Another apparent contradiction?

[REG]

Why does Mr. Kurz say in article column #35, under subsection 3. Error: Striving to reach limits of your strength or work to failure. "Doing repetitions in a set to failure, especially with moderate to heavy resistance, causes excessive joint compression and leads to injuries."

Yet, he mentions in his book, The Science of Sports Training, under the section on Zatsiorsky's three methods to eliciting maximal muscular tensions., the second method is using considerably less than maximal resistance until fatigue causes one to fail (repeated effort method). Kurz here seems to imply that he advocates this method saying "this is the main method of developing strength, especially in the general preparation period." He eventually says that one of the advantages of this method compared to the first method (overcoming maximal and submaximal resistance that causes maximal or near-maximal muscle tension), is that there is a lower risk of injuries.

It seems like Kurz advocates the second method of Zatsiorksy very much, yet in his article column #35, under subsection 3. Error: Striving to reach limits of your strength or work to failure. he seems to advocate for the opposite, explaining how it can lead to joints injuries.

This doesn't make sense to me. What he is trying to say? I mean, what exactly am I supposed to do during weight or strength training? Also, If I generally shouldn't do repetitions in a set to failure, then how I am supposed know when to increase the amount of repetitions or resistance in a given set of a given exercise? Any valid response(s) to these questions would be of significant help to me.

[dragon]

I was weight training long before i read either of those two articles so i may not be the best person to answer.......The thing that stood out the most to me though was:-

with moderate to heavy resistance

and.....

considerably less than maximal resistance

Moderate to heavy "could" imply you would reach failure at 1-5 reps......Considerably less than that "could" mean you could reach 8+ reps.

I never train to failure regardless of the program i am on.....If i had to though,i think it would be safer to reach complete muscular failure with lighter resistance than heavy....As an example-It's safer to go to failure doing 200 push ups than it is to reach failure trying to press a 400lb barbell once.

Also, If I generally shouldn't do repetitions in a set to failure, then how I am supposed know when to increase the amount of repetitions or resistance in a given set of a given exercise? .

As i said,i never go to complete failure.This doesn't mean it's easy.It just means you leave a rep or two in reserve so as not to injure yourself struggling to achieve one more rep/get into trouble halfway through a rep-Perfect form such always take priority over how much you can lift of for how many reps.

How do you know when you should progress?-If you're performing a squat for 3 sets of 10 reps with the same weight on each set(not pyramiding up or running the rack) then you might achieve:-

1st set-10 reps.
2nd set-10 reps.
3rd set-8 reps.

You would stick with that weight/not increase the reps on the first two sets until you can achieve 3x10......Then you can add more.When you reach a plateau,it's time to start a new cycle.

Whether or not this is what Kurz or other trainers recommend,i don't know....It's always the way i've cycled my training.

Dragon.

[REG]

How do you know when you should progress?-If you're performing a squat for 3 sets of 10 reps with the same weight on each set(not pyramiding up or running the rack) then you might achieve:-

1st set-10 reps.
2nd set-10 reps.
3rd set-8 reps.

You would stick with that weight/not increase the reps on the first two sets until you can achieve 3x10......Then you can add more.When you reach a plateau,it's time to start a new cycle.

So with any exercise the weight on the first two sets should always be higher or heavier than the weight on the third or last set?

[dragon]

So with any exercise the weight on the first two sets should always be higher or heavier than the weight on the third or last set?

No,like i said.This is assuming you aren't pyramiding up or running the rack.It was just an example.I'll explain it another way....

If you are going to do 3 sets of 10 in the squat with 100kg and you reach 10 reps in all 3 sets easily,then that weight is too light for you and you can progress further(either increase the weight or the reps).

If you don't achieve 10 reps on any of the sets-whether it be the first,second,or third,then you keep at that weight until you can reach 3X10.

Dragon.

[REG]

No,like i said.This is assuming you aren't pyramiding up or running the rack.It was just an example.I'll explain it another way....

If you are going to do 3 sets of 10 in the squat with 100kg and you reach 10 reps in all 3 sets easily,then that weight is too light for you and you can progress further(either increase the weight or the reps).

If you don't achieve 10 reps on any of the sets-whether it be the first,second,or third,then you keep at that weight until you can reach 3X10.

Dragon.

Ohhh....okay. You know before I thought that pyramiding up and running the rack both meant exactly same thing. However, I decided to do some research on both Pyramiding up and running the rack, and so I ended up finding out that there is a difference between those two. Pyramid training seems to have to do with increasing the resistance while decreasing the amount of reps for each subsequent set, while running the rack or "drop sets" do the opposite by decreasing the resistance while increasing the amount of reps for each subsequent set. In any case, So you're are saying to not do that and keep the resistance the same for each set while trying to achieve the desired number of rep for each set. Yet, are you also saying to not go to the desired reps with a given resistance for each set until failure?

[dragon]

Pyramid training seems to have to do with increasing the resistance while decreasing the amount of reps for each subsequent set,

That's the modern day definition but it's not how it was originally done back in the 40s/50s.Pyramiding meant just that-You increase the weight up and drop the reps accordingly.When you reach the top(highest weight/lowest reps) you would reverse it and go back down again........Todays definition of pyramiding were you end at the highest point is actually called ramping.

while running the rack or "drop sets" do the opposite by decreasing the resistance while increasing the amount of reps for each subsequent set.

Maybe in theory,but not in practice-Running the rack(or drop sets) traditionally had no rest between sets.You'd do the desired number of reps with one set of dumbbells,then without rest pick the next lightest and do more reps.When you couldn't do any more with those,you'd pick up the next set of dumbbells,etc.

Because there is no rest whatsoever,your muscle never get the chance to rest so even though the weight is getting lighter,you still won't be able to do many reps as you will be fatigued.

In any case, So you're are saying to not do that and keep the resistance the same for each set while trying to achieve the desired number of rep for each set.

If you don't have a lot of training experience,keeping the weight the same for all sets is better way to train.Running the rack,drop sets,pyramiding,forced negatives,etc,etc are all advanced training techniques.

Your original question was knowing when you should progress.Because with these advanced techniques the sets,reps,intensity,etc change throughout,it is a lot harder to gauge when to add more weight.....This comes with years of training experience.

Keeping the weight the same for all sets is a more fool proof method-Once you can achieve all your reps,it's time to add more weight.

Yet, are you also saying to not go to the desired reps with a given resistance for each set until failure?

That's right.I never go to failure.You can still increase strength and muscle mass with never going to complete failure.

Dragon.