us approaching failure just isn’t as dramatic until we hit it, not saying you’re wrong about them cutting sets short prematurely if their goal was 0-1 rir, only they know really but yeah just thought I’d share my own experience with this. Keep up the good videos Geoff!
There is some individual variation, for sure, which may be partially fiber type dependant. But part of it is a skill. You can develop the ability to train closer to actual failure if you practice it.
Can also depend on the exercise, and the strength curve as well.
My jaw dropped when I saw your range of motion on the flyes. THAT'S CRAZY
Probably not advisable for most, but it works for me.
Your cable cross over 0 RIR clip, hahahaha, awesome. I'm a fan
Great content as always Geoff. One question ,how often do you approach actual failure like 0 RIR?
Depends on the exercise. Something like a lateral raise where the hardest part is the top and it's very safe, extremely often. Almost certainly the majority of my sets. As "technical failure" means just not being able to get the dumbbells all the way up. Failing is still hard, but you really are only failing a tiny little part of the range of motion so it doesn't really have the same stress, as the bottom 90% of the ROM wasn't at failure.
Things like bench/squat/deadlift, very seldom, as the sticking point is in the middle or bottom part of the range of motion (for me) and thus going closer to failure is relatively more stressful.
It's mostly exercise dependant.
@@GVS fantastic answer...if you do mostly body building work which is what I do I fail every single set 30 to 50 sets per body part...but no big lifts here deads squats bench press...no I dont go all out there
@@soofitnsexy High rep isolation training should almost always be to failure for best results. The stress in those rep ranges don't usually result in a technical mechanical failure but are cut a bit short of that by the metabolic stress/acid buildup/pain and the overall stress on the system is many times less than that of a heavy compound.
@@jonduke4748 agreed but for my purposes and what I teach and preach daily they are tons better then heavy compounds...I never mentioned high rep light weight!
I think it's great that you can look at the people you admire and look at their claims objectively. Also as you mentioned, this should cause us to look into some of the volume recommendations based on research currently done. I wonder if there's any videographic records supporting the research studies which can give us an idea of what the RIR considered by the participants look like, especially for ones mentioning that the participants went to very close to failure
I've never been able to find such footage, and I've actually checked before, as I am very, very, very curious, especially for these studies on 20, 30, 40+ sets per week to "failure" and seeing increasing gains.
It'll just say "to failure" or "momentary muscular failure" or "concentric failure" or "technical failure" but what if the person stops because they just *wanted* to? That's BY FAR the most common reason people stop a set, after all. They just...want to. It starts to get hard, and they stop. Do the researchers throw out that set? That individual? Or do they do nothing?
Often it says that if they can't get into a rep range, they reduce the weight on subsequent sets. So someone could end up doing a ton of just really light, submaximal sets. The average person has the willpower of a teacup so I'm guessing many studies have a ton of 5-10 RIR junk thrown in, and it's impossible to throw that out. It's entirely possible that there are studies where a lot of individuals are MORE than 10 reps away from true failure.
That means that a large part of exercise science just doesn't apply to those people that CAN push themselves, which explains why many very big and very strong people just don't put much value in studies.
@@GVS Thanks for the really long insightful reply. I guess you have already thought about and looked into this before. I guess the one point I can think of then is that since most people are quite a few reps shy of failure the studies conducted in this manner do actually apply to them. Since they'll never approach close to true failure so the recommendations match the user.
But as you have rightly pointed out, then there would be a separate sub set of individuals who do reach close to actual failure and the general research studies will not apply to them. They'll maybe be better off treating the studies with a pinch of salt.
@@harshivmahajan5311 I read quite a bit of research, and occasionally do use it to guide my training or coaching decisions. But at the same time much of it doesn't quite translate all that well to the "real world".
When I think of failure and what it looks like, I tend to categorize it in certain ways. 1) concentric failure with good form 2) concentric failure with good form and partials or isolations at the end.
3) concentric failure with good form and a few forced reps with assistance. 4) concentric failure with good form, partials, isolations, forced and eccentric failure. Typically I employ # 1 or # 2 as I usually have no training partner. When to employ failure is of course another topic all together. I just want to clarify, I am not a trained fitness professional, have no certifications, but very much enjoy weight training. Great video!
Watching your set on the cable machine I was worried you were RE-enacting the scene in “Bad Grandpa” where he sh!ts himself so bad that he sprays the wall in the restaurant with 💩. That my friend is failure.....
It's kind of hard for people not doing the exercise to judge RPE/rir to be honest. For instance, my triceps movements look like they're at RPE 4-5 when they're in fact at 9-10. How do I know? Well because I often take them to failure where no next rep can be completed even though the previous rep looked like a RIR 5 or so. But I agree some of these looked like they were RIR 2++
0:59 Oh how things have changed.
I’m from the future. You don’t believe this anymore about him.
Still a fan just disagree with some of their takes. Same as then, as is now, though their channel has changed a lot.
I thought RIR measures how many reps you have in reserve WITHOUT form breakdown. There is a huge difference between 0-1 RIR with clean form and 0-1 grind reps
On some of those exercises there's no way to have form breakdown though (e.g. the leg press).
It typically does… taking longer in length to complete a full rep is not form breakdown though lol
No. It's just your sinergists failure. Your bench press form breaks down not because of your pecs. They can push 5 more reps. But you stop the set
BS.
It's just excuses. And Neither does Mike Israetal or anyone in the whole world have PERFECT FORM. Form is an IDEAL .. There is no Possibility of Form Breakdown on Barbell Curls.
And are not these HIGH Volume enthusiasts who always say "Don't be too much Science Based" and then make excuses of FORM BREAKDOWN for not even going close to failure. That then even makes sense to do like 15 sets for a particular muscle group in a session, when You are having like 4 reps in reserve on each set.
I mean, a little form breakdown here n there on Machine movements is not even noticeable.
And it is just a myth that training to complete failure and having great form can't be done together. I mean I wouldn't say You train hard if you can't focus, It is not just reps and weights increase, Your Concentration should also increase progressively. If You could Focus till last reps with 50 lbs Barbell curls, but with 100 lbs, if You can't keep good form, You are shit man.
I would say these are just new things made up to back up their SCIENTIFIC STUDIES on High Volume, to show that their Studies are Novel and these conclusions are something meaningful... Full BS.
I don't support HIT training now... But go watch Mike Mentzer's Model for Heavy Duty footage - Markus doing sets to failure, with so great form and even with Non-Effective reps with 10 seconds cadence, which is harder even if not more effective... Mike Israetal's approach is nowhere near it, neither is Brad Schoenfeld's. People are defending them just bcz they are considered "EXERCISE SCIENTISTS" ... If these were random people, whole RUclips Fitness community would be making fun of them.
How nad can form get on a smith machine bench?
Great video, as always! Makes me think and re-asses my own effort levels :)
One thought regarding Brad's pulldown clip - is it possible that his arms/forearms gave out? I can see the fingers sliding down from the bar. I can relate to that, I often use straps on pulldowns, otherwise my grip will fail way before my lats. So it won't be a lat failure per se, but still a muscular failure, right?
But is he targeting his forearms? I doubt he's doing pulldowns for his forearms.
Therefore I would argue that it is far from failure.
@@NapsterRulez fair point
Nice vid, could you maybe look into stretching and benefits of doing 15 mins of stretches per day if any? Recently I have got into stretching and feel really good, what’s your opinion
Ah...I think it's overrated haha. But if it feels good, no harm in doing it.
Lyle was right.
I've never seen anyone grind a rep on a lat pulldown machine. Machines usually offer a different strength curve which requires the muscle to produce peak forces at full concentric contraction. And while on the squat and the bench press the most difficult portion of the lift is not at peak conenctric contraction and actually usually around midway up and it gets easier past that point (because the moments on the joints reduce hence way you can "grind" throught it) on machines the most challenging part is at the end of the rep (in the lat pulldown squeezing at the bottom). And so my point is that the analogy or more accurately the measurement of proximity to failure based on "grinding" might not be applicable in the Schoenfeld example. I mean you know you've hit failure on a lat pulldown machine if you no longer can fully depress your scapulae. It rarely happens with grinding. It just happens. On rep 9 you barely go all the down and rep 10 you can't even move the handle 1/2 of the way down.
I still don't think Schoenfeld was at 0 RIR. Based on my perception of technical failure he was at 1 or maybe 2 RIR.
Probably 2-4 RIR in my book but yes that last few inches of ROM are the hardest. I still don't think it looked like an honest effort. Meadows was talking to him like he was mid-set, not at the last rep.
Dorian Yates blood & guts is how I would define training to failure, not that dude doing the pull down who had a lot more reps in him. Anybody who follows that guys studies on training to failure is being misled
What’s your opinion on Training fixed sets like 3x 12 but then add 1 set to total failure?
Sounds fine.
Holy smokes, those are some slow grindy reps! I think on a machine, you can probably do that safely, but on a heavy compound lift (like squats) that would make me uncomfortable.
I judge my RIR by how much I slow down (and sometimes those 5 or 7 second reps feel like an absolute eternity). If I'm doing an AMRAP, my face is beet red (making some type of weird face I can't even describe), I usually have one or more hard sticking point / bit of shaking, and I'm usually yelling for that last bit of extension / lock out. Either I call it done after that rep, or I try another and have to leave it on the safeties / drop it because I can't push or pull any more. Since I mostly do compound lifts I really try to avoid going this far, I think that's just asking for injury at some point down the road. I think my form is still quite good at 3 RIR but the reps have slowed enough that I'm good ending the set. Interesting discussion.
Mike Israetel, is looking like a mixture of Bas Rutten/Scott Mendelson and Joe Rogan:)
A triple merge
Anyway, I alternate between 2-4 weeks with about 60-75 work sets per week with an average of about 3 RIR and 2-4 weeks with about 30-35 work sets with 0-1 real RIR. The higher RIR is a lot easier on my nervous system, and by that, I mean I feel like the 0-1 RIR makes me put out a lot more adrenaline and cortisol.
Another thing, I strive to make the first rep of a work set hard by flexing antagonist muscles and increasing forces that are perpendicular to the load, like squeezing together on a machine press, and doing mechanical drop sets where I can slightly alter my posture, or let up with my antagonists as the reps get harder.
By the way, Brad's best data today shows that 1 set 1-3 RIR (pre week) yields about 50% of most people's maximum hypertrophy an that each additional set up to 9-12 or so adds about 5%. Doing more than about 9-12 has only been done in routines where the volume was raised in 1-2 muscle groups at a time.
Geoff: wanna see my 0RIR face? 0h, 0h, 0h!
clock 10:10 (not timestamp on the video) is it intentional? what's the meaning?
No meaning, just dead battery.
illuminati conformed
great editing in this video
From personal experience, I go close to absolute failure (not being able to lift the weight anymore) while maintaining the technique, and I feel like sometimes my last reps are the same speed. It's rare for me to have a grindy rep in an exercise that isn't the bench press
Good video mate
Glad you enjoyed!
There is working hard and working to failure. Just say you are working hard and don't BS. Much more respect for that than falling on the ground like an idiot.
I had to see this video, you replied to my comment addressing this topic on other videos but i didn't see this one prior to that. So, i have to retract what i said because you clearly know their content and dug throw a lot, and reached your own conclusions. I, as a newcomer to your channel, assumed that you were just trolling; is still a hot debate and you are contributing to the community with your valid points and being respectful. Hope you can see this comment although the video is 3-month-olds, and sorry if i was being rude
No problem :) it's a valid first assumption.
Excellent breakdown.
ok, let me add to this and this is pretty obvious but most movements except movements where the neutral part is also adding tension to the muscle significantly like Bench , when done over with a weight/resistance where you do over 15 reps with it, the RIR becomes hard to judge simply because when you breathe for a 2-3 seconds you squeeze more reps, this process may be done 2-3 time and depending on how much hell you wish to endure, like leg pressing becomes hell with a weight you normally do 15 reps but hitting failure on that would require like 20-22 reps simply because you can lock out knees and breathe and then push more .
For sure. I've done 40 reps with 315lbs in the deadlift, but it took a few minutes.
That's where failure gets blurry. As you can maybe do 12+3+3+3+3=24 reps with your "to failure" 20 rep max, and it's both beyond failure (as you got MORE REPS) but also in a way easier (as you avoided grindy reps by resting slightly).
I agree. I'm a huge RP/Mike fan but I've often said to myself that they aren't training as close to failure as they say. I can say that when I worked out 6 days per week (and even 5 per week) I THOUGHT I was going close to failure but when I cut down to a bro split 4x per week I realized that I wasn't really that close to failure at all.
I'm disappointed that Mike can't just play it off or laugh about it...he's got to get defensive...not good.
This is an awesome and super honest video i love it
Geoff never fails to put joint in his video 😂👍
this is super interesting. thanks for the vid.
Great explanations and illustration of reps in reserve. Schoenfield...... My near-beginners would put him on the trailer as far a RIR.
Face has to be a disaster with the pain and the grind to look like failure, like you showed it should be a fucking grind to reach RIR 0-1.
Yup watching someone's face is a really good way to see their effort levels, in almost all cases.
If they don't look wrinkly, they're not near failure.
Love it - on the cable crossovers reminded JCVD in Bloodsport. =)
Sick video 🤘🏻
what if lyle's right? and what if that much effort they're both fighting about is just not needed anyway?
I don't think Lyle is arguing that you have to train to failure, just that they are not.
Similarly, I'm not saying training to failure is necessary or even optimal. My hamstrings are gonna be sore for 4-5 days from that set of curls, which can impact the next leg day.
I'm just assessing the sets and comparing them to the claim of 0-1 RIR.
@@GVS does that not call the whole rir method into question though. because RP are probably the #1 at pushing this method or rather advocating it, so if its too hard to implement even for them i dont think i would recommend it. like, i think i can estimate rir well for myself, but im probably wrong
@@00HoODBoy I agree that it really calls RIR into question, yes. If the guys who are advocating for it clearly can't use it properly, can the average person?
That's not shade or anything. At this point it's very clear that they are far enough off on their RIR that it's suddenly a useless metric. They still train hard and get GREAT results without it.
What I don't get is these guys call themselves SCIENCE BASED, yet they are so dogmatic in their beliefs.
I was thinking exactly the same thing as Nippard down in the comments.
I've been watching Mike for some time and I know that as soon as his form's about to break of any kind he stops. He doesn't qualify the "broken" reps as reps, because he is all about strict reps with full ROM. A lot of us probably know that anyone can push out more after the strict reps with 2-3 sec reps at the end and even more, like you showed @11:50.
Doesn't explain or excuse the leg curls, where technical failure isn't an issue. And for many of the sets, they were clearly not even at or near technical failure.
Jared himself commented that this was a 2-3RIR week, I think. And he was pushing THE HARDEST out of the 3.
I'm on a deload week and seen your train to failure wants my deload week to be over to hit all kinds of PR's
This was great. I try harder lol 😆. I try to hold myself back nowadays haha
Good job man
This topic was a hard hit to the studys on training, i never trusted them so much, you can make them conclude anything.
I think rep speed CAN be a decent indicator of failure for SOME muscles, and this probably also varies individually. For me, I can maintain rep speed for all reps, and then BAM I fail and can't finish the next rep... For a few muscles. Hamstrings, forearm flexor, calves. I could be on my 12th rep of a hamstring curl, and it looks nearly identical to my first rep, but then all of a sudden, I can't get my 13th rep. That said, it's not like it comes as a shock to me. I can feel when I'm close to failure, but speed isn't really affected for those stated muscle groups.
For the others, yeah, it's in line with the rep speed dropoff. My speed slows down on bench probably 6 or 7 reps shy of failure. I start to show down, but i can just keep trucking on, it's crazy. Did this just last night. Top set of bench, goal of 9 reps. By the third rep, i noticeably started to slow down. Kept going through that 9th rep, which was an absolute grinder, but still got it up.
Yes, there will be some individual variation, and some variation within the body as well. So it's tough to truly say how many reps someone has left. A lot depends on the strength curve.
So in a sumo deadlift, the hardest part is typically at the bottom. If you break the bar off of the floor, it actually gets easier and easier. So often the weight flys up, or just doesn't move. Could go from 2 seconds for a rep to just failing.
Pressing/Pushing movements are almost always hardest in the middle. So you'll slow but can keep grinding. Many pulling movements are hardest at the end. So with a technical failure approach, you'll fail all of a sudden, as you can't get that last bit. But with a muscular failure mindset, you can keep getting reps.
Finally, a constant strength curve is the most grindable of all. It is equally difficult everywhere, so things just slow very predictably and gradually. Most machines are built this way (or at least try to) and so when I see someone stop on a 1s concentric on many machines, I know that they probably had multiple reps left. Maybe 3, maybe 4 or 5, hard to say. But not 0-1.
Oh god..i have always wondered about this everytime mike said that..hahahha
Failure for what? A. Being able to move the body with the correct form and tempo or B. Being able to move the weight through a predetermined ROM?
Really? Have you looked at his workouts, they are horrible lol. He uses his upper rhomboids on every movement and he refers this to the stretch but he goes past stretch into rhomboid activation all the time.
Look at his body. Huge rhomboids and everything else is totally out of proportion. He doesn’t ever isolate one muscle group. Cool dude but overrated, has the “I’m a Dr.” vibes so i’m righ.
Good work
Solid vid. And the fact that you admitted if you did have a bias, it would be RP, shows you still were able to view this as unbiased as possible.
I very much agree with much of what you said. Lyle is an asshole, everyone knows that, he even knows it. Mike and co. Clearly have a much better personality, they’re more likeable, etc. however, as you demonstrated, that doesn’t matter here. In the end, they both have VERY good info and you’d get very good results going up to the advanced stage following either one
Having said all of that, I think it’s very obvious Mike isn’t training 0-1 RIR. Yes they’re all training very hard, but it’s important to keep in mind that Jared feather is on the floor partly or mostly due to lower back pumps caused by anabolics. He even made a post about it. Anyone who takes anabolics knows that you can get AWFUL lower back pumps. I’m not saying he’s not training hard, he clearly does but that factor should be noted. In the end this may be a very nuanced topic (or may not be depending upon how you look at it). But like you stated, how much can we take seriously the research ‘going to failure’ if that’s how they really train? I think Mike should really address these with taking his ego out of it. It would show a lot
Yes from what I've garnered, steroids enhance the mind muscle connection and the pump, particularly in the lower back. So with higher rep sets it makes volitional failure much more likely.
At the end of the day, they are certainly getting results. And they are definitely working hard. But you are right that I don't think a lot of these sets are 0-1 RIR, technical or otherwise.
I don't think the majority of those are 0 to 1 RIR or RPE 9. However, I would submit that, for some movements, you can be close to or at 0 to 1 RIR without a dramatic speed reduction. Experimenting on myself (anecdotally) I found that my speed on squats, deadlifts, leg extensions, et al, slowed dramatically, but I was not prevented from doing 2 to 4 more reps. However, when performing standing OHP, lying leg curls, and lying tricep dumbbell extensions, I reached failure, suddenly, sometimes mid rep, without slowing substantially (also, without rounding over or using "body english" to get the reps.)
Great video
I am some kind confused.
I have one video, where I am benching 315 on 5*5, and on 5th set i had such timelines:
1 st rep - 1,06
2 nd and 3rd - around 1,27
4th rep - 1, 67
5 th rep - failure, cannot go through deadpoint, barbell on chest
So.... the question is not only in miliseconds... I am powerlifter, so I have very good explosive power, and can bench heavy weights with good speed, and then just click, muscles knocked out
Those leg curl faces are pretty funny ngl
Shows picture of 3 guys. "Guy one, guy two, and -guy three- company"
Yea I just didn't want to butcher his name!
Interesting, even if they are going to technical failure, the machine reps still look a relatively quick and easy. A little strange, since I've watched video named "Chest and Triceps Training: Until The Arms Give Out" from RP a few days ago, where they have guest, and he actually pushes to failure (or closer than what is shown here), and they encourage him to do so. So I'm not sure at this point what is acceptable failure to them, after watching this one.
Yes it's hard to mess up machine training so technical and muscular failure should be pretty much the same. And reps don't slow at all in some cases.
Yes Geoff I agree, those guys are working out hard but thats like 3-4 RIR, at 1 RIR you should be banging your head on the bench, absolute grinder reps. I rarely do 1-2 RIR because you usually don't gotta go that far.
What needs to be taken into account is that Mike and the others are enhanced so they do stimulate MPS enough with 5-6 RIR but the downside is that PEDs don't help your connective tissue, on the contrary. So basically that's a 1 RIR for enhanced people who don't want to bust their tendons/rip muscles. And that other guy just isn't in the zone, clearly doesn't like pain. My take atleast.
That's fair. I just wish they sort of mentioned that more, rather than claiming it's 0-1 RIR. As PEDs really DO change a lot of the training, perhaps more than they let on.
I generally agree geof good video sir
How about one for suggestions for older lifters who want to build muscle without snapping my body up? I'm 52.
Will have a video on training longevity soon.
Failure to Mike is if you can’t do another rep with PERFECT form. They know if they do another rep their form will break.
Doesn't apply to seated leg curl at all. And some of the others there was no form break, no rep slowing, etc.
I think the point is to go to technical failure where we are not able to maintain the technique of the exercise specially with Dr Brad example
it's funny how the second guy knows all this theory about lifting but when the going gets though he quits. Really shows the importance of working on pain tolerance so you dont become this guy.
I think Lyle took shots at you by calling this a bullshit clickbait video, but that's just good ole' Lyle lmao
Yea looking through his 42 minute rant now.
Him calling my video clickbait did get a chuckle from me.
If one were to train to actual failure on working sets, , how many sets per muscle would you say per workout?
Instead of him just saying "f#@k you Lyle!", explaining why he considers that muscular failure would be a better response. Now they just came across as RUclips bullies. Hell, I was thinking I train harder than those guys! And I'm tiny compared to them!
idk I thought the "fuck you Lyle!" was pretty funny
@@jacobhate yeah that was pretty funny! I'm with you on that. 🤣
even if they didnt reach failure, you dont
@@98danielray israetel won't see your comment.
It's as if they are calling "not perfect, not explosive" the mark of failure rather than actual muscle failure. Or maybe it's a "this burns real bad, I'mma quit" type of failure.
A few comments have actually said that when the reps even slow, it's failure. Like if you can't get those .7-1.0 second reps, that's failure.
Can't say I agree.
Depends on the exercise and goal. for lots of powerlifting cycles you aim for all fast snappy reps and stop when you lose proper form or speed. But for other exercises and hyperthory, grinding out those last few reps for some people I believe is required at stages.
@@Max-mm1sl but that doesn't mean it's failure. It just means they had more RIR.
That's like having a top speed of 12 miles per hour, but only going to 11 miles per hour because you don't want to fatigue, but calling it your max speed.
Mike had repeatedly said: by failure he means technical failure, not "I cannot possibly move this weight no matter what terrible form I use even with gun to my head" failure. They have a strict focus on technique and do not consider grindy, shaky, twisty reps to be even remotely useful for training...because crappy reps aren't useful in training. The RP crew has specific muscles in mind to hit when it does exercises and they focus on those specific muscles, not on breaking rep PRs that do little to build muscle but do a lot in terms of adding fatigue.
Doesn't explain the leg curls. They were all way off on those, and technical failure isn't an issue there.