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
Eccentric Physics on Force/Power
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Waynes

Switzerland

Eccentric physics on force/power. Please also include any in gym practical scenarios.

Hi there all,

As we are having a good POLITE debate on my Force and Power thread, so thought it best not to confuse things, and best open another one for this.

There seem that there are a few from the old debate that were thinking you could produce more force, or be using more force {strength} if you lower the weight slower as to faster. Therefore, I was wounding why your people were saying this, as this is not so.

First lets start the ball rolling with what evidence or proof do you have ??? And please state if you are talking about negative only training, or normal positive and negative training.

Secondly, simple question, how long does it take 50 pounds to drop .5 of a meter from a still position ??? And how did you work it out.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Waynes wrote:
Simple question, how long does it take 50 pounds to drop .5 of a meter from a still position ??? And how did you work it out.



There must be someone here that can answer the above question ??? its quite simple ???


As most should know most of the damage, soreness, DOMs people have is caused during the eccentric tensioning. Thus, the tension is greater on the recruited muscle fibers during this phase than the concentric.

The way the negative work, is a braking rather than sliding system, and this is the cause of this greater tensioning and damage.

So why not increase the weight and/or the speed of the movement, this would increase tension and muscle fiber damage, right ???

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Lets take a closer look at this average force and tension.

Lets say we are both the same strength, ROM = .5 and your reps are 3/3 and mine .5/.5, and our RM = 100 pounds and we are using 80% = 80 pounds.

When you do you 3 second concentric only, from the first milly second to the last milly second you are putting more and more tension on the muscles, right ??? I do the same on my reps. Now the average force is the same on your 3 second concentric, and the same on my .5 second concentric, thus, the tension will be the same, on both reps, do we agree ???

So what happens when you start doing your second rep ??? You put yet more tension on your muscles do you not ??? Do we agree ??? Thus if we agree, lets look back at what we agreed on first.

The average force is the same on your 3 second concentric, and the same on my .5 second concentric, thus the tension from both reps will be the same.

So what must happen when I start doing my second rep ??? It must put more tension on the muscles than my first rep at .5 and more tension than your first rep at 3 seconds. And then in all I do 5 more reps than you in the same time frame, thus even thought its the same average force for each rep, each one of my reps, will keep adding tensions on the muscles, for each and every rep, and in the end I will have put 5 times more tension on the muscles than your 3 second rep.

Now what happens on the faster eccentric ??? Yes the same as above.


Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Waynes wrote:
Waynes wrote:
Simple question, how long does it take 50 pounds to drop .5 of a meter from a still position ??? And how did you work it out.



There must be someone here that can answer the above question ??? its quite simple ???


As most should know most of the damage, soreness, DOMs people have is caused during the eccentric tensioning. Thus, the tension is greater on the recruited muscle fibers during this phase than the concentric.

The way the negative work, is a braking rather than sliding system, and this is the cause of this greater tensioning and damage.

So why not increase the weight and/or the speed of the movement, this would increase tension and muscle fiber damage, right ???

Wayne


One for John Casler {BIO-FORCE} as I think he said most of the DOMs was from the negative ??? I did say think.

And NO eccentrics are NOT the reason for DOMS, it's any change in the force length relationship compared to what the RBE is accustomed to.

From Enoka
The sensation of tenderness appears to be triggered by the loss of cellular calcium homeostasis (Clarkson, Cyrnes, McCarmick, Turcotte, & White, 1986; Friden & Lieber, 1997' Jackson, Jones, & Edwards, 1984) due to the activity-induced disruption of sarcomeres. A high intracellular calcium concentration activates proteolytic and lipolytic systems that initiate the degradation of cellular structures (Armstrong, 1990).

Because this inflamatory process has a time course smilar to that of the heightened tenderness (Lieber, Schimtz, et al., 1994) and thre is an appropriate activation of the immune system (Malm, Lenkel, & Sjodin, 1999), the sensation of soreness is usually attributed to the inflammatory response.

Wayne

Open User Options Menu

Balance

Waynes wrote:
There seem that there are a few from the old debate that were thinking you could produce more force, or be using more force {strength} if you lower the weight slower as to faster. Therefore, I was wounding why your people were saying this, as this is not so.


I'm not sure who said that but you are correct that they are wrong.

Looking back at the thread, I instead see several people describing the eccentric portion of the rep correctly on page 53. Reread that page starting with Natural's post, and then Ron's where he agrees, and then douglis quotes Jeff saying the same thing.

That is, The average force is the same independent of rep speed and equal to the weight being used.

That is the correct physics.

The eccentric portion works just like the concentric. In both cases, you have an object that begins and ends at rest. Greater early accelerations must be followed by greater later decelerations to bring it back to a state of rest at the bottom position.

*I am not however convinced of Natural and Ron's conclusion that the faster reps still provide a better stimulus for hypertrophy. Too bad the thread was ruined.

--------------

That Enoka quote seems to say that nobody knows. Sadly that is the case regarding most things in most fields.

