Taking Sets Past Failure For Better Gains? | Educational Video | Biolayne

The protocol arises from a 10‑week, within‑subject calf‑training study that matched volume load between legs. One leg did 4‑6 sets of full ROM to failure; the other did 2‑3 sets full ROM to failure, then immediately continued with lengthened partials at the bottom of the calf raise until failure. Despite doing about half the sets and ~20 % fewer total reps, the partials leg grew just as much. Norton frames this as a proof of concept: lengthened partials are not inferior, and you can add them to your training if you enjoy them or want to try something different.

He stresses, however, that you shouldn’t interpret this as lengthened partials being superior. The robustness of untrained muscle growth could easily wash out any real difference. Trained lifters, who need more volume to progress, might not see the same set‑saving benefit. He does not discuss a biological mechanism but clearly states the practical limits: comfort is a major factor. Pulsing at the bottom of a squat is brutal, whereas doing partials in the lengthened range of a pull‑up or row feels much better because your strength curve is stronger there. His pragmatic bottom line is that lengthened partials are a permissible tool, not a mandatory one.

Layne Norton broke down a new study that cleverly used a within‑subject design: each participant trained one calf with 4‑6 sets of full‑ROM calf raises to muscular failure, and the other calf with 2‑3 sets of full‑ROM to failure followed immediately by lengthened partials at the stretched position, matching total volume load. After 10 weeks, both calves grew the same amount. The partials leg achieved that growth with roughly half the number of sets and about 20 % fewer total repetitions. The authors interpreted this as evidence that lengthened partials taken past failure may be superior on a per‑set or per‑rep basis.

Norton praised the design but threw cold water on the ‘superior’ claim. The participants were untrained men, a population known to have extremely robust and non‑specific hypertrophy responses. He pointed to literature showing that volume often doesn’t make a detectable difference in untrained people, whereas it clearly does in trained lifters. The growth ceiling may have been hit by both protocols, masking any real superiority. He emphasised the need for replication in trained individuals before concluding that lengthened partials are genuinely more efficient.

Norton also offered a practical lens: the comfort of lengthened partials depends on the exercise. For movements like pull‑ups, rows, or calves—where the lengthened position is mechanically stronger—these partials feel tolerable. In contrast, exercises like squats, where the bottom is the weakest point, would force someone to pulse in a maximally uncomfortable position. His ultimate take‑home was pragmatic—if you like lengthened partials, use them; adding them post‑failure is a fine option, but the data don’t justify calling them superior yet.