Dr. Patrick: This whole idea of training till failure and...what does that mean, do we need to train to failure? Is that important?

Dr. Schoenfeld: Yeah. So, failure, an operational definition would be the inability to perform another repetition with proper form. And we carried out a meta-analysis recently on this topic and the bottom line is that, and that's kind of the "go hard or go home philosophy," that's the bodybuilding mentality, "go hard or go home," every set needs to be taken to failure. The evidence does not indicate that's the case. So, certainly, you need to train with a high amount of effort but certainly to take every set to failure...not only is it not...doesn't show any benefit for hypertrophy, it actually showed a small detriment for strength. So, with strength, stopping, you know, a couple reps short of failure seem to have better effects on maximizing strength than training to failure. Again, there's some limitations to that research, how much does that mean that, if you train to failure, you won't maximize your strength, I'm not necessarily on board with that, but that is what our results showed.

I also would not dismiss the fact that for very high-level...let's say you're very close to your genetic ceiling, that it might make the need to go to failure, at least on some of the sets, more relevant, beneficial, we don't have good...this is purely speculative on my end. But I can see at least the logical rationale where it's a way to challenge the body in a way that it is not used to. I will tell you that, when I coach bodybuilders, I generally incorporate some failure training. But another area where my view was shifted maybe not 180 but probably 90 degrees where I used to be the go-hard-go-home dude who, "Every set needs to be taken to failure," and now most sets within 2 to 3 reps of failure. So, there's a concept called "the repetitions in reserve," that's the RIR scale, repetitions in reserve. An RIR of zero means you're at failure, means you cannot have done another rep, there was zero reps left before you got a failure. An RIR of one would mean that you could've done one more rep and, at that rep, you would be at failure. From the literature, although we don't have a definitive way of making, you know, estimates on this, but my own interpretation of the literature is somewhere between probably one to three rep RIR, reps from failure, would be needed to promote optimal adaptations. You can still see adaptations, particularly when you're more in the newbie stage, in the early stages, below that but one to three, I think, is a good general recommendation that's necessary to see adaptations.

Again, then you start getting into the weeds, getting into the nuances. For the gen pop, I probably would say that's always going to be effective and you probably never have to go to failure, for the goals of most gen pops. For bodybuilders, high-level athletes, perhaps some failure training, the last set to failure on some of your exercises at least. And again, if you want to get into the weeds, probably using your single-joint and machine-based exercises would be more appropriate for failure, let's say, than squats or biceps curl, a lateral raise, a leg extension. First of all, there's less issue of injury because, when you're going to fail, let's say, on a squat, if you've ever squatted, and you're in the hole and you're trying to push out, there's a greater potential for injury. Certainly, you're going to need a spotter in that regard or else you could be stuck and you can have problems. Or a bench press where you're trying to do that rep, if you don't have a spotter, that bar is stuck to your chest. Whereas, if you're doing, let's say, dumbbell curls or lateral raises, at the very least you're not going to be really torched after your sets, you're going to be able to come back strong.

So, these are just general...speculative on my part but I think there's good logical rationale behind these things. And I do want to say that an evidence-based approach...so, I do want to promote, my biggest hobby horse in life is to promote the importance of evidence-based practice. It is not simply deferring to research, research is never going to tell you what to do, or virtually never, it's going to provide general guidelines, particularly in the applied sciences like exercise and nutrition. It will get you into the ballpark, it'll give you general strategies to use. You then need to take this to the individual. What are their genetics? What is their lifestyle? Their stress level? Their sleep? Their nutritional status? All of these things together. And then, of course, goals are going to enter into it. So, developing a program from the research means to understand the research and then to use your own expertise in combination with the goals and abilities of the individual.

Dr. Patrick: Right. With the designing the training program sort of aspect, we're kind of, I mean, sort of talking about this and, you know, training till failure it sounds like, that's pretty clear for me, like, you know, maybe the bodybuilders, that's a little bit more important, but for most people getting within one to three reps until failure kind of answers the...you get a lot of questions about, "How many reps do I need to do? How many reps do I need to do?" it sounds like it depends on the person. And when you start to feel that fatigue when you're getting close, you know, right? Like, so, that's kind of what I'm thinking myself.

Dr. Schoenfeld: Correct.

Dr. Patrick: Resting between those reps, or between the sets or which way is it, the resting intervals...

Dr. Schoenfeld: Between sets.

Dr. Patrick: It's between the sets. So, yeah. So, basically, when you're getting ready to do another set, like, how many sets do you need to do or how long do you have to rest between them, is that important?

Dr. Schoenfeld: Yeah. So, again, it's on a spectrum and it depends on...so, when I talk to my students, they'll ask me questions and I say, you know, "Pretty much any applied question you're going to ask me I will answer with 'it depends.'" Because within broad spectrums, if you're doing a very minimalist routine, you can make gains. So, if you're saying, "Is it important?" it starts to become more and more important the more important it is to you to maximize your results.

If your goal is just to build some muscle, gain some strength, a very minimalist routine, I mean, training an hour a week, let's say, two days, two half-hour sessions a week can give most people very nice results, provided you're training hard. If you're looking to be a bodybuilder, are you going to step on stage? No, I would say with 100% confidence that is not going to be sufficient to optimize your gains. So, volume has been shown to be a driver of hypertrophy. Again, we've done original research on this, we've made an app, made analytic work, and there is a dose-response relationship up to a certain point. It is individual-specific as well. So, some people respond better or respond well to lower volumes. Some people need more volume to maximize their results. It's hard to study individual responses but these are kind of general insights that we glean from the literature.