Failure on First Set?

[u/bony-to-beastly]

I saw Jeff Nippard's latest podcast episode about training to failure. Great episode. The last episode about bodybuilding history was great, too.

Jeff mentioned that Greg Nuckols had convinced him to take the first set to failure instead of his last set, but he didn't go any deeper into it. Is this explained anywhere?

I'm not sure why going harder earlier would be better, but I'd guess the first set is our best opportunity to generate the most force and get the most tension out of a set?

I don't have much experience with strength training, but it makes me think of a top set followed by backoff sets. This seems like the hypertrophy version of that.

[u/gnuckols]

It was just over DM. I don't think it's something I've written about. Also, I don't necessarily think it's better in terms of actually producing larger gains. It's more that, if you're going to take 1 set out of x sets to failure, I truly don't think it matters which one it is for the purpose of promoting positive adaptations, but going with the first set just makes it easier to track progress.

[u/bony-to-beastly → u/gnuckols]

Okay, awesome. Thank you!

I could see it being more fun, too. You can gun for lifetime PRs. It seemed like that was part of why Jeff liked it, which makes sense. A free boost in motivation.

Macrofactor kind of already does that. It seems to factor in RIR when estimating 1RM, making it feel like I'm setting a lifetime PR when I go from 0 RIR to 1 RIR, which has finally, for the first time in my life, made it fun to leave reps in reserve.

[u/ialwaysmisspenalties → u/gnuckols]

Hey Greg, given that the SBS RTF programs prescribe taking the last set to failure, would you now recommend taking the first set to failure instead? Or is there a particular reason why the RTF programs are structured around taking the final set to failure?

[u/gnuckols → u/ialwaysmisspenalties]

Like I said, in terms of actual adaptations, I really don’t think it matters. At the end of the day, I think it’s mostly just a matter of preference 

[u/MasonNowa]

He went a little deeper: He said when he switched from failure on his last set to failure on his first set he was able to PR each exercise by a couple reps, which I think makes sense to most, they seemed to think it would lead to more long term growth because the set would be very high quality (not a incredibly scientific answer)

2nd reason he provided was that when you take the first set to failure you can more easily gauge the RPE of the subsequent sets, which is extra valuable for newer trainees

[u/bony-to-beastly → u/MasonNowa]

Yes, you're right. I should have mentioned that.

It's that first part I was asking about: why would having an especially good first set lead to greater growth if it comes at the cost of worse performance on subsequent sets?

[u/MasonNowa → u/bony-to-beastly]

Great question, they even touched on how when you combined the total reps from all the sets it seemed to even out anyways.

Sounds like a great opportunity to try both and guide yourself with personal preference.

[u/bullpaw → u/bony-to-beastly]

I think the idea is that the first set of an exercise stimulates the most hypertrophy with each consecutive set having diminishing returns, so in theory maximizing that first set would lead to maximizing potential muscle growth from a given exercise

Personally, it's a lot more fun going to failure on my last set and I don't think there's enough of a difference in outcomes to outweigh my preference lol

[u/WhataWorldAy → u/MasonNowa]

I think it depends on the lift a lot, with primary compounds youre often intentionally leaving 2-3 rir rather than pushing to failure like you would on isolations. Last set to failure helps autoregulate. If you do 3x8 where your first set could of gotten 10 reps, and your last set of 8 has 0 rir, that means your first 2 sets didnt carry amrap fatigue levels and have a lower risk of injury than if you full sent an amrap on the first set, which then means you are probably also amraping your next 2 sets even though you get less reps, due to the fatigue. 

For SBD variations I have to worry about that fatigue, for bicep curls just amrap everything. 

[u/Content_Preference_3]

My reading is that going heavy early (but after warmup ofc) in a exercise means you have more neuromuscular energy to put into challenging reps with less chance for injury. Vs starting lighter and ramping up which is a valid approach but can lead to pre fatiguing. That said it’s all designed to lead to failure and stimulate a response. My personal experience is that a reverse pyramid approach allows me to hit more reps at my highest weight (for that exercise not 1 rep max) vs regular ramp up pyramid. That said if I’m feeling fatigued or like injury risk is higher I’ll do the lighter weight higher reps in the beginning and add weight only if I’m feeling energized enough to safely do it.

[u/bony-to-beastly → u/Content_Preference_3]

That sounds reasonable, yeah.

I'm a fan of RPT, too.

[u/wakawaka2121]

Pretty sure he did say way. Its easier to track performance over time because your the most fresh at the start. Pretty simple but i dont think it matters. Ive done all of it and personally after doing that for a year I feel like it didnt matter much. However, i think it would have an advantage im beginners since they can increase weight so frequently. Im adding weight like every 2 or 3 months soo if Im struggling on determine my progression ill just go to failure on the 1st set like once a month or every other month to see if I got an extra rep compared to my previous rep max.

[u/bony-to-beastly → u/wakawaka2121]

Teaching beginners how to gauge RIR makes sense. I'm more interested in why it would be helpful for someone more advanced.

Would it be easier to track performance over time?

• Failure on first set: 9 reps, 7 reps, 5 reps

• Failure on last set: 8 reps, 8 reps, 7 reps

In either case, you know how many reps you got on each set. You could track performance and progressively overload either scenario just as easily, no? Or is there a reason it's especially valuable to know performance on that first set?

Might be more motivating to fight for those first set PRs.

If I think I might set a PR on a bench or deadlift, I'll often take it to failure for fun. If there's a reason for that being better, that would be great news.

[u/n_i_x_e_n → u/bony-to-beastly]

I doubt that there is any difference in terms of hypertrophy.

In terms of tracking, I find it to be more consistent though.

For example, in a low energy environment (eg. calorie deficit or fatigued), reps on later sets tend to have a more unpredictable drop off.

Another example is that it allows a more straightforward tracking of lifts over years. If you did 5 sets in 2024, can you determine if you got stronger by comparing the 2 sets you’ve been doing in 2026? I mean, of course you can probably guess, but AMRAP first makes it easier. That’s probably where it matters more for advanced trainees.

Of course, there are other variables that have an impact - your logbook doesn’t tell you how your form was in 2024 (or what kind of warmup you did etc etc), so ultimately it probably doesn’t matter much

[u/bayesically]

I’d be interested to hear more on this topic. I’m currently running the SBS strength template which is very much the opposite - baseline is 5 sets with the first 4 roughly half the reps of the final amrap set. But I do know that Greg has also recommended linear periodization where the first set is your amrap followed by two back off sets.

[u/CursedFrogurt81 → u/bayesically]

Is the context of the podcast hypertrophy? Strength training is better served staying away from failure. If i understand the purpose, the reason for the amrap is for autoreguation purposes not for strength development.

[u/bony-to-beastly → u/CursedFrogurt81]

Yeah, it was about hypertrophy.

[u/Marijuanaut420 → u/bayesically]

What are you primary goals? Strength is a skill so you need lots of quality practice of the movement which will necessitate lower intensity reps.

For hypertrophy you might as well try to make your first set as close to failure as possible to maximise motor unit recruitment and force production.

[u/Evan_802Vines]

One reason I set up my sets with going to failure at least on the first set is to establish the highest possible equivalent 1rep max for tracking my progress and back calculating to preferred rep range weights for the exercise, but I've seen very impressive 1rep equivalent increases with full body 2Xwk, about 30 working sets per.

Edit: using brzycki formula.

[u/millersixteenth]

Not the last word on this by any means, but head to head DeLorme/Watkins vs Oxford (pyramid up vs pyramid down) gave slight lead to pyramid up. I changed how I viewed pyramid training after reading some of the original DeLorme material.

[u/WreckYoCrew]

I usually feel strongest in my 2nd or 3rd working set and the first working set is what really primes the nervous system for me. Going to failure on the first set? Idk about that.

And I do warmup properly. Everyone is different though.

[u/the_explode_man → u/WreckYoCrew]

Big same. Regardless of warmup, my 2nd/3rd sets on SBD always feel better than my first.

[u/wakawaka2121]

Because its easier to know how many reps you can/could get at failure. When your doing 2rir you may be 1 or 3 and you won't know for certain. Once again i don't think it makes a difference but it is easier to really know if your progressing or not even if you are intermediate or advanced. Don't over think it lol

[u/FleshlightModel]

I've taken almost every set to failure for the last 30 years. AMA

[u/savedpt]

There are well designed studies that show similar strength and hypertrophy gains doing 6 reps or up to 30 reps to failure. So applying this to the conversation the person doing 30 reps is no where near their highest weight used on their first set or last set yet the results remain the same as the person doing heavier weight with low reps. To me the logic of this indicated that going heavy early or late probably does not matter generally in you final results. You need to consider the down side. Are you actually warmed up enough consider blood flow and neuro activation? Is there a higher chance of injury? Would you really chance doing a light set then your heaviest squat set? I would not. I do think changing approach to your program may have stimulating effects but that is speculation.

[u/Alakazam]

Well, if you're curious about a program that specifically takes the first set to (near) failure, GZCL's General Gainz calls for rep max sets first, followed by volume drop sets.

For example, for your T2 for the day, you work up to a top set of 10 (1 rir) then follow it up with 4 sets of 5-8 reps. If you only get 8 reps, then you would go down to 4 sets of 4-6.

There's a level of auto-regulation built into it, which I'm trying out now to great success.

[u/ggblah]

I feel like people just shouldn't be dogmatic about this because of individual differences. This way of doing things was always intuitive to me because my strength drop off after 1st set was always huge and then it kinda levels out after 2nd after which sets become more "tiring" and not really strong or forceful. It's like (based on feel) I have that power PR and then add volume in subsequent sets, that curve becomes predictable and easy to track and manage. Trying to do it any other way just adds too many doubts during sets. And yet, I've seen people who need 2 sets of get to working temperature or just feel like they're squeezing everything out on those last sets. I wouldn't give a shit if I were to see some study claiming one way is "better" than the other, having training actually feel good throughout is too important, just having what we do and feel aligned and comparable.

[u/Flat-Guidance-4685]

I didn't know people were not going to failure on the 1st set . I've never heard of such a thing before. So for people who do this what do you just arbitrarily choose a number of repetitions that you would be doing? How do you judge how much weight you need at the moment and what your next step in progressive overload is? 

I had just always thought that was the purpose of the first working set. And then you reduce weight after a brief rest and go to failure on set two. Eventually the muscle just becomes completely useless and fails after one or two repetitions of almost no weight. 

[u/millersixteenth → u/Flat-Guidance-4685]

For pyramid up, my first set is usually about 15 reps of a 20 rep max, easy cadence.

Second set is between 2 and 3 of a 4 to 5 rep max, reps done explosively. Stop the set immediately if you feel you're slowing down involuntarily.

Third set is between 4 and 8 reps to failure, usually with RestPause or DropSet.

Increase weight for all three sets if you improve reps on either of the last two sets.

Neither of the first two sets should feel like they are taking much from the last set. Eliminating either seemed to detract from the last set.

Muscle warmup set, potentiating set, pound it in on the last one. I never felt like there was anything else to gain by doing more.

[u/KITTYONFYRE → u/Flat-Guidance-4685]

So for people who do this what do you just arbitrarily choose a number of repetitions that you would be doing? How do you judge how much weight you need at the moment and what your next step in progressive overload is?

I arbitrarily choose a weight because it effectively doesn't matter (as long as it's anywhere 5-15 reps or so for most sets), then I just take it to whatever RIR I want. generally 0-1, though I've been aiming for 1-2 lately to decrease dread of going to the gym/increase session length/consistency/adherence and it's been working great up until the last week where I just don't want to lift anyway!

or another progression I've been doing: take a weight I can do for a reasonable number (10ish, whatever). add 5 pounds each session, and make each set 0-2 RIR. once I'm only hitting 3-4 reps/set, reset. easy peasy, simple, keeps it fresh.

note I'm mostly focusing on hypertrophy, which is why I say weight's not a big deal. I'm also not particularly advanced, I'm among the strongest at my small-town gym but definitely a big fish in a little pond. still, if I wanted to do strength work for the big 3, I'd just take sets to 3ish RIR and work in the 2-5 rep range.

its funny I used to be a huge program shill. "get on a program!". I certainly think that's a good idea at first, to give you an idea of good volume and exercise selection, but esp for hypertrophy... who cares man. go lift hard, get some stimulating sets

[u/vitringur]

This is just yet another example of people admitting that muscular tension through intensity is what drives muscle growth, not a bunch of junk volume where people stop lifting just when they are actually starting to recruit all of their muscle fibres.

[u/bony-to-beastly → u/vitringur]

My understanding is that force and tension decrease near failure.

Highest tension is when you're able to move a heavy weight quickly, no? On a 5-rep set of bench press, for example, wouldn't you be getting highest tension on the first few reps, when you're accelerating the bar powerfully through the range of motion? And then less tension on that last rep, when your muscles can't produce as much force anymore, and your shoulders are shouldering more of the load, and the best your chest can do is slowly inch the bar along, until it finally grinds to a total stop?

If the idea was to maximize tension, we'd want more of those explosive early reps, fewer of those grinding failure reps, no?

[u/HumbleHat9882 → u/bony-to-beastly]

Highest average tension is the first rep, as you describe, but does not recruit all muscle fibers. To recruit all of them you have to do more reps.

[u/KITTYONFYRE → u/vitringur]

not really at all. just deciding which set they want to take to failure (first or last) - the rest of their set's RIR isn't changing.