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
Study: Genetic Response to Single Set vs Multiple Sets
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3
Author
Rating
Options

S.M.Punisher

Nwlifter wrote:
I think a big part though, is 'why' we lost strength during a set, think of the S.A.I.D. principle....

If we are trying to get more reps, purely due to effort (ignoring inhibition signals to allow further increases in activation to counter fatigue), those systems, logically, would be the main ones stimulated and trying to adapt.


The nervous system isn't firing into a vacuum, though. It's firing up muscle. If you keep pushing then the neuromuscular system as a whole is stressed further.

I'm still positive that hypertrophy isn't trying to make us stronger, it's trying to increase 'strength-endurance' of the muscles by adding more 'workers' (fibrils) to 'share the work', thus preventing that level of work from being such a survival threat if it's repeated again.

Logically, the body is adapting to 'what you did', not what it's guessing you 'might do next time'.


Strength-endurance and strength in and of itself aren't mutually exclusive; in fact are closely related, more so in some individuals/muscles than others. It would be difficult if not impossible to only increase strength endurance and yet not be capable of lifting more weight in the rep range you trained, or even in a lower rep range.

It depends on the definition chosen, but I see strength-endurance as a form of strength because the capacity to resist momentary fatigue is part of what helps you lift either more weight or do more reps. If you did 10 reps to failure one time then 12 reps with the same weight the next time, even if your one-rep max stayed the same you would still be able to lift more weight for 10 reps. Most people would say they got stronger in that scenario. And that's all I'm really getting at. When you add muscle, some aspect of what you are able to do goes up as well.

And since it's lifting weight that imposes the stress, I don't see how we can say that it isn't increased strength when the adaptation necessarily results in being able to easier handle the weight.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

S.M.Punisher wrote:


The nervous system isn't firing into a vacuum, though. It's firing up muscle. If you keep pushing then the neuromuscular system as a whole is stressed further.


Right, but what I'm emphasizing is that maintaining the max activation levels requires more and more neuro-endocrine output for that same maxed level of activation. Activation is maxed before failure, then the act of continuing, through conscious effort to over-ride inhibitory mechanisms, the higher release of adrenal hormones, etc. is increasing the CNS-Endocrine stress a lot for just a couple more reps with that same load and a touch more muscular fatigue.



Strength-endurance and strength in and of itself aren't mutually exclusive; in fact are closely related, more so in some individuals/muscles than others. It would be difficult if not impossible to only increase strength endurance and yet not be capable of lifting more weight in the rep range you trained, or even in a lower rep range.

It depends on the definition chosen, but I see strength-endurance as a form of strength because the capacity to resist momentary fatigue is part of what helps you lift either more weight or do more reps. If you did 10 reps to failure one time then 12 reps with the same weight the next time, even if your one-rep max stayed the same you would still be able to lift more weight for 10 reps. Most people would say they got stronger in that scenario. And that's all I'm really getting at. When you add muscle, some aspect of what you are able to do goes up as well.

And since it's lifting weight that imposes the stress, I don't see how we can say that it isn't increased strength when the adaptation necessarily results in being able to easier handle the weight.


Well,.. .mostly. People who gains strength and size with lighter loads, are not neural practiced for their true best 1Rm for example. And there are some other changes and adaptations that alter the strength-endurance ratio a bit (glycogen storage, ect.).

But, the main point is, is that muscles adapt to what you did, not what your going to do tomorrow. Total fatigue and ATP turnover is 'the stimulus', not momentary fatigue or 'momentary inroad'.

Example: What is the estimated strength of a muscle at failure with 80% of 1RM? It's just under 80 right? If you still had 81, you would lift the load, so at failure, you dropped just below 80. So that's a 20% inroad.

OK, now what is the momentary inroad at failure with 60% of 1RM? It's just less than 60 right? So that's a 40% inroad.

OK, lastly, what is the strength of a muscle, say 2 reps short of failure with 60% of 1RM? Maybe around 70%, so a 30% inroad.

that means, using a light load, well short of failure has a higher inroad then a heavier load to failure, yet it's NOT more stimulating right?





Open User Options Menu

S.M.Punisher

Nwlifter wrote:
Right, but what I'm emphasizing is that maintaining the max activation levels requires more and more neuro-endocrine output for that same maxed level of activation. Activation is maxed before failure, then the act of continuing, through conscious effort to over-ride inhibitory mechanisms, the higher release of adrenal hormones, etc. is increasing the CNS-Endocrine stress a lot for just a couple more reps with that same load and a touch more muscular fatigue.


But is it just a touch? When I do two sets with the intention of hitting the same number of reps, if I stop a couple of reps before failure on the first set I can get the same reps the second set. But if I get carried away and go close to failure right away (do those two extra reps and be incapable of more complete reps), I will get less or even significantly less reps at the second attempt.

Therefore, in my experience at least, muscle fatigue isn't increasing linearly with each rep. It's ramping up along with the neural fatigue. The muscles and the nervous system can't be preferentially fatigued, it doesn't seem, because the neuromuscular system is an integrated system end to end.

Well,.. .mostly. People who gains strength and size with lighter loads, are not neural practiced for their true best 1Rm for example. And there are some other changes and adaptations that alter the strength-endurance ratio a bit (glycogen storage, ect.).

But, the main point is, is that muscles adapt to what you did, not what your going to do tomorrow. Total fatigue and ATP turnover is 'the stimulus', not momentary fatigue or 'momentary inroad'.

Example: What is the estimated strength of a muscle at failure with 80% of 1RM? It's just under 80 right? If you still had 81, you would lift the load, so at failure, you dropped just below 80. So that's a 20% inroad.

OK, now what is the momentary inroad at failure with 60% of 1RM? It's just less than 60 right? So that's a 40% inroad.

OK, lastly, what is the strength of a muscle, say 2 reps short of failure with 60% of 1RM? Maybe around 70%, so a 30% inroad.

that means, using a light load, well short of failure has a higher inroad then a heavier load to failure, yet it's NOT more stimulating right?


The higher inroad with the lighter weight is shorter lasting. You might do a set to positive and then negative failure with an inroad not as deep momentarily, but several hours later that inroad will still be noticeable as you'll literally be weaker. Even just leaning against a wall with your hand may be difficult if you've done chest/triceps for example.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

But is it just a touch? When I do two sets with the intention of hitting the same number of reps, if I stop a couple of reps before failure on the first set I can get the same reps the second set. But if I get carried away and go close to failure right away (do those two extra reps and be incapable of more complete reps), I will get less or even significantly less reps at the second attempt.

Therefore, in my experience at least, muscle fatigue isn't increasing linearly with each rep. It's ramping up along with the neural fatigue. The muscles and the nervous system can't be preferentially fatigued, it doesn't seem, because the neuromuscular system is an integrated system end to end.


How do you know it's not neural fatigue that's limiting your next set when you do one after a very intense set? We can't know, as you said, we cannot seperate. But logically, the last 2 reps have super high neural output, yet due to the laws of thermal dynamics, use the exact same energy as the first two reps. So each rep would fatigue equally if the load was equal and the TUL was equal, it would use the exact same amount of ATP per second. This really points the finger at neural fatigue with super high intensity sets.

The higher inroad with the lighter weight is shorter lasting. You might do a set to positive and then negative failure with an inroad not as deep momentarily, but several hours later that inroad will still be noticeable as you'll literally be weaker. Even just leaning against a wall with your hand may be difficult if you've done chest/triceps for example.

right but the idea was 'momentary inroad', its also short lasting with very heavy loads, many who do things like 8x3 only need a minute rest between since it uses so little of the glycogenic systems. But.. the inroad would be momentarily deeper with 2 reps short of failure with 60% over 'to failure' with 80+%...
Open User Options Menu

S.M.Punisher

Nwlifter wrote:
How do you know it's not neural fatigue that's limiting your next set when you do one after a very intense set? We can't know, as you said, we cannot seperate. But logically, the last 2 reps have super high neural output, yet due to the laws of thermal dynamics, use the exact same energy as the first two reps. So each rep would fatigue equally if the load was equal and the TUL was equal, it would use the exact same amount of ATP per second. This really points the finger at neural fatigue with super high intensity sets.