Science is a lot less about facts than most people realize.

We use what works at the time. After all, Newton's Laws were proven 'wrong' long ago by Einstein. It's pretty likely that Einstein's equations aren't the true representation of things either, but both are close enough to yield usable results under certain conditions.
Open User Options Menu

douglis

Balance wrote:


The eccentric portion works just like the concentric. In both cases, you have an object that begins and ends at rest. Greater early accelerations must be followed by greater later decelerations to bring it back to a state of rest at the bottom position.



Hi Balance...you're absolutely right.
Voices of reason are rare in this forum so they're always welcome.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Balance wrote:
Waynes wrote:
There seem that there are a few from the old debate that were thinking you could produce more force, or be using more force {strength} if you lower the weight slower as to faster. Therefore, I was wounding why your people were saying this, as this is not so.


I'm not sure who said that but you are correct that they are wrong.

Looking back at the thread, I instead see several people describing the eccentric portion of the rep correctly on page 53. Reread that page starting with Natural's post, and then Ron's where he agrees, and then douglis quotes Jeff saying the same thing.

That is, The average force is the same independent of rep speed and equal to the weight being used.

That is the correct physics.


Hi Balance, And a warm welcome.

I suppose your right there, but what if I thow a spanner into the works !!!

Hi all,

And for the ones interested, shall we ignore ALL attempts at mocking.

I do understand the average is supposed to be the same. I was told this by John 5 years ago, and with Jeff {physicist} Pinter over a year ago. BUT before I write the below, I will have to say, if the average force is the same it makes NO difference to my debate outcome, in other words the average force issue is NOT the debate, as basically I am debating 6 average forces to 1, thats what I can NOT understand why/how some people are not getting this.

So lets just take a look at the way we have worked out the average force.

1,
When doing the lowering fast, as above, the weight of the load exceeds the nominal weight, and then you can create the LARGEST MMMTs {momentary Maximum Muscle Tensions} There tensions will get as high as 140%

Thus if we split the concentric into 10 parts, and count the force going onto the muscles it might go like this in a normal rep. RM 100, using 80%

Normal slow rep,
80, 80, 80, 80, 80, 80, 80, 80, 80, 80 = 800 divided by 10 = 80 average force.

Faster concentric,
100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, zero, zero = divided by 80 average force.




2,
BUT when you decelerate in the faster rep you are still using a force, as the only time your not using a force is when you have stopped or using a force in the other direction, so what about the below scenarios ???


Faster concentric and eccentric rep force going onto the muscles. Here I am counting the MMMTs, see above.
140, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 50, 5 = 895 divided by 10 = 89.5, average force.

Faster concentric and eccentric rep force exerted by the muscles,
100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 50, 5 = 895 divided by 10 = 85.5, average force.

Thus most should be able to see that the faster the transition from negative to positive the higher the MMMTs {momentary Maximum Muscle Tensions} this then is a must if you want to create the highest forces thus tensions on the muscles.

And remember this is not just done once, but several times in a set.


Slow rep for 12 reps,
960.

Fast reps for 12 reps,
1026

66 pounds more force used in the faster rep.


Faster concentric and eccentric rep force going onto the muscles. Here I am counting the MMMTs, see above.

Slow rep for 12 reps,
960.

Fast reps for 12 reps,
1074

114 pounds more force used in the faster rep.



3,
therefore, we have;

Slow set,
80 average force, 4-second long rest for the negative, 80 average force, 4-second long rest for the negative 80 average force, and so on.

Fast set,
85.5, {89.5} average force, .5 of a second rest, BANG {immediately} 85.5, {89.5} average force, BANG {immediately} 85.5, {89.5} average force, and so on.



4,
And when you get used to these faster rep, you can even try a little drop as the negative is under loaded. Try a little drop from just about half way down until the last 20% and those MMMTs will be ever so high.



5,
Next, it must be a little slower for negative only, 1 of the reasons in the negative only will not be under loaded, and the weight will be very heavy, but no time now back later.





Balance wrote:
The eccentric portion works just like the concentric. In both cases, you have an object that begins and ends at rest. Greater early accelerations must be followed by greater later decelerations to bring it back to a state of rest at the bottom position.


Wayne

Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

douglas wrote;
First of all you got to clear some terms in your mind.
The average force is the same either you do 1 or 100 reps and either the reps last 1 or 100 seconds.


Yesish.

But average is average, 6 fast reps have more POWER not more force. Yes I know that, but Power is the rate at which work is performed or energy is converted. Or the rate at which force is done over time. THUS POWER IS FORCE, AS ITS JUST THE RATE AT WHICH FORCE IS DONE OVER A TIME

Some of you may think I am talking about force and mean power, but as I said they are basically the same.

And why I have been saying force when its more right to say power all along is the following.

You can work out the extra force needed to move any weight at any speed for any distance using F=ma.

BUT, if you try to do this will muscles it will not work. As if you had a machine that could move 75% of its maximum force for 1m and then stop immediately, the 80% or lets call it 80 pounds would still travel about/roughly 50mm {2 inches} BUT THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN when a human person does this, it will NOT travel out of the average person hands at all, unless you practise this.

And why is this you may asked ??? And this was Johns thinking, its because of the biomechanical advantages and disadvantages in the rep, thus the muscles cannot put out full force like a machine.

Thus, physics is right and wrong, as in this situation you have to add in some very complicated biomechanics.

SO THIS IS WHY I KEEP SAYING FORCE RATHER THAN POWER, AS IF YOU TRY AND LOOK OUTSIDE OF PHYSICS AND IN LAYMANS THINKINGS POWER IS FORCE, ITS JUST THE RATE OF FORCE AT WHICH IS DONE OVER A TIME AND DISTANCE

AlsoI have done more work, as work is the amount of energy transferred by a force {note its FORCE again} acting through a distance.

douglas wrote;
So if you'll do 6 reps and I'll do 1 rep we will have produced the same muscular work.


How in the World do you work that out ??? In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance a distance, and I have moved my weight 3.8m more than you, you move it 1m, I move it 4.8m in the same time frame, thus more work has to be done.


Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Lets take a closer look at this average force and tension.

Lets say we are both the same strength, ROM = .5 and your reps are 3/3 and mine .5/.5, and our RM = 100 pounds and we are using 80% = 80 pounds.

When you do you 3 second concentric only, from the first milly second to the last milly second you are putting more and more tension on the muscles, right ???


I do the same on my reps. Now lets say the average force is the same on your 3 second concentric, and the same on my .5 second concentric, thus, the tension will be the same, on both reps, do we agree ???

So what happens when you start doing your second rep ??? You put yet again the same amount of tension on your muscles do you not ??? Therefore, the muscles have had this same tension on them twice so far, and this fatigues or hopefully stimulates them more than just one tension. Do we agree ??? Thus if we agree, lets look back at what we agreed on first.

And that is what I am saying. Both the reps at .5/.5 and 2/4 put the same tension on the muscles; but I put that same level of tension on the muscles 5 more times in the same time frame. Thats why I keep saying I have moved the weight also 5 times more the distance, and that means again 5 times more tension on the muscles.

When I talk of tension, tension is the measure of the pulling force exerted by the muscles. Therefore, if I do a curl my muscles exert a force and this force creates tension on/in the muscles. Thus if I do 1 rep it creates tension, and another rep creates the tension again.


100 pounds of force creates 100 pounds of tension on the muscles, then yes


But one your slow rep you never use a 100 pounds of force, your only using 80 pounds all the time, but I am using 100 pounds all the time. Yes I know our force goes down thought-out the rep.

ROM is 1m. As I am using 100 pounds of force for 4.8m that takes 3 seconds, and you are using 80 pounds of force for 1m only, that takes also takes 3 seconds. Its simple F=ma, and as you know, its the forces at work on different objects by multiplying the mass of the object by the acceleration of the object.



Lets say the ROM/rep of use bench press is 6m. You press the 80 pounds with 80 pounds of force for 1m that takes 3 seconds. However, I press the 80 pounds with 100 pounds of force for 4.8m that takes 3 seconds.


Well actually as you know, I press the 80 pounds with 100 pounds of force for .8 of a meter, reverse it, and then press it with 100 pounds of force for .8 of a meter and so on.


Slow rep, moving at 3s per 1m.
F=50kg x 1m = 50N divided by 3 = 16.6N extra N is needed to move the 50kg 1m in 3 seconds. As 1N = 1kg, lets for fun put Ns into kgs = 16.6kgs.


Fast rep, moving at .5 per 1m
F=50 kg x 6m = 240N. Extra N is needed to move the 50kg 4.8m in 3 seconds. As 1N = 1kg, lets for fun put Ns into kgs = 240kgs divided by the 6 reps = 40N, lets for fun put Ns into kgs = 40kgs.


That works out about right, as we know you cannot produce a 10 pounds, or your RM on a lighter object which is moving.


So basically/roughly, I am producing 23.4N or 23.4kg {51.48Ib} more when doing 6 reps at .5/.5 to your 3/3, or have I done something wrong ???

And when you do 6 reps to my 36 reps which IS in the same time frame, I have used 140.4 or 140.4 {308.88Ib}

And when you do 12 reps to my 12 reps which is NOT in the same time frame, I have used 46.8N or 46.8kg {102.96Ib}

THATS ALL BECAUSE I AM MOVING THE SAME WEIGHT 6 TIMES THE DISTANCE IN THE SAME TIME FRAME, AND THIS TAKES MORE FORCE {STRENGTH}


Thats why I failed 55% faster on my video.


Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Obsessive Crap Again - One Has to Recognize That This Sort of Behavior Comes From People Who Have Been Institutionalized
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Discussions of these topics go round and round because of an absence of scientific fact. Everyone has an opinion, and there is little to prove the issue either way.

This will only be put to rest with scientific investigation of the TENSION in muscle fiber under a variety of loading conditions and accelerations.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

southbeach wrote:
Discussions of these topics go round and round because of an absence of scientific fact. Everyone has an opinion, and there is little to prove the issue either way.

This will only be put to rest with scientific investigation of the TENSION in muscle fiber under a variety of loading conditions and accelerations.


99.9% physics are facts, I mean you can not try debating 1 and 1 is not 2, can you ???

Hi all, this should get all all to see and understand what I have been on about.

Show me your facts then ??? And without mocking.


Yes I know that you can not add up force or tension, that is what I have been saying all along. But to make some people see, I have been adding them up, like powerlifter do for total poundage used.


Ahha, here is where I see Ron and D. are going wrong.

First its average force, over time as I said, if we were to let your slow less tension over time add up, it would not have the same force or tension as my fast high tension rep, this is why I keep on pointing out time and distance.

You 3 second concentric would only cover a distance of .17 of a meter for the time my .5 second concentric. Thus, which now has the most force ??? A person moving a 100 pounds .17 of a meter in .5 of a second, or a person moving 100 pounds .8 of a meter in .5 of a second ???

And remember in the same time frame I have moved my 100 pounds nearly 400% further than you do. Can you imagine the huge amount more force {strength} needed for this thus the huge amount more tension on the muscles this would be ??? I have not got the time to work it out now.

HOWEVER, where you low force/tension rep catches up {thats why I said hare and the tortoise} is that you are doing your low force/tension rep longer than me, thus then, and then only are the average force/tensions the same on the muscles.

As I said, I know it does not add up, that was just a figure of speech. But as you said; More reps do not have more tension, they have the SAME tension BUT repeated for more times.

However, if the muscles could shout out tension, they would shout out from the long slow low-tension rep, 100 pounds of tension just impacted on me. Fast rep high tension {83% less in time, but moved the same weight the same distance} 100 pounds of tension just impacted on me.

Therefore, we have 100 pounds of tension on the muscles for 1 rep at .5 of a second, and one for 3 seconds.

Then I do another 5 MORE rep in the same time frame as you, and my muscles shout out 5 more times, 100 pounds of tension just impacted on me. 100 pounds of tension just impacted on me. 100 pounds of tension just impacted on me. 100 pounds of tension just impacted on me. 100 pounds of tension just impacted on me.

And if we could add the tension up, but we cant, it would look like the below.

1 slow rep at 3 seconds concentric = 100 pounds of tension.

6 fast reps at .5 seconds concentric = 600 pounds of tension, or 100 pounds of tension impacted on the muscles 6 times in the same time frame that the slow rep only impacted 100 pounds of tension once.

Hope you get what I have been trying to explain now, later I will work out F=ma on the both reps for the same time frame.

Wayne


Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Waynes wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Discussions of these topics go round and round because of an absence of scientific fact. Everyone has an opinion, and there is little to prove the issue either way.

This will only be put to rest with scientific investigation of the TENSION in muscle fiber under a variety of loading conditions and accelerations.

99.9% physics are facts, I mean you can not try debating 1 and 1 is not 2, can you ???

Hi all, this should get all all to see and understand what I have been on about.

Show me your facts then ??? And without mocking.


Yes I know that you can not add up force or tension, that is what I have been saying all along. But to make some people see, I have been adding them up, like powerlifter do for total poundage used.


Ahha, here is where I see Ron and D. are going wrong.

First its average force, over time as I said, if we were to let your slow less tension over time add up, it would not have the same force or tension as my fast high tension rep, this is why I keep on pointing out time and distance.

You 3 second concentric would only cover a distance of .17 of a meter for the time my .5 second concentric. Thus, which now has the most force ??? A person moving a 100 pounds .17 of a meter in .5 of a second, or a person moving 100 pounds .8 of a meter in .5 of a second ???

And remember in the same time frame I have moved my 100 pounds nearly 400% further than you do. Can you imagine the huge amount more force {strength} needed for this thus the huge amount more tension on the muscles this would be ??? I have not got the time to work it out now.

HOWEVER, where you low force/tension rep catches up {thats why I said hare and the tortoise} is that you are doing your low force/tension rep longer than me, thus then, and then only are the average force/tensions the same on the muscles.

As I said, I know it does not add up, that was just a figure of speech. But as you said; More reps do not have more tension, they have the SAME tension BUT repeated for more times.

However, if the muscles could shout out tension, they would shout out from the long slow low-tension rep, 100 pounds of tension just impacted on me. Fast rep high tension {83% less in time, but moved the same weight the same distance} 100 pounds of tension just impacted on me.

Therefore, we have 100 pounds of tension on the muscles for 1 rep at .5 of a second, and one for 3 seconds.

Then I do another 5 MORE rep in the same time frame as you, and my muscles shout out 5 more times, 100 pounds of tension just impacted on me. 100 pounds of tension just impacted on me. 100 pounds of tension just impacted on me. 100 pounds of tension just impacted on me. 100 pounds of tension just impacted on me.

And if we could add the tension up, but we cant, it would look like the below.

1 slow rep at 3 seconds concentric = 100 pounds of tension.

6 fast reps at .5 seconds concentric = 600 pounds of tension, or 100 pounds of tension impacted on the muscles 6 times in the same time frame that the slow rep only impacted 100 pounds of tension once.

Hope you get what I have been trying to explain now, later I will work out F=ma on the both reps for the same time frame.

Wayne




Hey Dick Brain - There is Physiology to Factor in Dick Brain
Open User Options Menu

Hitit

I think this thread is Wayne really talking with himself under different screen names trying to bait you guys....it's working!! Stop!
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Hitit wrote:
I think this thread is Wayne really talking with himself under different screen names trying to bait you guys....it's working!! Stop!


Hi Hitit,

No I am not, I am just showing the facts, as they are, thats is all, if anyone does not argee, they are welcome to debate, if not fine.

Hi all,

This is again where some and D. are going wrong, where do you get your energy equations from ???

Lets just say consentrics again. 1 rep at .5 second concentric because its travelled the same distance, that is 1m, thats the same distance as the 2 second concentric rep. So yes, its used the same energy, and thats the 60E in your example.

1 concentric at .5 of a second and 1 concentric at 2 seconds used the same energy.

Muscle can NOT burn 10E per second of energy per 100lbs of force, as you HAVE to add time and distance into the equation. The concept of power takes time into consideration. power is the rate at which work is performed or energy is converted. Its the amount of work performed during a certain time frame. Come on, I am sure you know this ??? If I moved a 100 pounds 10m in 10 seconds, and you moved 100 pounds 10m in 60 seconds are you telling me you would use 6 times more energy ??? NO, we would both use the same energy.


Sorry about this, but I think D. thinks think the below.

If a 2/4 rep has an average force of 100 lbs, one rep will burn 60E of energy (10E x 6 seconds)
If a .5/.5 rep has an average force of 100lbs, one rep since it lasts one second, will burn 10E of energy, six reps will burn 60E
.


Thats imposable ??? I am using a 100 pounds of force, and you are using a 100 pounds of force, so if we move the same weight the same distance, basically we MUST use the same energy. SO when I do another 5 more reps I use in all 6 times MORE energy than you, this is because I have used that 100 pounds of force 6 times in all to your 1, thus there is 6 times MORE tension on the muscles.


Every activity you burn roughly double the energy doing it twice as fast. Yes I know the below is running, but calories are burnt the same way, All the main difference in repping up and down to running is we are going against gravity more, but thats the same for a slow and fast rep !!!

Its evident that the rate at which we consume energy increases as we do things faster. This is obvious by the increases in heart rate, ventilation rate, and the rate of oxygen consumption as when we move faster.

And this is EXACTLY what happens when you rep faster, you use more heart rate, ventilation rate, and the rate of oxygen consumption, and this is because we are working harder using MORE force and power.


Wayne



Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Landau wrote:
Hey Dick Brain - There is Physiology to Factor in Dick Brain


Hi David,

I think I factored in everything did I not ???

Fast rep,
1,
Time ran 1 hour, Bodyweight 130 pounds Running, 20 mph (3 min mile) 1888 {calories} 10 mile ran 944 {calories} Work done 10 miles = 20mph = 10 miles in 30 minutes = 944 {energy calories}


2,
Time ran 1 hour, Bodyweight 130 pounds Running, 10 mph (6 min mile) 944 {calories} 10 mile ran 944 {calories} Work done 10 miles = 10mph = 10 miles in 1 hour = 944 {energy calories}

Slow rep,
3,
Time ran 1 hour, Bodyweight 130 Running, 5 mph (12 min mile) 472 {calories} Work done 10 miles = 5mph = 10 miles in 2 hours = 944. {energy calories}

NOTE, I ran 10 miles {we can say I did 4 of the .5 second concentric reps} in 30 minutes and used 944 {energy calories} You ran 10 miles in BUT IN 2 hours {thats your 2 second concentric} = 944. {energy calories}

NOTE we used the same energy, but I covered the distance {or done the rep 4 times faster} 4 times faster, but we used the same calories.

HOW are you some of you adding energy expenditure up like that ??? D. thinks you gain energy back when doing the eccentric or something ??? He also thinks that when you move an object up, and then done that they cancel each other out and no work has been done.

That may be so in some physics circles, but in the real World, we all know that the object has travelled up and down, thus work has been done in both directions. This is where I told D. he was going wrong, he takes the physics to literally, you have to use physics and real World physics, thats what really happens in the real World.

!!! Its evident that the rate at which we consume energy increases as we do things faster. This is obvious by the increases in heart rate, ventilation rate, and the rate of oxygen consumption as when we move faster.

Go climb a ladder 1 time in 30 seconds, then try it again but 3 times in 30 seconds, Then it will be obvious by the increases in heart rate, ventilation rate, and the rate of oxygen consumption when we your moving faster, THUS YOU HAVE TO USE MORE ENERGY WHEN DOING ANYTHING FASTER, TWICE AS FAST TWICE THE ENERGY, THREE TIMES AS FAST, THREE TIMES THE ENERGY.

Its just a simple thing that some are not seeing, or just looking at it the wrong way, as soon as you see it, and you should now, you will kick yourself, I know I did the first day about 5 years ago when I did tests on fast and slow reps.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

First, I don't understand why you are spending so much valuable time obsessing on this. You should be thinking of creative ways to manipulate your training and diet instead of concerning yourself with this sort of thing. But I'll play along:

First, you are comparing going up a ladder and running to weight training when neither one directly compares because there is no negative portion, all positive.

Lifting a heavy weight to the top with as much force as you can is good. No need to ever reduce weight so you can raise it really slow because then you are lifting too light on the negative portion of the rep. Lots of force and bar speed up, controlled down. Perfect.

Now, increasing the time of each rep would burn calories, but as a bodybuilder, why would you do that? Powerlifters do it for specific neurological reasons, not to build muscle! When you go fast, you miss out on the negative, and that just plain sucks. Then, there is no way to transition into the positive safely.

Yes, doing reps as fast as possible will seemingly burn more calories, but it is stupid to do so.

As for the topic question, yes, it creates more force to simply let it crash down with no control. However the force is a bad thing, since a pair of 100 pound dumbbells could conceivably tear your pecs doing it that way.

As for force and transfer of motion, just watch a powerlifter on how he generates extra using the type of thing you are talking about. However he speeds up on the way down to capitalize on the transfer to the positive.

As for burning calories, which is the only measure of internal human energy spent, I would think it would be a toss up. On one hand, your going fast, which involves the cardio system more. On the other your going slow, but going near or to failure, which also brings the cardiovascular system into play.

Do a set of 20 rep squats really fast, then do them with a controlled negative. I would use lighter weight on the first set so you don't get hurt.

If you get hurt, those extra 30 calories burned won't mean much.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Hi Kelei,

I am so glad you are seeing what I am getting at.

Lets see if Ron and D. can now get it.

Yes I did mean additional force on all accounts, as if your RM is a 100 pounds and your only moving 80% or 80 pounds you only have 20 pounds to play with, but there are the peak force as high as 140% "on" your muscles, but lets forget them for now.

I have posted this on the forum, as I hope thats ok ??? Will take it out if you say.

=KeleiOnce again, moving a load from point A to point B in 1/6th of the time doees not mean you are producing 6 times the amount of force, it means you are producing 6 times the amount of additional force.

If I leave out gravity it will look like this,

- A to B in 6 seconds = 10 pounds of force
- A to B in 1 second = 60 pounds of force

This results in a 1 to 6 ratio (500% difference)

Now if I include gravity it will look like this,

- A to B in 6 seconds = 110 pounds of force
- A to B in 1 second = 160 pounds of force

This results in a 1 to 1.45 ratio (45% difference)

Starting to make sense yet?


Yes that does make sense, your spot on, fantastic, its what I have been trying to tell Ron and D. BUT now we have ADD ALL my reps up, as this is the MAIN part of what I have been trying to tell people. I know you cant really add force up, but as I HAVE used this same force 5 MORE times, and its 5 MORE times tension on the muscles lets do this.

=Kelei
- A to B in 6 seconds = 110 pounds of force
- A to B in 1 second = 160 pounds of force

This results in a 1 to 1.45 ratio (45% difference)


- A to B in 6 seconds = 110 pounds of force,
- A to B in 1 second = 160 pounds of force,

- A to B in 1 second x 6 {reps} = 160 pounds of force, 160 x 6 = 960 pounds of force to only 110 pounds of force.

Fast reps = 960 pounds of force thus tension on the muscles.

Slow rep = 110 pounds of force thus tension on the muscles.

800% difference)
Both are in the same time frame.


800% seems to high ??? But I only just got up, will get back to this ???

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

N2 wrote:Wayne you are a complete and utter lost cause. This has been explained to you more times than I care to count especially by our friend Nwlifter.

I know, I have said force can NOT in that way be accumulated. BUT WHEN YOU LIFT A WEIGHT ONE TIME WITH A THE SAME AVERAGE FORCE, YOU GET A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TENSION ON THE MUSCLES, AND LIFT IT MORE ??? YES, YOU GET THAT SAME TENSION ON THE MUSCLES AGAIN AND AGAIN. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand ???

SLOW REP = 100 pounds of tension on the muscles, the exact amount of tension that the 1 fast rep puts on the muscles. Are we all agreeing so far ??? The slower rep is NOT putting more tension on the muscles because its for a longer time, its actually putting LESS tension on the muscles per unit of time, but because the slow rep is putting less tension on for more time, in the end its the exact same tension on the muscles, do we all agree so far ???

Fast rep = 100 pounds of tension on the muscles, the exact same amount on tension is put on the muscles as the 6 second slow rep, but the fast rep put this same tension on in 1/6th of the time, .5 of a second. Its putting MORE tension on the muscle per unit of time, per unit of less time.


AS THE MUSCLES FEEL EACH AND EVERY ON OF THESE TENSIONS, YOU MUST ADD THEM UP AS THIS IS THE WAY THE MUSCLES FEEL THEM AND WHY THE MUSCLES FATIGUES, I MEAN YOU CAN NOT JUST COUNT ONE OF THE TENSION FROM ONE OF THE FAST REPS, YOU HAVE TO COUNT THEM ALL, THE 6 THAT ARE DONE IN THE SAME TIME FRAME.

]Slow rep = 100 pounds of tension for 1 rep = 100 pounds of tension in all.

Fast rep = 100 pounds of tension for 1 rep x by 6 = 600 pounds of tension in all.

N2 wrote: FORCE IS NOT ACCUMULATED WORKLOAD IS

For 1 rep you will a force thus tension on the muscles once, for 6 reps you will use the same force 6 times, thus you will feel same tension on the muscles 6 times.

Why is this so hard for people to see ???

N2 wrote:
160lbs x 6 = 960lbs of accumulated workload or total tonnage NOT FORCE! NOT TENSION!
]

Yes your right, its accumulated workload or total tonnage. But do not your muscles fell this force tension each and every time you rep ??? OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT IN THE END MY MUSCLES ONLY FEEL THE 160 POUNDS ONCE ??? AND THEY DID NOT FEEL THE OTHER 6 x 160 POUNDS OF FORCE AND TENSIONS ON THE MUSCLES.

OF COURSE FORCE AND TENSION IS ACCUMULATED ON YOUR MUSCLES, AS THEY FEEL EACH AND EVERY FORCE THUS TENSION EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU REP ???

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

I checked my temperature outside, a few times. It was 30 degrees 10am, then 31 at 10:30am, now it's 35. I'm going to the beach since the total temperature now is 96F out LOL
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Nwlifter wrote:
I checked my temperature outside, a few times. It was 30 degrees 10am, then 31 at 10:30am, now it's 35. I'm going to the beach since the total temperature now is 96F out LOL
LOL. I view it in simplistic terms:

If I can bench 315 for 6, but reduce down to 225 for a set of 6. I then proceed to press225 with the same force I would press the 315, thus the bar moves faster and the muscles generate more force.

Thus, for hypertrophy reasons only, I should stick with benching 315, and simply using the required force to press the lighter weights, or eventually tap into the ability to use the added force if the reps are higher.

Simple, not over analyzed, but it seems to feel that way.

Thus, Super slow is not effective because it takes away from the positive portion of the rep and leads more towards endurance type training, or simply doing many more reps than needed with a much lighter weight.

Open User Options Menu

douglis

Waynes wrote:


]Slow rep = 100 pounds of tension for 1 rep = 100 pounds of tension in all.

Fast rep = 100 pounds of tension for 1 rep x by 6 = 600 pounds of tension in all.

Wayne


So Wayne...is it the same if we do 6 reps with 100 as with 2 reps with 300?The "accumulated force" in both cases is 600.Isn't it?
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Nwlifter wrote:
I checked my temperature outside, a few times. It was 30 degrees 10am, then 31 at 10:30am, now it's 35. I'm going to the beach since the total temperature now is 96F out LOL


LMAO!

I can't believe I checked in here and found my posts from BB.com copy/pasted here and replied to how funny is that!
Open User Options Menu

Balance

Nwlifter wrote:
I checked my temperature outside, a few times. It was 30 degrees 10am, then 31 at 10:30am, now it's 35. I'm going to the beach since the total temperature now is 96F out LOL


Exactly...

The main problem appears to be that Wayne is creating his own definition of "tension" that is distinct from "force" when they are actually the same thing here.

Wayne wrote:
When you do you 3 second concentric only, from the first milly second to the last milly second you are putting more and more tension on the muscles, right ???


No. There will be a constant tension equal to the load for all but the very beginning and end of the rep.

Wayne wrote
I put that same level of tension on the muscles 5 more times in the same time frame.


No, you sustained that same average level of tension over that time frame just as the other person did, and just as another person who simply held the same weight stationary for the same time interval would do.

Suppose you step on a scale. It will register the amount of "tension" that gravity pulling down on you creates on it. Now suppose you could step off and onto it infinitely fast, and the scale could read your weight equally fast as well. Each time you step onto it, it will register your weight, no matter how many 'reps' you do. Now suppose you simply stand on the scale for the same length of time as the other 'set' lasted - once again the scale will read your weight for the entire duration.

Now if instead additional people weighing the same as you came and stood on the scale at regular intervals, the reading would of course increase by your weight each 'rep' like in your explanations. BUT this would be like someone adding the same amount of weight to the bar each rep in a weight training exercise. And of course if you were working in the hypertrophy range % of your 1 rep max, you wouldn't even get that second rep, just like that scale probably couldn't tolerate too many Waynes standing on it.

---------------------------

Wayne wrote:
??? He also thinks that when you move an object up, and then done that they cancel each other out and no work has been done.

That may be so in some physics circles, but in the real World, we all know that the object has traveled up and down, thus work has been done in both directions.


Let's look at a real world example: In the real world Wayne and I could both have jobs lifting boxes up onto a truck. Wayne gets the idea that he could do twice as much work in the same period of time by moving each of his boxes back to where he got them after he puts them onto to the truck. The boss walks in as Wayne is looking all proud of himself and tells him that if he doesn't get some work done he is gonna get fired. Wayne is crushed but decides to double his efforts to try and keep his job and moves each box as quickly as he can to the truck and then just as quickly back to its starting spot. Wayne gets fired, and I collect my paycheck.

Interestingly, the next day Wayne is twice as sore as I am. Wayne wonders how this can be. His muscles would also fire him if they could. They don't care that Wayne did no work on the boxes; they were kept under tension by the boxes a lot longer than mine were.

In summary:

As douglis tried to explain to you before, you do 0 work on the load, and thus the related power expression is 0.

However, as douglis has pointed out before, the work or power in relation to the load are not the ones that you should be concerned about anyway.

The load is just a tool we use to allow the muscles to exert a force(tension) over a span of time.

If you want to talk about 'power' then look a the rate of energy expenditure of the involved musculature. If the fast and slow rep sets have equal durations (which I believe correct) we have the same average force exerted for the same time and thus the same energy expenditure in that time frame.

------------------------------------

Wayne wrote:Hi Balance, And a warm welcome.

douglis wrote:
Hi Balance...you're absolutely right.
Voices of reason are rare in this forum so they're always welcome.

Thank you. However, it's clear that not everyone here feels that way.

------------------------------------

There's more to address concerning the other posters, but this is already long, and I want people to read the nice little stories.

Thanks.
Open User Options Menu

TOM C

Hitit wrote:
I think this thread is Wayne really talking with himself under different screen names trying to bait you guys....it's working!! Stop!


You could be right!

Landau wrote:

"Obsessive Crap Again - One Has to Recognize That This Sort of Behavior Comes From People Who Have Been Institutionalized"

David,

LOL - that's a good one.

Wayne,

I usually ignore your posts as they are usually all the same stuff, but it's a slow day and I had a great workout this morning, so it might be fun to respond to your post.

Wayne wrote:

".... I mean you can not try debating 1 and 1 is not 2, can you ???


Wayne,

In the long history of the physical universe 1 and 1 have never been 2, except in theory. In order for 1 and 1 to be 2 in the physical universe not only would the two objects have to be totally identical (down to every atom - which is impossible), but they would have to occupy the same position in space and time - another impossibility. So two similar objects are "sort of" two, but for convenience we all pretend they are two.

Wayne wrote:

"....99.9% physics are facts...."

There is strong evident in quantum physics that the standard "laws of Physics" are violated constantly (no, that is not a debate I want to get in to).

Physics: the branch of science concerned with the study of properties and interaction of space, time, matter and energy.

Physiology: The biological study of the functions of living organisms and their parts.

To apply Physics to weight training in a theorical sense is okay as it gives a concept of the forces involved, but to attempt to rigidly apply physics, as you are attempting to do, to a bio-chemical organism doesn't work.

You keep asking, "Why don't they get it?" They do get it and that is why they ignore you. There are numerous people on here who understand physics far better then you and know its limitations when applied to a living chemical body. So some of the stuff you are saying is true in theory but it is irrelevant in reality.

You, also, seem to think that performing fast reps is some new type of training. It's not. I will have to paraphrase here as it was a long time ago to remember:

"...we have the trainee perform each repetition as fast as fast, do as many reps as possible in as short a time as possible...."

Do you know who said that and when? It was Arthur Jones in ads for Nautilus in Ironman magazine in the early 1970's. When the Nautilus equipment first came out, that is the way we trained on it - as fast as possible. It produced some results but not necessary better or as good as other methods. Fast training is just one of numerous methods available with good and bad points.

Looking at your own results, from your posted videos you have achieved some definite results (good for you) but I would consider your development that of an advanced beginner (unless you want to post some photos to prove me wrong), so you need to look at where your theories are in error and you are not achieving advanced results.

You might want to start as to the role of tendons in weight training. While there is still some debate, the theory that makes the most sense (to me) is that tendons are like thousands of tiny springs that load (store power) on the eccentric and release that power on the concentric. The two ways that maximum tendon activation is achieved is fast movement on eccentric and/or using heavy weights. A slow movement on the eccentric releases the stored energy in the tendon before the concentric starts so you get more muscle involvement on the concentric (rather than being lifted by the stored power in the tendons).

Now, tendon development is not necessary a bad thing, it all depends on what your goals are. If you are looking for maximum muscular growth in the shortest time, then you want more muscle involvement and less tendon involvement. By the way, this would explain why some people have large strength increases but minimal muscular growth.

Perhaps, you would get better muscular development if rather than training your tendons, you trained your muscles instead.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy