Straight sets OR 1 set to failure?

I've never seen any program recommend doing just 1 set to failure. It's way too low of a stimulus.

File: 1388621599001.png (208KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 400x400px

>to the death
what does this mean?

>>42048862
Fuck off you fucking cancer. Go post some retarded pictures elsewhere.

>>42048844

Doing just One set to failure is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

You need to get a reasonable amount of volume in. 25-30 heavy reps per workout is a good goal. But doing 30 reps of a lower weight to failure is just not going to do much for you.

File: 13886215990013.png (231KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 400x400px

>>42048895
what does "to failure" or "to the death" mean exactly?

>>42048906
Can't understand why it seems dumb to you. Dorian Yates and Ronnie Coleman, some of the greatest bodybuilders of all time trained this way. They did some warm up sets and then gave everything they got on their last set. For example, Ronnie did barbell rows for 225x15, 315x12, 405x8 and then one final set to failure 495x7. That's called training to failure. Most people would stay on 405-455lbs and do 3-4 sets on that weight. Do you understand?

I you're not feeling like you're about to fail on your working sets you're seriously not pushing yourself.

File: 1499083785568.jpg (362KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 1920x1080px

>>42048952
They were also genetic monsters and on a ton of gear faggot

do at least 4 sets to failure

works for me

>>42049178
The last reps of your second from last and your last sets should feel like impending death

You don't have to work till failure. Try to hit that 5-12 rep range of a weight that challenges you enough.

If your max is 30, try hitting 12
then switch it up to 27.5 of 10
and then 25 of 8.

3 sets of each...and this is only exercise...aka preacher curl, freeweight curl.

>>42048952
Okay, but I'm not that strong, and I'm willing to bet you aren't either.

So if I do my puny 180lb bench for as many reps as possible, and I get to 8. But if I rest, I can do 8 more. And then 8 more. And then 8 more. But there was no way I could've done one set of 40, and I'm betting you can't either without snapping yourself up.

File: 628aa144f0631be3f264c965d14c1c04.jpg (95KB, 488x720px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 488x720px

>>42048844
If you are doing one set to death, you better do several exercises per body part... Dorian only did 1 set per exercise, but did many exercises.

for example, for chest he would do (in his movie) 1 set of incline press, 1 set of cable flyes, 1 set of a machine press, and so forth. So in total it's like 5 or 6 sets to failure per bodypart, even if it's only one per exercise.

If you are only going to do one exercise per bodypart (like squats for quads, for example) you better do several sets

>>42048844
I thought the best was straight sets and then the last set until failure? Not for every exercise, just the last couple maybe.

>>42048906
>doing 30 reps of a lower weight to failure is just not going to do much for you.
bullshit. One all out set of 20 reps in squats will do more for your legs than any meme workout you've ever done.

File: IRemovedHerPussy.png (258KB, 439x389px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 439x389px

>All of these DYELs saying you should push to failure each set
>Doubt any of them benched more than 2pl8 without 3-4 years of training

Don't train to failure on compounds as a natty. At best, do them on the last set, still not required. Training to failure severely reduces your recovery time for the rest of your lifts and effectively reduces the total amount of weight you can lift for the entirety of the day afterward until you properly recover.

If you want to get stronger, train heavy. You can't train heavy if you have to deload the weight from your last set because you went to failure. It doesn't matter how long you sit and wait between sets, if you pushed heavy 'til failure, you WILL NOT be able to do the same amount of reps and weight in your next set. You can't get better at lifting heavy without training heavy, and training heavy requires you to LIFT heavy. Any strength program on the face of the earth that people laud as worth-a-damn will tell you this.

By training to failure, you're working the muscle but not the tendons, joints, and etc. thus making it sub-optimal as you could be working all at once. Non-natties need to understand that pushing for a pump doesn't work; a pump gets more blood, therefore more nutrients, to the muscle. Steroid users have substantially more red blood cells and not only get a pump easier, but hold it for hours at a time. A natty pump lasts 45 minutes at best - training for a pump natty is a waste of time.

File: 1499049601665.jpg (16KB, 415x367px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 415x367px

>>42048909
Please stop doing this

>>42048952
I've seen a lot of trainers advising to not go to failure and keep "strength in the bank", the two main reasons given were that training to failure vastly augments the risk of hurting yourself on the long term and the fact that it is too harsh on the central nervous system leading to overtraining really fast.

>>42049238
What was the point of posting the random picture other than to discredit your opinion

>>42049456
Whats the point of replying with all those dicks in your mouth

>>42048952
>roids allow maximum gains from minimum stimulus
>infamous roiders trained low volume, minimum stimulus and got gains
:thinking:

>>42048952
you can train "to failure" if you want but at least do it with dropsets.

File: 1498233364578.png (22KB, 516x299px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 516x299px

>>42049456
Go suck tyrones cock you nigger loving faggot