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
Fast vs. Slow Reps
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

waynegr

Switzerland

Sorry to start another thread, but can we just keep the debate to this one, and not spoil anyones elses thread, hate seeing people threads spoilt, if you want to copy anything over here please do.

You seem to try and say Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are wrong ??? Makes me wonder.

waynegr wrote:

But you name call, and we have the science on our side.

IF you can bench 350 for a 1RM, you would use 280 for your 2/4, and when lifting at 2/4 you would only be producing 280 pounds of strength from your muscles.

Basically when I move that 280, and also my 1RM was 350, I would be producing 350 pounds of strength from my muscles, when moving at a very fast rate.

So if you want to under load your reps, with using only 80% of your strength, when we use 100% of our force/power/strength, fine by me but the question is why ??? please tell me why you want to under load your reps ??? With a lower force/power/strength output ??? In the slower reps ???

Wayne

EC wrote:

Wayne, this is my last answer to you. I will use your example.

If you can bench press 350 for 1RM, you would use 280, thus underloading your muscles. Even when you throw 280 you never know what kind of force you produce, don't fool yourself that you do. It can vary significantly from underloading to overloading neither of which is in your favor.

If I can bench press 350 for 1RM, I would use 350 for 1 Ultimate Rep the way it was so kindly described before by several people already. And my muscles will be fully loaded during all the range of motion. That's the idea.

So now answer me, Wayne WHY? Why do YOU want to underload your muscles?

EC
11/01/07


Since then (less than half a month) I have seen the same stupid question from you at least 5 times. I know your next answer will be:



Hi EC,

EC why not just be friends and just debate, I am not name calling no one.

Sorry I proved you wrong, but facts are facts.

Which do you think would build more strength and size moving 350 or 19250, it would be 19250 by a long shot...



So don't bother cutting and posting it again.

EC

Hi EC,

You seem to not want the truth, and you seem to make up things that are not there or bring up things that are not really irrelevant to what we are talking about; I do want the truth as it makes for better training.

You take about the forces as we you going at the speed of light, just do a rep at 1/1 or .5/.5 right now, its not fast is it ???

And we do know these forces, they do not exceed our 1RM.

Yes you would be right as offloading/extra momentum is in every moving object, but this is irrelevant, if anyone trys to say there is extra momentum in faster reps, as our muscles are making the extra momentum, and as this only happens in the faster reps when you stop to start to change direction, as we in the faster reps are always pushing into the bar as hard as we can, and always trying to accelerate the bar, its our muscles making this extra, movement/momentum.

As Sir Isaac Newton, says below; an increase in the upward acceleration will increase and not offload the force exerted on the lifter.

Albert Einstein,
Take a bathroom scale into an elevator, stand on the scales, and see when it registers the greatest weight ??? When the elevator is at full stop, or is moving upwards or is moving downwards. You will note that offloading takes place when the elevator accelerates downwards and that enhanced loading takes place as you begin to accelerate upwards.

Sir Isaac Newton,
Newton's 2nd Law,
An increase in the upward acceleration will increase and not offload the force exerted on the lifter. The only way to offload a muscle is to accelerate downwards with the load, not to slow it down while going upwards. The only way to totally eliminate production of momentum is to do isometric training. Mind you, load or force does not change with speed of repetition, but with only with acceleration, no matter what speed you are moving at.

Yes I have been to a gym from about the age of ??? 12, I am now 46. Only on light weights below 50% of your 1RM, and very fast reps would you feel any kind of offloading when repping, and to be honest I do not really notice this, do you ??? As I use from about 65 to 90% on my 1RM, I am more concentrated at moving the weight in a fast controlled manner.

Any offloading would make the stopping and changing direction even harder in the faster reps, as it takes more force/power/strength to slow/stop and change direction, in the faster reps.

We are not underloading our reps you are

If your doing 1 rep with 400Ibs = 60 seconds, you will move =400Ibs

If your doing 10 reps at 2/4 with 400Ibs = 60 seconds, you will move 400x10=4000Ibs

We would fail in the faster reps at about 45 seconds.

We would do 22.5 reps at 1/1 with 400Ibs = 45 seconds, we will move 400x10=9000Ibs

We would do 45 reps at .5/.5 with 400Ibs = 45 seconds, we will move 400x10=18000Ibs

There is a big difference in the poundage moved, one more bit of compelling bits of evidence and proof in the snowball effects of the faster reps.

