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
Dr. Darden: Rep Speed (T-Nation)
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Dave Price

New Jersey, USA

TM: The most weight you could lift once.

Waterbury: Right. So if you do those curls slowly ? a 2-1-1 tempo, something like that ? you might recruit half your muscle fibers. But if you curl it up explosively, you'll hit 'em all.


That's why I put so much emphasis on speed. You hit muscle fibers with fast reps that you can't touch with slow reps.

TM: What do you do when your speed changes?

Waterbury: You stop the set, rest, and then pick up where you left off.

TM: But how do you measure speed? It's not like a guy's going to bring a radar gun to the gym.

Waterbury: Ha! That's a funny image, but no, it doesn't have to be complicated at all. When you do a rep that's a lot slower than your previous reps, you stop the set.

If you stop because you think maybe you slowed down, or because you think you might slow down on the next rep, you won't get much of a workout because you won't fatigue your muscles.

And that's something you just can't get around ? no fatigue, no hypertrophy.

TM: Makes sense. Let's get back to the heavy weights. I think it's fair to say that you helped bring about a real paradigm shift in the way T-Muscle readers think about load in relation to hypertrophy. You didn't just say it's possible to build size with three to five reps per set. You said it's the best way to do it.

Waterbury: That's the other way to make sure you hit all the muscle fibers you can possibly hit. When your brain senses that a load is heavy, it's going to put more muscle fibers on the job, even before you start the actual lift. They're all lined up and ready to go.

The speed issue isn't as important here, because you aren't going to lift the weight if you don't push it or pull it as hard as you can. You're already lifting it as fast as it's going to go.

So if everybody lifted heavy all the time, we wouldn't have to mention rep speed at all. There'd be no such thing as a deliberately slow lift ? it's just not an option when you're trying to get a 2 or 3RM weight off your chest, or pull it off the floor.

Not sure what the hell to believe anymore. To me lifting fast would cause too much momentum.
Any info on this will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks Dave Price
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

throw a ball into UP into the air..

it travels up for a ways w/o any active external force after you let it go..

that's MOMENTUM.


pitch the ball faster..

moves up even further due to its GREATER momentum.

end opf lesson.
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

southbeach wrote:
throw a ball into UP into the air..

it travels up for a ways w/o any active external force after you let it go..

that's MOMENTUM.


pitch the ball faster..

moves up even further due to its GREATER momentum.

end opf lesson.



The ball travels further due to greater force been exerted, that is why it travels further.
Open User Options Menu

gerry-hitman


Waterbury: That's the other way to make sure you hit all the muscle fibers you can possibly hit. When your brain senses that a load is heavy, it's going to put more muscle fibers on the job, even before you start the actual lift. They're all lined up and ready to go.



LOL
He must be part of team Bio-farce.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Sorry to those that have seen this before.

And to some of the other, but we are NOT using light loads are we.

Jeff is a Physicist.

Jeff Pinter wrote;
Is there offloading during small portions of the ROM? Yes. Are there forces greater than the resistance during major portions of the ROM? Yes. we are accelerating the load (typically the first 80 - 90 percent of the lift in most cases). That is, as long as we are accelerating the load, we MUST be generating a force greater than the load itself. To say otherwise would violate Newton's Laws. And it does not matter what the speed is...as long as the load is accelerating the force must be greater than the load.

The only possible caveat here is the issue of "terminal velocity". That is, if the load is light enough then the speed can become so great that it exceeds terminal velocity, and the force generated is reduced due to physiological reasons. I'm not sure what this speed is, or what %RM the load would be in this case, but BIO probably has a good idea of the details.

It should be noted that the same type of reasoning applies to the case where the speed is constant. In this case the force generated must exactly match the load...and again it does not matter what the speed is (in either the concentric or eccentric for that matter).

Jeff



Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

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.

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.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Mr. Strong wrote:
The ball travels further due to greater force been exerted, that is why it travels further.


