What Lyle McDonald Actually Believes About Muscular Failure

0:02Docking complete.

0:08[Music]

0:11So, here's my question. Should I train

0:14to failure for muscle growth? And would

0:17it be detrimental or beneficial to train

0:21to failure on every set? Well, it

0:24depends. I mean, it always depends. that

0:26that's the that's the problem with this

0:28topic is people tend to talk in such a

0:31non-nuanced way. So potential benefits,

0:35let's look at that first. For people

0:37that suck at RP, that suck at reps and

0:41reserve, that simply do not know how to

0:43gauge intensity, that may be the only

0:46way for them to know that they are

0:47training of sufficient intensity. And

0:49I'm not using that. That's that's that's

0:51an old HAT logical argument. Well, if

0:53you don't train to complete failure, you

0:55can't know it how like in their minds,

0:58you can only know 100%. And I'm like,

1:00well, no, you can absolutely know that

1:03you're at two reps in reserve if you're

1:04good at that and that's 80%. Like that

1:06that's they're using a logical argument.

1:09I'm using a practical argument. Some

1:11people simply cannot gauge how close

1:13they are. And the only way for them to

1:15know that they have gotten a training

1:17stimulus will be to actually go to

1:20momentary physiological muscular

1:22failure. Some people psychologically

1:25prefer that. That would be a pro in a

1:27practical sense. I think you're acting

1:28in asking in a physiological sense. I

1:31mean no both I mean but like but you had

1:34to take all this into account certainly

1:38it would you know at least ensure that

1:40you had crossed some

1:43theoretical point of tension and

1:45mechanical work that will stimulate a ch

1:48you know will stimulate growth. I think

1:50we could probably agree with that. Now

1:53is that necessary? Well, no. Right. This

1:56is always the the again the other

1:58mistake. The hit guys would go they

2:01would try to argue that failure is is

2:03required for muscle growth. Well, no.

2:07Because if that's true, if something is

2:08required, if something is mandatory,

2:10that means no one can make progress

2:11without it. That is provably false,

2:14right? As soon as one person has gotten

2:16big and gotten much bigger without going

2:18to failure, that means that failure is

2:21not mandatory. Now whether or not it's

2:23optimal or beneficial, that's a

2:25different question and that's kind of

2:26what we're talking about. So it fits

2:29some people's psychological needs for

2:31good or for bad you know and I will say

2:33again psychological needs do not dictate

2:35physiological reality but you still

2:38can't ignore them. Some people just

2:40don't feel like you know if they haven't

2:42gone to failure. Now cons obviously if

2:45you're using you know doing a very

2:47technical exercise it could be dangerous

2:49but don't do that right don't like yeah

2:52I mean I I back squatted to total

2:54muscular failure and I maintain perfect

2:56form I did it on deadlifts would I tell

2:59people to do it no

3:02um it takes a lot of practice and skill

3:04to do it and I would not recommend that

3:07you're doing it on a machine where

3:08you're not going to get crushed or have

3:10a you know weight dropped on you injury

3:13risk should be pretty, you know, well,

3:15it's funny. Here's just as a random

3:17aside, which I know I never do. I know I

3:19usually stay better on topic, but let me

3:21just make this one tangent. There is

3:23this assertion that I've come across

3:25that training to failure is more likely

3:27to cause injury. And years ago, I tied

3:30it up with yet another guide. This guy

3:31wrote this article about failure and he

3:33asserted that. Okay. So, I decided I

3:38want to see where this comes from. I

3:39mean, I've seen it claimed before. So I

3:42looked at his reference and it cited

3:44another paper and I looked at that paper

3:47and it didn't pres present any data and

3:51for the next couple of hours I followed

3:54the path. I follow I followed the

3:56breadcrumbs. This paper referenced this

3:58paper that referenced this paper that

4:00referenced the first paper that

4:01referenced the book and I finally got

4:03back to the original paper and it was

4:05simply an assertion that training to

4:08failure can cause injury. There was no

4:10data. There was no evidence. This one

4:13gigantic game of telephone with one

4:16paper said it and everyone simply cited

4:18that paper and then cited the next

4:19paper, the next paper, the next paper.

