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
Motor Unit Activation
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

farhad

Massachusetts, USA

http://www.asep.org/..._Carpinelli.pdf

Summary:
motor unit activation is primarily dependent on the degree of effort and not the absolute amount of resistance when performing an exercise.

I think Carpinelli does not give enough important to weight and its role in motor unit activation. Although he does not rule it out, he seems to imply that using a weight that can be performed15-20 times in a set, can result in the same strength improvements as using weight which allow 5-6 repetitions.

A paradox?
Carpinelli states:

?Greater motor unit recruitment results in the ability to lift a heavier resistance and maximal force production requires maximal motor unit activation. However, force is not the prerequisite for recruitment. A greater force is the result of greater motor unit activation. The flawed belief that a heavy resistance (high force) is required for maximal motor unit activation was most accurately described as an invalid reverse inference of the size principle (7).?

How does greater motor unit recruitment RESULT in the ability to lift heavier resistance? Isn?t it the exact opposite? As you continue throughout a set, you are recruiting more motor units(true), but your muscle(s) will fatigue and become weaker. Obviously, as you reach muscular failure, your muscle will not be able to generate the same amount of effort as the first few repetitions. You cannot produce the same amount of force. So greater motor unit activation will result in lesser force generation. Correct? What am I neglecting?

Also force HAS to be a prerequisite for recruitment. No? I assume ?force? in this context means resistive force. Even swatting at air requires force (weight of your arms). I am not sure what he means by his statement.




additional details to his thesis

http://bmsi.ru/...c7-ad36356db8ea

http://www.scribd.com/...stance-Training
Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

Fatigued based recruitment is what he is talking about.

The more fatigued you become throughout a set the greater the number of motor units are cycled through and recruited until they run out of "omph"
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

The RATE LIMITING step in the release of chemical energy at the cellular level has been conclusively shown to be the contractile event that uses the energy and not the metabolic pathways that resupply it.

Measurements made possible within living skeletal muscle by nuclear magnetic resonance spin technology indicate that the phosphocreatine reaction is capable of resynthesizing ATP several times more rapidly than the contractile proteins within the muscle cells can use it.

Figure out the CONTRACTILE EVENT, as no one has yet, and this discussion goes away.
Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

marcrph wrote:
The RATE LIMITING step in the release of chemical energy at the cellular level has been conclusively shown to be the contractile event that uses the energy and not the metabolic pathways that resupply it.

Measurements made possible within living skeletal muscle by nuclear magnetic resonance spin technology indicate that the phosphocreatine reaction is capable of resynthesizing ATP several times more rapidly than the contractile proteins within the muscle cells can use it.

Figure out the CONTRACTILE EVENT, as no one has yet, and this discussion goes away.


Sounds fascinating...where can I read about this?
Open User Options Menu

farhad

Massachusetts, USA

marcrph wrote:

Figure out the CONTRACTILE EVENT, as no one has yet, and this discussion goes away.


Well then, sounds like this thread will be going on for awhile. lol.

thanks for the input.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...20801132723.htm
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...pubmed/22732427
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Sprint Exercise Performance:
Does Metabolic Power Matter?
by Matthew W. Bundle &
Peter G. Weyand
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

HamsFitness wrote:
Fatigued based recruitment is what he is talking about.

The more fatigued you become throughout a set the greater the number of motor units are cycled through and recruited until they run out of "omph"


THINK........

ALL the previous and current strength athletes use low reps and multiple sets and GOT results. Along comes a non-participant in strength sports and claims similar strength gains can be had with high repetitions and training to fatigue.

It just doesn't work that way!
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Sprint Exercise Performance:
Does Metabolic Power Matter?
by Matthew W. Bundle &
Peter G. Weyand
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

farhad wrote:

Carpinelli states:

?Greater motor unit recruitment results in the ability to lift a heavier resistance and maximal force production requires maximal motor unit activation. However, force is not the prerequisite for recruitment. A greater force is the result of greater motor unit activation. The flawed belief that a heavy resistance (high force) is required for maximal motor unit activation was most accurately described as an invalid reverse inference of the size principle (7).?

How does greater motor unit recruitment RESULT in the ability to lift heavier resistance? -Resistance-Training



Well over time the motor units that are recruited may adapt and hypertrophy. This cannot usually happen if they're not recruited.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

From THE study:

"In our running experiments, we found
little difference between normoxic and hypoxic sprint performances lasting 60 seconds or less, despite aerobic contributions that were reduced by as much as 25% in the hypoxic condition."

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

Therefore breathing is a NON-ISSUE in weight lifting. All the talk about valsalva is lunacy. Weight lifting is an anaerobic task. Anything below 60 seconds does not matter at all. Taking a glassful of water out of the ocean will not affect the level of the ocean.
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

marcrph wrote:
From THE study:

"In our running experiments, we found
little difference between normoxic and hypoxic sprint performances lasting 60 seconds or less, despite aerobic contributions that were reduced by as much as 25% in the hypoxic condition."

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

Therefore breathing is a NON-ISSUE in weight lifting. All the talk about valsalva is lunacy.


No because Valsalva is considered a health risk not an inferior means to promote hypertrophy.
Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

marcrph wrote:
HamsFitness wrote:
Fatigued based recruitment is what he is talking about.

The more fatigued you become throughout a set the greater the number of motor units are cycled through and recruited until they run out of "omph"

THINK........

ALL the previous and current strength athletes use low reps and multiple sets and GOT results. Along comes a non-participant in strength sports and claims similar strength gains can be had with high repetitions and training to fatigue.

It just doesn't work that way!


Thanks for the links.

The fatigue based recruitment was just an explanation of how it works is all.

Although for hypertrophy it certainly has it's place. Heavy and hard all the time past 25 years old just batters most people and for hypertrophy it isn't needed all the time.
Open User Options Menu

douglis

farhad wrote:

Carpinelli states:

?Greater motor unit recruitment results in the ability to lift a heavier resistance and maximal force production requires maximal motor unit activation. However, force is not the prerequisite for recruitment.


I believe this study confirms what Carpinelli states with the most absolute way.Furthermore it's the first study that showed even greater activation during the final reps with a lighter load(15RM) compared with a heavier one(3RM).

"During the failure set, normalized EMG was significantly lower during the first repetition and significantly higher during the latter repetitions compared with the heavy 3-RM set"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...pubmed/21986694
Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

douglis wrote:
farhad wrote:

Carpinelli states:

?Greater motor unit recruitment results in the ability to lift a heavier resistance and maximal force production requires maximal motor unit activation. However, force is not the prerequisite for recruitment.


I believe this study confirms what Carpinelli states with the most absolute way.Furthermore it's the first study that showed even greater activation during the final reps with a lighter load(15RM) compared with a heavier one(3RM).

"During the failure set, normalized EMG was significantly lower during the first repetition and significantly higher during the latter repetitions compared with the heavy 3-RM set"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...1986694


Great study, people look at me like a lunatic when I say heavier weights doesn't automatically mean more effort.
Open User Options Menu

overfiftylifter

If one reviews studies on blood flow restriction/Kaastu, where a more local hypoxia condition is produced, much of the same fiber reactions can be produced with much lower loads.

The belief that training with lower loads, when performed with great applied effort, produces reactions similar and possibly greater than higher load lifting,in regards skeletal muscle hypertrophy is found in much of the research from McMaster.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Acerimmer1 wrote:
marcrph wrote:
From THE study:

"In our running experiments, we found
little difference between normoxic and hypoxic sprint performances lasting 60 seconds or less, despite aerobic contributions that were reduced by as much as 25% in the hypoxic condition."

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

Therefore breathing is a NON-ISSUE in weight lifting. All the talk about valsalva is lunacy.

No because Valsalva is considered a health risk not an inferior means to promote hypertrophy.


It matters little if you breath or not in the first 60 seconds of any anaerobic activity.

Valsalva is protective mechanism for very heavy single attempts. Only ill-informed, ignorant HITers argue against this. BTW...they also deadlift about 250.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

HamsFitness wrote:
marcrph wrote:
HamsFitness wrote:
Fatigued based recruitment is what he is talking about.

The more fatigued you become throughout a set the greater the number of motor units are cycled through and recruited until they run out of "omph"

THINK........

ALL the previous and current strength athletes use low reps and multiple sets and GOT results. Along comes a non-participant in strength sports and claims similar strength gains can be had with high repetitions and training to fatigue.

It just doesn't work that way!

Thanks for the links.

The fatigue based recruitment was just an explanation of how it works is all.

Although for hypertrophy it certainly has it's place. Heavy and hard all the time past 25 years old just batters most people and for hypertrophy it isn't needed all the time.


I never said it did not work. However, strength training is best served with low reps and multiple sets.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

douglis wrote:
farhad wrote:

Carpinelli states:

?Greater motor unit recruitment results in the ability to lift a heavier resistance and maximal force production requires maximal motor unit activation. However, force is not the prerequisite for recruitment.


I believe this study confirms what Carpinelli states with the most absolute way.Furthermore it's the first study that showed even greater activation during the final reps with a lighter load(15RM) compared with a heavier one(3RM).

"During the failure set, normalized EMG was significantly lower during the first repetition and significantly higher during the latter repetitions compared with the heavy 3-RM set"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...1986694


Whenever motor recruitment and low reps/heavy weights gets discussed, douglis comes calling. Funny how some dislike heavy weights.

Here is the real truth.

http://trainingscience.net/?pa...
Open User Options Menu

douglis

marcrph wrote:
Here is the real truth.

http://trainingscience.net/..._id=471


Your "real truth" is a link?We can discuss all the studies at the reference list one by one.I hope you had the time to read them carefully.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

douglis wrote:
marcrph wrote:
Here is the real truth.

http://trainingscience.net/?pa...

Your "real truth" is a link?We can discuss all the studies at the reference list one by one.I hope you had the time to read them carefully.


Since you want to discuss worthless high rep strength training and even more worthless low load strength training, I do not see what I have to gain from any discussion with you or any other of your ilk. I can see myriads of successful examples doing exactly what I stated. I don't need your advice, as I have already proven to myself what works.....and it ain't SS. Thomas Delorme has been around forever, and clueless ones like you still haven't figured it out.

Oh wise one....where are your examples of low load, high repetition successful strength athletes? RenEx....SuperSlow....Quit drinking the Kool Aid.
Open User Options Menu

overfiftylifter

Are any of the references from the paper come from research that has occurred in the last five years? Some commonly held conceptions have come in to question in the last five years. It was thought that at least 80% of 1RM was necessary for hypertrophy. This has been proven to be untrue.

Personally, I believe you are correct as far needing to train with higher loads to become better at exhibiting the ability to lift higher loads. The question is your training goals. If your goal is muscle activation, research suggests that more than one path may exist.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

overfiftylifter wrote:
Are any of the references from the paper come from research that has occurred in the last five years? Some commonly held conceptions have come in to question in the last five years. It was thought that at least 80% of 1RM was necessary for hypertrophy. This has been proven to be untrue.

Personally, I believe you are correct as far needing to train with higher loads to become better at exhibiting the ability to lift higher loads. The question is your training goals. If your goal is muscle activation, research suggests that more than one path may exist.


The topic was motor unit activation, not hypertrophy.

FWIW, it takes strength to "exhibit' the ability to lift heavy loads. Low loads and high TUL's do not work to "exhibit" lifting heavy loads.

I await your exception to all the empirical evidence.
Open User Options Menu

farhad

Massachusetts, USA

http://bmsi.ru/...c7-ad36356db8ea

(from pg 1):

"Although it was not a training study, the motor unit activation study with a profound practical application to resistance training was conducted by Behm and colleagues (6). They recruited 14 young males who were performing resistance training a minimum of three times a week for at least one year. The participants were tested for voluntary and electrically stimulated motor unit activation (interpolated twitch technique) before and after performing 5RM, 10RM and 20RM dumbbell curls (RM = repetition maximum). Repetition duration was 3 seconds concentric, 1 second isometric, and 3 seconds eccentric, with a total time-under-load of 35, 70 and 140 seconds for the 5RM, 10RM and 20RM, respectively. There was no significant difference in voluntary motor unit activation following the three protocols. The three different amounts of resistance used in the 5RM, 10RM and 20RM protocols (and the different time-under-load) elicited similar activation levels of motor units (93.5 to 95.5%) because there was a maximal effort (RM) on the last repetition of each protocol"
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Ellington Darden
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy