The Fallacy of "Failure"

Proponents of "High-intensity" training think it is a simple matter of training a muscle to "failure" -- and that will automatically produce gains -- and they go on further, to say it is such a productive manner of training, that one should do at least 5 sets for each exercise -- which obviously indicates they have no understanding of the concept of "failure."  

Failure is the utter inability to go on further; one has done all they can momentarily -- and will require some time to recover, and not simply one or five minutes between each set.  It will often take as much as a week to fully recover for the next all-out attempts to failure -- and in many cases, often longer.  Otherwise, they are just conditioning themselves to quit as often as possible -- rather than conditioning themselves for the rare once-in-a-lifetime maximum attempt -- as though their lives depended on it.  

So it was noted by the original proponent of such a concept, Arthur Jones, that it should be done infrequently -- as could be observed by the strongest specimens of every species.  It was for the lesser members, to be always proving their place in the hierarchy -- while the king of the pack, infrequently engaged unless he absolutely had to.  In the workplace, that was seen in how the foreman at a work site, was not the person doing the most work, but the individual who stepped in when all the efforts of all the others, were insufficient to get the task done.

Those get to pick their battles -- and take on only the most worthy challenges -- that make the difference between survival or extinction for that species -- while the countless more worker-bees, were consumed in the lesser day-to-day housekeeping tasks.  And there is a proper place for that work as well -- or the colony wouldn't exist in the first place.  So it is not a matter of which to do exclusively -- but the importance of doing both -- appropriately as required.  And that is the critical judgment -- so one is not going all-out, when a lesser force would be more appropriate to the task.

Many ask which is better to do -- exclusively, as though that was the optimal choice.  It is like asking whether one wants to be able to do only the hard tasks -- or only the easy tasks -- and not either when more appropriate.  That is what critical thinking is -- the ability to discriminate these things skillfully, and not doing just their one thing no matter what.  It may be likely that their one ability, is inappropriate for most occasions -- but still, that's all they know what to do -- and will insist on doing them no matter what -- even to the astonishment of everybody there who see the objective clearly.

But it happens all the time -- especially in the training/conditioning centers.  People will persist in doing their one thing -- despite the fact that they may not be getting any positive results, and in fact, is the cause of their pain and injuries.   Despite acknowledging that, they will persist in their one exercise -- as though nothing else is possible, or permissible -- because that is what some authority insists is the only thing that can be done.  Obviously, there are many ways that work for different people, but the only thing that matters to each individual, is what works for them particularly -- and if not, finding that way that does -- even if they have to invent it themselves.

That is what the champions do -- what nobody else has done before -- or can imagine doing, before they think of it.  And that is the great prize of any doing -- to do and discover what hasn't been done before -- even for oneself.  Of course that doesn't happen every day, or all the time, but that it happens at all in any life, is a great accomplishment -- upon which to build on to subsequent developments.

In this way, one would prefer to condition themselves by success -- rather than failure -- and so rather than quitting at 10 repetitions or 15, and calling it "failure," a better arbitrary number is 50 -- to ensure that one does something at all -- as a daily habit, or conditioning to persist at least that much.  The problem with doing a bench press with 300 lbs. to failure, is that although they cannot do another repetition at 300 lbs., they might be able to do a few more at 200 lbs., and subsequently 100 lbs., and then with 10 lbs., until they can no longer move their arms with even no weight (resistance).  That is true failure --- and not loading the bar up to 1,000 lbs. and proclaiming they failed when they could not do one.

Using the training style of unloading the bar only wears out the spotters, and not the trainee as intended.  The better approach is to take a light weight, and extend the range of movement in the direction of the muscle contraction -- which is much easier done in the direction of the relaxation -- which is mostly allowing gravity to do the work.  But lifting the bar further in the direction of contraction produces such a severe contraction that most unfamiliar with such movement, are likely to experience it the first time as a severe muscle cramp -- whereupon they have no further control and are likely to drop the bar on their chest if they are lucky -- and on their neck or head if they aren't -- even using a light weight.  But that is preferable to using a heavy weight.

Eventually, training in that manner results in a more controllable "pump" that many using too heavy weights so that they perform no productive work by it, claim they no longer experience -- nor wish to experience because it reduces their ability to handle heavier weights in doing so.  But that is the productive part of what they are hoping to do -- to dramatically increase the circulation to that muscle to effect an immediate result.  Simply lifting a lot of weights does not have the same magical effect.  That is simply doing a lot of unnecessary work -- and not getting the direct positive results -- that when effectively done, can transform most people immediately, and they get better in subsequent sessions.

This phenomenon is undeniable -- and even the top bodybuilding competitors are pumping away to achieve their maximum impressiveness even for that moment.  That much is unsaid -- when in fact, is the quality that distinguishes those who can effect such transformations instantaneously, from those who haven't a clue as to what is going on.  Instead, such charlatans will insist that if one continues to do what they are advising, one year from now they will see some results -- but never before then!  But bodybuilding exercises, when properly executed, has an immediate, often dramatic result -- simply because that is the body's response to such inputs.  So when "aging"bodybuilders no longer experience such positive effects, it is usually because they have lost sight of that direct connection and response, and think that something else is more important than effecting the blood flow -- which is usually how much weight they are using, or how many repetitions -- even when they don't directly effect the blood flow in a palpable way.

And that is particularly true of the blood flow to the critical faculties of the body at the head, hands and feet -- and thinking that the only bodypart of relevance is the biceps -- which is the major criteria of senior bodybuilding competitions.  They're fixated on only one thing -- rather than the total picture of health and vibrancy.  One can tell that even without stripping down to posing trunks and "selfies."  It is a person who looks and moves competently and robustly at age 70, 80, 90, and 100.  And if not -- at 60, 50, 40, etc., they have to do something about it -- and not just listen to the self-appointed experts who are usually in that same sorry shape -- because most of the people in the media cannot distinguish any meaningful differences, or anything of substance.