MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Truth About Fast/Slow-Twitch Muscle
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3
Author
Rating
Options

marcrph

Spain

Ciccio wrote:

Sure, I like to correct you:)
This is Dr.Darden's forum (who was a bodybuilder himself and worked with many of them - see his books) and was brought into live to support his latest book "The NEW HIT", subtitle "The best muscle building system you never tried" and the remark "advanced bodybuilding routines" on the left side of the cover. Furthermore his new book will be about "advanced bodybuilding" per se.
So if you like it or not this is a bodybuilding site.
And to your notion about hypertrophy for the sake of hypertrophy alone, I can say only that most of the trainees are here for that very reason. Either because their underweight and want a muscular body or because their overweight and want to show their muscles covered up to now by the fat and a few really big and muscular guys trying to push their genetics to the limit.
In any case an increased strength, stamina and health will come along with the training and is sufficiant for the average to be more functional in everyday life and recreational sports.
Plus, not everybody is build anatomically to break records in strength demonstrations or to become extraordinary strong in general.

So, if you like to demonstrate strength, workout with plyometrics, fast and heavy singles and whatever then do it.
But don't sell it as a better way to improve the body/performance/health for the average (or below average).
Because that's just not true!

Franco




Franco,

The good Dr. has himself written on lifters many times in his books. Furthermore, there are lifters who contribute on this forum. Should they not be welcomed with open arms, or disregarded because some feel this is a "bodybuilding" forum. Surely, the members here are above that!

I remember that Dr. Darden wrote of Ronnie Ray! 5'3" and 205. Paused with 400lbs for 30 seconds before bench pressing the weight off his chest. His last book included the chapter on the football team at West Point (Total Conditioning). Dr. Darden has wisely enlarged his audience with more than bodybuilders in mind. As I recall, AJ had a lot of disdain for bodybuilders. Maybe I am just reflecting some of his disdain.

I also failed to see what you are trying to correct, perhaps you might elaborate further. However, I do not follow any protocol blindly, but experiment to see what works for myself. Therefore, I write only from my personal experience.

Have a nice day
Marc


Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

Marc,


I don't follow any program blindly myself but that's not the point.
So, if you refer to ED for quoting or working with lifters, athletes in track and field, football players and so on, and not only bodybuilders you should be aware as well that my last paragraph is exactly in line with the good Doctors thoughts about how one should lift (or better not lift). Be it for BB or to enhance strength and conditioning in other fields of sports.

Plyometrcis and fast lifting are dangerous, ineffective for hypertrophy and unneccessary for the lifter, bodybuilder and whoever else is wotking out with weights with the exception of olympic lifters and maybe powerlifters and strong men. I say maybe because I believe even those could come along without such dangerous practices most of the time.

Franco


Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

chris mason wrote:
Ciccio wrote:
marcrph wrote:
Ciccio wrote:
marcrph wrote:
...So they would have to be very carefull about taking hypertrophic drugs such as steriods. These lifters must make weight limits! Yet they are constantly training....

Marc,

with all due respect, you just pointed out yourself with that paragraph that OL isn't suited for Hypertrophy!
And exactly that's the point!
Like Tyler said, we're a BB board here, which means we seek hypertrophy before anything else.
And this as injury-free as possible.
BTW, this "instinct"(I rather think it's not an instinct but learned behaviour from copying how others do it) to lift weights quickly is exactly responsible that people get injured in everyday life so often.

Regards,

Franco



Franco

If you are in a certain weight class, you would not want to build any more mass, for fear you have to compete in a higher weight class. This has nothing to do with the lack of OL being non-suited for hypertrophy. By the way, there are some BIG muscular OL's. I'm sure these OL's are doing HIT in their spare time to get BIG and muscular.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this site is about HIT. The T stands for training, not bodybuilding. If you want to bodybuild that is ok, but not everyone is just into bodybuilding. From Tyler's comments, he seems to be into lots of athletic endeavors, not just bodybuilding. Furthermore, hypertrophy for hypertrophy sake alone, seems so limiting, and unrewarding.

