I’m a strengthaholic. I’m consumed with lifting, learning about lifting, and teaching other people how they can lift better. Because teaching other people how they can lift better is such an integral part of my passion for lifting, I’ll cut to the chase and present the main message of this article:
The submaximal effort method has a limited potential to produce strength gains. You need to incorporate weights that are (or close to) maximums and/or take some of your sets to failure if you want to improve your maximum strength. If you have not made progress in a while, assess whether or not you have actually been using effective, stimulating training methods.
If you don’t believe me or if you’re like me and you find that the “why” helps you more, implement the “what” and read on.
Strengthening my rationale with context
In order to convince you that taking sets to failure is important, I need to provide you with some context. You don’t have to be a genius to understand the science of strength training, but you do need to know a few things if you want the important stuff to make sense. Having said that, allow me to lead you through some of the basic science behind strength.
Variation in the ability of individual athletes to generate maximal forces in similar motions is influenced by two main factors—peripheral factors and central factors. While muscle dimensions aren’t the only peripheral factors affecting force production, they are thought to be the most important (who would have guessed?!). Central factors, on the other hand, boil down to intermuscular coordination and intramuscular coordination.
Intermuscular coordination, as I’m sure many of you have read about before, is “the complex coordination of numerous muscle groups” (Zatsiorsky 2006; p. 63). This brand of coordination involves movement patterns and it explains why the hypertrophy of individual muscle groups produced via single joint or machine-based exercise doesn’t always immediately translate to increased strength in multijoint movements. Although the muscle is larger, it takes time and effort to coordinate multiple muscles and develop this potential into performance.
Intramuscular coordination, on the other hand, occurs within individual muscles and, put very simply, involves the activation of motor units (a motoneuron plus the muscle fibers it innervates equals a motor unit). This type of coordination is all about tapping into the muscle that you currently have, and it is a quality that is readily improved by strength training. While an untrained lifter can only call upon so much of the muscle he currently possesses, an experienced trainee may be able to activate a much larger percentage of his motor units.
A good analogy for understanding peripheral and central factors is to think of muscle as machinery, such as a crane used in construction, and the nervous system as the operator of that machinery. Machinery can be large and posses the potential to lift heavy objects or it can be small and have a limited potential to lift heavy objects. This potential, however, is useless without the operator. Furthermore, operators will be unskilled and uncoordinated if they lack proper training. With the proper training though, they can be skilled and coordinated. The takeaway here is that a trained, skilled, and coordinated nervous system is able to use muscle to its full potential, and bigger muscles have more potential.
So in the pursuit of maximal strength, you have two main avenues for improvement—get bigger machinery (increase the cross-sectional area of your muscle fibers) or improve the skill of the machinery’s operator (train your nervous system to become more coordinated). However, it is worth noting that it often takes time for an operator to learn how to use a bigger machine. If you focus on building a bigger machine for an extended period of time, be sure to give your operator time to learn how to use it!
A strength methods overview
If you’re familiar with the teachings of Westside, you probably already know of the three ways to achieve maximal muscular tension—the maximal effort method, the repeated effort method, and the dynamic effort method. If you’re already intimately familiar with this information, or if you’re in any way opposed to this conjugate method, please stick with me. What many people fail to realize is that these three methods, in conjunction with their ugly stepsister the submaximal effort method, aren’t purely Westside concepts. Rather they are the basic methods of strength conditioning and they are used in varying degrees in every strength training program.
Now that you understand the universality of these methods, let’s review a few of them. The maximal effort method usually involves one to three repetitions per set, using heavy loads that allow the lifter to complete no more than the desired number of repetitions. Technically, sets of greater than three reps can be used in the maximal effort method, but then this method begins to blend in with the repeated effort method, which is characterized by sets that are taken to failure. To be honest, there isn’t any clear distinction as to where the maximal effort method ends and the repeated effort method begins. In a literal sense, the repeated effort method should involve more than one repetition, but this obvious fact does little more than exclude singles.
In practice, the maximal effort method typically implies low reps, resistances that are close to training maximums, and lifts that are, or similar to, contested movements. Conversely, the repeated effort method conventionally entails higher reps, resistances that are further from training maximums, and lifts that are aimed at general development. Despite the somewhat fuzzy scientific distinction between these two methods, it is clear that both methods involve limit (or, more realistically, very close to limit) efforts. When using these methods, the last rep of a set should be the last rep you could have completed. If this isn’t the case, you’re employing the submaximal effort method, which entails lifting non-maximal loads without going to failure.