The TUL increases though with those last couple of reps. A typical set at 1/1 might go like this for example (positive-phase TUL): 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 4. That slowdown is what compromises output on the next set (thinking of just a 2-set example). I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think that can be all neural; especially when motivation is super high.

right but the idea was 'momentary inroad', its also short lasting with very heavy loads, many who do things like 8x3 only need a minute rest between since it uses so little of the glycogenic systems. But.. the inroad would be momentarily deeper with 2 reps short of failure with 60% over 'to failure' with 80+%...

I can't remember what that has to do with the point lol. Good points in any case. Again all I'm saying is that more muscle necessarily means more work capacity, whether we choose to call it strength in any particular case or not.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Good point... if the rep slows, fatigue per rep increases...

Heck, I dunno lol. Muscle and neural, some combo, probably depends on the person too, motivation,....

I know if I do set, get tired lol
Open User Options Menu

sirloin

hdlifter wrote:
In all my years/decades of training, only two moves ever did anything significant for my delts.

1) Scott Press (as I've covered before)

2) High Pull (thanks to Bill Sahli)

Had I done those from day one, avoided PBN (which was THE delt builder back in the day), and all the other exercises I wasted my time on, I would have had wider, thicker shoulders far sooner.


Ever tried "big Z" lateral raises Kev?
https://m.youtube.com/...h?v=QCmp09NDPCY
14 minutes in:)

Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

sirloin wrote:
hdlifter wrote:
In all my years/decades of training, only two moves ever did anything significant for my delts.

1) Scott Press (as I've covered before)

2) High Pull (thanks to Bill Sahli)

Had I done those from day one, avoided PBN (which was THE delt builder back in the day), and all the other exercises I wasted my time on, I would have had wider, thicker shoulders far sooner.

Ever tried "big Z" lateral raises Kev?
https://m.youtube.com/...h?v=QCmp09NDPCY
14 minutes in:)



sorry, I can't watch a guy workout wearing yoga pants

Open User Options Menu

sirloin

hit4me wrote:
sirloin wrote:
hdlifter wrote:
In all my years/decades of training, only two moves ever did anything significant for my delts.

1) Scott Press (as I've covered before)

2) High Pull (thanks to Bill Sahli)

Had I done those from day one, avoided PBN (which was THE delt builder back in the day), and all the other exercises I wasted my time on, I would have had wider, thicker shoulders far sooner.

Ever tried "big Z" lateral raises Kev?
https://m.youtube.com/...h?v=QCmp09NDPCY
14 minutes in:)



sorry, I can't watch a guy workout wearing yoga pants



Hahaha, i know, its like seeing hulk hogan in a pink tutu lol.

Open User Options Menu

Ray200

Savickas consumes 600-700g of protein per day too. Wow!

R
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Ray200 wrote:
Savickas consumes 600-700g of protein per day too. Wow!

R


Man, bye bye kidneys!

Open User Options Menu

sirloin

Surprisingly pretty strict form he uses. Though as he says "strongman training isnt very good for building muscle".
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Nwlifter wrote:
Man, bye bye kidneys!



Yup.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Unless your a baby T-Rex, I highly doubt anyone can utilize over a POUND of actual protein a day lol.
Muscle is 70% water, so one would have to be gaining about 2.5 lbs of muscle a day to use all that protein. From Pee Wee Herman Mr. Olympia in 3-4 weeks lol
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy