Wrapping Up

It is through a near-100% failure rate that life has adapted and diversified over billions of years, testing the limits of what is possible in a hostile universe. Natural selection itself is a cosmic game of failure, played out on the grandest stage, with every misstep and dead-end ultimately leading, no matter how improbable, to life as we know it today. Humanity was forged out of trial-and-error. We are no strangers to the concept of failure—it’s literally etched into our DNA. So we shouldn’t be at all surprised that failure also plays a key conceptual role in our self-directed evolution (i.e. fitness).

The debate surrounding failure in resistance training is clearly a complex and polarizing topic, with extremists on both ends of the spectrum. The Cult of Intensity advocates for balls-to-the-wall training while damning nuance and context. The PubMed Collective plugs their ears to experiential anecdotes while clutching tight to their sacred texts: data and meta-analyses.

However as we’ve seen throughout this article, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and it’s important to approach failure in resistance training with a balanced and pragmatic perspective.

I’m not sure if all of my methods and ideas are correct. In fact, I’m certain I’m wrong on at least a few things. But my opinions aren’t fixed—my thoughts are always evolving—and ironically, getting less controversial over time.

We can simultaneously acknowledge that failure, when used correctly, can positively supplement our training goals while also recognizing that it can be dangerous if approached recklessly or without proper oversight.

We should strive to find a balance between intensity and safety, between “in the trenches” and “in the lab”.

We need to elevate the importance of context and condemn sweeping generalities, recognizing that each individual’s training needs are unique.

And most importantly, we must begin to approach the failure debate (today, and in the future) with humility and a willingness to learn from both sides.

By doing so, we can incubate an industry that is more focused on getting closer to the truth versus validating pre-existing dogmas.

We can celebrate the highest achievers and the concessions they have to make, while not building our ideologies around them to the detriment of everyone else.

We can collaboratively build a sustainable, unbiased approach to failure, backed by experiment and experience, that makes reasonable concessions between rate of progress and risk mitigation, and with inherent allowances to be an imperfect human.

We can (and should) remember that none of this is that serious. It’s not worth name-calling, arguing, getting upset over, or making a rebuttal series on social media every time your beliefs are challenged.

There are much more important things in life to dedicate your precious time and energy towards—Stressing about the theoretical difference between 0 and 1 reps in reserve certainly isn’t one of them.

---