The submaximal effort method, while easy to define, encompasses an incredibly broad range of protocols. Distinguishing between various submaximal effort protocols can be useful, but categorization isn’t the aim of this particular article. The point of this article is to highlight the fact that the submaximal effort method isn’t as effective as the other methods at improving maximum strength and to urge lifters to examine their training and see if they should be working harder.
Submaximal effort, suboptimal progress
One of the main reasons why the submaximal effort method is largely ineffective at producing maximum strength gains has to do with acceleration and intermuscular coordination. Remember that equation you learned in middle school—net force equals mass times acceleration? Well, that equation is useful because in the most basic sense lifting boils down to the force that is applied to the weight being lifted. When it comes to lifting free weights, the mass portion of the Fnet = ma equation is fixed, as this value represents the weight of the implement. The variable that manipulates the force is acceleration. The larger the acceleration, the larger the force (or more accurately, the greater the force, the greater the acceleration). In case you’ve forgotten all this basic physics jargon that you learned in middle school, allow me to remind you that acceleration refers to changes in velocity and it can be both positive and negative. Velocity, on the other hand, is the speed of something in a given direction. Got it? Good. Let’s continue.
When a maximal weight is lifted, the weight reaches a certain velocity and then remains at that nearly constant value. Because velocity reaches a fairly fixed value, acceleration therefore varies around the zero level, and the force applied to the weight must be approximately equal to the weight of the object being lifted. Conversely, when a submaximal weight is being lifted, acceleration values vary in a fairly standard manner. Assuming the lifter is trying to apply the maximum amount of force to the submaximal weight he is lifting, acceleration will increase in the first phase of the lift and then fall to zero and even become negative in the second phase of the motion. Understanding the Fnet = ma equation, it’s easy to deduct that the force applied to the weight is greater than the weight itself in the beginning, equal to the weight when acceleration is zero, and less than the weight in the second phase of the lift. Furthermore, in the second phase of the lift, “the motion is partially fulfilled via the barbell’s kinetic energy” (Zatsiorsky 2006; p. 75). This pattern of varied accelerations, combined with the fact that kinetic energy contributes to the movement when using submaximal weights, creates some notable complications for the development of maximal strength. Movement patterns in which the correct muscles aren’t being activated at the correct time in the second phase of the lifts are created, and these faulty patterns are not conducive to one-repetition maximum (1RM) performances.
According to Zatsiorsky, “[t]he heaviest weight that is lifted through a full range of joint motion cannot be greater than the strength at the weakest point” (Zatsiorsky 2006; p. 41). This obvious truth refers to sticking points and it is based on the fact that strength is joint angle specific. Strength values will change as joint orientations change, and the weakest orientation is the limiting one. Therefore, improving the ability to exert force at the weakest joint angle can lead to an improvement in maximal strength performance. Additionally, improving the ability to exert force at every joint angle will have a similar positive effect. When the submaximal effort method is used, the second phases of lifts are neglected, and these portions of the ranges of motion don’t receive sufficient training stimulus. If this neglect occurs over a period of several months, muscular strength will not only fail to improve but will begin to drop. In the pursuit of maximum strength, this training outcome, combined with the faulty intermuscular coordination patterns that are created, isn’t favorable.
The third and final reason why the submaximal effort method isn’t as effective at improving maximum strength has to do with intramuscular coordination and the size principle. The size principle indicates that “[d]uring voluntary contractions, the orderly pattern of recruitment is controlled by the size of motoneurons” (Zatsiorsky 2006; p. 61). The smallest motoneurons are called into action first, and the larger motoneurons meet the demands for larger forces as needed. The largest motoneurons make up the fast motor units, which “are specialized for relatively brief periods of activity characterized by large power outputs, high velocities, and high rates of force development” (Zatsiorsky 2006; p. 60). These fast motor units are the ones that need to be recruited and trained in order to substantially improve 1RM performance, and the submaximal effort method doesn’t do this effectively. With the submaximal effort method, a smaller number of motor units are recruited and a smaller number of them are fatigued. Without experiencing fatigue, these motor units aren’t subjected to a training stimulus in this single set. Unless a set of this nature is meant to be a warm up, it doesn’t provide much value in the quest for heavier lifts. Sure, rest periods can be adjusted and the total number of sets can be increased to induce fatigue. However, the corridor of trained motor units would likely be inferior to what other methods could affect.
