# A little about muscle fibers and recruitment.



## Natural1

On another board we were discussing muscle fiber types and their recruitment. I thought I'd post a piece I wrote here as it may make for a good discussion.

We have a broad range of muscle fibers ranging from high endurance/low power (slow twitch) through to low endurance/high power (fast twitch). All are "wired in" to the nervous system. Each bundle of muscle fibers with the same strength/endurance qualities are powered by a motor unit hence why sometimes instead of saying "fast twitch fiber" some say "fast twitch motor unit". When a motor unit (MU) fires it contracts all the muscle fibers it feeds.

Very basically we have an entire continuum of MU's/fibers with varying amounts of endurance/power qualities. Very crudely if we had 100 fibers, fiber 1 may have 1 power and 100 endurance, fiber 100 may have 100 power and 1 endurance, fiber 2 would have 2 power and 99 endurance, fiber 99 would have 99 power and 2 endurance etc.. A continuum of endurance to strength.

For a long time we have been referring to this entire range of fibers as specific groups. Usually

Type 1

Type 2a

Type 2x

Type 1 refer to a range of slow twitch endurance based low power MUs/fibers or low threshold motor units (LTMU).

Type 2a refer to a range of medium twitch part endurance part power based MUs/fibers or medium threshold motor units (MTMU).

Type 2x refer to the fast twitch power based MUs/fibers with low endurance or high threshold motor units (HTMU).

It's not entirely accurate to put this continuum into groups as there isn't a clear distinctive three types of MU's/fibers but rather a broader continuum although type 1, 2a and 2x are usually used as a a basic reference. The next part of the story is recruitment. For a muscle fiber to grow it must be worked. The question is how do we work them? Motor units and the fibers connected are recruited in line with what's known as the size principle. This essential means that the smaller, slower twitch high endurance low power MU's/fibers are recruited first and the largest fast twitch high power low endurance based MU's/fibers recruited last according to force requirements. Some examples.

*A one rep max effort.*

All MU's/fibers will be recruited due to the sheer load making it a necessity for max force generation - full type 1, 2a and 2x activation immediately.

*A light load moved as fast as possible.*

An example maybe pitching a ball. In this case the movement is high effort and high force so again by necessity the HTMUs are recruited with some MTMU contributing to force but many LTMU may not be contributing to force as they're simply unable to contract fast enough to be able to contribute to force generation in such a fast movement.

*A medium load lifted for reps.*

In this case only the MUs/fibers required to move the load will be recruited initially. Could be say all the LTMUs and some MTMU. Now here's the thing. As the fibers that have been recruited fatigue and lose force, the nervous system will go up the continuum and recruit higher and higher threshold MU/fibers to maintain force production until the very highest threshold MU has been recruited - full type 1 to 2x recruitment throughout the duration of the set.

Now this is an over simplification because there is also firing rates to consider, muscle type ratios in various muscle groups and a lot of other stuff, but basically, no single load at a single speed for a certain time under load (TUL) can be optimal to effectively fatigue all fiber types. Hence why routines that utilize sets in various rep ranges are a highly effective training method and sometimes referred to as combination training or mixed qualities.

Final points. There is continuum of fibers and no two are exactly a like. The group description of type 1, 2a and 2x isn't entirely accurate as there are not 3 distinctive groups of fibers. However, although there is a continuum of fibers with various endurance/power qualities, the actual fibers themselves do vary simply due to things such as mitochondria/capillaries etc.. The low threshold high endurance low power fibers have more mitochondria/capillaries which make them appear red as opposed to the more white looking faster more powerful fibers. So while there are not 3 distinct groups but rather a continuum, fibers themselves do display differing characteristics based on how the CNS fires them.


----------



## hackskii

Nice post.

I thought that 70% of your one rep max would work 90% of both fast and slow twitch muscles?

At least this is what I learned probably like 15 years ago.

I know everyone has a diffrent portion of both slow and fast twitch fibers.

I was reading some time ago about other fibers adapting to the responce of the way the muscles were worked.


----------



## Guest

Yep went through all of this doing physiology this spring semester nice post.


----------



## Tall

Natural1 said:


> On another board we were discussing muscle fiber types and their recruitment. I thought I'd post a piece I wrote here as it may make for a good discussion.
> 
> We have a broad range of muscle fibers ranging from high endurance/low power (slow twitch) through to low endurance/high power (fast twitch). All are "wired in" to the nervous system. Each bundle of muscle fibers with the same strength/endurance qualities are powered by a motor unit hence why sometimes instead of saying "fast twitch fiber" some say "fast twitch motor unit". When a motor unit (MU) fires it contracts all the muscle fibers it feeds.
> 
> Very basically we have an entire continuum of MU's/fibers with varying amounts of endurance/power qualities. Very crudely if we had 100 fibers, fiber 1 may have 1 power and 100 endurance, fiber 100 may have 100 power and 1 endurance, fiber 2 would have 2 power and 99 endurance, fiber 99 would have 99 power and 2 endurance etc.. A continuum of endurance to strength.
> 
> For a long time we have been referring to this entire range of fibers as specific groups. Usually
> 
> Type 1
> 
> Type 2a
> 
> Type 2x
> 
> Type 1 refer to a range of slow twitch endurance based low power MUs/fibers or low threshold motor units (LTMU).
> 
> Type 2a refer to a range of medium twitch part endurance part power based MUs/fibers or medium threshold motor units (MTMU).
> 
> Type 2x refer to the fast twitch power based MUs/fibers with low endurance or high threshold motor units (HTMU).
> 
> It's not entirely accurate to put this continuum into groups as there isn't a clear distinctive three types of MU's/fibers but rather a broader continuum although type 1, 2a and 2x are usually used as a a basic reference. The next part of the story is recruitment. For a muscle fiber to grow it must be worked. The question is how do we work them? Motor units and the fibers connected are recruited in line with what's known as the size principle. This essential means that the smaller, slower twitch high endurance low power MU's/fibers are recruited first and the largest fast twitch high power low endurance based MU's/fibers recruited last according to force requirements. Some examples.
> 
> *A one rep max effort.*
> 
> All MU's/fibers will be recruited due to the sheer load making it a necessity for max force generation - full type 1, 2a and 2x activation immediately.
> 
> *A light load moved as fast as possible.*
> 
> An example maybe pitching a ball. In this case the movement is high effort and high force so again by necessity the HTMUs are recruited with some MTMU contributing to force but many LTMU may not be contributing to force as they're simply unable to contract fast enough to be able to contribute to force generation in such a fast movement.
> 
> *A medium load lifted for reps.*
> 
> In this case only the MUs/fibers required to move the load will be recruited initially. Could be say all the LTMUs and some MTMU. Now here's the thing. As the fibers that have been recruited fatigue and lose force, the nervous system will go up the continuum and recruit higher and higher threshold MU/fibers to maintain force production until the very highest threshold MU has been recruited - full type 1 to 2x recruitment throughout the duration of the set.
> 
> Now this is an over simplification because there is also firing rates to consider, muscle type ratios in various muscle groups and a lot of other stuff, but basically, no single load at a single speed for a certain time under load (TUL) can be optimal to effectively fatigue all fiber types. Hence why routines that utilize sets in various rep ranges are a highly effective training method and sometimes referred to as combination training or mixed qualities.
> 
> Final points. There is continuum of fibers and no two are exactly a like. The group description of type 1, 2a and 2x isn't entirely accurate as there are not 3 distinctive groups of fibers. However, although there is a continuum of fibers with various endurance/power qualities, the actual fibers themselves do vary simply due to things such as mitochondria/capillaries etc.. The low threshold high endurance low power fibers have more mitochondria/capillaries which make them appear red as opposed to the more white looking faster more powerful fibers. So while there are not 3 distinct groups but rather a continuum, fibers themselves do display differing characteristics based on how the CNS fires them.


Hello,

Please show me your cited sources for your claim that during maximal effort 1rm "All MU's/fibers will be recruited due to the sheer load making it a necessity for max force generation - full type 1, 2a and 2x activation immediately." as this is contrary to decades of science


----------



## anabolic ant

just thought i'd add a little other area of fiber/tissue recruitment,sorry for off topic

Manipulating Reps for Gains in Size and Strength

by Charles Poliquin

Perhaps the most important loading parameter in designing exercise programs is not the number of sets, the tempo used, or even the specific exercises employed, but the number of repetitions selected.

