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
Higher Rep To Failure Sets?
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
Author
Rating
Options

Nwlifter

Turpin wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
Here is the main thing...


Light weights yes, for sure, can recruit all fibers
Is it best for strength? Absolutely no
Is it best for size? Best, no, as good, maybe, almost as good, maybe.



All Maybe`s and No`s , hardly worthwhile.


Its all about the fibre type !


The End.


T.


hahaha
dude... lol

Hey, just so this can end with at least me knowing your side, is this what you think...

That FT fibers only recruit with heavy loads, and if you use a lighter load, and they aren't recruited at first, they just never will be even if you go all the way to failure? Does that sum up your stance?
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

entsminger wrote:
Motor-unit firing patterns were studied in the vastus lateralis muscle of five healthy young men [21.4 +/- 0.9 (SD) yr] during a series of isometric knee extensions performed to exhaustion. Each contraction was held at a constant torque level, set to 20% of the maximal voluntary contraction at the beginning of the exp

==Scott ==
Wow ! I?m so glad I haven?t been reading this thread! Graphs and fiber type anaylasis , slow twitch etc etc. and I thought I had a hard time understanding some of Bill De-Simone?s stuff . Someone earlier said, just lift the fing weight, ha ha , that?s becoming more in line with what I?m thinking , ha ha , have fun arguing guys!!


LOL true!
man, if a person HAD to know this to be big, then T wouldn't look like he does, so that does prove that understanding recruitment is NOT required to grow big muscles, that's for sure.
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

when we are all sitting in the old folks home pinching the pretty nurses asses as they walk by....will it really matter how many reps we performed, lol
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Nwlifter wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Motor-unit firing patterns were studied in the vastus lateralis muscle of five healthy young men [21.4 +/- 0.9 (SD) yr] during a series of isometric knee extensions performed to exhaustion. Each contraction was held at a constant torque level, set to 20% of the maximal voluntary contraction at the beginning of the exp

==Scott ==
Wow ! I?m so glad I haven?t been reading this thread! Graphs and fiber type anaylasis , slow twitch etc etc. and I thought I had a hard time understanding some of Bill De-Simone?s stuff . Someone earlier said, just lift the fing weight, ha ha , that?s becoming more in line with what I?m thinking , ha ha , have fun arguing guys!!

LOL true!
man, if a person HAD to know this to be big, then T wouldn't look like he does, so that does prove that understanding recruitment is NOT required to grow big muscles, that's for sure.



OR perhaps your / THE `theory` on FT fibre recruitment is flawed. Even by your own admission your theory does not stand up to practice , all `maybe`s and erm NO !


Stop reading studies and start some fuckin lifting ? idiot.


T.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Nwlifter wrote:
Turpin wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
Here is the main thing...


Light weights yes, for sure, can recruit all fibers
Is it best for strength? Absolutely no
Is it best for size? Best, no, as good, maybe, almost as good, maybe.



All Maybe`s and No`s , hardly worthwhile.


Its all about the fibre type !


The End.


T.


hahaha
dude... lol

Hey, just so this can end with at least me knowing your side, is this what you think...

That FT fibers only recruit with heavy loads, and if you use a lighter load, and they aren't recruited at first, they just never will be even if you go all the way to failure? Does that sum up your stance?


Isn't that what I said from the onset , that FT type 2B fibres and HTMU`s are not activated sufficiently with light weight ? Your latest post agreed that , no light weight was not optimal for such.

I rest my case .. idiot,

T.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Turpin wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
Turpin wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
Here is the main thing...


Light weights yes, for sure, can recruit all fibers
Is it best for strength? Absolutely no
Is it best for size? Best, no, as good, maybe, almost as good, maybe.



All Maybe`s and No`s , hardly worthwhile.


Its all about the fibre type !


The End.


T.


hahaha
dude... lol

Hey, just so this can end with at least me knowing your side, is this what you think...

That FT fibers only recruit with heavy loads, and if you use a lighter load, and they aren't recruited at first, they just never will be even if you go all the way to failure? Does that sum up your stance?

Isn't that what I said from the onset , that FT type 2B fibres and HTMU`s are not activated sufficiently with light weight ? Your latest post agreed that , no light weight was not optimal for such.

I rest my case .. idiot,

T.


You cant' even read and comprehend and now your calling me an idiot? OK, my patience with your foolishnesh has run out.

FT fibers all contract, the only difference is the tension they are contracting at, fatigued vs fresh state.

Try to comprehend that. I said maybe as some studies and some people seem to hypertrophy as well with ligher loads, where some don't, it has NOTHING to do with if the fibers are recruited or not.

So I'll say to you, IDIOT. Had no idea all this time you were such a moronic dickhead. Good luck in life since you think your current understanding of things is the be all end all of knowledge.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Turpin wrote:



Stop reading studies and start some fuckin lifting ? idiot.


T.


BTW dillhole, I'll read what I want, when I want, I'll lift how I want, when I want. The last thing I'd do is take ANY advice from someone with your rotten childish attitude. ... imbecile...

Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

BTW, what IS wrong with you lately? Your going off on everyone in several threads, being abusive out of the chute. I think you need some help man. Maybe it's you that needs to read, and not studies, but some kind of self help book...
Open User Options Menu

Resultsbased

The Super Slow folks claim all fibers are recruited once failure is hit. Take a look at the end product...
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Nwlifter wrote:
BTW, what IS wrong with you lately? Your going off on everyone in several threads, being abusive out of the chute. I think you need some help man. Maybe it's you that needs to read, and not studies, but some kind of self help book...

Your replies on this thread typify the very reason that I don't post much on here ( other than my own thread ). I can see flaws and have differing opinion on almost ALL posts but just don't bother anymore.




Closed minded Pseudo scientists are everywhere , and despite their training being in accordance with the scientific studies and values they place their ( blind ) faith upon , their results are less than impressive and yet they still proclaim they are right OR that their genetic predisposition prevents them manifesting the progress that science says should be forthcoming.
The `average joe`s` who ARE realising progress are doing so with conventional training , but the pseudo scientists proclaim their progress is `despite of their training , not as a result of their training. `

The real truth is that the `average joe`s` ( the dimwits , the `bro`s , the seeming uneducated ) have by way of experimentation and practical experience found something that works for them that is contrary to your text books.
After 40yrs of training experience and now at age 53yrs I am content with my knowledge and progress and don't feel the need to impart ( or inflict ) MY influence on anyone. YOU keep doing what YOU do , and I will keep on doing MY thing.


T.

Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

==Scott==
As long as we are into fibers and studies I've got a question that's been bothering me for some time now, is the fiber in my Bran cereal fast or slow twitch and it is better to chew it slow or fast? I did notice my ham strings seem to be fuller when I chew faster? ha ha!
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Turpin wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
BTW, what IS wrong with you lately? Your going off on everyone in several threads, being abusive out of the chute. I think you need some help man. Maybe it's you that needs to read, and not studies, but some kind of self help book...
Your replies on this thread typify the very reason that I don't post much on here ( other than my own thread ). I can see flaws and have differing opinion on almost ALL posts but just don't bother anymore.




Closed minded Pseudo scientists are everywhere , and despite their training being in accordance with the scientific studies and values they place their ( blind ) faith upon , their results are less than impressive and yet they still proclaim they are right OR that their genetic predisposition prevents them manifesting the progress that science says should be forthcoming.
The `average joe`s` who ARE realising progress are doing so with conventional training , but the pseudo scientists proclaim their progress is `despite of their training , not as a result of their training. `

The real truth is that the `average joe`s` ( the dimwits , the `bro`s , the seeming uneducated ) have by way of experimentation and practical experience found something that works for them that is contrary to your text books.
After 40yrs of training experience and now at age 53yrs I am content with my knowledge and progress and don't feel the need to impart ( or inflict ) MY influence on anyone. YOU keep doing what YOU do , and I will keep on doing MY thing.