Have a nice day
Marc
c

Sure, I like to correct you:)
This is Dr.Darden's forum (who was a bodybuilder himself and worked with many of them - see his books) and was brought into live to support his latest book "The NEW HIT", subtitle "The best muscle building system you never tried" and the remark "advanced bodybuilding routines" on the left side of the cover. Furthermore his new book will be about "advanced bodybuilding" per se.
So if you like it or not this is a bodybuilding site.

And to your notion about hypertrophy for the sake of hypertrophy alone, I can say only that most of the trainees are here for that very reason. Either because their underweight and want a muscular body or because their overweight and want to show their muscles covered up to now by the fat and a few really big and muscular guys trying to push their genetics to the limit.

In any case an increased strength, stamina and health will come along with the training and is sufficiant for the average to be more functional in everyday life and recreational sports.

Plus, not everybody is build anatomically to break records in strength demonstrations or to become extraordinary strong in general.

So, if you like to demonstrate strength, workout with plyometrics, fast and heavy singles and whatever then do it.
But don't sell it as a better way to improve the body/performance/health for the average (or below average).
Because that's just not true!

Franco




Ok, that is your opinion. What is your proof?

Chris



No, that's NOT only MY opinion.

Franco



Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

Ciccio wrote:
Marc,


I don't follow any program blindly myself but that's not the point.
So, if you refer to ED for quoting or working with lifters, athletes in track and field, football players and so on, and not only bodybuilders you should be aware as well that my last paragraph is exactly in line with the good Doctors thoughts about how one should lift (or better not lift). Be it for BB or to enhance strength and conditioning in other fields of sports.

Plyometrcis and fast lifting are dangerous, ineffective for hypertrophy and unneccessary for the lifter, bodybuilder and whoever else is wotking out with weights with the exception of olympic lifters and maybe powerlifters and strong men. I say maybe because I believe even those could come along without such dangerous practices most of the time.

Franco




Franco,

I'm not a big fan of pylometrics, however, I like Olympic Lifting (clean & jerk). Saying that first, I have heard the argument for and against fast lifting. I have not seen any hard evidence that fast lifting is any more dangerous than other types. Lots of talk but no evidence. Many, many, many people practice these fast lifts and pylometrics, but there is no hard evidence of what you claim. I tend to agree that more force would equate more injuries, but at what level of force would one need to reach for injuries to be occuring? I'm not sure! That is not well established. Believe me, I want to avoid injuries, and I really apppreciate your concern over lifting injuries.

Also, I have never got any results from slow lifting, and I put in some really hard lifting days trying. I like fast reps, with heavy weights, for low reps. This is the formula for almost all the powerfull OL,PL,SM. You could probably count on the fingers on one hand the exceptions.

Have a nice day
Marc

Open User Options Menu

JJ McClinton

Marc,
If you haven't experienced any injuries with Olympic lifting than keep doing them, because you eventually will. I had a promising high school football career that was effectively ended by a set of clean and press' that dislocated my right shoulder and arm and later required surgery, and it still isn't completely corrected.

I was a quarterback and since that injury have not been able to throw a football more than 45 yards where as before I could easily throw over fifty and at times get to 65 yards. My high school strength coach had all the players (regardless of position)doing explosive lifting. I am not saying that super slow is the answer. In my opinion it isn't, but one thing I do know is that explosive lifting isn't it either.
Open User Options Menu

tylerg

marcrph wrote:
Ciccio wrote:
Marc,


I don't follow any program blindly myself but that's not the point.
So, if you refer to ED for quoting or working with lifters, athletes in track and field, football players and so on, and not only bodybuilders you should be aware as well that my last paragraph is exactly in line with the good Doctors thoughts about how one should lift (or better not lift). Be it for BB or to enhance strength and conditioning in other fields of sports.

Plyometrcis and fast lifting are dangerous, ineffective for hypertrophy and unneccessary for the lifter, bodybuilder and whoever else is wotking out with weights with the exception of olympic lifters and maybe powerlifters and strong men. I say maybe because I believe even those could come along without such dangerous practices most of the time.

