One set to failure...

[Buff DrinkLots]

Mr Rippetoe,

I hope this has not been asked ad nauseam - but just out of curiosity, I would like to know your thoughts on lifting to a single set to failure.

Back in the early 1990s, this method was somewhat popular at a gym I belonged to - since this philosophy was something Mike Mentzer was promoting and he was from the same part of PA we were from. I never read his book(s) but from what I was told/understood a lifter, after a few warm up sets, would perform a single set to failure (i believe this was meant to be technical failure, not absolute muscle failure). In addition, the lift was only to be done once a week or so plus paired with a significant amount of calories and rest.

Note: this is not something I would do, but like i mentioned before, I would like to know how you feel about this.

Thanks.

[Mark Rippetoe]

It doesn't work. But that never stopped Mike.

[Brodie Butland]

Failing a set is a helpful lesson; intentionally failing a set is counterproductive.

It is not uncommon for lifters to bail from a set early, either by re-racking the bar before reps are done or by giving up on the lift once it gets hard. You get stronger--mentally and physically--by forcing yourself to try to accomplish something that you don't think you can do. If you don't permit yourself to fail in the short term, you will fail in the long term. Failing a set is a great teaching moment. It teaches you that failing won't kill or seriously injure you. It teaches you to get up, dust your pants off, and try again next time. It teaches you the importance of focusing on the process. It teaches you to never give up on a lift, no matter how hard it seems...and that, in turn, is the only way for you to learn what you truly are capable of.

That being said, failure must be kept in context. In a well-designed program, failure is a signal. At minimum, it means that you didn't accomplish what you were supposed to on a particular training day. This may be because you just had a bad day, as everyone does from time to time. But if you start failing frequently--and especially if you fail in consecutive training sessions--that signals that something systemic is wrong. Maybe it's your recovery (eating, sleeping, stress levels, etc.), maybe it's your rest periods (The First Three Questions), maybe it's a programming issue. But the point is, something is rotten in Denmark, and it's time for honest reflection to figure out what it might be and to fix the issue.

This is why training to failure makes no sense to me, even on a theoretical level. You're intentionally overstressing your body rather than letting it accomplish a pre-defined goal based on a specific programming choice. Empirically this does not work long term, and it is not even very effective in the short- or medium-term compared to well-engineered programming that does not rely on failure. Theoretically, you take what should be a warning signal and turn it into a deliberate part of the program, which a priori renders failure far less effective as a diagnostic tool. And then there's the safety issue...failure means you couldn't accomplish the lift, which often means there is a form breakdown somewhere. Why would you want to trigger a form breakdown if you don't have to?

tl;dr - Accidental failure happens, and that's okay...use it as the powerful learning experience that it is. Intentional failure is nuts.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Mentzer is making another comeback!? I guess new generations will have to learn what doesn't work every 15-20 years or so.

Tried it several times from over the course of 30 years as a change of pace. Never worked. Negatives? Beware of those especially unless you want to risk some shoulder, elbow, or lumbar damage. Even a slight loss of control over doing too much of an overload will make you regret it.

[dalan]

Could be the volume of "warm up sets" that's the productive part. It always appeared to me that Mike was just doing a typical pyramid with a set to failure set at the end.

[Nockian]

Mr Rippetoe,

I hope this has not been asked ad nauseam - but just out of curiosity, I would like to know your thoughts on lifting to a single set to failure.

Back in the early 1990s, this method was somewhat popular at a gym I belonged to - since this philosophy was something Mike Mentzer was promoting and he was from the same part of PA we were from. I never read his book(s) but from what I was told/understood a lifter, after a few warm up sets, would perform a single set to failure (i believe this was meant to be technical failure, not absolute muscle failure). In addition, the lift was only to be done once a week or so plus paired with a significant amount of calories and rest.

Note: this is not something I would do, but like i mentioned before, I would like to know how you feel about this.

Thanks.

That sounds a lot like RPE.

[tompaynter]

Failing a set is a helpful lesson; intentionally failing a set is counterproductive.

It is not uncommon for lifters to bail from a set early, either by re-racking the bar before reps are done or by giving up on the lift once it gets hard. You get stronger--mentally and physically--by forcing yourself to try to accomplish something that you don't think you can do. If you don't permit yourself to fail in the short term, you will fail in the long term. Failing a set is a great teaching moment. It teaches you that failing won't kill or seriously injure you. It teaches you to get up, dust your pants off, and try again next time. It teaches you the importance of focusing on the process. It teaches you to never give up on a lift, no matter how hard it seems...and that, in turn, is the only way for you to learn what you truly are capable of.

That being said, failure must be kept in context. In a well-designed program, failure is a signal. At minimum, it means that you didn't accomplish what you were supposed to on a particular training day. This may be because you just had a bad day, as everyone does from time to time. But if you start failing frequently--and especially if you fail in consecutive training sessions--that signals that something systemic is wrong. Maybe it's your recovery (eating, sleeping, stress levels, etc.), maybe it's your rest periods (The First Three Questions), maybe it's a programming issue. But the point is, something is rotten in Denmark, and it's time for honest reflection to figure out what it might be and to fix the issue.

This is why training to failure makes no sense to me, even on a theoretical level. You're intentionally overstressing your body rather than letting it accomplish a pre-defined goal based on a specific programming choice. Empirically this does not work long term, and it is not even very effective in the short- or medium-term compared to well-engineered programming that does not rely on failure. Theoretically, you take what should be a warning signal and turn it into a deliberate part of the program, which a priori renders failure far less effective as a diagnostic tool. And then there's the safety issue...failure means you couldn't accomplish the lift, which often means there is a form breakdown somewhere. Why would you want to trigger a form breakdown if you don't have to?

tl;dr - Accidental failure happens, and that's okay...use it as the powerful learning experience that it is. Intentional failure is nuts.

To be fair, I think what Mentzer was talking about wasn't loading up a heavy bar and squatting until you actually fail a rep and have to set it on the pins. If I recall correctly he meant something more like: reps until you can't safely do another, then strip weight and go again until you can't do another, followed by having your spotter assist you (e.g on bench) until you can't even do a negative rep. It was a process for getting to complete muscle failure/exhaustion in one extended set, rather than advice that every set should be taken until you actually fail a rep. For instance, a person doing a heavy set who gets 4 reps and fails on the fifth--what SS would think of as a set to failure--would not be doing Mentzer's method.

Not saying that it either works or is safe, just being clear on what the theory was.

[Mark Rippetoe]

To be fair, I think what Mentzer was talking about wasn't loading up a heavy bar and squatting until you actually fail a rep and have to set it on the pins. If I recall correctly he meant something more like: reps until you can't safely do another, then strip weight and go again until you can't do another, followed by having your spotter assist you (e.g on bench) until you can't even do a negative rep. It was a process for getting to complete muscle failure/exhaustion in one extended set, rather than advice that every set should be taken until you actually fail a rep. For instance, a person doing a heavy set who gets 4 reps and fails on the fifth--what SS would think of as a set to failure--would not be doing Mentzer's method.

He was talking about Nautilus Machines to failure, not barbell strip sets.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Could be the volume of "warm up sets" that's the productive part. It always appeared to me that Mike was just doing a typical pyramid with a set to failure set at the end.

Unless there's been some "hidden wisdom" that a ouija board (the Mentzernomicon?) revealed about what Mentzer actually meant to say, he didn't talk about warmup sets. Just pedal to the metal in one set.

[VNV]

He was talking about Nautilus Machines to failure, not barbell strip sets.

Didn’t he also promote very slow reps?