[Roadrunner]

Hey guys what your thoughts are on this subject? I've been doing calisthenics and I usually go to failure. Is it not optimal to go to failure and is there something else I should be doing?

[vinman]

If you're doing bodyweight exercises you should be fine. Calisthenics with good form are easy on the joints.

[Ryre]

I read once about a study that looked at this. They found that going to failure on one set produced better results than not going to failure at all.

I put this into practice on a pullup program and had good results. I picked a number of pullups I could do comfortably, let's say 4. I did sets of 4, can't remember if I did 4 sets or 6...think it was 6, 2 wide, 2 regular, and 2 with palms facing (chinups). On the last set, only, I went to failure, hopping up and doing negatives until I couldn't do any more.

Once I could get all my reps for all 6 sets, i.e. 6X4, I increased to 5, etc. I got stronger at pullups using this routine than I ever have before (I am a tall guy, so long limbs and more weight to move, pullups don't come easily for me).

[Moreless]

Why would you not do reps till failure?

I usually do a warm up set for 15 reps then 10 or 12 on the next set. Last set I'll go till failure which is usually 8. If I find myself going past 8 on the last set, I know I didn't lift heavy enough and "wasted" my time.

[cardguy]

[Surreyman]

Progress is the only fact, everything else is an opinion.

Training to failure may work, it may not. Are you seeing progress?

[Ryre]

Another thing that is nice about doing a series of sets stopping short of failure: it is psychologically easier. You get some volume in without having to psych yourself up for an all-out set. Then, when it is time to go to failure on the last set, you can tell yourself that after that, you're done.

[Roadrunner]

What I usually do is I go to failure on the first set then immediately go to failure on the second set then move to an easier version of the exercise and go to failure there. Optimal or not?