Wayne


JamesT wrote:
Wayne,

What on earth are you talking about? Wales isn't far away, but truly, we are from different worlds. Have you pressed the wrong button on your calculator or....?



What do you mean what am I talking about ??? Specify what you mean, its all quite plain and well documented ??? I pressed no calculator in brain work for these simple calculations.

I am trying to be fair, and non-biased, as far as this whole fast vs. slow debate has gone, as of yet there is no evidence of proof of the slow camp being anywhere right, we have the scientific and training World on our side.

Lifting at a 2/4 will tax your muscles, lifting at a 1/1 or .5/.5 will tax your muscles far more, end of story.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

McNultyEssex

I don't think this topic is even debatable any more. A few things to consider:

1. Do you perform negatives? If so, is the aim to drop the weight as fast as possible?

2. If you perform a lift as fast as possible, letting go of the weight at the top, you'll notice that the weight continues moving up. That's evidence that you're not lifting, but throwing it.

3. F = ma. If your goal is maximum acceleration of a weight, you have to use a light mass (i.e. load), and presumably, you stop when the force generating capacity of the muscles can not overcome the mass to achieve sufficient acceleration. By doing so, you only recruit a fraction of the fibres you would by using a heavier load, and going to failure, when the last reps will be very slow.

The superiority of slow over fast reps is fact to anyone capable and/or willing enough to understand the facts. We need less threads like this, so that important topics can actually be discussed. It's all very well being open minded and receptive to improvements, but there is little point arguing against undisputable facts.

Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland

Hi there alexmac,

Questions no one can answer.

The faster reps have all the superiority,

I still wonder why the slower reppers have not got it yet, as the science is all on our side too is the practical results, and as yet the slower reppers have no proof or evidence.

Please do a free handed rep speed of 1/1 or .5/.5, its not at all fast.

Now do a bench press fast with 60 to 80% of your 1RM, does it fly out of your hands when yo stop.

1,
Yes you would be right as offloading/extra momentum is in every moving object, but this is irrelevant, if anyone trys to say there is extra momentum in faster reps, as our muscles are making the extra momentum, and as this only happens in the faster reps when you stop to start to change direction, and for about 10% of the rep and a milly second. However more force/power/strength is needed to slow stop and change direction of the weight, that is travelling faster.

As we in the faster reps are always pushing into the bar as hard as we can, and always trying to accelerate the bar, its our muscles are making this extra, movement/momentum, nothing else is making the weight move faster, only our muscles.

As Sir Isaac Newton, says below; an increase in the upward acceleration will increase and not offload the force exerted on the lifter.

Albert Einstein,
Take a bathroom scale into an elevator, stand on the scales, and see when it registers the greatest weight ??? When the elevator is at full stop, or is moving upwards or is moving downwards. You will note that offloading takes place when the elevator accelerates downwards and that enhanced loading takes place as you begin to accelerate upwards.

Sir Isaac Newton,
Newton's 2nd Law,
An increase in the upward acceleration will increase and not offload the force exerted on the lifter. The only way to offload a muscle is to accelerate downwards with the load, not to slow it down while going upwards. The only way to totally eliminate production of momentum is to do isometric training. Mind you, load or force does not change with speed of repetition, but with only with acceleration, no matter what speed you are moving at.

Only on light weights below 50% of your 1RM, and very fast reps would you feel any kind of offloading when repping, and to be honest I do not really notice this, do you ??? As I use from about 65 to 90% on my 1RM, I am more concentrated at moving the weight in a fast controlled manner.

Any offloading would make the stopping and changing direction even harder in the faster reps, as it takes more force/power/strength to slow/stop and change direction, in the faster reps.

2,
We are not underloading our reps you are

If your doing 1 rep with 400Ibs = 60 seconds, you will move =400Ibs

If your doing 10 reps at 2/4 with 400Ibs = 60 seconds, you will move 400x10=4000Ibs

We would fail in the faster reps at about 45 seconds.

We would do 22.5 reps at 1/1 with 400Ibs = 45 seconds, we will move 400x10=9000Ibs

We would do 45 reps at .5/.5 with 400Ibs = 45 seconds, we will move 400x10=18000Ibs

There is a big difference in the poundage moved, one more bit of compelling bits of evidence and proof in the snowball effects of the faster reps.