T.



Right pseudo science, don't care for it either, what I am posting is actual verified research though. You bated me into losing my tempter, and for that I apologize. I can't believe though your complaining about 'close minded' people when you say you won't even read the info I posted... ummm that's closed minded...

Yes, if you want to believe how you believe, of course that is your right. If you go back in this thread, I merely was trying to present you with the information, in fact, at the start I walked on egg shells to be respectful to you. I thought of all people, one who discusses and uses Gironda's training (which is lighter loads) you'd welcome the data and understand it.

I don't know if you were just trying to minimize the info. by calling it 'my theory' or you really think that, but it's NOT MY theory, it's not MY 'feelings', it's not from my own ideas even though I also have been training almost 40 years. It's information they have found measuring muscle contraction. It's as sure as you taking a tape measure and measuring the size of your living room, you measured it, you SAW the size, you know. They measured and compared muscle activation, they saw it, they know. Others verified it.

I know you don't read what I post, you already said that, but here are more, just so show this isn't MY theory.
And these aren't 'forum' people's ideas, these are respected researchers and authors.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...les/PMC3404827/

However, when a submaximal contraction is sustained, motor units that were initially recruited will fatigue (produce less force) or cease firing completely necessitating the recruitment of additional motor units (15) to sustain force generation. In this way, as the repetitions at lighter loads are repeated, the point of failure/fatigue ultimately necessitates near maximal motor unit recruitment to sustain muscle tension (16). Thus relatively lighter loads lifted to the point of failure would result in a similar amount of muscle fiber activation compared with heavier loads lifted to failure (18, 31)

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

https://shreddedbyscience.com/...

So the only way to target HTMU is through lifting heavy weights?

In a word, no. Enter the role of fatigue.

Please note: power training will also recruit HTMU?s however as this post is biased towards a hypertrophy so we will not discuss it further.

During a typical hypertrophy set, fatigue will start to accumulate ? hence why rep 8 is much harder than rep 2, for example. This fatigue is a result of the smaller, weaker motor units becoming fatigued . The fatiguing of the smaller MU?s results in a concomitant lowering in the firing threshold of the HTMU?s. Therefore lower load training can still stimulate the HTMU?s and the subsequent fast twitch fibers.

To put it less eloquently ? we start off recruiting the smaller MU?s and as they tire we recruit bigger and bigger MU?s.


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

https://www.DISALLOWED.com/...ing-to-failure/

The size principle of recruitment dictates that as training intensity increases, larger motor units containing fast twitch (Type 2) muscle fibers are progressively recruited to maintain the level of force to lift the weight. The closer you train to the point of failure or 1RM, the higher number of fast twitch muscle fibers are recruited and it is these high threshold fibers that have the most potential for growth.

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

https://medium.com/...ve-2837460c5f0f

When lifting light weights for a high number of repetitions in a single set, fatigue arises. This fatigue occurs primarily through the accumulation of metabolites inside the muscle.

The accumulation of metabolites has bee proposed to interfere with the actin-myosin bindings, and in this way reduces the ability of each individual muscle fiber to produce maximum force. The onset of fatigue also reduces their maximum contraction velocity.

Therefore, in order to keep force at the required level as we approach muscular failure, the central nervous system increases the number of motor units that are recruited. The greater number of fibers that are activated compensates for the lower force being exerted by each individual muscle fiber.

As muscular failure approaches, the central nervous system recruits all of the available motor units to help. The full motor unit recruitment at a slow contraction velocity then provides sufficient mechanical loading on the muscle fibers linked to the high-threshold motor units such that they are stimulated to grow.

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


Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
As long as we are into fibers and studies I've got a question that's been bothering me for some time now, is the fiber in my Bran cereal fast or slow twitch and it is better to chew it slow or fast? I did notice my ham strings seem to be fuller when I chew faster? ha ha!


LOL
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
Administrators Online: Ellington Darden
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy