I don't get it am I supposed to train to failure or not? I've been watching a lot of Jeff Nipple videos and he keeps harping on about training to failure for muscle growth but I downloaded his latest programme and 99% of the lifts are like 7 RPE

>>76372474 (OP)

Literally just keep going until you cant do it anymore

All these courses have to say a lot of bullshit that sounds like a lifehack or tip and trick so you feel like you got your monies worth

>take protein
>lift heavy
>lift heavy enough that your muscles struggle and fail
>they then recover and repair stronger

SIMPLE MATE.

You're supposed to base your workout on the abstract of whatever Turkish study with 5 subjects you read on pubmed that day. It's optimal

>>76372483
Wow I look like this and say that. Guess I better work out today.

>>76372489
I guess the lifts themselves will be okay to copy to make sure I'm hitting every muscle group though right. I was gonna just wing it anyway because RPE sounds retarded

the RPE stuff is an unnecessary complication

there's a big trend in modern 'scientific' bodybuilding for worrying about fatigue. the problem is that if you observe an average gym, people are way more likely to undertrain than overtrain. people just like to think "if anything, my problem is i work TOO hard"

look at pre-steroid silver era routines. they were at the natty peak and did full body 3x/week, often doing 9 sets to failure per muscle group (though usually with super short rest periods)

>>76372474 (OP)
No. RPE 7 is close enough to failure to get gains. Jeff does not recommend people in general to max out all the time. He says you get just as good gains going close to.

>>76372535
>the RPE stuff is an unnecessary complication
Its common sense that even the silver era guys used. If you think reg trained to failure with 47 sets per workout you are smoked in your head

>>76372474 (OP)
you don't have to worry about these things unless you've training for many years and are scraping the bottom of the barrel for gains.
As a beginner and intermediate you can make gains very easily, even doing sub-optimal things.

>>76372596
>47 sets per workout
>what you have to do if you use RPE instead of intensity

>>76372619
Thanks

>>76372596
Yeah but they had years of experience in the gym. Some dyel curling the pink dumbbells can't accurately gauge rpe.

>>76372474 (OP)
did you guys know that his name is actually pronounced "jeff nipples?"

>>76372474 (OP)
Dude has no idea how to train others. Just look at the video where he "trained" his brother for a year and the brother ended up obese

>>76372474 (OP)
Nippard just spews whatever the general consensus is at the moment. For awhile it was high volume low RIR and then people realized that that's retarded and the science is wrong and pushed back so now he's changing his mind

>>76372685
*high RIR

>>76372483
me optimizationchadding on the left

>>76372671
His brother was already obese, then he put him on a cut as a control to match himself. His brothers been cutting though.

>>76372535
The problem with most science lifters is twofold

Firstly they ignore outliers
just because on average one method causes more growth doesn't mean that it causes more growth for everyone and studies repeatedly show this but they always hone in on the average, or broad meta analyses then spout it as fact for everyone. Israetel is extremely guilty of this, suggesting absolute kings of the game would be more jacked if they just did what the science says the average person should do which is retarded

Secondly they ignore psychology
Most people don't know what true failure is, going so psychotic your muscles just cannot lift the weight on every type of exercise, pushing through that pain or concern is a skill
I have a friend who joins me at the gym sometimes, he watches Nippard and Israetel but I can tell every single day he's like 10RIR but he says he's trying really hard and could no way do more than 3 extra reps
If he just actually pushed himself to real genuine failure he'd blow up but he can't do it and I have been unable to convince him he isn't trying hard enough. Meanwhile my other normie friend who went full on Goggins and just started fucking himself up and parroting pain is weakness leaving the body and saying RIR is pussy shit got fucking huge in 7 months. Is he being scientific? No, but that advice leaves no room for ambiguity and can often work better than nuanced advice that goes over the head of the uninitiated masses

>>76373221
>just because on average one method causes more growth doesn't mean that it causes more growth for everyone
>If he just actually pushed himself to real genuine failure he'd blow up
See, you're making the same mistake. You're assuming that your friend would necessarily benefit from doing something your other friend is doing. I know how to achieve real genuine failure and all it does for me is give me joint pain and make me weaker.

>>76373241
I get what you mean but there's context that I didn't really provide
>what he is doing is clearly not working for him
>while outliers exist pretty much nothing suggests that extremely low effort lifting is good for anyone (simply nobody will get huge legs from running even though they will do a lot of reps)
I was also just kinda presuming they were otherwise correct, that science is correct for everyone, just to focus on each singular criticism in a vacuum

I’m afraid to train to failure because I train alone and don’t want to pull a muscle or worse

>>76373261
You're not alone Jesus is always there with you.

>>76373416
Yeah but is Jesus a good spotter?

>>76373221
Based Gogginsbro. Even "bad form''
is legit great for muscle growth as it recruits many fibers.

>>76373261
Just drop the weight it's not that hard

>>76372685
Hes also changed or deleted videos when it's been proven something he said is bullshit.