3,
Then in the slower reps you rest far too long in the negative portion, in 2/4, you rest 4 seconds, that give you muscles time to recovery, what would be the point in this ???

4,
And also in the faster reps we have the transition from negative too positive, which makes for very high tensions on the muscles, we call them MMMT [Momentary Maximum Muscle Tensions]we do them you do not.

5,
IF you can bench 350 for a 1RM, you would use 280 for your 2/4, and when lifting at 2/4 you would only be producing 280 pounds of strength from your muscles.

Basically when I move that 280, and also my 1RM was 350, I would be producing 350 pounds of strength from my muscles, when moving at a very fast rate.

So if you want to under load your reps, with using only 80% of your strength, when we use 100% of our force/power/strength, fine by me but the question is why ??? please tell me why you want to under load your reps ??? With a lower force/power/strength output ??? In the slower reps ???

6,
You have the sticking points in the slower reps, in the faster reps there are none, as you power past them.

Wayne

Open User Options Menu

HITMOF

wayne it is so obvious that slow reps are more intense and better then fast, and besides what do you mean by fast and slow? different speeds can be used at different times to change it up and work the muscle more-4 up and down is a regular hit speed but 2 works and 30, weve posted proof so many times, just look at the pics and training logs
Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland

HITMOF wrote:
wayne it is so obvious that slow reps are more intense and better then fast, and besides what do you mean by fast and slow? different speeds can be used at different times to change it up and work the muscle more-4 up and down is a regular hit speed but 2 works and 30, weve posted proof so many times, just look at the pics and training logs


Hi there,

Slow is 2/4 or slower, fast is 1/1 or faster.

I as you know have done slow reps and also thought they were harder, but after trying them and looking at all the scientific data the proof and evidence goes to the fast reps.

If you read the above on what I wrote you will find no one can answer the questions, why cant they answer the questions, its because they prove fast is harder, and thus more productive.

There is no evidence to support slow reps are harder.

Wayne

Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland

Hi Rob,

Cool body,

Please do a free hand rep a 1/1 or .5/.5 is it really that fast.

I have trained from about ??? 12 In the gym, at first we did not really know what we were doing, but we made gains, we did like you all sorts of things, or was it the natural growing process, then in about 1984 I bought Ellington High Intensity Bodybuilding,{bought about 20 of hs books in all} and have followed HIT from there, but in the last two to three years I have defected and moved a bit away from traditional HIT, and have gained far better and really enjoy training again, as you do not go into the gym worrying if you will beat your last reps by one rep or more, you go into the gym, constantly getting your 30/15/10 or your 20/15/10 for months on end.

I want what is right and the truth, I don?t want to be right just because, I want you and the others to gain like I did, problem is once people debate they seem to stick to what they are doing, lucky for me I did not, as all the practical and theory proof and evidence went to more sets and faster reps.

RobT wrote:

I just dont buy the - train fast to move fast or to recruit more muscle fibres - tried it a load of times and just got sore joints and strains - didnt get faster sports movement and didn't gain more muscle - just got better at doing those movements that way.


The faster reps do recruit more muscle fibres this is a well established scientific fact.

I have not heard of people getting sore joints, maybe you did not warm up.

You say you did not gain more muscle, all depends on how long you tried it for, as you can get far stronger with the faster reps, and if you believe like most you have to get stronger to get bigger this is the way to go.

Rob, if you can bench 350 for a 1RM, you would use 280 for your 2/4, and when lifting at 2/4 you would only be producing 280 pounds of strength from your muscles.

Basically when I move that 280, and also my 1RM was 350, I would be producing 350 pounds of strength from my muscles, when moving at a very fast rate.

So if you want to under load your reps, with using only 80% of your strength, when we use 100% of our force/power/strength, fine by me but the question is why ??? please tell me why you want to under load your reps ??? With a lower force/power/strength output ??? In the slower reps ???

Wayne


Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland

alexmac wrote:

1. Do you perform negatives? If so, is the aim to drop the weight as fast as possible?



I do the negative about the same speed as the positive.

If you had the perfect machine with a positive and then made the negative about 40% heaver, you would do the positive fast and the negative slow, and in the end the positive would slow down and the negative speed up.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland

I am not at all saying slower reps will not build muscle, on the Country, just saying faster reps will be far more productive.

Sorry all, I forgot one,

7,
You fail far faster in faster reps, thus making them harder and more intense,

Bench press a 100 pound in 1 minute 30 seconds up and 30 seconds down, then bench press a 100 pounds for 1 minute but as fast as you can,

Or bench press 100 pound at a 2/4 tempo, and then at a 1/1 tempo,

The faster speeds will fail faster.

Wayne

Open User Options Menu

EC

waynegr wrote:
Hi EC,

You seem to bring up things that are not really irrelevant to what we are talking about...

Wayne


Thank you, Wayne, I am doing my best to post things that are really relevant to what we are talking about...

However, I think Fast vs. Slow has been discussed more than enough on this forum and no matter how much more is written or said on the subject the end result will be the same, which is zero. Looks like arguing about the speed of reps is almost like arguing about tastes. Therefore this topic is not worth the time wasted.

Although if you, Wayne, insist on asking me personally the same question over and over again, just PM it next time, instead of trashing this forum. And if you promise to stop tormenting people on this forum I might even give you a free psychological consultation. You need it badly. I do some charity work sometimes, so don't hesitate, I understand your financial situation after all those telephone consultations with Bio...

EC

Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland

EC wrote:
waynegr wrote:
Hi EC,

You seem to bring up things that are not really irrelevant to what we are talking about...

Wayne


Thank you, Wayne, I am doing my best to post things that are really relevant to what we are talking about...

However, I think Fast vs. Slow has been discussed more than enough on this forum and no matter how much more is written or said on the subject the end result will be the same, which is zero. Looks like arguing about the speed of reps is almost like arguing about tastes. Therefore this topic is not worth the time wasted.

Although if you, Wayne, insist on asking me personally the same question over and over again, just PM it next time, instead of trashing this forum. And if you promise to stop tormenting people on this forum I might even give you a free psychological consultation. You need it badly. I do some charity work sometimes, so don't hesitate, I understand your financial situation after all those telephone consultations with Bio...

EC



Hi there EC,

So as you can not answer or even try to saying anything, on the points I bring up. Or say anything good on the slower reps is that your way of saying you agree with what I say, and or find it hard to just say you agree ??? As that is not a problem, as I once thought the same as you.

Wayne


Open User Options Menu

Raider22

Ohio, USA

WOW!!!!

There is no absolute science in strength training. With every theory there is an exception when it comes to strength training. You can find a study to support almost any claim. Is that science?

We continue to beat a dead horse.
Open User Options Menu

HSDAD

The folks at T-Nation are big proponents of fast reps. In fact they say as soon as the reps slow down at all, you should stop the set. That is as antithetical to HIT as it gets, so comparing the two philosophies might be instructive.

Once warmed up, most of us can accelerate an 80% of maximum weight so much on the first few reps that fully the last 30 - 50% of ROM would be spent decelerating it for the turn around. Therefore, while you definitely exert more force through the first bit of ROM with fast reps, some of the ROM receives no stimulation whatsoever. Now the T-Nation folks would say discontinue the set as soon as this is NOT so. That seems insane to me, but perhaps training the full ROM isn't as important as I once thought.

One dissenter over at T-Nation is Charles Poliquin. He believes you should start fast and continue grinding until you can't anymore.

Now early ARthur Jones' stuff stated that you should slow those first few reps a bit so as not to damage ligaments or tendons, and once you're tired, go as fast as you possibly can. Both Poliquin and Jones agreed that how fast you are trying to go is more important than how fast you are actually going.

This makes the most sense to me. The T-Nation folks say that you are not doing any good once you've slowed down. HITters would say that you are digging down into the hierarchy of motor-unit recruitement and by the time you reach failure will have stimulated the greatest possible number of muscle units. Just from a pure logic point of view, this makes more sense. If you can still move the weight, your muscles have more to give.

Negatives are a totally different story. Doing slow negatives betweeen concentric contractions is a waste of time. Since you're so much stronger in that direction, the weight used for positives will have little if any training effect. THerefore, going down (eccentric) as quickly as possible (safely) is the best I should think. Now negative only training with proper loading is a different story and has been proven many times as effective in it's own way. But the negatives between positives are wasted time and should be dispensed with as quickly as possible.

Overall, I go with what Jones and Poliquin agree on. I do slow the first few reps, but then I go for broke and the speed is quite slow even though it's as fast as I can muster. In fact the last few are usually real grinders.

Perhaps the optimum is going as fast as you can on every rep of a set all the way to total failure. But I'm not willing to take on the increased risk of pulling a tendon away in the biceps or triceps (or somewhere even worse). That's a game for the young.

Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

EVERYBODY try this right now. Perform as many press ups as you can self paced, then with a 2/2 cadence and then with a 2/4 cadence. You will find that as you slow the reps down you can not do as many of them. This shows that slower movements are harder as you can do less of them!!!!!!!!!!
Open User Options Menu

OSAKA/J

I've got a better one. wayne, use your
right hand and slap yourself in the face as fast as possible. Got it?
Then, switch hands and use the left to
smack yourself in the face but with
slow, controlled reps. And then, ask
yourself which method leads to failure
faster. Finish off with wrist curls.
This thread is like a car accident:
horrifying, yet somehow, you can't
look away...


Osaka/J
Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland

Hi there OSAKA/J,

You criticised me on my English and Grammar, however your Grammar is not at all good, and you should learn to write your posts in the right Computer Software, as it is a squashed to the left hand side, it have no paragraphs no spaces, and too little spaces between words, and you forgot to put question marks in.

OSAKA/J wrote:
I've got a better one. wayne, use your
right hand and slap yourself in the face as fast as possible. Got it?
Then, switch hands and use the left to
smack yourself in the face but with
slow, controlled reps. And then, ask
yourself which method leads to failure
faster. Finish off with wrist curls.
This thread is like a car accident:
horrifying, yet somehow, you can't
look away...


Osaka/J


For a teacher the above is more on what you first year pupils would say.

Is this your way of saying I am right ??? As you can not counter my questions, if you are wrong you are wrong, however if you think I am wrong you need proof and evidence to answer my questions and or observations, as yet you have none all you do is try to mock Ellingtons site with nonsense.

Wayne

EC wrote:
waynegr wrote:
Hi EC,

You seem to bring up things that are not really irrelevant to what we are talking about...

Wayne


Thank you, Wayne, I am doing my best to post things that are really relevant to what we are talking about...

However, I think Fast vs. Slow has been discussed more than enough on this forum and no matter how much more is written or said on the subject the end result will be the same, which is zero. Looks like arguing about the speed of reps is almost like arguing about tastes. Therefore this topic is not worth the time wasted.


You have posted nothing of relevance, you tried to say there is too much offloading in a faster rep, I proved there is not with evidence and proof, so I proved you wrong, now you need to answer my other questions and or observations, if not I will take this as you agree with the faster reps are more intense, as you do not have any counter argument.

So you think my questions and or observations are zero, you do not kid my or anyone else in saying that, as if you though for one minute you could counter what I said you would, but can not which only proves, faster reps are more intense, actually, there is no evidence for the slower rep, none at all.

It is not at all about arguing about tastes, its like arguing about which is the heaviest 1gram or 2grams, for me or you to tell the difference would be hard, but use science and a weighing scales and you will have the answer, it?s the same with this debate, we have all the proof and evidence you have none, and mocking only proves that all the more.



EC wrote:
Although if you, Wayne, insist on asking me personally the same question over and over again, just PM it next time, instead of trashing this forum. And if you promise to stop tormenting people on this forum I might even give you a free psychological consultation. You need it badly. I do some charity work sometimes, so don't hesitate, I understand your financial situation after all those telephone consultations with Bio...

EC



You are the new ones here who trash this forum, you think I am tormenting ??? What a simple grow up debate to get people to have greater results.

Free psychological consultation ??? You are the ones who talk childlike and mock, I only debate and ask you questions of the sciences.

My financial situation is very high, thank you, lucky for me I have learned all from the Master for free, as he writes on many forums and all can read his works, well not for free, as I tried to help John but it backfired and I very much offended him, and wish I had not.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland

HSDAD wrote:
The folks at T-Nation are big proponents of fast reps. In fact they say as soon as the reps slow down at all, you should stop the set. That is as antithetical to HIT as it gets, so comparing the two philosophies might be instructive.

Once warmed up, most of us can accelerate an 80% of maximum weight so much on the first few reps that fully the last 30 - 50% of ROM would be spent decelerating it for the turn around. Therefore, while you definitely exert more force through the first bit of ROM with fast reps, some of the ROM receives no stimulation whatsoever. Now the T-Nation folks would say discontinue the set as soon as this is NOT so. That seems insane to me, but perhaps training the full ROM isn't as important as I once thought.

One dissenter over at T-Nation is Charles Poliquin. He believes you should start fast and continue grinding until you can't anymore.

Now early ARthur Jones' stuff stated that you should slow those first few reps a bit so as not to damage ligaments or tendons, and once you're tired, go as fast as you possibly can. Both Poliquin and Jones agreed that how fast you are trying to go is more important than how fast you are actually going.

This makes the most sense to me. The T-Nation folks say that you are not doing any good once you've slowed down. HITters would say that you are digging down into the hierarchy of motor-unit recruitement and by the time you reach failure will have stimulated the greatest possible number of muscle units. Just from a pure logic point of view, this makes more sense. If you can still move the weight, your muscles have more to give.

Negatives are a totally different story. Doing slow negatives betweeen concentric contractions is a waste of time. Since you're so much stronger in that direction, the weight used for positives will have little if any training effect. THerefore, going down (eccentric) as quickly as possible (safely) is the best I should think. Now negative only training with proper loading is a different story and has been proven many times as effective in it's own way. But the negatives between positives are wasted time and should be dispensed with as quickly as possible.

Overall, I go with what Jones and Poliquin agree on. I do slow the first few reps, but then I go for broke and the speed is quite slow even though it's as fast as I can muster. In fact the last few are usually real grinders.

Perhaps the optimum is going as fast as you can on every rep of a set all the way to total failure. But I'm not willing to take on the increased risk of pulling a tendon away in the biceps or triceps (or somewhere even worse). That's a game for the young.




Grerat post HSDAD,

Not much time to write back later.

But on the slowing down and decelerating the faster reps, I would said that you can do this in the last 10 to 15% of the ROM, and that too take a lot of strength.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

waynegr wrote:
My financial situation is very high, thank you, lucky for me I have learned all from the Master for free, as he writes on many forums and all can read his works, well not for free, as I tried to help John but it backfired and I very much offended him, and wish I had not.

Wayne


I thought they only paid out 80 quid a fortnight on the rock n roll Wayne? If you're doing that well, I might become an idle layabout too!

Open User Options Menu

fantombe

waynegr wrote:Is this your way of saying I am right ??? As you can not counter my questions, if you are wrong you are wrong, however if you think I am wrong you need proof and evidence to answer my questions and or observations, as yet you have none all you do is try to mock Ellingtons site with nonsense.

I think rather than being a way of saying you're right, it's more a way of saying people have answered your questions continually, over, and over, and over, and over, in various other threads and it's time for you to give it a rest.

You've provided no proof. In the literally hundreds of posts where you've copied and pasted the same stuff over, and over, and over, and over again, I've not been able to find your before and after photo's, or video's of your exercise performance anywhere.

All I can find is hypothetical situations. Please, please, for the love of god, post a link to your before and afters and prove me wrong. I would be happy to conceed you have posted proof.

Even a couple of studies would be nice.

However, hypothetical situations don't provide proof of anything. And this is the problem. You are so desperate to be viewed as right by people you've never met, you put words into other peoples mouths by saying (and I paraphrase) "I will take your non-reply as you admitting I'm right"

You're not debating anything, you're arguing in circles, ignoring the other persons points over, and over, and over, and over again.

You've provided no science, only hypothetical situations and scenarios.

You've applied simple physics to complex muscular processes.

Incidently, I will take your posting a reply to this post as you saying you've provided nothing, and saying every post you make is incorrect.

I will also take your not posting a reply to this post as you saying you've provided nothing, and saying every post you make is incorrect.

I certainly wont be posting on this topic again, and you can feel free to take that as you being right about everything, you being wrong about everything, Mickey Mouse being the messiah, whatever floats your boat.
Open User Options Menu

New Here

JamesT wrote:
waynegr wrote:
My financial situation is very high, thank you, lucky for me I have learned all from the Master for free, as he writes on many forums and all can read his works, well not for free, as I tried to help John but it backfired and I very much offended him, and wish I had not.

Wayne


I thought they only paid out 80 quid a fortnight on the rock n roll Wayne? If you're doing that well, I might become an idle layabout too!



I think you may have to include a bit of Disability Allowance in that as well.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Just when you think things can't possibly get any more stupid.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

waynegr wrote:

...lucky for me I have learned all from the Master for free...

Wayne


You've got to be kidding.
Open User Options Menu

Mr Flibble

New Here wrote:
JamesT wrote:
waynegr wrote:
My financial situation is very high, thank you, lucky for me I have learned all from the Master for free, as he writes on many forums and all can read his works, well not for free, as I tried to help John but it backfired and I very much offended him, and wish I had not.