Franco




Franco,

I'm not a big fan of pylometrics, however, I like Olympic Lifting (clean & jerk). Saying that first, I have heard the argument for and against fast lifting. I have not seen any hard evidence that fast lifting is any more dangerous than other types. Lots of talk but no evidence. Many, many, many people practice these fast lifts and pylometrics, but there is no hard evidence of what you claim. I tend to agree that more force would equate more injuries, but at what level of force would one need to reach for injuries to be occuring? I'm not sure! That is not well established. Believe me, I want to avoid injuries, and I really apppreciate your concern over lifting injuries.

Also, I have never got any results from slow lifting, and I put in some really hard lifting days trying. I like fast reps, with heavy weights, for low reps. This is the formula for almost all the powerfull OL,PL,SM. You could probably count on the fingers on one hand the exceptions.

Have a nice day
Marc



Let me weigh in on plyometrics. In the proper context, plyometrics CAN be helpful to develop quickness and increase vertical jumping.

The key issue is to, first, define plyometrics: "exercise without weights or machines: a free body movement exercise system using no weights or machines, but emphasizing calisthenics and repeated movements such as jumping high off the ground."

Where things get interesting is when the intensity of the exercise increases. By that I mean when boxes are used to jump off for depth jumps, weights or weighted vests are used for jumping.

Why interesting? This is where plyos increase the risk of injury. Since this thread has to do with speed of exercise (fast training), it is incumbent upon us to look at factors that may hinder our performance, as well as improve it.

Why the risk of injury? If you look at simple jump training, there is little risk of serious injury, if the athlete is trained with proper technique (I won't get into that here). The main complaints I have had are that knees start to ache, which is common. At the end of season, jumpers knee and shin splints are also common.

A vertical jump is a major explosive movement. A man landing from his jump lands with a ground reaction force of up to 2.5 times his body weight. Woman, on the other hand, land with up to five times their body weight. When intensity is added, (weights, depth, etc.) the ground reaction force increases proportionately.

I think it is safe to say that the ligaments, connective tissue, tendons, etc, aren't made to take that type of treatment for an extended time. Add poor technique to the mix, along with extensive training and poor recovery (all of which may or may not occur, but the potential for each exists) and pain and potential injury come knocking at the door. I am sure that this is where intense plyos get the bad rap.

The flip side is, when used in the proper context, off season, for example, and done with proper coaching which utilizes proper jump form, adequate frequency and recovery, then jumps such as the depth jump or even a drop jump, CAN become effective.

I am happy to say that my jumping program incorporates all of the above, with emphasis on safety, form, frequency, recovery and nutrition, making it one of the most comprehensive programs available (sorry for biased pitch, I couldn't help myself; look for the website to come in the near future:) ).

Tyler

PS There is so much more to the whole issue but time doesn't allow for more at this time. Feel free to comment
Open User Options Menu

tubeway

If I take a given load and lift at a cadence of 5/5 and compare it with a lift in which the cadence is fast concentric and controlled lowering, which may equate to a cadence of 2/3, then in the second lift the force will be higher.

It may seem a simple and obvious question, but if the mass stays the same for both lifts but acceleration is increased in the second, what is generating the extra force and how does it relate to muscle fibre recruitment?

Thanks in advance for any input.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

tubeway wrote:
If I take a given load and lift at a cadence of 5/5 and compare it with a lift in which the cadence is fast concentric and controlled lowering, which may equate to a cadence of 2/3, then in the second lift the force will be higher.

It may seem a simple and obvious question, but if the mass stays the same for both lifts but acceleration is increased in the second, what is generating the extra force and how does it relate to muscle fibre recruitment?

Thanks in advance for any input.


tubeway,

Force(net) = Mass(of an object) x Acceleration(of the same object)

As one can see from the equation above, the force is directly proportional to the
acceleration. In plain words, as one accelerates an object, the force goes up.

There are many types of forces. Contact forces is a type of force that requires a physical contact. In the category of contact forces, there are normal forces.

Therefore, the object generating the acceleration, (ie. the lifter, YOU, your muscles) is increasing the force.
To generate more force requires more muscle activation, pure and simple.

Have a nice day
Marc
Open User Options Menu

tubeway

marcrph wrote:
Therefore, the object generating the acceleration, (ie. the lifter, YOU, your muscles) is increasing the force.
To generate more force requires more muscle activation, pure and simple.


Thanks for the reply Marc.

Just so that we are clear on this, when you say "more muscle activation" do you mean more muscle fibre recruitment?

If the above is correct, would this mean that muscle fibre recruitment is dependant not only on load and time under tension, but also on the speed of the lift?

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

tubeway wrote:
marcrph wrote:
Therefore, the object generating the acceleration, (ie. the lifter, YOU, your muscles) is increasing the force.
To generate more force requires more muscle activation, pure and simple.


Thanks for the reply Marc.

Just so that we are clear on this, when you say "more muscle activation" do you mean more muscle fibre recruitment?

If the above is correct, would this mean that muscle fibre recruitment is dependant not only on load and time under tension, but also on the speed of the lift?



tubeway,

I do not want to mislead you at all. I do not believe muscle fibre recruitment is a scientific term at all. Furthermore, your muscles are providing the acceleration of the barbell upward, and working against gravitational force. There is also friction involved. There is nothing a lifter can do about the frictional, or gravitational forces while lifting a barbell. All a lifter can do is lift as hard as necessary to get the weight up.

Almost everything I have read, which is by no means all-inclusive, indicates a high percentage of ones 1-rep max is necessary for maximal strength gains. I have found this to be true also, as through years of experimentation, anything over 5 reps at a normal lifting pace resulted in less than optimal results.

That being said, a lifter can only lift as hard as he can (100%) or less than(<100%). So, the question is; does say 85% of one's 1-rep max allow for total recruitment of one's muscle fibres. The answer is unequivocably NO. The nervous system will not allow anything close to full muscle fibre recruitment.

The other question that comes to mind is this; does fast lifting recruit more muscle fibres. I don't know the answer, but a lifter has to push/pull as hard as he can(pushing/pulling harder can lead to acceleration/faster lifts), also the elastic component(stretch-shortening cycle) of muscles could lead to more muscle fibres being recruited. There needs to be more research done here.

I'm totally against trying to build muscle without considering the nervous system. Modern HiTTers would do well to note, that muscles do not voluntarily contract without neuronal activation. Another fact is this, all the record holders in athletic events to a man incorporate some type of training that involves the muscular system coordinating with the nervous system. To do otherwise, I believe would invite failure.

I don't know if this answers your questions, but there is just too much empirical evidence to be close-minded on weightlifting and acceleration.

Have a nice day
Marc
Open User Options Menu

markandspike

Why All Muscle Was Not Created Equal ? Have you ever noticed an athlete in the weight room who is built like Tarzan, yet lifts weights better suited for Jane? Yet, there are other athletes who are every bit as strong and functional as they look. Although an athlete?s genetic make-up is always a factor, the answer to this discrepancy in strength and functionality of the muscle can also be due to the different types of training performed by different athletes. Although two athletes may possess similar physiques, the muscle they have built using their different training methods may not be the same. In other words, all muscular growth was NOT created equal! There are actually two very different types of hypertrophy that can take place within the muscle. Being aware of this helps to answer the question of why some athletes possess superhuman strength and others are ?all show, no go.? The two types of hypertrophy to which I am referring are sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy.


Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is an increase in the volume of the non-contractile muscle cell fluid, sarcoplasm. This fluid accounts for 25-30% of the muscle?s size. Although the cross sectional area of the muscle increases, the density of muscle fibers per unit area decreases, and there is no increase in muscular strength (2). This type of hypertrophy is mainly a result of high rep, ?bodybuilder-type? training (3).

