# Extremely High-Volume Training, Shy of Failure?



## M.J.H. (Oct 3, 2004)

I am not sure if any of you guys keep up with str8flexed journal over at Avant Labs but for a while now he's been training extremely high-volume, and for the most part shy of muscular failure. Seems to be working well for him. I mean high-volume like 20+ sets for chest, back, etc. Straight up Flex magazine style, lol. 

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Oct 3, 2004)




----------



## M.J.H. (Oct 3, 2004)

LOL, DD, I know you're an advocate of HIT, extremely low-volume training, quite the opposite.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 3, 2004)

what ever works


----------



## V Player (Oct 3, 2004)

P-funk said:
			
		

> what ever works


Absolutely. 

Layne (str8flexed) also writes at my other board and he is definately the real deal. If he really is all natural, I salute him. Hell even if he's not natural Id still salute. But yeah he is going super high volume. Me myself Im going with 100 reps total sets for this cycle. People think Im crazy, but like P-Funk just said: whatever works.


----------



## SRC (Oct 3, 2004)

I usually find when I reach a plateau, that high volume training works really well to get the muscles to respond. For example, over the past six weeks, I've totally changed my chest routine. I've always had a lot of chest bulk, but not nearly enough definition and muscle stamina in that area. I've been training chest 3X's per week lately and it's working quite well. Here's the breakdown.
Day 1) flat bench press - weight/reps: 135X12, 185X12, 225X12 for 6 sets, 185X10, 135X10
Day 2) dumbell flat bench press - weight/reps: 50X25, 50X20, 50X18, 50X15, 50X12, 50X10
Day 3) pushups - reps: 25, 20, 18, 15, 10, then flex for 10 minutes
The burn is insane, and my chest is really beginning to tighten without loosing any strenght or muscle density.


----------



## soxmuscle (Oct 3, 2004)

P-funk said:
			
		

> what ever works


That is definitly the way to go...


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Oct 3, 2004)

I'd rather do whatever works best, instead of whatever works.

Despite my philosophy, I'm always trying to better the routine.  Prolly the best way to go about things, despite what you believe


----------



## Cardinal (Oct 4, 2004)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> I'd rather do whatever works best, instead of whatever works.
> 
> Despite my philosophy, I'm always trying to better the routine.  Prolly the best way to go about things, despite what you believe



That is sensible.  Far from my typical thinking.  Personally, I am happy with pretty much any routine that is producing good results, be that increases in limit strength, endurance strength, speed strength, hypertrophy, partitioning, fat oxidation, you name it.  Progress is what I am after.  Since my main goal is not purely strength or purely hypertrophy or purely anything, this works well for me.  I am usually making some sort of progress.

What appeals to me most about super high volume training is the rather large caloric costs associated with it compared to lower volume work both during and especially post exercise.  For someone that wants to eat as many calories as possible and doesn't like cardio so much, I think this approach can work well.  The high volume virtually necessitates a much higher than normal caloric intake (fine by me!).  Partitioning should improve.  

I was reading the archives in the power&bulk the other day, and came across a fellow who advocated doing as much physical work as possible lifting while still making consistent strength gains.  I know Dan John (for those of you that know him) believes strongly in the ability of the body to adapt to pretty amazing amounts of stress given time.  Many Olifters also train with very high frequency and volume.  Basic idea of building work capacity over time.  From my experience with increased volume over the last month (nothing like Layne is doing), my endurance strength has improved dramatically and that is quite pleasant.  

For someone at a higher bodyweight, that sort of conditioning can really increase fitness and the ability to maintain intensity in the weight room.  I have looked over Layne's log also and it is awesome motivation!  I believe he is making sure not to lose a significant amount of strength.  So long as he is gaining, overtraining isn't as big of a risk. 

Gene suggested taking longer rest breaks between sets on such a super-high volume routine to maintain maximal strength capacity and thus the ability to overload the muscle fibers to a greater extent.  Even with time saving tricks like supersetting, I think the workouts used are bordering on 1.5-2 hour sessions.  Frequency of bodyparts is still 2x per week.  Intensity relative to 1RM must be the thing that is moderated to some extent by necessity.


----------



## Cardinal (Oct 4, 2004)

There is definitely another side to the story: As noted, those that tend to follow a HIT type philosophy for lack of a better description.  Some well-respected trainers (take Iron Addict for example) advocate trying a lower volume routine first and focusing on making strength progression of some sort each training session.  If you respond well to it and are adding muscle at an acceptable rate, then there is no great need for the higher volume.  Also very sensible (I have learned a lot from reading at Iron Addict's site.  What impresses me the most is the results he produces for bodybuilders, something very much lacking in the 'flex' type routines).


----------



## Saturday Fever (Oct 4, 2004)

You know my thoughts on that routine and person.


----------



## Cardinal (Oct 4, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> You know my thoughts on that routine and person.



Care to enlighten the curious?  Would I be wrong in thinking that since he is a dedicated as all hell mesomorph with good genes that likely he will make virtually any routine that isn't completely retarded work for him.  So one couldn't extrapolate so terribly much from his experiment with high volume due to individual differences.  

I would like to hear more thoughts on this.


----------



## madden player (Oct 4, 2004)

I gained size and strength from HIT 'heavy duty' Mentzer style and I gained size and strenght from high volume training (currently I don't even count how many sets shy of failure I even do..I can tell you though it is a lot)..IMO both styles are fine and it is probably best to mix it..find what suits ya best and stick with it.

If I had to pick one style of training over the other I would definitely pick HIT..I trained high volume for yrs before I decided to give 'heavy duty' a try...whata rush!!(if done right) . It takes so much mental prep for that one big set..I just don't have that kinda drive anymore and I am nursing too many injuries so it is high volume 'moderate' intensity for now.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Oct 4, 2004)

I did high volume training for nearly 2 years as well.

I believe that what I do now is infinitely harder and requires more discipline than the marathons I put myself through before.  I remember someone once said (sergio olivia?) that if you like doing a curls then you aren't working hard enough.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Oct 4, 2004)

There are things people can do, and there are things people can do on steroids.


----------



## M.J.H. (Oct 4, 2004)

Nicely put SF. So you think the way that I am training now is more effective, I presume?


----------



## V Player (Oct 4, 2004)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> I'd rather do whatever works best, instead of whatever works.
> 
> Despite my philosophy, I'm always trying to better the routine.  Prolly the best way to go about things, despite what you believe


Well damn if that aint the gospel there, man. Reverend Duncan, thou shalt be calleth.


----------



## soxmuscle (Oct 4, 2004)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> I'd rather do whatever works best, instead of whatever works.
> 
> Despite my philosophy, I'm always trying to better the routine. Prolly the best way to go about things, despite what you believe


Every single day I am reading these boards and critiqueing my routine.  I couldn't have said it any better.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Oct 4, 2004)




----------



## madden player (Oct 5, 2004)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> I did high volume training for nearly 2 years as well.
> 
> I believe that what I do now is infinitely harder and requires more discipline than the marathons I put myself through before. I remember someone once said (sergio olivia?) that if you like doing a curls then you aren't working hard enough.


Heavy Duty is insane..I don't have the drive that is needed to do it right. Mentzer's training style is not for the weak.  I will make the change back to HIT but I got some healing up to do first.  There is no question that Heavy duty is so much tougher than High volume mindless marathon training sessions...but you can build a quality physique with either method.

It could have been Olivia that said that about the curls..It is very true anyhow..Back in my HIT days I would get physically ill with nervous anticipation before leg day..


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 5, 2004)

I don't see the point.  You should be able to get results that are just as effective with a lower volume routine.  I already spend enough time devoted to bodybuilding, health, and nutrition between lifting, cardio, diet preparation, proper sleep, and eating.  I don't need a routine which is unnecessarily long to increase that amount of time.  If one is not on steroids/homrone supplements, then I don't see how testosterone levels could stay at sufficient levels long enough to workout for any longer than I already do.


----------



## chris mason (Oct 5, 2004)

I trained following the priciples set forth by Jones, Darden, and Mentzer for 14+ years.  I attained a respectable level of size and strength for someone natural.

I now do not train to failure.  I finally learned that training to failure is self-limiting for the natural trainee.  There comes a point that the stress placed on the nervous system by training to failure (irrespective of how low the volume) will require such prolonged recovery time as to be counterproductive.  In other words, I got to the point where I would have to take nearly 30 days between leg sessions in order to see strength progress.  This prolonged period meant that the musculature (which recovers much more quickly than the nervous system) was not being stimulated sufficiently often for optimal training results.  

Now, this prolonged recovery is not experienced by the drug user and thus training to failure can be very effective more or less indefinitely for them.  

The point I am referring to where nervous system recovery becomes prohibitive only occurs as one approaches the limits of their natural size and strength.  So, beginning and intermediate trainees can utilize training to failure and see excellent results.  It is only the advanced drug-free trainee that will see this form of training become problematic.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Oct 5, 2004)

I agree and have argued likewise. Anyone interested in how steroids interact, and enhance, the CNS would do well to find the following book at the library:

CNS Neurotransmitters and Neuromodulators: Neuroactive Steroids

It's a good read. Requires a small background in chemistry and biology.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Oct 5, 2004)

If this contention is true, then an insertion of training days in between intense sets not to failure could maintain the stiimulus required to keep the muscle primed for optimal training results.

I disagree, anyway.


----------



## gopro (Oct 5, 2004)

I do not believe that this method is optimal as a long term strategy, although short bouts of it in occassion can be useful.


----------



## M.J.H. (Oct 5, 2004)

Okay, SF and Chris, some questions. 

If you're saying that training to failure is counter-productive for a non-steroid using trainee, than what is effective? All sets shy of failure? Moderate volume? Moderate workload? I am just a little confused because currently I feel that I am making good gains, training moderate-volume and for the most part to positive muscular failure. 

Would I be better off traning short of failure?


----------



## Saturday Fever (Oct 5, 2004)

Well, it is a given that as you progress, you will slow and/or stop progressing. Whether you use high volume, low volume, no volume, whatever. It's a simple rule of the natural human body.

I don't believe a person can sustain that type of routine because it will burn out your CNS quickly, regardless if you're a newbie or advanced lifter. 

I once posted that the body can't handle working at 100% for an entire session. The same can be said about how much you can do at lower intensity levels. Whenever I've made a routine for anyone, it always cycles the intensity level throughout the session, and the routine as a whole.

So I guess my advice to you would be to train to failure sometimes, but not always, and use variety. Maybe go to failure on one lift a session, and rotate which lift it is.


----------



## M.J.H. (Oct 5, 2004)

Great, thanks SF.


----------



## gopro (Oct 5, 2004)

Hmmmmm, I could not disagree more and feel that pushing to failure, and often beyond, is the BEST method for pushing toward the biggest hypertrophy gains. You just need to keep overall volume low...time in the gym low...and know how to maximize recovery through nutrition and supplementation. And steroids do NOT need to be part of the equation.

But hey...if anyone is happy with their gains doing higher volume with very little "to failure" training, then my best to you...


----------



## camarosuper6 (Oct 5, 2004)

The failure topic is probably the most controversial of topics.

Failure, if nothing else, gives a measuring device of sorts for progress.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Oct 5, 2004)

gopro, don't take this as a challenge, but as a question from someone who doesn't know. If failure and beyond is valuable, why does your routine not call for it? Or call for it more?

Keep in mind, I like your routine and I'm not being a dick. I'm just asking.


----------



## M.J.H. (Oct 6, 2004)

Great question SF, and I am not being a jerk either, just curious. 

Another thing I wanted to ask is what is your opinion on dropping direct arm training? And letting my arms get hit indirectly with back and shoulder/chest day?


----------



## gopro (Oct 6, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> gopro, don't take this as a challenge, but as a question from someone who doesn't know. If failure and beyond is valuable, why does your routine not call for it? Or call for it more?
> 
> Keep in mind, I like your routine and I'm not being a dick. I'm just asking.



Not taking it as a challenge or negatively in any way. 

Actually, the routine calls for it on EVERY WORKING SET. The guidelines as far as reps go mean that I want you to choose a weight that causes you to reach momentary muscular failure WITHIN that range. If I call for 7-9 reps, I want you to fail at rep 7, 8, or 9. If you fail before or after this, adjustments need to be made.

As for going BEYOND failure, this is something I also advocate, but only to very advanced pupils...although SHOCK WEEK is all about beyond failure training.

So, you really just misunderstood my program a little. Also, I should mention that what you see here at IM are mostly the BASIC parameters of the program. When working with people one on one, it becomes much more specialized to that person.


----------



## gopro (Oct 6, 2004)

MonStar said:
			
		

> Great question SF, and I am not being a jerk either, just curious.
> 
> Another thing I wanted to ask is what is your opinion on dropping direct arm training? And letting my arms get hit indirectly with back and shoulder/chest day?



And I know you did not ask me this question, but I just wanted to mention that I have been training arms about once per month of late and have suffered zero size loss in them.


----------



## Twin Peak (Oct 6, 2004)

I tend to agree with Eric on this.  If you were forced to pick one "method" of training, to failure, and beyond, is the optimal method for growth for the majority of drug-free trainees.

The problem is, most trainees who say they are training to failure, are not.

Despite this, a cyclical approach to training is best.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Oct 6, 2004)

I had no idea there was failing involved. Thanks for the answer.

And I don't do any direct arms work unless I get bored (rarely). So I wouldn't sweat it.


----------



## gopro (Oct 6, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> I had no idea there was failing involved. Thanks for the answer.
> 
> And I don't do any direct arms work unless I get bored (rarely). So I wouldn't sweat it.



No problem.


----------



## chris mason (Oct 6, 2004)

Mike, to answer your question, I think training 2-3 reps short of failure with as much volume as you can as often as you can is best.

For myself, I still prefer very low overall volume and training with low reps for the most part.


----------



## spiderman83 (Oct 6, 2004)

when powerlifting i know that u only spend so much amount of time in the gym like 35-40 minutes but i was wondering in   certain exercises i feel that im not working every muscle enough..my question is when doing this would i overtrain by going work out the bench deadlift and calfs and then going back later during the day to hit my back and lats? just wondering.


----------



## M.J.H. (Oct 6, 2004)

> And I know you did not ask me this question, but I just wanted to mention that I have been training arms about once per month of late and have suffered zero size loss in them.


Thanks Eric and that's certainly interesting. I am going to cut back on my arm training frequency for a while and see what happens. Hopefully everything will work out nicely---I doubt I'll lose any arm size honestly. We'll see what happens. 




> Mike, to answer your question, I think training 2-3 reps short of failure with as much volume as you can as often as you can is best.
> 
> For myself, I still prefer very low overall volume and training with low reps for the most part.


I go to failure honestly on some exercises and not on others, it's actually weird. On most pressing exercises I generally go to positive muscular failure, almost always. DB presses especially. However, on rowing exercises, and things like that, I tend to go shy of failure for whatever reason. I guess because with bentover rows for example you don't really fail necessarily, your form just slips, etc.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Oct 6, 2004)

Variety is the key. Fail sometimes, don't fail sometimes. 

And no, I can't get any more vague than that.


----------



## str8flexed (Aug 4, 2005)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> There are things people can do, and there are things people can do on steroids.


If I have interpreted this correctly then you believe it is working for me because I am on steroids? 

I'm sorry to dissapoint you but I certainly am not.  And if I was, I'd be pretty freaking dissapointed lol.  But I have learned through the years that people will believe what they want to believe and no amount of kicking or screaming on my part will change that, so thanks for the indirect compliment.  If you think I'm on steroids then you must somehow think my physique is unattainable naturally, when in all reality there are many natural bodybuilders out there who would whoop my butt onstage.

-Layne


----------



## GFR (Aug 4, 2005)

str8flexed said:
			
		

> If I have interpreted this correctly then you believe it is working for me because I am on steroids?
> 
> I'm sorry to dissapoint you but I certainly am not.  And if I was, I'd be pretty freaking dissapointed lol.  But I have learned through the years that people will believe what they want to believe and no amount of kicking or screaming on my part will change that, so thanks for the indirect compliment.  If you think I'm on steroids then you must somehow think my physique is unattainable naturally, when in all reality there are many natural bodybuilders out there who would whoop my butt onstage.
> 
> -Layne


Where can I find the journal they are talking about???


----------



## Triple Threat (Aug 4, 2005)

Check out Avant Labs:

http://www.avantlabs.com/main.php  Forum -> Training Log


----------



## GFR (Aug 4, 2005)

V Player said:
			
		

> Absolutely.
> 
> Layne (str8flexed) also writes at my other board and he is definately the real deal. If he really is all natural, I salute him. Hell even if he's not natural Id still salute. But yeah he is going super high volume. Me myself Im going with 100 reps total sets for this cycle. People think Im crazy, but like P-Funk just said: whatever works.


He looks natural to me.


----------



## P-funk (Aug 4, 2005)

Damn, this thread was bumped from a long time ago!


----------