Wayne


I thought they only paid out 80 quid a fortnight on the rock n roll Wayne? If you're doing that well, I might become an idle layabout too!



I think you may have to include a bit of Disability Allowance in that as well.


Haven't you heard? The government are cracking down on disability payments so it looks like Wayne might be on the job market soon. The village in which I live currently has no idiot so I think Wayne should go for the Village Idiot position. He just has to sit on the green spouting his usual bollocks at anyone walking by. The salary is a loaf of bread a day, half a pig a year, a new smock at Christmas and as much scrumpy cider as he can drink.

I think the job comes with a laptop and free wireless connection so don't worry about him being deprived from posting on this board!
Open User Options Menu

latman

Texas, USA

Just curious but has Wayne posted a pic of himself? How about anybody else....Everyone loves to talk,talk,talk about everything and then they are not even in shape.
Post some pics guys!
Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland


Why all the mind games, can not people just try and answer my questions and observations ???

fantombe wrote:
waynegr wrote:Is this your way of saying I am right ??? As you can not counter my questions, if you are wrong you are wrong, however if you think I am wrong you need proof and evidence to answer my questions and or observations, as yet you have none all you do is try to mock Ellingtons site with nonsense.

I think rather than being a way of saying you're right, it's more a way of saying people have answered your questions continually, over, and over, and over, and over, in various other threads and it's time for you to give it a rest.


Hi fantombe,

Actually no one has answered my questions and observations, this is the point in why I opened up this thread, as I have categorically proved that fast is harder and more intense than slow reps, and the slow rep people do not like it, this is why they can not answer, as if they could counter my argument, they would love but they cant so then they try to mock, which only proves they can not answer.

Would you like me to answer for the slow reppers ??? As I know the answers.

EC tried to answer, but tried to say that in fast reps there would be offloading, but this is not right and is only an argument someone would bring up if they did not know the laws of physics.

And if you look fantombe I counter answered EC in a concise polite manner,

Yes you would be right as offloading/extra momentum is in every moving object, but this is irrelevant, if anyone trys to say there is extra momentum in faster reps, as our muscles are making the extra momentum, and as this only happens in the faster reps when you stop to start to change direction, as we in the faster reps are always pushing into the bar as hard as we can, and always trying to accelerate the bar, its our muscles making this extra, movement/momentum.

As Sir Isaac Newton, says below; an increase in the upward acceleration will increase and not offload the force exerted on the lifter.

Albert Einstein,
Take a bathroom scale into an elevator, stand on the scales, and see when it registers the greatest weight ??? When the elevator is at full stop, or is moving upwards or is moving downwards. You will note that offloading takes place when the elevator accelerates downwards and that enhanced loading takes place as you begin to accelerate upwards.

Sir Isaac Newton,
Newton's 2nd Law,
An increase in the upward acceleration will increase and not offload the force exerted on the lifter. The only way to offload a muscle is to accelerate downwards with the load, not to slow it down while going upwards. The only way to totally eliminate production of momentum is to do isometric training. Mind you, load or force does not change with speed of repetition, but with only with acceleration, no matter what speed you are moving at.

Yes I have been to a gym from about the age of ??? 12, I am now 46. Only on light weights below 50% of your 1RM, and very fast reps would you feel any kind of offloading when repping, and to be honest I do not really notice this, do you ??? As I use from about 65 to 90% on my 1RM, I am more concentrated at moving the weight in a fast controlled manner.

Any offloading would make the stopping and changing direction even harder in the faster reps, as it takes more force/power/strength to slow/stop and change direction, in the faster reps.

fantombe wrote:
You've provided no proof. In the literally hundreds of posts where you've copied and pasted the same stuff over, and over, and over, and over again, I've not been able to find your before and after photo's, or video's of your exercise performance anywhere.

All I can find is hypothetical situations. Please, please, for the love of god, post a link to your before and afters and prove me wrong. I would be happy to conceed you have posted proof.

Even a couple of studies would be nice.


What do you mean at a hypothetical situations ??? All the 7 questions and observations in the above are what work in the real World; they are the laws of physics.

There are no before and after photos, I am not even the type to take any photos of myself, but am thing very much to do a video of my one armed pullovers to prove Osaka/J, as to me the weight I use on the pullover is not that much, but seems now for my bodyweight it is after hearing the resonse.

I posted after years of people asking be my RMs but they do not seem to believe, so why I bother I dont know.

There are many many studies over on other site, Tnation have many, all the top authors there agree with faster reps, so do 99.9% of the rest of the training World

fantombe wrote:
However, hypothetical situations don't provide proof of anything. And this is the problem. You are so desperate to be viewed as right by people you've never met, you put words into other peoples mouths by saying (and I paraphrase) "I will take your non-reply as you admitting I'm right"


When someone trys to call you an idiot, but then has no proof or evidence to back up their claims what would you say ???

fantombe wrote:
You're not debating anything, you're arguing in circles, ignoring the other persons points over, and over, and over, and over again.


I am honestly not ignoring anyones points, the thing is there has been no points of evidence for the slow reps, none at all.

fantombe wrote:
You've provided no science, only hypothetical situations and scenarios.

You've applied simple physics to complex muscular processes.


You said which was wrong that I provided no science, only hypothetical situations and scenarios ??? Prove to me that what I said was only hypothetical situations ??? How are my 7 questions and observations only hypothetical ??? That does not make sense.

How is this one, my number 2 hypothetical ??? Its real.

If your doing 1 rep with 400Ibs = 60 seconds, you will move =400Ibs

If your doing 10 reps at 2/4 with 400Ibs = 60 seconds, you will move 400x10=4000Ibs

We would fail in the faster reps at about 45 seconds.

We would do 22.5 reps at 1/1 with 400Ibs = 45 seconds, we will move 400x10=9000Ibs

We would do 45 reps at .5/.5 with 400Ibs = 45 seconds, we will move 400x10=18000Ibs

There is a big difference in the poundage moved, one more bit of compelling bits of evidence and proof in the snowball effects of the faster reps.

fantombe wrote:
Incidently, I will take your posting a reply to this post as you saying you've provided nothing, and saying every post you make is incorrect.

I will also take your not posting a reply to this post as you saying you've provided nothing, and saying every post you make is incorrect.

I certainly wont be posting on this topic again, and you can feel free to take that as you being right about everything, you being wrong about everything, Mickey Mouse being the messiah, whatever floats your boat.


You seem to have got me all wrong, I dont want to be right to be right just to help.

To be honest fantombe all you have done in the above is like the rest, you seem so damn mad that I have proven faster reps are harder and more intense so you just play the word games, and like all the others have not even tried to answer any thing, at least EC did try to answer one, even thaw he was wrong.

So let us say you child come home from school or better still you have to do your exams for your degree, or you are in court and need to answer 7 questions and observations, however the

But us send your child to school without any thing, you just say ho go call the teacher an idiot, same with the person taking a degree, and for the person in court.

However the two parties have different views.

What would the teachers or judge think ??? They could only think one thing, these people do not like the truth, as if it was not the truth they would be able to counter my debate.

If you or anyone here asked me questions and observations I would answer without these word games that only proves you are thinking, thinking what I thought years ago, as I also thought slower reps were harder and more intense, but science and real World training says the complete opposite, the thing is I admitted I was wrong

Wayne





Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland

I have got you all tamping mad, but have not even tried to, why all this childlike name calling on a training forum ??? What is the point ???

Mr Flibble wrote:
New Here wrote:
JamesT wrote:
waynegr wrote:
My financial situation is very high, thank you, lucky for me I have learned all from the Master for free, as he writes on many forums and all can read his works, well not for free, as I tried to help John but it backfired and I very much offended him, and wish I had not.

I thought they only paid out 80 quid a fortnight on the rock n roll Wayne? If you're doing that well, I might become an idle layabout too!

I think you may have to include a bit of Disability Allowance in that as well.

Haven't you heard? The government are cracking down on disability payments so it looks like Wayne might be on the job market soon. The village in which I live currently has no idiot so I think Wayne should go for the Village Idiot position. He just has to sit on the green spouting his usual bollocks at anyone walking by. The salary is a loaf of bread a day, half a pig a year, a new smock at Christmas and as much scrumpy cider as he can drink.

I think the job comes with a laptop and free wireless connection so don't worry about him being deprived from posting on this board!


Well try and prove I am an idiot in counter arguing ??? All you have proved is you can not counter what I say, so you reverted to mocking, do that as long as you want, as what does that prove, its proves you seem to really know you are wrong, if not just try.

Wayne

Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy