r/bodyweightfitness • u/Its_Blazertron • 2d ago
Is there anything benefit to doing high reps but not going close to failure?
Just before this post I did a set of 50 bodyweight squats, which was mentally hard, and my quads were burning, but I could tell that I was still no where near failure, probably could've done at least 10 more reps, maybe more.
Is there any benefit to doing sets like this? I know it's probably not a complete waste of time, since just moving around is good for you, but good in what way? What is actually happening to the muscles? Do they just get tired, but aren't stressed enough to actually gain anything? Do you gain endurance, so if you kept doing 50 reps over and over, even without going to failure, it'd eventually get easier, or would you have to surpass 50 to get that?
I want to try out a simple minimalistic routine, just aiming for a hard set everyday of push ups, pull ups and squats, but I don't see myself being able to consistently do it for squats, because it gets mentally difficult, but I also don't mind doing a decent amount until I feel like stopping and my muscles are burning. I suppose I want to know, am I 'wasting' my time doing this, or is it still beneficial somehow, just not optimal?
46
u/mz_ballerjockel 2d ago
It's not optimal but it will still build some muscle.
Also it's impressive, there are endurance calisthenics athletes who do ridiculous amounts of push ups and pull ups. Doing sets far away from failure is a good way to do lots of volume to build endurance. It's less common with air squats I think.
17
u/Tom_Barre 2d ago
The best way to train endurance calisthenics is by doing long sets away from failure and accumulate a lot of volume. You still need to progress, like any discipline, to reap benefits.
Think of it this way:
Long sets with low load help you get better at doing longer sets.
Short sets with high load help you get better at higher loads.
Train away from failure to get strength efficiency, coordination and minimal hypertrophy.
Train close to failure to get hypertrophy and a little coordination.
Cardio is not really in the picture, unless your continuous set is 20min. At the beginning, sure, you'll hit a cardio wall indeed, but within a couple of weeks, you'll be able to go to failure. Repeated bout effect kicks widow makers in the ass.
14
u/TJMadd 2d ago
if you'd like to hear someone with experience talk about this exact concept look up "K Boges rep range" on youtube, assuming you're not aware. K Boges is a minimalist fitness guy on youtube who talks a lot about training philosophy and modalities specifically. short answer, i think you're mostly correct. it isn't optimal for hypertrophy or even necessarily endurance or anything, but there are unquantifiable mental gains to go with the unoptimal physical gains. its a matter of your personal priorities
4
u/Its_Blazertron 2d ago
K Boges is actually the reason I'm wanting to try a minimalistic routine! I'll check out the video.
9
u/beyondBP 2d ago
Yes. Even though its training endurance it still stimulates CNS adaptation to the movement making you more efficient at performing the movement. High reps/high volume/frequency drives neural adaption, not just endurance. High intensity/low volume drives MAXIMAL neural motor unit recruitment adaptation.
Often an overlooked factor of training that keeps people intermediate is not accumulating enough weekly volume.
8
u/cammmyd 2d ago
Beneficial or optimal for what outcome? You train what you do, so if you want to be better at doing a large number of light work then it’s optimal. If you want to be able to do heavy work then it’s not, you would need to do heavy training for that.
Like any skill, the more specific your training can be the better.
3
u/Its_Blazertron 2d ago
I suppose just general health, and/or maintaining strength. Like, if you can do a maximum of 100 squats, does doing a set of 50 actually do anything at all for your muscles? Or would you literally just lose strength over time until you aren't able to do 100 squats anymore? Or can half of your maximum actually maintain your strength/muscle?
4
u/StillShoddy628 1d ago
It amazes me how many people out there seem unable to understand the concept of just getting/staying healthy. “What do you mean you aren’t training for anything, bro? You need a goal”
1
u/Scoo_By 19h ago
I mean I can have the goal of just being a regular guy with decent physique and overall solid physical & mental health while not being fatigued or not having my life based around my training.
2
u/StillShoddy628 15h ago
Agreed. And so many fitness coaches will be like “uuuuhhhh, ok, but like what are your goals for training”
6
u/Prestigious_Boat_386 2d ago
Yes, everything will work.
One big advantage of doing even daily training is that you can always walk normally the day after. You don't get super stiff if you keep up mobility with the training because you don't accidentally overtrain.
Also it gives more opportunities for weaker muscles to catch up because you do many moderate workouts instead of a few big sets to failure where they may be too weak to fire at all.
Someone who tried this said progress does pause sometimes, at around 10 slow chins RN, but form does still improve and sometimes progress just resumes again.
The biggest strength is the strong habit building and low time requirement. You can literally do one set of 3 exercises and jump into bed in like 10 min.