Concluding disclaimer
While I was fairly dismissive of the submaximal effort method in the preceding paragraphs, I don’t mean to imply that it will never have any value for any lifter. However, if this method is going to be used, it needs to be backed up with a sound rationale and then put to use with a well-designed training program. All too often, I see lifters get stuck in the rut of feel good workouts, where they don’t lift heavy enough and they don’t push to failure. If you want to lift heavier weights but you choose to use unmistakably inferior methods, you’d better have a damn good reason for doing so!
References
- Zatsiorsky Vladimir M, Kraemer William J (2006) Science and Practice of Strength Training. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
PDF 
Andrew McGunagle is currently an undergraduate student at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. After he graduates and receives his bachelors of science degree in kinesiology in spring 2013, he plans to open one of the premiere strength and conditioning facilities in northern California. More of his articles, which cover a variety of matters related to strength and conditioning, can be found on his blog 
Hey andrew ! you should open a gym in chico,ca when you come to norcal. We need a gym like that ! Chico is an awesome place to live.
When talking about maximal effort. Does one need to hit 100% of 1RM every single max effort day? Only 90% for singles? Or what ever your best is on that day?
This article is pretty old news. Strength curve and all that. You site Westside, yet you do not fully address the reasons why Westside is Westside. Accommodating resistance, bands and chains, make up for the ease at the top of the lift on submaximal lifts; training maximal force with submaximal loads using accomodating resistance. This has all been addressed in the Westside book of methods, and in the Russian texts before it. So, fair point, but old point.
cite, not site. haha
@Navid: One of my younger brothers goes to school in Chico, and it is an awesome place. Right now I am leaning towards opening a gym in the south Bay Area, but I am not 100% set on that yet and won’t be closing any doors until I make my final decision. Thanks for reading and I will keep Chico in mind!
@Isaac: The max effort method is much more than singles, and it extends beyond “max effort days”. Many lifters who employ a specific max effort day vary the protocols that they use. You can work up to a max single, double, triple, etc, although singles are what you see most guys use the majority of the time. The kicker is that, for it to truly be the max effort method, it should be the heaviest weight you can use for the number of reps that you choose to do. While lifting 90% for singles is certainly a strenuous protocol, it usually still falls under the submaximal effort method category. On a sliding scale of training effects, singles at 90% is going to be closer to the max effort method, but the effect is not quite the same because it is submaximal.
While the max effort method does (at least scientifically/theoretically) produce a superior training effect compared to singles at 90% in terms of improving max strength, there is no one magic protocol that should always be used. It all comes down to the objectives that you currently have and matching those objectives with specific methods. Pick the right methods and design an intelligent training template, and you should get results (provided that you do a number of other things right, too).
Sorry that my response probably prompted more questions than answers, but I hope it points you in the right direction!
Isaac, When doing ME I like to switch between percentages (85 – 100). I will reach my goal for that day and if it is not a 100% day but im feeling good then ill try for a 1RM.
85% = 4RM
90% = 3RM
95% = 2RM
100% = 1RM
*Remember that each day is differnent, (physically & mentally) so you are not going to PR each day..
@Ryan: Fair enough. I never claimed that it was new and revolutionary, though. Honestly, very little training information is novel these days. Just because it is not new doesn’t mean it should not be said. If an article solves a problem for some new lifters, then it is worth writing, IMO.
Also, good point about accommodating resistance. Lots of guys throw on bands and chains without understanding why they can work, program them incorrectly, then claim that accommodating resistance “doesn’t work”. I can tell you are a student of the sport, and I respect that. Thanks for reading!
Andrew and Phil thank you for taking the time to try and clear that up. It does help a lot!
Interesting read. I appreciate the article. I’ve been reading a lot about singles lately. Some people swear by them and say that’s how you get stronger, by doing heavy singles (e.g. Brooks Kubik of Dinosaur Training), while others state that singles display strength, not develop it (e.g. Paul Carter of Lift-Run-Bang). I’m assuming you believe singles develop strength; have you seen significant strength increases by primarily using singles in your training protocol?