4:21And I pointed this out to this person in

4:23their article and

4:25they deleted my comments and blocked me.

4:28I'm not saying that muscle training to

4:30failure can't cause injury. Don't do it

4:32on complicated exercises. Now it it does

4:36you know it you know there's this whole

4:38issue ah it causes more neuromuscular

4:40fatigue and I won't disagree with that.

4:41I question why it matters in the long

4:44term but when they've done studies that

4:46compare like five sets to

4:49failure versus you know five sets at two

4:54reps in reserve with the same loading or

4:56whatever. What you typically see is that

4:58the failure group does start to lose

5:01reps depending on the rest interval. you

5:03know, it's 108 642 whatever, which seems

5:05an excessive drop off to me. I've

5:08trained a failure. I don't see that kind

5:09of drop off at all. It's 5%. 10. I'd

5:12have to go back and look. Whereas the

5:13other one maintains reps. What's

5:16interesting is at least one of them, the

5:18total number of reps was identical. They

5:20were just distributed differently. One

5:22went 8888 and the other one went 10864

5:25or whatever it was. And what you did see

5:26is that the failure group reported a 10

5:29RP on every set.

5:32it was maximum and the two reps reserve

5:34group didn't and that's fine. It will be

5:38rel relatively less effortful to train

5:41two reps away from failure and I would

5:43never you know I wouldn't disagree with

5:46that for people that don't like to hurt

5:50that much and I get that.

5:53Um it and it does, you know, you you

5:55have to to tr to truly make training a

5:57failure work, you have to be willing to

5:59to you have to be willing to hurt. And

6:02not everyone is. And that's perfectly

6:04fine. But part of the problem I have

6:06with most these studies is that the

6:08comparisons they're making are moronic,

6:11especially the neuromuscular fatigue

6:12ones that people like to to invoke.

6:14They're like, "Well, we had one group do

6:16three sets of 10 to failure and the

6:18other group do six sets of five at the

6:20same weight." Well, yeah. three by 10

6:22caused more failure because work sets

6:24typically cause more or more fatigue

6:27because work sets typically cause more

6:28fatigue than warm-up sets. I I I don't I

6:31wouldn't disagree with that. I don't

6:34think this is ecologically valid to

6:36anything. Now, show me three sets of 10

6:39to failure versus three sets of eight at

6:42the same way or four sets of eight. And

6:46when they've done that, it does still

6:48look like the failure group experiences

6:51more neuromuscular fatigue like over the

6:53next day and 48 hours. To which I say,

6:58who gives a [ __ ] These are not

7:00athletes. These are bodybuilders. And if

7:03in the same breath you're going to say

7:04that training once a week, not you.

7:05They're going to say, "Oh, training once

7:07a week is all you need to get growth,

7:08but training to failure causes excessive

7:10fatigue for 48 hours." Who gives

7:12three-fifths of a [ __ ] if you're not

7:14training again for a week? Why does this

7:17matter? This matters to athletes who

7:19have to train the next day. When I

7:22trained Sumi, she squat. She did squat

7:24three days a week because technically

7:27she'd forget how. I'm no joke. If she

7:29went longer than that, I was very

7:32attuned to her fatigue

7:34levels. I couldn't blow her out on a

7:36Monday because she had to squat again on

7:38Wednesday. A bodybuilder training a

7:40muscle group once a week. Why does this

7:43matter?

7:44Why does this matter? Even if you're

7:46training twice a week, that's 72 hours.

7:49Who gives a [ __ ] if your countermovement

7:51jump is a little bit lower 48 hours

7:53later? I don't understand this logic.

7:56There's an even bigger issue. In all the

7:59studies I've seen, they equate the

8:01volumes. All right, we did three sets of

8:0410 to failure. We did three sets of

8:06eight and two reps in reserve. Great.

8:09Show me three sets of failure

8:12to eight sets of two reps in reserve.

8:15People who train to failure both can and

8:18must do fewer sets. And the same people

8:20that will say that three sets to failure

8:22causes excessive neuromuscular fatigue

8:25will support a paper with 26 sets for

8:27quads and go, "Oh, that's fine.

