questions about workout style while on gear

[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.

[Chark]

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.

“Stimulate, don’t annihilate” - Lee Haney

If anyone remembers, training more often was the centerpiece of the doggcrapp training style from back in the day and really pushed the philosophy Gallow mentioned.

I’ll add something different. I was reminded of this the other day when gym buddy asked why I was doing weak-ass assisted pull-ups to warm up for back. You’ll hear great advice like you’ve got to go heavy and workout with intensity, and you do, but also remember you only have so much energy. If I was doing those 100 pull-ups unassisted I’d be fairly spent before I even got to my first exercises. You need to pick where your energy goes. Pretend you’re one of those video game fighters with a stamina bar. Don’t wear yourself out on warmups. Leave a couple reps in the tank and then go out all-out intensity once you get to your heavy set.

[Albedo121]

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.

If you’re destroying yourself to the point where you literally can’t work out anymore for the week I would say that’s a bit too far haha. I think in general most people believe they’re failing when they’re not even close, and when I say not even close I mean you just did 10 reps and you can get 10 more without not being able to use that body part for a week. If you’re putting yourself into rhabdo than yes I agree - you’ve gone too far lol

[Gallowmere]

If you’re destroying yourself to the point where you literally can’t work out anymore for the week I would say that’s a bit too far haha. I think in general most people believe they’re failing when they’re not even close, and when I say not even close I mean you just did 10 reps and you can get 10 more without not being able to use that body part for a week. If you’re putting yourself into rhabdo than yes I agree - you’ve gone too far lol

Very true, but if you look at the typical “bro split” setup, they’re either not doing either, or doing exactly what you said. The fact that “leg day” and “chest day” is a thing leans toward the fact that they are only hitting these things once per week, whatever the reason may be.
So they either suck at gauging what failure is (and this is made worse by the pathetic weights used by many, as ‘failing’ with a 25+ rep weight and failing with a 5-8 are metabolically two VERY different things), and quit when the shit gets too painful, or they’re not able to recover from what they’re doing. You don’t have to go full rhabdomyolysis to be digging the hole deeper than is optimally productive.
The resurgence of the RIR/RPE system in modern training has been great to offset this, but only if it’s used properly, and total failure training is failing to use it properly.
My gauge for people is only useful in the presence of compound movements though. For me, your set ends at technical failure, which is the point where form breaks. This tells me that the weakest link in your chain is now exhausted, and compensatory measures have kicked in, therefore we are no longer hitting exactly what we’re aiming for. The only time this isn’t the case is obviously during competition, because if your competition squat/deadlift/whatever looks ‘perfect’, either you’re a rare freak of perfect balance, or we left weight on the table.