![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
Gallowmere
Failure training is constantly showing up in data as being far less useful than once imagined.
When we think about it from a logical standpoint though, it makes sense. The best way I’ve heard it put (by Broderick Chavez, one of the foremost coaches of enhanced athletes in multiple sports no less, including Olympia competitors):
“Let’s say you’re going to the beach for a week, and you want to get as much sun exposure adaptation as possible.
Scenario A: you go all in on day one, and spend the whole 12 hour day on the beach. You went to absolute failure. You literally couldn’t have done any more due to time constraints. Guess what your stupid ass is now doing for the rest of the week. You’re sitting inside, in extreme pain, and probably not doing shit the rest of the weeks.
Scenario B: you go out for say two hours the first day, 2 hours the second day, 2-3 the third, and so on, slightly escalating as you go. Well now your potential exposure to the stimulus is increased by roughly double, and you’re not turning yourself into a miserable bag of shit in the process. Which do you think yields better results?”
Put in training terms, training more often, without completely destroying yourself tends to allow for more volume, more tension, more stimulus, and therefore, more results.