8:30Okay.

8:32Um, sure. Fantastic stuff. Yes, I

8:35believe you." Um, actually someone,

8:38again, I was sent a Tik Tok of all

8:40things, someone making claims about

8:43frequency. And so they looked at three

8:46papers. So the first one was three sets

8:48once a week versus one set three times a

8:50week, not relevant. The next one was

8:52arguing Beardsley's point, it wasn't

8:55Chris, it was somebody else kind of

8:56repeating him that, oh, you know, you

8:58start to atrophy after a couple of days.

9:00Well, the study was done in bed rest and

9:03they did 300 maximally centric

9:05contractions. Super relevant. But then

9:08the third paper he brought up said, "Oh,

9:10if you go to failure, it causes three

9:12sets to failure causes excessive

9:13neuromuscular fatigue." So, wait, so

9:14three sets to failure causes too much

9:16fatigue. But 300 maximally centrics. You

9:19want to go back and watch that again?

9:21You want to go back and read that again,

9:22dude? Like, not to mention that, okay,

9:26those the failure studies, they always

9:27use squat and bench. These are athletic

9:30movements. Does this apply for leg

9:33curls, leg

9:35extensions, barbell

9:37curls, three sets of 10 failure barbell

9:40curls? Is that just going to cause way

9:41too much neuromuscular fatigue to

9:43survive? So, what I would say in terms

9:45of like in that sense, it's like if

9:48you're going to train to failure in

9:50terms of it being workable or good or

9:52bad, you cannot ignore the issues of

9:55volume and frequency. And this is the

9:57problem with this discussion and albeit

10:00I've made this mistake when I write

10:01about it sometimes, right? You cannot

10:03discuss one variable in lie of the

10:06others even exercises. Can someone do

10:08three sets to failure of barbell squats?

10:11No. Nor should they. Can they do three

10:14sets of 10 to failure hack squats? Yeah,

10:17maybe. But it'll murder them. Like it'll

10:19be I mean brutal. Can they do three sets

10:22of 10 to failure on leg extensions?

10:24Sure. Unless they're a big baby, right?

10:28You have to consider that. What else are

10:31they doing? What are their total

10:33volumes? What does the rest of their

10:35week look like? Right? You cannot take

10:37these in. You cannot examine these

10:39individually any more than any of the

10:41other variables. How frequently should

10:44you train? Well, how much volume are you

10:45doing? What exercises are you doing?

10:47Right? the these all these variables

10:49frequency, intensity, volume and even

10:51exercise type all play a role in this in

10:54terms of that. So I did another this is

10:57a few years ago a thing about volume and

10:59I was looking at it and I I what I

11:01pointed out says basically the closer

11:03you get to

11:04failure the less volume you must do

11:07right intensity and volume are inversely

11:10related but I also made the counter

11:12statement that seems like the same thing

11:14but isn't the less volume you do the

11:17closer to failure you're going to be

11:20must be by which I mean someone comes to

11:24me and says says, "Hey, I want to get

11:26the most out of my training that I can,

11:28but I don't have a lot of time. I only,

11:30you know, I've only got 45 minutes. I

11:33can only do three sets per muscle

11:34group." I'm going to tell them, "You

11:37sure [ __ ] better take them to failure or

11:39get damn

11:40close." By the same token, if they go,

11:43"I've only got three sets." I can't tell

11:45them, "Oh, just work at four reps in

11:46reserve because that will not be a

11:48training stimulus."

11:50By the same token, if someone comes to

11:52me and says, 'Look, I I I'm not I just

11:55can't push to failure. Don't have it in

11:57me. I'm not good at it. I'm going to

11:59give them more volume to

12:02compensate. If someone comes to me and

12:04says, "I want to do 30 sets per muscle

12:06group." I'm going to go, "Well, A,

12:07that's dumb. And B, you better go pay to

12:11see how Mike trains because that's how

12:12you're going to have to do it to get

12:15sets because you're not getting anywhere

12:17close to limits." So, it really is just

12:20very much a it depends kind of thing.