@John K: When I trained in my school’s rec center I used singles exclusively for deadlifting because they had hexagonal plates that made deadlifts for multiple reps a nightmare. This worked well, but I eventually reached a point where I was consistently grinding against the same weights for weeks with little progress. I realized that I needed to take a step back and do more developmental lifting and build a bigger machine if I wanted to progress.
The thing about singles is that they have a limited potential to stimulate hypertrophy. Sure, they are great for intermuscular and intramuscular coordination when done in conjunction with the max effort method, but they don’t set the foundation for continued progress for most lifters. This is one of the reasons why lifters who use a Westside template do so much high rep accessory work; they need the volume in order to make progress with their max effort work. If your program is centered around heavy singles and you do not make adjustments to account for the lack of volume, then don’t expect your numbers to go up forever.
Most beginner and intermediate lifters would better be served using sets of 5 and pushing close to failure each week, IMO, as this protocol provides a nice blend of muscular and nervous system stimulation.
There are two reasons why you don’t train to failure:
1. The risk of injury is too high. Strength is a marathon not a sprint. I’m not saying don’t ever go to failure but don’t pick exercises that can potentially hurt you.
2. You don’t train to fail on the platform, so why would you reinforce this behavior in training?
@Manhaven: I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but I think you completely missed the point of the article. Making a conclusive statement about the injury risk of going to failure is short-sighted. Use proper technique and do your best to keep it strict as you approach failure. Sure, this can be difficult, but the ability to maintain your form as you fatigue is something that improve with practice. This ability will greatly reduce the injury risk of these methods.
A cliche statement such as “Strength is a marathon not a sprint”, while there is some truth to it, does nothing to prove the worthlessness of the repeated effort method and the usefulness of the submaximal effort method. “I’m not saying don’t ever go to failure…”, preceded by “don’t train to failure”, please think things through before you make a decision and then post it.
“You don’t train to failure on the platform…” You’re right, you don’t “train” on the platform, you perform. If you want to have a great performance, then you are probably going to go to failure with at least a few of your attempts. If you aren’t, then you are leaving pounds off of your total.
You are not reinforcing failing by going to failure, but you are training your nervous system effectively in order to improve your strength and display it in competition.
I do not mean to insult you in any way, but I am trying to tell you that your reasoning is way off-base in this matter because I want to help you improve your training. I apologize if this post seems condescending, as that is not my intent at all.
@Andrew McGunagle
Doing military press or squats to failure is a risk, it doesn’t matter how good your form those two exercises. I’m just saying be cautious.
As per my second point, this is for the big three specifically and for max attempts. You never go too heavy in the gym that you miss lift completely for the big three. If you feel like shit and work up to a previous pr and miss it, that is a mistake.
@Manhaven:
“Doing military press or squats to failure is a risk, it doesn’t matter how good your form those two exercises.” I don’t agree. I’m assuming you are saying this because of the possibility of a bar dropping on your head when overhead pressing and the possibility of not being able to stand up from a squat (which is why we use power racks, spotters, etc.). If a lifter cannot control a bar and/or get out of the way of a bar when overhead pressing, then they probably shouldn’t be doing the lift very heavy in the first place. Olympic lifters avoid heavy barbells dropping from overhead all the time, and it is a skill that improves with practice. Sure, there is always risk. Hell, nearly every exercise involves risk. However, learning how to lift safely and how to protect yourself from a missed lift is a better idea than excluding useful methods because of potential danger, in my opinion. Obviously you see things differently. Agree to disagree, I suppose.
“You never go too heavy in the gym that you miss lift completely for the big three.” Sure, I agree that it is a good idea not to miss lifts. Using the max effort method and training to failure is in no way the same thing as missing lifts, though. You work up to the heaviest weight that you CAN lift when using the max effort method. If you add a bit more weight and overshoot the top weight you can actually lift, then it is not all that big a deal, honestly. You get better at selecting weights and knowing when to call it a day as you gain more experience, and overshooting happens less often. Even then, missed lifts happen. If you want to use inferior methods in order to avoid this completely (due to a fear of overtraining?), then go right ahead.