One of the biggest problems I see with the training of power athletes (football players, baseball players, basketball players, wrestlers and even powerlifters) is too much emphasis on training in the 10 ? 15 rep range. This type of training has its place, yet should not be the focal point for these athletes. For example, most football lineman benefit from added bulk to prevent from getting pushed around on the field. ?Bodybuilding? methods, using these rep ranges, can be beneficial if incorporated during the season to prevent muscle mass loss, as well as after the season to add bulk, which may have been lost during the season. Also, there is some scientific evidence that states a bigger muscle may have a better chance of becoming a stronger muscle once maximal strength training methods are employed. The key to remember is that this type of hypertrophy has little to do with such explosive movements as hitting, running, throwing, jumping or performing a one-rep max. This is why professional bodybuilders, whose training mainly hypertrophies the Type IIA fibers and causes an increase in the non-contractile components of the muscle (sarcoplasmic volume, capillary density, and mitochondria proliferation) are not the fastest or even the strongest of all athletes. This is despite the fact that they generally have more muscle than any other class of athlete! I consider this type of hypertrophy to be form over function.

Myofibrillar Hypertrophy

Myofibrillar hypertrophy, on the other hand, is an enlargement of the muscle fiber as it gains more myofibrils, which contract and generate tension in the muscle. With this type of hypertrophy, the area density of myofibrils increases and there is a significantly greater ability to exert muscular strength (2). This type of hypertrophy is best accomplished by training with heavy weights for low reps (3). One must remember that the average football play lasts 4.5 seconds, it takes about 3 seconds to complete a 1 RM, it takes less than a second to swing a bat, less than a second to throw a punch and less than a second to jump for a rebound. As you can see, most athletic activities are explosive in nature. This is why it is imperative for athletes to incorporate maximal strength training methods (1-5 reps), which train the part of the muscle responsible for these explosive contractions, into their routines. Repetitions in the 1-5 rep range, using 85 ? 100% of a 1RM, also have the added benefit of training the nervous system ? which I feel is the most overlooked component of training the athlete. Some of the many benefits of training the nervous system are: increased neural drive to the muscle, increased synchronization of motor units, increased activation of the contractile apparatus, and decreased inhibition by the protective mechanisms of the muscle (golgi tendon organ) (1). These training methods also hypertrophy the pure fast twitch fibers ? the high-threshold, Type IIB fibers. Incorporating these training methods into your routine at the right time will undoubtedly improve your muscles ability to generate more force and contract maximally during any sporting activity. In essence, myofibrillar hypertrophy is what I would term functional hypertrophy.

Conclusion

Although the human eye cannot tell these two types of hypertrophy apart, the difference will always become quite apparent as soon as it?s time for an athlete to put his/her muscle to use. As athletes and strength professionals, I feel we all have a responsibility to prevent ourselves from getting into the ?3 sets of 10? rut. It is our job to educate ourselves, be creative, and put together the most result-producing programs available for our athletes or ourselves. This may mean incorporating both types of hypertrophy training into your routine, depending on your goal and training phase. But remember that no matter how bad those high-rep sets of leg extensions burn, they will never build the strength, power, and functional hypertrophy of a heavy set of squats or deads!

Open User Options Menu

Rich Fitter

New Jersey, USA

Not sure of the specifics, I have to dig for the study but a few years back didnt an NSCA study show similar results between the barbell squat and plyometric drill for increasing the vertical leap of college basketball players? I seem to remember the only reason to perform the plyometrics instead of squats was it was closer to the skill required to dunk a basketball. This validates Dr Kalas opinion.
Open User Options Menu

bamiller

Marc, you need to understand what you are saying. I quote you... "To lift big weights, there is no doubt you have to lift explosively!"

"Lift" and "Explosive" cannot be one of the same in moving weights. Do you get it?

Basically with explosive movements it means you didn't lift it... you threw it. An explosive lift uses momentum therefore the muscle slacks through a large portion of the movement. No, there is no need to go super slow but a controlled speed should be used during the full range of movement. (at a minimum) Throwing a weight results in "outside" force. (Please focus on the words "outside force")

Anyone can "throw" 300 lbs on a bench but if the same individual can controllably "lift" 300 lbs without the use of momentum, his muscle will be much more impressive/developed.

I watch the OL lifters throw weights. Many of them are plagued with a history of injuries as well. Strongmen have the same problem. To say that they are big becasue of only how they lift is like saying NBA giants are as tall as they are because they play basketball.

Its as simple as "lift" vs. "throw". You can add all the articles you want to this thread so that your postings look impressive but Jones proved all this many, many, many years ago. Most people still don't understand the simple facts. It doesn't need to be that complex and frankly it isn't.

Remember... Explosive = Throw NOT lift

Have a nice day,

Brent
Open User Options Menu

bamiller

tubeway wrote:
If I take a given load and lift at a cadence of 5/5 and compare it with a lift in which the cadence is fast concentric and controlled lowering, which may equate to a cadence of 2/3, then in the second lift the force will be higher.

It may seem a simple and obvious question, but if the mass stays the same for both lifts but acceleration is increased in the second, what is generating the extra force and how does it relate to muscle fibre recruitment?

Thanks in advance for any input.



what is generating the extra force? MOMENTUM not the muscle..
Open User Options Menu

mateopw

The Momentum or also called "Inertia" is generating that extra force.
In fast liftings your muscles apply more force at the start of the repetition, but then less force in the rest of the repetition (due to momentum).
Although the overall Force is more, the average force produced by the muscles is less.
Open User Options Menu

Olddog99

here is some notes that may be of interest:

Sport, Ice hockey, level recreational, two times per week, games only, no practice.

Goal play better, be better conditioned, no injuries.

Common believe is to do clean a jesrks and other styles of lifting. Since the only enhancement principle would be gym work, due to the lack of Ice time.

Actual planned approach, stantionary bike, done fast in intervals that match the shifts of hockey, 2 /15 mins intervals to start. 1-15 min at end of work out.
weight lifting aproach, slow controlled contraction concentric and ecentric 4-6 sec full pause at full contraction point. 1-2 set/ body part/ 8-10 reps/ full body work outs , no more than 20 total sets, no more than 30 mins of lifting.
HIT fashion. 6 week training, with some fat loss in mind.

results:

LBM as tested on a body composite testing machine: 147 at 22% BF starting weight 187, condition while play hockey, slow combersome, easy fatigued, very little stamina.

End of six week conditioning period
LBM as tested on same machine 157 at 10% BF weight 167, condition after last game, excellent, fast recovery, little fatigue, lost of stamina.

point, the very beginning of the article , said it all, no evidence to support that olimpic lifting increases sport performance.

point validated, no injuries while lifting, lower BF, lower body mass, more muscle, faster speed, more stamina, faster recovery. more muscles at a lower BF and body mass will equate to all that watts per KG stuff but you have to get their in the most effective, safe manner, HIT will be the key element that will pack on the pounds of fiborous muscle that can be practically used for a sport.

Hum sound familiar, Arthur Jones, techniques for sport enhancement, proven at west point and several other examples.
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

Why does he seem to consider the white muscle in the breasts of non flying and red fibres in the breasts of flying birds an inconsistency with current thinking?

My understanding was that this is consistent with how inactivity is believed to affect human muscle tissue.
IE victims of spinal injuries and sedentary individuals are supposed to show a relativly greater FT versus ST fibre mass and/or ratio.
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Acerimmer1 wrote:
Why does he seem to consider the white muscle in the breasts of non flying and red fibres in the breasts of flying birds an inconsistency with current thinking?

My understanding was that this is consistent with how inactivity is believed to affect human muscle tissue.
IE victims of spinal injuries and sedentary individuals are supposed to show a relativly greater FT versus ST fibre mass and/or ratio.


Try eating a jack rabbit , they are almost entirely red muscle and very tastey. However you have to pressure cook them or you will be chewing on a leg for a month. Throw some red beans , onion and some spuds near the end of cooking the rabbit and you will have a hell of a good stew. Cotton tails however are best deep fried or sauted in butter and throw in a couple table spoons of sour cream and you will have some fine gravey to pour on some boiled spuds, My favorite though is roast pheasant or a nice squirell stew,
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Acerimmer1 wrote:
Why does he seem to consider the white muscle in the breasts of non flying and red fibres in the breasts of flying birds an inconsistency with current thinking?

My understanding was that this is consistent with how inactivity is believed to affect human muscle tissue.
IE victims of spinal injuries and sedentary individuals are supposed to show a relativly greater FT versus ST fibre mass and/or ratio.


Arthur said that fast twitch could act like slow twitch due to too many reps or inactivity because the fast twitch atrophied faster than slow , but proper training according to fiber type could to some extent change the fibers back. Fast twitch nerves also atrophied and that may not reverse itself even with proper training,
Open User Options Menu

DownUnderLifter

Olddog99 wrote:
here is some notes that may be of interest:

Sport, Ice hockey, level recreational, two times per week, games only, no practice.

Goal play better, be better conditioned, no injuries.

Common believe is to do clean a jesrks and other styles of lifting. Since the only enhancement principle would be gym work, due to the lack of Ice time.

Actual planned approach, stantionary bike, done fast in intervals that match the shifts of hockey, 2 /15 mins intervals to start. 1-15 min at end of work out.
weight lifting aproach, slow controlled contraction concentric and ecentric 4-6 sec full pause at full contraction point. 1-2 set/ body part/ 8-10 reps/ full body work outs , no more than 20 total sets, no more than 30 mins of lifting.
HIT fashion. 6 week training, with some fat loss in mind.

results:

LBM as tested on a body composite testing machine: 147 at 22% BF starting weight 187, condition while play hockey, slow combersome, easy fatigued, very little stamina.

End of six week conditioning period
LBM as tested on same machine 157 at 10% BF weight 167, condition after last game, excellent, fast recovery, little fatigue, lost of stamina.

point, the very beginning of the article , said it all, no evidence to support that olimpic lifting increases sport performance.

point validated, no injuries while lifting, lower BF, lower body mass, more muscle, faster speed, more stamina, faster recovery. more muscles at a lower BF and body mass will equate to all that watts per KG stuff but you have to get their in the most effective, safe manner, HIT will be the key element that will pack on the pounds of fiborous muscle that can be practically used for a sport.

Hum sound familiar, Arthur Jones, techniques for sport enhancement, proven at west point and several other examples.


Great results Olddog99. Arthur was right ....again:-)
Open User Options Menu

john a

- Not 100% sure where to post this - so I'll start here...forgive me if I am wrong...

Any one know of any Med-x for sale..?
Any one know of Hammer for sale?
Any one know of Nautilus for sale?

I am looking for some very specific stuff.
I am interested anything with Nautilus branded on it, i.e. stations, leverage or free weight equipment.

Cash paid, can collect, UK only.

Can any one help? PM me?
Thanks
Open User Options Menu

physcult

john a wrote:
- Not 100% sure where to post this - so I'll start here...forgive me if I am wrong...

Any one know of any Med-x for sale..?
Any one know of Hammer for sale?
Any one know of Nautilus for sale?

I am looking for some very specific stuff.
I am interested anything with Nautilus branded on it, i.e. stations, leverage or free weight equipment.

Cash paid, can collect, UK only.

Can any one help? PM me?
Thanks


Hi John,

What MedX pieces are you after and what sort of price range? I have some spare MedX machines and im always interested in trading or swaping machines.
Open User Options Menu

john a

physcult wrote:

Hi John,

What MedX pieces are you after and what sort of price range? I have some spare MedX machines and im always interested in trading or swaping machines.


Hi there, what pieces do you have?

PM me on here? Thanks
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

In any strength-training exercise, performed in a high-intensity manner (for example, 12 repetitions to failure), the ST fibers are involved initially. To continue after 4 repetitions, the ST fibers also require the intermediate FTIIa fibers, which assist with repetitions 5, 6, 7, and 8. Then, with ramp-like progression, the strongest FTIIb fibers ? which have been held in reserve ? are finally called into action and help to complete repetitions 9, 10, 11, and 12.

Quite a number of studies have demonstrated that most humans are recruiting all fibers when applied force reaches 60-85% of maximum. The rest of the force, up to your 100% MVC is produced through increased firing rates. This means, for most muscles, an 8RM will fully recruit all fiber types right from the 1st rep. The firing rate of the largest units will however be much slower at first and increase during the set.
Another note is that technically, recruitment increases from the smallest motor unit (least number of fibers) and adds progressively larger units (units with more fibers) , point being that a "medium-small" FT unit will be recruited before a "medium" ST unit.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy