Sunday Brain Candy March 5h

Training to Failure, Supersets, and Biceps Growth

1. Do you NEED to train to muscle failure to see results?

No you do not, but it is a reliable way to train to ensure gains are being made.

The arguments about training to failure are constant in the fitness world, and it is TRUE that while training is NOT necessary for strength and muscle gains, it is an effective strategy to ensure your training will produce RESULTS.

Speaking from a personal training perspective, the “average joe” does not train with enough intensity to produce adaptation. Said simple, people dont push themselves very hard in the gym.

For gains in muscle and strength to happen, you need to be applying progressive overload. That means the reps are increasing, or the weights are increasing.

If neither are observably increasing over time on your primary compound exercises, that likelihood that gains are being made is slim to none.

I suggest training to failure, especially for beginners, as it establishes a continuum of intensity and effort that can only be learned by doing

Once you have this experience and understanding, you can better assess your workouts, and you may find it better to leave reps in reserve and stop short of failure.

As I say often, on a long enough timeline, muscle and strength gains come from measurable strength gains in moderate rep ranges.

Make that happen however you want. And if it is not happening, reassess your methods.

---

2. If you want to save time, consider Supersets between Upper and Lower Body Exercises

Supersets at one time were a popular training strategy. For those who dont know what this means, it refers to alternating between two opposing muscle groups. Arnold famously liked to do supersets, and it makes a training session go faster. One muscle works while the other rests.

Supersets were traditionally done between agonist and antagonist muscles. That simply means two muscles that are directly opposite of each other in function.

For example

Supersetting bench press (pectorals, front deltoids, triceps) with seated rows (trapezius, latissimus)

Supersetting leg extensions (quadriceps) with leg curls (hamstrings)

Supersetting biceps with triceps.

Training this way allows you to get twice the amount of volume in half the time. Rather than rest for 2-5 minutes, you alternate back and forth.

This is great for people who are short on time, but it does accrue more fatigue

If you train to failure on sets, supersetting is NOT a good strategy.

You are never taking a proper rest, and if your goal is setting PRs on your lifts and getting stronger, your strength and muscle gains will be compromised.

Recently, some exercise scientists decided to experiment with a somewhat novel idea, what if you supersetted Upper and lower body exercises?

Would this be less fatiguing? Would it affect performance?

As it turned out, it did not affect performance that much.

In the study, a total of 19 men with past training experience were paired into two groups

-9 of them did regular straight sets

-10 of them did alternating sets, supersetting between bench press and squats

Both groups had similar results in regards to reps performed and perceived exertion

Admittingly this was a small study, only 19 people. And the test subjects did a relatively light workout (the weights were 50%, 60% and 70% of 1RM).

Regardless, it was interesting to see that supersetting between upper and lower body had only a minor impact on performance. The Supersetting group finished their workout much faster as well

For individuals who are short on training time, training in this manner may be a tactic worth trying.

---

3. Do Muscles ever stop growing? Probably YES

This was an older study from 1992, but older does not mean false or unreliable. Older scientific research is as valid as newer research and should not be dismissed.

This particular study was interesting because its one of the few Ive seen that took high level bodybuilders, people with exceptional levels of lean mass, and then used them in an experiment.

In this case, it was a comparative study, looking at gender differences in trained and untrained women and men regarding muscle size and hypertrophy potential.

Rare for a study, the scientists recruited 5 male bodybuilders, 5 female bodybuilders, and then two untrained men and two untrained women.

The men and women were explicitly identified as competitive bodybuilders, all of whom had won NPC bodybuilding shows at the national level for their respective height and weight classes. Three of the men identified they were using anabolic steroids, as did two of them women.

To beat a dead horse, these people were exceptionally muscular, its exceedingly rare that research is ever done on this level of bodybuilder.

You can see their data in the chart below

The average height of the male BBers was 5’7, with a bodyweight of 198 lbs, and about 10-11% bodyfat. These were BUFF manlets to say the least.

The women were also exceptionally muscular, with an average height of 5’5, average weight of 140, and about 18% bodyfat.

What was the actual experiment though? The scientists studied BICEP hypertrophy between the different groups, over SIX months (24 weeks)

This experiment would probably not be done today (there were a lot of uncontrolled variables), but the team that ran got some great data.

They had everyone follow the same bicep workout program
Which was doing FORTY sets a week, it looked like this

They took CAT scans of everyones arms and assessed the Cross Sectional Area of their Bicep Muscles
They took measurements at 12 and 24 weeks to track changes.

And what did they find?

I dug into the data, and what I found was surprising

Of the 5 male BBers, only ONE experienced any bicep growth. He was the outlier. Everyone else stayed the same, and 3 of them actually LOST a statistically insignificant but still measurable amount of muscle in their biceps. Remove #5 from the data, and the results show you a regression in muscle mass.

Look at the mean fiber area before and after for subject number 5

In the contrast, ALL the women all experienced muscle growth

Their muscle growth was also quite small, but they did grow.

WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN???

There are a few takeaways from this

• The first is that even for advanced bodybuilders who use steroids, eventually you STOP growing. A muscle can only get so large

• Two, if you’ve never prioritized a particular muscle before, and you begin training it frequently, it will likely grow (which seems to be the case with the women).

• Three, it’s also possible that FORTY sets of biceps was complete overkill and maybe the male BBers would have grown with less volume. One of them did grow from this though, which means a very high volume protocol might occasionally work for some people. Although I’d not suggest 40 sets, as research shows muscle gains tends to top out at around 20 sets per week.

• If you’ve been training for more than 5 years and your biceps are still lousy…sorry. We dont get the luxury of choosing our parents.

Any questions, leave them in the Comments, I hope everyone enjoyed the Brain Candy