“If you feel like shit and work up to a previous pr and miss it, that is a mistake.” Sure, I guess. That seems decently logical. If you “feel like shit” and the max effort method is what you have planned, then work up to the best weight you can do on that day. The max effort method is as much about autoregulation as it is about beating PRs. If you “feel like shit”, then work up to x(number of reps)@10 RPE (check out Mike Tuscherer’s RTS for more info on RPEs, if you are not familiar with that designation). The top weight you do might not be a PR, but it will still be the max effort method, and it is still useful training.
I want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to degrade you as a person by disagreeing with you. I simply do not like leaving comments on my articles that I do not agree with left unchecked. A lot of the statements that you are making are cliches that I hear lifters use all of the time, and I encourage you to reanalyze some of the firm stances that you are taking on these matters.
To further add to Andrew’s point: While it is true that missing lifts is extremely unproductive and should indeed be a rarity in your training, I think that the approach of programming conservatively in order to avoid missing lifts is a very poor solution to the problem.
First, missing lifts is NOT the same as training to failure. Training to failure is what this article is about. The way a set to failure works is entirely different from a missed lift. A set to failure recruits and stimulates all the MUs you have the ability to recruit. A missed lift can be such that very few MU’s are actually recruited in concentric contraction (think of a bench 1rm missed at the bottom), and it actually can de-train intermuscular coordination. Missed lifts also affect you psychologically; missed lifts often turn into mental road blocks (I’m sure most of us are familiar with doing x weight for 3 reps and then failing to do a single with x+5 pounds).
To quote Mark Bell: “Things that are Easy are not good for strength.” So, instead of sitting in your comfort zone for years and letting gear drive your progress, you can solve the problem of not missing lifts by simply not treating training sessions like a power meet. You can take much smaller jumps in training than you do in a meet, and that way you can dial in that 100% effort with exactitude. The mistake many people make is thinking that training to failure means setting a pr. This is not the case. A 630lb bencher having an “off day” (btw have discipline with your diet and sleep and “off days” will happen almost never) can easily work in 10-20lb increments and hit a 605lb grinding single and he will have trained to failure. Similarly, he could do triples and hit a 560lb triple where the last rep is a grinder and he will have trained to failure. Hell, he could even work up in triples until with 10lb increments until he finds a weight which he fails to triple and only hits a double – he will have reached failure. The key point is you do not treat training like a meet, you don’t try to “conserve energy” and take 150lb jumps in order to display every last iota of strength you possess, because this makes you miss lifts all the time. Treat training like training and after a few months you will get very good at dialing into that maximal effort required to elicit the best strength gains.
Love your thought process Andrew; this article is well done, thank you.
Andrew,
We know the CNS needs near maximal/ maximal intensities to make improvements in strength. What are your thoughts on the effect of failure on the CNS ? Would this be counterproductive or not a big deal ?
@Brad: I don’t think I can give you clear cut “failure does ‘x’ to the CNS, and ‘x’ has this effect on the training process” because I do not think that information is available/reliable (yet). Conventional internet lifting wisdom will probably tell you that going to failure and and lifting maximal weights is going to be incredibly “draining” and using these two methods too often will eventually (and always) lead to “overtraining”. Before all of the stuff about squatting to a daily max, Bulgarian-style weightlifting, etc. became popular, I might have given you the same uncritical answer telling you not to “overdo it” with these methods. Now, I am not so sure.
I am starting to believe that overtraining/overreaching has more to do with doing too much too soon rather than simply doing too much. If you structure training intelligently and ease into greater volumes and intensities, then the amount of work you can handle using maximal methods at high intensities can be pretty astonishing. If, on the other hand, you go all out from the beginning, then you can wreck yourself. It is not that the amount of work you were doing could never be done and those methods are so intense that they are always counterproductive; your body was simply unprepared. Everyone likes to cite the John Broz max every day stuff, but a lot of people fail to realize how those lifters are eased into that amount of volume, intensity, and frequency.
Hopefully these jumbled thoughts aid you in answering your question, Brad. Thanks for reading!
Well said Andrew thanks for the reply. I think the conventional internet wisdom of avoiding failure due to its perceived negative impact on nervous system recoveries have been exaggerated. There’s more to it than, “you should never go to failure.”
thanks for reply. good luck with all that you do andrew. SLO is an awesome town, wish I still lived there
Awesome article, nice discussion, i want to read more from you..