Article In Flex Magazine Jan 2016

Big Chupa

New Member
Hoping Mr Haycock might respond to this. I read his article in January's FLEX magazine, page 94, about a 6-week study to test whether forced reps made a difference in strength and size gains. The conclusion was that forced reps do not increase gains beyond what can be produced by training to muscle failure only. I am skeptical of this result, based on personal experience, but I have an open mind and would love to learn more about the study. Wondering how many subjects were studied, how their size was measured before and after the study, how their strength was measured, and what training routine was used. Also, for the group that did the forced reps, how was this kept consistent across that group? For example, was every subject spotted for 3 extra reps on their last set or what exactly? Thanks!
I haven't seen the article in question. What are you imagining forced reps are able to do to stimulate more protein synthesis in the working muscles than would be attainable without them?
Personally, I think that muscle hypertrophy is not dependent on training a muscle to failure (or beyond).
Forced reps are a good way to increase fatigue on your CNS. That may be ok for smaller muscle groups or single-joint/isolation movements but it is not a particularly good idea (for long-term, progressive training) to take larger muscle groups and big compound movements past failure (at least, not on a regular basis).
If I try to think about what is happening to the muscle at a cellular level, it can help me to figure out whether a particular training method is likely to be more effective or not.
  • Like
Reactions: Sci
Lol hit the nail on the head on this one. Forced reps does not create a unique stimulus just because someone is helping you lift the weight. At best, forced reps increase the duration of time under tension (i.e. volume), and/or you own effort (and subsequent fatigue), both of which can be accomplished whether someone helps you move the weight or not.