And while the ball travels through the air, how hard are the muscles that imparted this 'exertion' contracting?

How many fibers are being recruited then?

Waterbury may have a fairly good idea with his fast reps --- but ONLY as another tool to add to one's arsenal. In other words, it's an idea, not THE idea like he wants everyone to think.

His example, however, shows a troubling degree of ignorance. In other parts of that interview, he makes the assumption that slow reps MUST automatically mean low weights.

You can argue anything away if you simply create the right caveats for your side of the debate and negative caveats for the other side.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

There will be the OPPOSITE of off loading, the forces exerted on the load, and thereby by the muscles by FAR exceeds the nominal weight of the load.

That is why I try to lift as FAST possable.

Per Aagaard Professor, PhD
Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics
University of Southern Denmark.

When a given load is lifted very fast, the acceleration component means that the forces exerted on the load (and thereby by the muscles) by far exceeds the nominal weight of the load.

For instance, a 120 kg squat can easily produce peak vertical ground reaction forces (beyond the body mass of the lifter) of 160-220 kg's when executed in a very fast manner! Same goes for all other resisted movements with unrestricted acceleration (i.e. isokinetic dynamometers (and in part also hydraulic loading devices) do not have this effect).

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Wayne,
Please stop regurgitating your same old garbage. Either come up with a new argument, or quit wasting space in these threads.
Scott
Open User Options Menu

karthik2504

Wayne, No disrespect to your persistence

Waynes wrote:
There will be the OPPOSITE of off loading, the forces exerted on the load, and thereby by the muscles by FAR exceeds the nominal weight of the load.

That is why I try to lift as FAST possable.



Per Aagaard Professor, PhD
Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics
University of Southern Denmark.

When a given load is lifted very fast, the acceleration component means that the forces exerted on the load (and thereby by the muscles) by far exceeds the nominal weight of the load.

For instance, a 120 kg squat can easily produce peak vertical ground reaction forces (beyond the body mass of the lifter) of 160-220 kg's when executed in a very fast manner! Same goes for all other resisted movements with unrestricted acceleration (i.e. isokinetic dynamometers (and in part also hydraulic loading devices) do not have this effect).

Wayne


As fast as possible in Good form is what we should look for. As Fast as Possible in Good form would automatically mean that U will have to lift in a slow controlled manner, thereby eliminating momentum and 1.Reducing Risk of Injury 2. Properly tax the muscles involved in that particular lift to the max and create the ideal stimulus for growth.

Now lets look at Ur argument based on Professor Aagaards' statement.

We all agree that Force = mass x acceleration (speed)

But why is it that U are not looking at the equation and understanding that the resulting force is a component of two factors mass and acceleration. U have already closed one eye while looking and interpreting what the learned professor had said. To increase the force and thereby create more stimulus to the muscles involved a well informed and knowledgeable bodybuilder will strive to increase mass and not acceleration, thereby creating the necessary stimulus for growth by thoroughly taxing all muscle fibers involved in the execution of a particular exercise. Increasing mass will also increase the force my friend, but in a manner whereby outside forces namely momentum are minimized and maximum muscular effort is extracted. I know U will bring up the argument that "wont increasing mass(weight) increase the risk of an injury. Yes, it will, if the increases are in an irrational manner. Progress with a particular weight and strive to extract more reps after which a logical small increment in mass(weight) will create the additional force required to generate growth bringing down the risk of injury to a nullifying factor. Since all Ur posts have been quite lengthy on hammering down the point about lifting fast, I have posted a few extracts from Arthurs' Bulletin 2 regarding proper form.

The form or "style of performance" required for producing good results from weight-training is a much talked about, but little understood, point of importance. The "amount of work performed" and or the "power produced" will in most cases be the same regardless of the form used but at the point, similarities cease. If, for example, you are doing curls with a barbell ? using 100 pounds for ten reps ? the amount of work
performed will be the same regardless of how you perform the movements, and the amount of power produced will be the same if the "speed of movement" is the same; but if cheating methods are used, then it won't be the bending muscles of the arms that are performing all the work ? or producing all of the power. You will, in that case, be working your lower back muscles, your shoulders, and even your legs ? and very little of the work will be done by the arm muscles. But the muscles you are trying to work, as a natural result, will receive little or nothing in the way of development, from any amount of such exercise.

And remember while it is necessary to produce maximum-possible power in order to stimulate growth, it is NOT necessary to do so while you are actually strongest, actually able to produce the "most" power; the same degree of muscle-growth stimulation will be produced if such maximum-power production occurs only near the end of a set of several repetitions, at a point where your actual power production may be quite low ? at a point
where the earlier, non-maximum repetitions have weakened you momentarily.
Thus, while you could move quite fast during the first repetitions without cheating, restrict your actual speed of movement to a speed well below what you could do ? until at least the fourth repetition. In effect, the first three or four repetitions will move slower than necessary ? but after the fourth repetition, move the weight as fast as possible without cheating; which movement will be, in fact, quite slow. In this manner you will NOT be producing maximum possible power during the first three or four repetitions ? but you will be producing maximum possible power during the last several repetitions; and you will be GREATLY reducing the danger of injury. Also remember ? you are most likely to hurt yourself during a "first" repetition simply because you are strongest at that point; and so long as good form is maintained including properly performed cheating methods you become less likely to hurt yourself as you continue with the set, the second rep is less dangerous than the first rep, the third rep is less dangerous than the second rep, etc.
Although, of course, it is possible to hurt yourself in any rep; but in practice, most injuries occur during first reps and these injuries that occur during later reps are usually caused by using poor form.






Open User Options Menu

Professor Chaos

karthik2504 wrote:
We all agree that Force = mass x acceleration (speed)

But why is it that U are not looking at the equation and understanding that the resulting force is a component of two factors mass and acceleration.


Hi karthik,

You have a good solid attempt here (and I don't mean that maliciously... I am a former electrical engineering professor now nuclear engineer who has seen much worse), but there are a couple key aspects of this that I think is limiting your understanding.

We are refering to NET FORCE (the equation for which can change based on the system). In the example of a human muscle/joint complex:

NET FORCE = APPLIED FORCE - LOAD FORCE

NET FORCE = MASS * ACCELERATION

So, if you apply 120lbs of force (APPLIED FORCE) against 100lbs of resistance (LOAD FORCE)... the NET FORCE will be positive.

Since you now have a positive NET FORCE, the weight will positively ACCELERATE (forgive the pun :-) ).

The basic premise behind this whole 'lift as fast as you can' stuff is essentially that attempting to accelerate a weight results in you applying as much force as possible to the weight.

The higher the force, the more motor units are being recruited... there's no other way for a muscle to put more force through the joint than to recruit additional motor units and/or speed up the firing rate of those already contributing.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Professor Chaos wrote:
The higher the force, the more motor units are being recruited... there's no other way for a muscle to put more force through the joint than to recruit additional motor units and/or speed up the firing rate of those already contributing.


Exactly right.

I was just about to add about rate coding/firing frequency then I saw you included that in.

Excellent post Pro Chaos.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Hi karthik2504, and thx for the post.

karthik2504 wrote:
Wayne, No disrespect to your persistence

Waynes wrote:
There will be the OPPOSITE of off loading, the forces exerted on the load, and thereby by the muscles by FAR exceeds the nominal weight of the load.

That is why I try to lift as FAST possable.



Per Aagaard Professor, PhD
Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics
University of Southern Denmark.

When a given load is lifted very fast, the acceleration component means that the forces exerted on the load (and thereby by the muscles) by far exceeds the nominal weight of the load.

For instance, a 120 kg squat can easily produce peak vertical ground reaction forces (beyond the body mass of the lifter) of 160-220 kg's when executed in a very fast manner! Same goes for all other resisted movements with unrestricted acceleration (i.e. isokinetic dynamometers (and in part also hydraulic loading devices) do not have this effect).

Wayne


As fast as possible in Good form is what we should look for. As Fast as Possible in Good form would automatically mean that U will have to lift in a slow controlled manner,


My form is quite good when lifting, as all I am doing is the exact same exersices as you but faster.

However if I do, breck form and little at the later stages of the set, I would be only to create longer of these higher accelerations, thus more higher tenstions, as using more of the kinetic chain or stabilising muscles.

As I was learnt buy a very cleaver man, you should NOT relax the stabilizers, as the stabilizers job is to provide a solid platform where/when the main muscle mover can apply more /power/strength/effort.

When the stabilizers are relaxed/lowered, the CNS also lowers the main muscle movers capacity.

So relaxing the stabilizers lowers both the quantity of weight you will use, and will in turn lower the tensioning capacity of the main muscle mover, the body evolved to work as a whole.

Try squatting and taking the butt muscles out ??? Go try squatting and try relaxing any muscles other than the quads; you will not squat half so much. Its the same with all exersices, they just need the other muscles to help them to bring out their full capacity, thats their full force/power/strength, they all help each other.

So if you looking for strength and size, you need to involve the stabilizers, its not that you need too, you will just automatically use them, same as all do when repping slow or fast.


karthik2504 wrote:
thereby eliminating momentum and 1.Reducing Risk of Injury 2. Properly tax the muscles involved in that particular lift to the max and create the ideal stimulus for growth.


Actually momentum just means movement, so I imagine you mean offloading, however as I proved there is NO offloading until the very end of the rep when you slow down. This is not really debatable as its just the way the laws of physics works.

Only way these will be off loading when repping fast, if the weight is far to light.

If you reduce the weight to rep slow, you do the opposite of what you need for hypertrophy, you will be putting out far lower forces, thus lower tensions of the muscles, and letting the slow muscles fibers that have very little potential for growth do the brunt of the work.

karthik2504 wrote:
Now lets look at Ur argument based on Professor Aagaards' statement.

We all agree that Force = mass x acceleration (speed)

But why is it that U are not looking at the equation and understanding that the resulting force is a component of two factors mass and acceleration. U have already closed one eye while looking and interpreting what the learned professor had said. To increase the force and thereby create more stimulus to the muscles involved a well informed and knowledgeable bodybuilder will strive to increase mass and not acceleration,


If that was the case you would do a 1RM ???

What the professor said, was to increase the force and thus create more tension stimulus to the muscles involved. Then in the next workout you would then add more mass weight.

At this moment in time I do 3 cycles for one hand seated biceps, DB curls, each for 8 weeks at a time, with a few added sets at the end, but let us just talk about the first four for now. There is 5 minutes rest between sets, but only 3 minutes before the last.

30/15/10/15, 20/15/10/15 and 15/10/5/15.

For my last workout I did 49 x 15, 52 x 10, 55 x 5 and 38 x 15.

HOW could I add more mass to the above ??? Without getting all the reps ??? As all the reps are NEEDED for the rep number of tensions. Next workout I will add more mass/weight.

Without using as much force as I could, I would NOT have got these number of reps, as high accelerations are needed to move these weights. I stop the negative to positive turnaround before my arm is fully straightened or just before, this is to create the HIGHEST tensions there are, these tensions can easily exceed your 1RM and go up to 140% past you 1RM, these are called MMMTs {bio-forces Momentary Maximum Muscle Tensions}

As the negative is very underloaded in a normal positive negative set, I now use the advanced {bio-force again} slight drop on the first quarter/half on the negative, then use my full strength again, this then creates the highest MMMTs.

Soon I will have a video of my one hand seated biceps DB curls for , 40 x 30, 44 x 15 and 48 x 10, for all to comment on my so called form, which I am not worried about in the slightest. However it is actually quite good, well the first 22 reps are.


karthik2504 wrote:
thereby creating the necessary stimulus for growth by thoroughly taxing all muscle fibers involved in the execution of a particular exercise.


See above.

karthik2504 wrote:
Increasing mass will also increase the force my friend, but in a manner whereby outside forces namely momentum are minimized and maximum muscular effort is extracted.


How would you change my workouts to add more mass/weight ??? But remember when you rep slower you will always have to use less mass/weight.

As explained, there will be the OPPOSITE of off loading, the forces exerted on the load, and thereby by the muscles by FAR exceeds the nominal weight of the load.

That is why I try to lift as FAST possible.

karthik2504 wrote:
I know U will bring up the argument that "wont increasing mass(weight) increase the risk of an injury.


No I will not bring up the argument that increasing mass/weight will increase the risk of an injury.

karthik2504 wrote:
Yes, it will, if the increases are in an irrational manner. Progress with a particular weight and strive to extract more reps after which a logical small increment in mass(weight) will create the additional force required to generate growth bringing down the risk of injury to a nullifying factor. Since all Ur posts have been quite lengthy on hammering down the point about lifting fast, I have posted a few extracts from Arthurs' Bulletin 2 regarding proper form.


I do use very small increment in mass/weight, each and every workout.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland


simon-hecubus wrote:
Wayne,
Please stop regurgitating your same old garbage. Either come up with a new argument, or quit wasting space in these threads.
Scott


You obviously know nothing of science, physics training or exercise, all I wrote was true.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

karthik2504

Professor Chaos wrote:
karthik2504 wrote:
We all agree that Force = mass x acceleration (speed)

But why is it that U are not looking at the equation and understanding that the resulting force is a component of two factors mass and acceleration.

Hi karthik,

You have a good solid attempt here (and I don't mean that maliciously... I am a former electrical engineering professor now nuclear engineer who has seen much worse), but there are a couple key aspects of this that I think is limiting your understanding.

We are refering to NET FORCE (the equation for which can change based on the system). In the example of a human muscle/joint complex:

NET FORCE = APPLIED FORCE - LOAD FORCE

NET FORCE = MASS * ACCELERATION

So, if you apply 120lbs of force (APPLIED FORCE) against 100lbs of resistance (LOAD FORCE)... the NET FORCE will be positive.

Since you now have a positive NET FORCE, the weight will positively ACCELERATE (forgive the pun :-) ).

The basic premise behind this whole 'lift as fast as you can' stuff is essentially that attempting to accelerate a weight results in you applying as much force as possible to the weight.

The higher the force, the more motor units are being recruited... there's no other way for a muscle to put more force through the joint than to recruit additional motor units and/or speed up the firing rate of those already contributing.


Great to have a response here Prof Chaos.

Pls correct me if am wrong here

NET FORCE = APPLIED FORCE - LOAD FORCE

Load force = Load on the barbell or machine

Applied force is what U as a lifter apply to lift the weight and since this should be a positive in order for the weight to accelerate we need to provide the necessary speed to lift the weight. All i say is use enough speed to control the movement of the weight so that the Net force still stays positive. This is all in discussion with the positive phase of the rep.

The negative phase of the rep is where things start taking a completely opposite dimension. This is the phase where one will have to resist the movement of the weight, cos applied forces will automatically be coupled with gravity leading to the resultant Net force being a positive always.

If the mass is increased keeping the acceleration controlled, one will definitely thoroughly tax the necessary muscle fibers without creating ground for injury.

I agree with U on the last point U have made... "The higher the force, the more motor units are being recruited". The following extract that I posted in my earlier post from Arthur would hold good here I suppose.

And remember while it is necessary to produce maximum-possible power in order to stimulate growth, it is NOT necessary to do so while you are actually strongest, actually able to produce the "most" power; the same degree of muscle-growth stimulation will be produced if such maximum-power production occurs only near the end of a set of several repetitions, at a point where your actual power production may be quite low ? at a point
where the earlier, non-maximum repetitions have weakened you momentarily.

Thus, while you could move quite fast during the first repetitions without cheating, restrict your actual speed of movement to a speed well below what you could do ? until at least the fourth repetition. In effect, the first three or four repetitions will move slower than necessary ? but after the fourth repetition, move the weight as fast as possible without cheating; which movement will be, in fact, quite slow. In this manner you will NOT be producing maximum possible power during the first three or four repetitions ?

but you will be producing maximum possible power during the last several repetitions; and you will be GREATLY reducing the danger of injury. Also remember ? you are most likely to hurt yourself during a "first" repetition simply because you are strongest at that point; and so long as good form is maintained including properly performed cheating methods you become less likely to hurt yourself as you continue with the set, the second rep is less dangerous than the first rep, the third rep is less dangerous than the second rep, etc.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:
Wayne,
Please stop regurgitating your same old garbage. Either come up with a new argument, or quit wasting space in these threads.
Scott


Waynes wrote:
You obviously know nothing of science, physics training or exercise, all I wrote was true.

Wayne


I'm a trained scientist and not from comic books either. I know enough to know that I've seen that Newton and Einstein stuff from you at least 25 times.

Believe me, those guys are as sick of you using their name in vain as Casler is!
Open User Options Menu

Professor Chaos

Karthik,

Good post. You have some solid points here. Let me try to organize the things we're talking about.

1. Your point regarding risk of injury from higher forces seems perfectly valid to me.

2. Physics stuff: You're still making some small errors with your explanation, but they really have no bearing on what we're getting at... So let's move on.

3. The most important issue we're discussing, I think, is this:

If the first reps of a HIT-style set do not recruit the entire motor unit pool (which they obviously don't), are the rest then activated later on once fatigue sets in and you have to strain harder against the weight?

Arthur Jones clearly thought the answer was yes. It doesn't seem like the neurophysiologists of today agree with him. I would love for someone to break this down to the nuts and bolts for me, because I don't understand all this ATP-PC time limit stuff that gets thrown around.

Would you say this is a fair assessment?
Open User Options Menu

Professor Chaos

To all,

I apologize if this has become an inappropriate forum for me. I have been training HIT style for the past 3 months and have been active on this website for information on HIT. Now that I have determined that it doesn't work for me, I will move on and leave you all in peace.

Cheers!
Open User Options Menu

karthik2504

Professor Chaos wrote:
Karthik,

Good post. You have some solid points here. Let me try to organize the things we're talking about.

1. Your point regarding risk of injury from higher forces seems perfectly valid to me.

2. Physics stuff: You're still making some small errors with your explanation, but they really have no bearing on what we're getting at... So let's move on.

3. The most important issue we're discussing, I think, is this:

If the first reps of a HIT-style set do not recruit the entire motor unit pool (which they obviously don't), are the rest then activated later on once fatigue sets in and you have to strain harder against the weight?

Arthur Jones clearly thought the answer was yes. It doesn't seem like the neurophysiologists of today agree with him. I would love for someone to break this down to the nuts and bolts for me, because I don't understand all this ATP-PC time limit stuff that gets thrown around.

Would you say this is a fair assessment?


Agreed with that. Even I try to keep it simple. Its not trying to make the exercise slower and slower, but do it proper form without throwing around the weights. If U look further into Arthurs explanations regarding form and rep speed and even quoted in Dr Dardens new hit, as we progress we will have to increase speed with good form, so it is still slow but not as slow as the first few reps. I am not all about ultra slow, but wouldn't agree with full throttle either. Taking any exercise to MMF is hard work and those who have been there know it. For people who cannot reach MMF in strict training form, the only alternative would be to extens the single set to another set. Even though it would still not qualify as Pure HIT, it will indeed produce profound growth stimulus. Training briefly, infrequently and HARD to a point of MMF with good form is the essence of HIT and we should try to embrace and acknowledge that fact. It was a good discussion with you Prof Chaos. Kindly PM me Ur mail id if its OK. We can have some healthy discussions regarding HIT.
Open User Options Menu

Larry T

North Carolina, USA

Professor Chaos wrote:
To all,

I apologize if this has become an inappropriate forum for me. I have been training HIT style for the past 3 months and have been active on this website for information on HIT. Now that I have determined that it doesn't work for me, I will move on and leave you all in peace.

Cheers!


Professor,

If you choose to train in another style, there's no need to apologize. You might find the book "The New Rules of Lifting" by Lou Schuler and Alwyn Cosgrove has some information you could use. There's nothing revolutionary in the book - just routines with basic compound exercises with varying rep ranges, loads, etc. Good luck.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

simon-hecubus wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
Wayne,
Please stop regurgitating your same old garbage. Either come up with a new argument, or quit wasting space in these threads.
Scott


Waynes wrote:
You obviously know nothing of science, physics training or exercise, all I wrote was true.

Wayne

I'm a trained scientist and not from comic books either.


You are NOT a trained scientist; if you were you would not be disagreeing with all what I said.

And you can NOT refute anything I say, only name call, scientists do NOT do this, you do this because you know you are wrong, so mock, instead of trying to refute.

Ok Mr scientist, please say what you think I said was wrong and why ???

simon-hecubus wrote:
I know enough to know that I've seen that Newton and Einstein stuff from you at least 25 times.

Believe me, those guys are as sick of you using their name in vain as Casler is!


If you note, Dave Price, asked for some advice and information, and before I gave it I did say; Sorry to those that have seen this before.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

karthik2504 wrote:
Professor Chaos wrote:
karthik2504 wrote:
We all agree that Force = mass x acceleration (speed)

But why is it that U are not looking at the equation and understanding that the resulting force is a component of two factors mass and acceleration.

Hi karthik,

You have a good solid attempt here (and I don't mean that maliciously... I am a former electrical engineering professor now nuclear engineer who has seen much worse), but there are a couple key aspects of this that I think is limiting your understanding.

We are refering to NET FORCE (the equation for which can change based on the system). In the example of a human muscle/joint complex:

NET FORCE = APPLIED FORCE - LOAD FORCE

NET FORCE = MASS * ACCELERATION

So, if you apply 120lbs of force (APPLIED FORCE) against 100lbs of resistance (LOAD FORCE)... the NET FORCE will be positive.

Since you now have a positive NET FORCE, the weight will positively ACCELERATE (forgive the pun :-) ).

The basic premise behind this whole 'lift as fast as you can' stuff is essentially that attempting to accelerate a weight results in you applying as much force as possible to the weight.

The higher the force, the more motor units are being recruited... there's no other way for a muscle to put more force through the joint than to recruit additional motor units and/or speed up the firing rate of those already contributing.

Great to have a response here Prof Chaos.

Pls correct me if am wrong here

NET FORCE = APPLIED FORCE - LOAD FORCE

Load force = Load on the barbell or machine

Applied force is what U as a lifter apply to lift the weight and since this should be a positive in order for the weight to accelerate we need to provide the necessary speed to lift the weight. All i say is use enough speed to control the movement of the weight so that the Net force still stays positive. This is all in discussion with the positive phase of the rep.

The negative phase of the rep is where things start taking a completely opposite dimension. This is the phase where one will have to resist the movement of the weight, cos applied forces will automatically be coupled with gravity leading to the resultant Net force being a positive always.


On a normal positive/negative set, the negative is very underloaded, so it would be more benifical to do the negative with a slight drop for the first quarter, or half of the negative, and then applay force to the weight, this way when the load is let to droop very slightly or lowered faster, the acceleration component means that the forces exerted on the load, and thereby by the muscles)by far exceeds the nominal weight of the load.

And the MMMTs will be far bigger.

Also if you are doing negative only, put on you 1RM and try lifting one hand {some exersices work better than others for this, the triceps pulley pressdowns or extensions are very good} and lower at a speed of 2 or 3 seconds for 20 reps, you will get a great pump after this, and will, see the reason for more force/tension on the muscles with a slightly fast negative.

karthik2504 wrote:
If the mass is increased keeping the acceleration controlled, one will definitely thoroughly tax the necessary muscle fibers without creating ground for injury.

I agree with U on the last point U have made... "The higher the force, the more motor units are being recruited". The following extract that I posted in my earlier post from Arthur would hold good here I suppose.

And remember while it is necessary to produce maximum-possible power in order to stimulate growth, it is NOT necessary to do so while you are actually strongest, actually able to produce the "most" power; the same degree of muscle-growth stimulation will be produced if such maximum-power production occurs only near the end of a set of several repetitions, at a point where your actual power production may be quite low ? at a point
where the earlier, non-maximum repetitions have weakened you momentarily.


I have to use my maximum power from the start, this is the way to activate all your fast muscle fibers, and otherwise I would not be able to get all the reps.


karthik2504 wrote:
Thus, while you could move quite fast during the first repetitions without cheating, restrict your actual speed of movement to a speed well below what you could do ? until at least the fourth repetition. In effect, the first three or four repetitions will move slower than necessary ? but after the fourth repetition, move the weight as fast as possible without cheating; which movement will be, in fact, quite slow. In this manner you will NOT be producing maximum possible power during the first three or four repetitions ?


You could try this at first, but I do not, see above.


karthik2504 wrote:
but you will be producing maximum possible power during the last several repetitions; and you will be GREATLY reducing the danger of injury. Also remember ? you are most likely to hurt yourself during a "first" repetition simply because you are strongest at that point; and so long as good form is maintained including properly performed cheating methods you become less likely to hurt yourself as you continue with the set, the second rep is less dangerous than the first rep, the third rep is less dangerous than the second rep, etc.


Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Professor Chaos wrote:
Karthik,

Good post. You have some solid points here. Let me try to organize the things we're talking about.

1. Your point regarding risk of injury from higher forces seems perfectly valid to me.

2. Physics stuff: You're still making some small errors with your explanation, but they really have no bearing on what we're getting at... So let's move on.

3. The most important issue we're discussing, I think, is this:

If the first reps of a HIT-style set do not recruit the entire motor unit pool (which they obviously don't), are the rest then activated later on once fatigue sets in and you have to strain harder against the weight?

Arthur Jones clearly thought the answer was yes. It doesn't seem like the neurophysiologists of today agree with him. I would love for someone to break this down to the nuts and bolts for me, because I don't understand all this ATP-PC time limit stuff that gets thrown around.

Would you say this is a fair assessment?


Will do tomorrow, or someone else might have the time today ???

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

Professor Chaos wrote:
To all,

I apologize if this has become an inappropriate forum for me. I have been training HIT style for the past 3 months and have been active on this website for information on HIT. Now that I have determined that it doesn't work for me, I will move on and leave you all in peace.

Cheers!


Professor Chaos,

I think your evaluation of your suitability is incorrect.

HIT is an acronym for High Intensity Training. Intensity in a scientific viewpoint would relate to the magnitude or density of effort and the resulting work and power produced to your present ability, to your reps, your sets, or your workout.

While I can understand that you likely see a number of immature, and aggressive posters, they are truly a minority to those reading this board. Your posts demonstrated an open, unencumbered approach, and are truly valuable in comparison to balance the sometimes distorted viewpoints of the less informed and less open.

Yours is not inappropriate by any stretch in comparison to some of the inarticulate vulgarity suffered here. If at all possible, I would suggest you reconsider your stance and continue to post as time allows. Your non-combative writing style and approach was surely refreshing, and far more appealing than some of the more low level postings.

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Professor Chaos

I'll second BioForce motion ;-)

Stay mate, we'll enjoy your unbias open discussion.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy