You're making demands of me? Not all answers are as simple as you'd like them to be. Maybe you SHOULD just pick a program and do it. That way you'll have all your answers. The point of this post was not to give answers but to do all those things you listed. Given that, there are answers there should someone care to think. I don't expect you to find them.
IN the post I discussed an article that started out discussing what it called "training to task failure". It also used the term "repetition failure" which is not a very meaningful term since it lacks any standard definition. This is in terms of STUDIES carried out using "repetition" failure.
I pointed out that "training to failure" is not just one thing and that the average trainee does not employ just one "mode" of failure. I then linked to a post explaining modes of failure. The point? The article said that the conventional way of resistance training is training to task failure and I said that this is not true, that many modes of failure are used, even more than one within a workout, and to discuss failure as if it is one concrete concept is pointless.
Add to that the problem with inconsistent and ill-defined terms being used in the literature concerning studies on failure and you cannot derive many conclusions from even one hundred studies. This is a big point of the post. Many trainees look at the conclusions of studies and make training decisions based on them. Should they? Not usually. Hardly ever. That is an answer.
You want more answers from that? Okay…
In order for a trainee to be able to "fail" consistently they need either one on one supervision by a qualified and observant coach or they need to pay attention to their training and spend a lot of time with the weights. In this way, with experience, they will learn when they cannot do another rep with good form and when they can. This will give them the ability to choose "how to fail".
For SDT: A lot depends on the individual. However, since a large part of SDT is adding reps then going to failure on the sets will help with that. Since you like "theory" the explanation for that is that going to task failure (not beyond necessarily) helps to add reps to existing sets but does little, in itself, for max strength or power.
The bullet point:
- Working to failure, over multiple sets, helps to add subsequent reps to those sets. In other words, working to failure helps build muscular endurance or to add density, whichever way you like to say it.
However, if you work to failure in the early sets during SDT training the trade-off is you can limit your force potential over the remaining sets. This is not a consistent affect. I cannot give you a rule that will govern this because you are an individual and what is more this changes depending on your state of recovery, etc. SO, we are usually better off leaving one in the tank during the early sets and working to failure in the later sets. And working beyond task failure to forced reps is even sometimes ok. You have been told this before when you asked the question. The fact that you are hung up on this shows that you don't want to except what I say, not that I don't say it. You don't need to worry about it that much, is what it comes down to. As long as you are reasonable and do not do a bunch of forced reps then you will progress. If you don't like that answer then just say you don't like it, rather than accusing me of not answering. Most trainees, given the chance, will do what I said and go to failure in the last set if not the last few sets. But it is not something that one has to monitor and worry over as one gets better at managing it with practice.
I see no point in discussing the rest of the post since you centered on failure and SDT.
you don´t answer questions you question them.
It takes a special kind of asshole to come to somebody's site, take up a lot of his and his member's time, and then whine about me not answering questions. The answers may not have been to your liking but they were answered. Flow, I have answered more questions about strength training then you knew existed. Part of what I am trying to do is to help people learn how to think critically.
There are many questions answered in this article. And yes, there is a lot of operationalization, which is a good thing and I consider that part of my job. Here I criticized an article that discussed fuzzy and ill-defined concepts. If you do not think that is important and a legitimate goal then go find a muscle mag article as I'm sure you'll get all your questions answered.
Part of helping people learn to train and to think about training is to help them learn what is not important, as much as to help them learn what is. Trying to get pointless questions answered is what stymies many trainees and they spend time seeking answers to silly questions than they do training. All of these things discussed in the post are common themes that people get hung up on.
If you don't like what I do, that is fine. But to tell me "I don't answer questions", frankly, you do not know what you are talking about. I've tried to answer your inane questions for a couple of weeks, after all. But you don't want answers, you want cookbook rules.
If you have an actual critique of the content of the article, that would be different. But all I'm getting is you whining over your expectations. We've answered the same questions from you over and over.