12:24I've, you know, and I've consulted with

12:26people on every version of this. Some

12:29people just are like, I I don't feel

12:31good if I don't go to limits. All right,

12:33fine. We're going to cut the volume.

12:35Some are like, I don't know how to go to

12:37failure. I know. Okay, fine. We're going

12:38to bump the volume to compensate. Go to

12:40least the first bar speed slowing.

12:42That's at least two to three reps in

12:44reserve. Like, that's the gauge. Um

12:46there's a guy I consult with or have in

12:48the UK been a few year a couple years a

12:51guy and he's on specialization and he's

12:53like full on he's like I just I know how

12:57to go to failure. I don't know how to

12:59gauge my sets without that. I'm like

13:02cool. And he showed me his workout. He

13:04does like four sets per muscle group

13:06twice a week because he's adjusted his

13:09training for the intensity that he likes

13:13to use. And he's like, "Look, I can only

13:15do two sets of hack squats to failure

13:18because if I try to do more than there's

13:20just no physical way to do more than

13:22that." So he followed up with like like

13:24his exercise selection. Actually, it's

13:26interesting the Jimmy works. I like

13:27Yeah, Dorian has spoken here. It was

13:29very Dorian

13:31um uh like in his training, but he was

13:35very much a and he's like, "I find that

13:37I have to de lo every fourth or fifth

13:39week." And he does that by cutting his

13:41volume in half. That's what he likes to

13:43do. That's what he's good at. That's how

13:45he knows that his sets are where they

13:47need to be. And he adjusts his volume

13:49downwards. So, it really just is a if

13:52you want to go to failure, do less sets.

13:54If you want to do less sets, you must be

13:56closer to failure and vice versa. So,

13:59it's just not a And again, the

14:01neuromuscer Yeah. Like, yes, every set

14:03will be a 10 RP. Um, well, I mean, this

14:07will sound like macho prattling, and it

14:09is to a degree, but like, well, maybe if

14:12it's too hard, you should consider ping

14:14pong. Like, sorry, it's it's, you know,

14:18maybe you don't have to go to all out

14:20gut busting limits, but if it's really

14:22like, oh no, it's going to be too hard

14:24for me, then, you know, maybe pick a

14:26different activity because you're going

14:28to have to be, you know, gonna be have

14:30to be working pretty damn close for it

14:32to be effective.

14:33um as a natural like yeah two reps

14:37reserve is fine and you won't hit a 10

14:39RP although I think in one of them like

14:41they gradually tapered up like it was

14:44like seven eight like by the fifth set

14:47it was a 10 it was just the the failure

14:49group was 10 across the board it's like

14:51well yeah it sucks and it's no fun but

14:54you know take your pick um I don't know

14:56if that answers the question but it's

14:58just

15:00TLDW is bodybuilding training is pretty

15:03hard whether you want to do low volume

15:06to failure or high volume. Well, not

15:10high volume, higher volume, not so close

15:12to failure. It's tough either way. And

15:15it is both are effective. Yeah. Equally

15:19so. And that's probably contingent on

15:21the number of effective reps you do.

15:23Well, yeah. And that's actually I think

15:24that would be a next sort of the the

15:26next logical topic because this is the

15:28best way I've come up with so far to try

15:31to integrate all this different data and

15:34all these different debates because I my

15:38belief is that all these volume

15:41arguments and all these volume studies

15:43and this endless debate is asking the

15:46wrong question and that's why we're

15:49getting stupid answers. The question is

15:52not one of sets and reps per se. You can

15:56do 10 sets of 10 as a piss ass intensity

16:00and it's not a training stimulus. You

16:02can do two sets of 10 all out and grow

16:06off of that. It's missing the point.

16:09Now, I realize that these papers

16:12supposedly are all to failure and we all

16:15know that that's total horseshit.

16:18Even in the papers that analyze it point

16:20out that like half these papers don't

16:22even define what they mean by training

16:24to failure. They set no good criteria

16:27and they all use different

16:29criteria, right? Oh, it's form failure.

16:32It's volitional failure. These are all

16:34different

16:35things which tangentially these studies

16:38got to quit doing [ __ ] barbell

16:40stuff. Do not tell me that a

16:42recreationally trained college kid is

16:45gonna squat to technical failure and be

16:48anywhere close to zero rest reserve. Put

16:50them on a leg press. Stop using oh but

16:54these are representative of regular. I

16:56don't care. This is not giving us any

16:59valid information because somehow when

17:02Steel and Fiser do their hit studies and

17:04they do them on machines that take all

17:07this crap out, suddenly they start to

17:09get way different results because you

17:12can actually take someone to true limits

17:13on a leg press. No way is someone doing

17:16five sets of 12 anywhere close in a

17:19technical movement like a squat unless

17:21they are incredibly well trained. But I

17:24think we're asking the wrong question.

17:26So the idea of effective rest for anyone

17:29listening is people think of this as a

17:31new thing actually uh Boris Fagerly

17:33whose name I'm still mispronouncing

17:35after 20 years blade he is the one that

17:37I first really remember he he called

17:39them stimulating reps back in the 2000s

17:41back on my group in my old my old forum

17:45way back in the day and there we just

17:47have now started I mean go back even

17:49further and the bodybuilders talked

17:51about yeah those last two or three hard

17:52reps those are the growth reps. Yeah,

17:54even Arnold was arguing that in pumping

17:56iron experiencing uh pain in your

17:59muscles and aching and just then go on

18:02and go on and then go on and last two or

18:05three or four repetitions that's what

18:07makes actually the muscle then grow and

18:09if you go actually if you go watch like

18:11go watch Arnold and them train are they

18:13grinding out to limit failure? No. But

18:16are they going till it visibly slows?

18:20Yeah, they were definitely, you know, at

18:23probably the two to three reps in

18:24reserve. Absolutely. Go watch the go

18:26watch the training videos online. You

18:28can absolutely see where they're

18:29training. So, the idea of stimulating

18:32reps is that these are high tension

18:36muscular contractions done under the

18:38conditions of full muscle fiber

18:40recruitment. Now, for that to make

18:42sense, little physiology nery, right?

18:46So, we've got different muscle fiber

18:47types. Type one, slow twitch, small,

18:49enduring, low force. Then we got type

18:51two fibers, fast twitch, divided into 2

18:54A, 2X, 2Bs are only in animals. So we're

18:57going to not worry about those. These

18:59fibers recruit in an orderly fashion.

19:02What's called Henman's size principle.

19:04basically low force activities. Type one

19:07walking, start to go a little bit

19:08faster, get more type one, start to get

19:11to the 2A, jogging, a little bit faster,

19:14more 2A, sprinting, 2X, eventually you

19:18get full recruit. So, in a weight room

19:20sense, there's two ways to get full

19:23muscle fiber recruitment. One is to

19:25start with loads roughly 80 to 85% of

19:28max. At that level, you will get

19:31essentially full fiber recruitment from

19:33the first or second repetition. So

19:35that's somewhere between five and eight

19:36reps. You can also get full recruitment

19:39with lighter loads

19:42taken to or closer to failure because as

19:46you fatigue, the body will start to

19:48recruit. Like early in the set, you

19:50won't get full recruitment because the

19:51body doesn't need it. And as you get

19:53closer and closer to failure, the body

19:55will recruit all muscle fibers. And what

19:58you see when they've done this the EMG

19:59studies so if you look at say okay so in

20:02a set of five you will get full fiber

20:04recruitment for all five reps. So we

20:06would call that five effective reps. You

20:08do a set of eight you will get

20:10essentially full fiber recruitment for

20:12reps three through eight. So five. You

20:15do a set of 15 to failure the last four

20:18to five repetitions will be under full

20:21recruitment. You get about five

20:22effective reps. You do that [ __ ]

20:25lowload load training at 30% of one RM

20:28and do a set of 30, the last four or

20:30five reps to failure will be under full

20:33recruitment. The difference is simply in

20:36how many reps you had to do before it to

20:38get there. But the final like the five

20:41reps of a five rep set, the final five

20:43reps of an eight rep set, the final five

20:45reps of a 15 rep set, the final five

20:46reps of a 30 rep set are all essentially

20:49neurologically identical. And I'm saying

20:51essentially because it's way more

20:52complicated than this and I don't want

20:54to talk for another four hours. Close

20:56enough. And this explains why a couple

20:58things. One, this idea. Oh, you can grow

21:00at any rep range. Yeah, but in higher

21:02repetition ranges, you must go to

21:04failure. The lowload training only works

21:07if you go to failure. Now, blood flow

21:09restriction, you don't have to go to

21:11failure because the blood flow

21:13restriction itself increases fiber

21:16recruitment. You get to full recruitment

21:18sooner. Same effect, different pathway.

21:20This explains why for sets of eight and

21:23less, you don't have to go to failure to

21:25get growth. You can do a set of six with

21:28an eight rep max and you will grow. Why?

21:30Because you got three effective reps.

21:32You must go to failure at higher

21:33repetitions. You don't need to go to

21:35failure at low repetitions to get

21:36growth. Yeah. I mean, I should clarify

21:38that a set of eight won't generate

21:40growth if it's like 20% of your max just

21:42in virtue of the fact that it was a set

21:44of eight. No, no, no. Yeah. I mean eight

21:46ate it at like an eight like at 80 80%

21:49of one R. Yeah, I I know what you mean,

21:50but I think we should, you know,

21:52clarify. Yes, I'm talking about like

21:54these are limit sets or close to it. So

21:56that's the idea is that the the

22:00important metric is how many effective

22:02reps that you get. Now, this isn't

22:04entirely like and I'm not I've had

22:06someone I got a buddy and he's explained

22:08it to me three times exactly what Chris

22:10Beardsley means and I still can't really

22:12keep my head wrapped because like

22:14obviously there are fibers that will get

22:17trained without full recruitment, right?

22:20lower threshold fibers, type one and 2a.

22:23But if you're talking about recruiting

22:25and growing all fibers in a muscle, you

22:28that requires full recruitment, unless

22:30you're one individual who doesn't

22:32believe fiber recruitment is necessary,

22:34which is nonsensical to me. So that's

22:36the effective rep

22:37concept. To me, the question is not sets

22:41and reps. The question is, what is the

22:44optimal number of effective reps per

22:47workout or per set really per workout

22:51that will maximize growth? Now, Chris

22:53Beardsley wrote an article once and I've

22:56read it a dozen times. I've had people

22:59try to explain it to me and I am still

23:02too stupid to figure it out where he

23:04somehow concluded that 25 effective reps

23:08per workout was optimal. I've never been

23:10able to wrap my head around his logic. I

23:12think it's something like, you know, so

23:14so Kger did that meta analysis that was

23:18like four to six sets gave the optimal

23:21growth per workout and then I think

23:24Chris backmath that well if they were to

23:27failure and it was five effective reps

23:29per set then that I like I said I've had

23:32it explained to me and I still can't but

23:34whatever let's just take it at face

23:37value that there is some optimal value

23:40of maximal high tension

23:42contractions below which the growth

23:45response is not as m it will there will

23:48be one but it won't be as maximal as it

23:50could be but above which there's either

23:52no further growth response or a point of

23:55diminishing returns I think that's a

23:57pretty safe assumption so let's say it's

24:0025 just because it's a number that I can

24:02remember in my opinion this explains

24:05this allows us to build a model that can

24:10include all different training types and

24:13explain away these dumb debates. So,

24:17let's start with rest pause, whether

24:21it's Maya reps or Dante dog crap. I'm

24:23going to do dog crap because it's easier

24:25for me to map it out. All right. So, the

24:27way a dog crap set works, you do an

24:30activation set of six to eight to

24:32failure, right? So, five effective

24:37reps. Do your mini set. Three more mini

24:40set. Two more mini set. One more. 11

24:46reps. 11 effective reps in that range.

24:50Well, in dog prep, you do two exercises

24:53per muscle group. That's 22 effective

24:56reps. Maybe the loaded eccentrics add

24:59something. I always the loaded

25:01stretching I always thought was more of

25:03a maximally centric than stretching per

25:05se, but neither here nor there. 22 reps.

25:07good enough for government work. Bore

25:10reps is probably it's going to be in

25:11that range because of the way it's set

25:13up. Okay, let's say you're going to

25:15train to limit failure. No, you're

25:17probably not going to get more than say

25:19four, five total

25:21sets. Five effective reps, 20 to 25

25:25reps. Boom. Done. Right? That's the

25:29equivalent in terms of effective reps.

25:32Okay. Now, let's pull it back to two

25:35reps in reserve. Now, we're only going

25:37to be getting three effective reps per

25:39set. Well, you're going to need seven to

25:43eight, seven to eight total work sets.

25:45Well, that's my generic bulking routine.

25:47You pull it back to three reps in

25:49reserve, you're getting two effective

25:51reps per set. You're looking at 8 to 12

25:53sets. We know that couple studies that

25:56if you use very short rest intervals,

25:58you need about 50% more volume to get

26:01the same

26:02response. 10 sets becomes 15.

26:05done. There you go. Every study that has

26:09been done because even in the in study,

26:11the one with 52 sets, the 26 set group,

26:14they didn't get any significantly more

26:15growth than the lower the 20 sets per

26:18week group got the same thing. And I'm

26:20sure I could go through it because they

26:22did the sets they did the first seven

26:25were at two reps in reserve and then the

26:27last one was to failure. So, however

26:29that maths out, it's probably it's

26:33within it's within this

26:35range when you math these out. And of

26:38course, this is also we're looking at it

26:41one to one. If you then go in and

26:43further assume one half to one for

26:46indirect muscle groups like in Brad's

26:47paper, because they did compound pushing

26:49and measured triceps, those 15 total

26:52sets were not 15 sets for triceps. The

26:55was seven for triceps done three times a

26:57week. which is 21 sets for triceps

27:00total. Huh, weird. Times however many

27:02effective

27:03reps. In my mind, that is the only model

27:07that can coherently explain all these

27:10different workouts both in the research

27:13and that have been real world proven and

27:15shown to work. I'm sure we could sit

27:17down and try to make estimates about,

27:20you know, Arnold's training and the 20

27:22set stuff and if we assume the first

27:24couple sets of each exercise or warm-ups

27:26so that you're getting, you know,

27:28whatever about 8 to 10 work sets per

27:31muscle group and, you know, getting two

27:34or three effective reps per set. Well,

27:36[ __ ] you're right back about 20 or 30

27:38in that range.

27:41Dorian did four, you know, limit sets,

27:44usually with a couple of force

27:45repetitions with his partner helping

27:46him. So, you know, so each one of those

27:49sets he was getting five, six, seven

27:52effective reps times four exercises.

27:54Well, we're back to 28. And I'm not

27:56saying this is proven. I'm saying we

27:58need the studies going forwards need to

28:00stop throwing random set rep variations

28:03at this because that's not useful

28:06anymore. It needs to be masked out

28:08rationally.

28:10Let's set it up in terms of this. Go,

28:12all right, we're going to have one group

28:13do 15 effective reps per week or per

28:15workout twice a week. We're have another

28:17one do 25. By doing this, by actually

28:20setting it up logically, if you want to

28:22get 25 effective reps and you want to go

28:25two reps in reserve, well, you need to

28:27set it up. Don't give, oh, we picked

28:29four exercises and gave five sets for

28:32reasons. So, to me, that's the only

28:34logical way to explain all these

28:37different approaches that work. And it

28:38ties into our previous question. The

28:40closer to failure you are, the less sets

28:43you either can do or need because you're

28:46getting more effective reps per set. The

28:48further away from failure you are, the

28:49lower quality the training is because of

28:51short rest intervals. The more sets

28:53you're going to need to get the same

28:54number of effective reps. I mean, for

28:57example, the Cody Han study that Mike

28:59Isertel was involved with, the one that

29:01did all that volume for no no growth.

29:03They worked at the 32 sets per week. The

29:05sets were all at four reps in reserve

29:07mainly because they were all a bunch of

29:08warm-up sets with a 10-minute rest

29:10interval. Let's say they got one

29:12effective

29:13rep per set. They got 32 effective reps

29:17per week. Four sets to failure would

29:19have gotten 20. Four sets to failure

29:22twice a week would have gotten 40 and

29:24been surpassed that. Like I said, this

29:26may be completely wrong, but I can't

29:28come up with any other way to explain

29:31why these completely different systems

29:34all seem to work pretty well. Again,

29:35assuming the progressive tension

29:36overload is in there. They're all

29:39generating essentially the same number

29:42of effective reps. They're just getting

29:43their and not no one of those paths is

29:47inherently better than any other outside

29:49of what fits the person and the

29:51exercises. I mean, I do think Donde made

29:53a good point when he did dog crab. His

29:55goal, among other things, was to

29:58generate the maximum stimulus and the

29:59minimum volume because he believed

30:01firmly, and I tend to agree with him,

30:03that volume is what overtrains you.

30:05Intensity is inherently

30:07self-limiting in terms of overtraining.

30:10It's the volume. Because again, I want

30:11these people that tell me, "Oh, three

30:13sets to failure causes excessive

30:15neuromuscular fatigue." To explain,

30:17well, Brad study did 45 sets to

30:20failure three times a week for eight

30:22weeks. So, three sets to failure is bad,

30:25but 1280 sets to failure over eight

30:27weeks is good. Please explain this to

30:30me. Or why 26 sets is somehow, like I

30:34said, yeah, three sets to failure versus

30:35three sets not to failure. I think

30:37you're right. Compare this. Show me 10

30:40sets at three reps in reserve. Is that

30:44less more or less fatiguing? I guarantee

30:46you that I'm less tired coming out of

30:48the gym after my dog crap workout than

30:50somebody [ __ ] about for 20 sets per

30:52chest. I can almost damn guarantee you.

30:55So, there you go. Any thoughts on the

30:58effective reps thing? I don't I just

31:00don't see any other way to explain it.

31:02No, neither. It seems to be the one

31:05explanation that explains everything

31:08satisfactorilally.

31:10The only one I've come up with um I mean

31:14hilariously. So there was this monster

31:17paper on this on proximity to failure.

31:19It was one of these giant metaanalyses

31:22that just aggregated every paper. is a

31:24terrible paper in the sense of it had

31:27like 170 papers and what it was trying

31:29to do was trying to graph reps in

31:32reserve relative to hypertrophy. Now the

31:34thing is there are not 170 papers that

31:36have studied this and what they did is

31:38they pulled in all these papers and they

31:41estimated well based on the percentage

31:44and the reps we're going to estimate

31:45this many reps in reserve and they took

31:47all these averages and included

31:49untrained people and elderly folks and

31:52among other humorous things on this

31:56graph they showed a point that claimed

31:58that there was growth at 21 reps in

32:01reserve. So, what you're telling me is

32:02that if I do four reps with the 25 rep

32:05max, I can grow. Anyone who believes

32:07this,

32:09including, he did a 4-hour video on

32:12this. This is where he concluded that

32:13the effective reps model is wrong. If

32:16you believe that four reps with a 25 RM

32:18will generate growth, you are a cred. I

32:21mean, yes. And it showed that the closer

32:22you got, the more growth you got. But it

32:25didn't matter. It showed a data point

32:27that supposedly 21 reps in reserve could

32:29stimulate growth. And that just sorry

32:33that fails the reality check. But that's

32:35what happens when you make lots of very

32:37silly estimates of reps and reserve

32:39based on average bar speed and all this

32:41other thing. Like no, you need to

32:42actually measure it and you have to get

32:44people that can actually do it and you

32:46need to put them on exercises where they

32:48can actually achieve that safely. Like I

32:52said, somehow when Fisher and Steel puts

32:54folks on machines, they're real good at

32:56estimating reps and reserve because when

32:59you're squatting or benching or doing

33:00something complicated, you can't do it.

33:02There's too much else going on to know

33:05what's really going on muscularly, and

33:07you certainly aren't going to get to

33:08zero reps in reserve.