[00:00] Is going to failure more effective than not going to failure? This is going to generate a lot of discussion in the comments. I can't wait to see it. So I'm going to cite quite a bit of work from my powerlifting coach, Zach Robinson, because he is at FAU, just finished his PhD and did a lot of meta-regressions and meta-analyses on this exact topic.
[00:22] So I'll give you the answers first that are straight down the line scientific answers, and then I'll explain things. For muscular hypertrophy, you need to get close to failure, but you probably don't need to train to failure to maximize hypertrophy, but you got to get pretty close.
[00:39] You can be stronger, but to maximize strength, you're probably better off not touching failure very often. So there are a few studies now looking at this showing that – I think there was one study recently and I can't remember the exact details, but I remember it being pretty well designed.
[00:57] And the takeaway was hypertrophy was similar between the groups, but the group that went to failure or stayed a few reps shy of failure actually got stronger compared to the group that was taking most sets to failure.
[01:09] And did they control for total volume of work? Because I can imagine not going to failure, you can do more sets because you've got more, quote unquote, gas in the tank, right? And practically, that may be a benefit of stopping shy of failure, right?
[01:21] But yeah, they control for those variables. So when we talk about volume, the way we define that is essentially number of hard sets, which a hard set would be a set close to failure. The general consensus is within five reps of failure is considered a hard set.
[01:37] Now, what I will tell people is that may not sound like much. Most people have never truly pushed themselves to failure.