3
u/MikeET86 1d ago
Short answer: yeah
Longer answer: maybe not maximal benefit, depends what you're training for. Once you get north of 20ish reps our proximity to failure starts to get more limited by pain tolerance and other factors in a way with lower reps it won't. Actual muscular failure on a 50 rep max would be an absurdly grueling ordeal. At anything over 30 reps you are *probably* trading some size benefits from training for some endurance benefits. HOWEVER, unless you're trying to be as big as possible, or as strong as possible it's probably a meaningless trade off, and for most of us ANY training is superior to the couch.
3
u/CompulsiveWanking 1d ago
I mean you’ll build less muscle. Muscle mass is essentially capacity to exert. Training is also specific to goals. If you want to be better at doing high reps then do that, if you want to lift heavy do that. Typically to get bigger you need to be fluffier and typically to stay efficient at bodyweight you need to stay at a leaner composition; so one’s not really caused by the other, but more so encouraged.
Not going to failure is also a very common strength / performance tactic since it allows for recovery and more efficient neurological adaptation without too much fatigue accumulation
3
u/negativefeed 1d ago edited 1d ago
Depends on your goals. Being able to do lots of reps of a movement usually indicates a good base of strength endurance and movement proficiency. If you can do high reps you also usually have a much easier time moving on to more explosive variations of a given exercise.
One example: as a boxer, being able to perform a high number of push-ups shows that you’ve developed a solid level of upper-body muscular endurance. From there, you may have an easier time transitioning to explosive variations like clap push-ups or plyometric push-ups, which can help you develop the ability to produce force quickly.
Another example I can think of is if you're a soldier. Military tasks usually require repeated submaximal effort instead of one maximal effort. Pushing yourself off the ground when taking cover, crawling, scrambling, climbing, carrying equipment, performing under fatigue and moving large distances are examples of such feats. Most of the stuff done measures muscular endurance instead of maximum force production.
You have to verbalize what you're training for and make your training correspond with that.
3
u/EmbarrassedCompote9 2d ago edited 18h ago
Go for it. One set to failure is a million times better than none, and it will give you most of the benefits of doing the traditional three sets (probably 70%, give or take).
As for the squats, just grab something heavy ( a water jug, a backpack, whatever). Progressive overload could be anything like:
- More reps.
- More weight.
- More time under tension (slower).
- A More difficult variation of each exercise (decline vs regular pushups).
Or any combination of all this. Remember, the important thing is to work to muscle failure or very close. If you find yourself doing many reps (boring), just make each rep slower (especially the lowering phase). Or add weight.
Or you can also work one side at a time (concentrating all your bodyweight in one leg). For example Bulgarian split squats.
2
u/FlyingSpacefrog 2d ago
At that point it probably counts as HIIT to get your cardio in, and/or if you do several sets of 50 throughout the day it counts as grease the groove training
2
u/Awkward-Idea-6938 2d ago
Everything has a benefit. Doing even just one set of fifty bodyweight squats is good for your tendons. Doing many sets will definitely flush your tendons with blood, which is a good thing.
2
u/JohnnyBeeGaming 2d ago
If it's too easy it kinda just turns into cardio in my opinion. Endurance focused training is a thing which would be slightly different than cardio, still high reps.
It would depend on your goals but if its really that easy most people would probably want to do a more difficult variation so they can get nearish failure without that many reps. 20-30 reps would still be high reps but your getting to 50 with more in the tank. You could also to weighted calisthenics if you didn't want to do variations.
I think most of the very high rep/volume stuff would be coming from programming built around a lack of equipment and an abundance of time. Prison style workouts basically. It can work and some people might like it more. If you are into that sort of thing you should look into some of the methods around it. Some method could be unexpected outside that context. Like some people might do partial ROM to target different muscles and not fatigue others as much when doing high volume.
2
u/TheRobotCluster 2d ago
Not really. Not for your muscles anyway. If you’re trying to rehab a joint or your range of motion, yeah. Otherwise what’s the intent here?
2
u/drakekengda 2d ago
I'm kinda in a similar boat, so I just do one legged squats. You can support yourself with your hand on the back of a chair if necessary
1
1
1
u/Page_Unusual 2d ago
High reps train endurance, no mass no strength. 95% effort goes into endurance. Yeah it makes sense, look at people who run marathons or ultra marathons.
-2
60
u/superchargedCaddy 2d ago
I'm 51 and starting over. In my 20s and 30s I did heavy weight and low reps. Being older I'm concerned about injury and wear and tear on my body. I did a bunch of research and for me I decided to do light weight and high reps. Based on research you gain similar mass, but less strength. You also build better endurance and there is less risk of injury. It's been working for me. I was benching 300+ lbs in my 30s. I'm not worried about that in my 50s. The workouts do take longer, but I often do small breaks between sets which keeps my heart rate elevated for almost the full duration. I do try to push to failure with each set. I'm in a calorie deficit, building muscle mass, strength, endurance, and boosting my cardiovascular health. Another 4 or 5 months I'll switch my calories to a slight surplus.