It is clear that the most important variable to strength training is the amount of resistance used. The amount of weight determines the tension put on a muscle, and how long this tension is maintained determines the muscle's response. In fact, subtle manipulations can make the difference between increases in strength, increases in size and increases in endurance.

And the wrong manipulation can make the set, and indeed, the whole exercise session, worthless.

Obviously, the number of repetitions performed determines how much the athlete can lift, and given this fact, I have come up with 24 principles that can influence your decision, approximately half of which are presented in this article.

Whether you design programs for others or just yourself, many of these principles should help you in attaining your physique goals.

1. The number of reps done for a given time under tension dictates the training effect.

Training intensities can be altered in one of two ways: by having the athlete work at a higher percentage of his max (heavier weights), or moving the weight faster during the lifting, or concentric part of the lift.

While the number of reps an athlete performs also influences the training effect, it's mandatory that the speed used to execute the movement also be considered. It's too bad that very few researchers take into consideration the effects of different repetition speeds, and even worse that few coaches take tempo into consideration.

This is where the whole "super slow" theory of training falls flat. As far as sport is concerned, whoever produces the most amount of force in the shortest amount of time wins. By purposely training slow, you learn to become slow. Reducing the speed of movement just increases the time a muscle is under tension, not the intensity. As far as bodybuilding, however, it does not matter so much because functionality of the muscles is not crucial. In that regard, training slow for a brief period can lead to hypertrophy, especially if the trainee has been lifting explosively for a while.

Generally speaking, however, sets that subject the muscles to less than 20 seconds of time under tension build strength, while those that take from 40 to 60 seconds to complete cause hypertrophy.

2. MVC's (Maximal Voluntary Contractions) are essential to the strength building process.

To build size and strength, it is essential to incorporate maximal voluntary contractions. In short, this means recruiting as many motor units as possible to develop force.

Contrary to what you might assume, an MVC does not always equate to a 1RM load. Rather, an MVC could be the last rep of a 5 or 6RM load, where performing another rep is impossible.

Working with 1RM loads, though, enables an athlete to achieve maximal motor unit activation (MUA). Do this enough times, and neural adaptations and increased strength occur.

This is why the rest-pause training methodology is so valuable. For those of you unfamiliar with it, it involves using a 1RM load, which activates the maximal number of motor units. The athlete then racks the bar, removes 2-5% of the load, and then repeats the lift. The process is then repeated, for usually no more than 8 reps.

3. An athlete should use between 70 and 100% of maximum capacity to develop maximal strength.

While there is still some controversy as to the exact range of percentages, many leading experts in strength training believe that the best way to develop maximal strength is to use weights that allow the athlete to perform between 1 and 12 reps at 70 to 100% of the athlete's 1RM.

Some say, however, that anything below 75% is best suited for developing muscular endurance, while others put the number at 60%.

It is my experience, however, that the lower threshold is 70%, but beginners, and especially women, can often make progress using loads that are approximately 60% of 1RM.

4. The range in repetitions needed to develop strength and/or hypertrophy decreases with training age.

Training age, or the number of years the athlete has been training, influences the 1RM continuum.

While the average beginning weight trainee can often do 20 reps at 75% of maximum, that same trainee may do 10 reps at 75% of maximum after a year. If that same trainee is examined five years later, he may only do 4 reps at 75% of maximum.

Why is this important? Consider the athlete with a training age of one year who can bench press 12 reps at 140 pounds, which is 70% of his 1RM. Perhaps when this trainee has been training for four years, his new 1RM is 400 pounds. However, he may now only be able to complete 6 reps using 70% of his 1RM, which is 280 pounds.

Given that it is generally agreed upon by the strength training community that that 70% is the minimum threshold for strength development, it would not be a good idea to prescribe weights lower than 70%, or repetitions higher than 6, as the weight would be too light to promote gains in strength.

5. The 1RM continuum varies greatly among muscle groups.

If an athlete performs his 12RM (the amount of weight he can lift 12 times) in the bench press, he may only be working at 70% of maximum, but at 12RM in the leg curl, he may only be working at 57% of maximum.

The extreme is even more remarkable when you consider certain lower body movements that employ a high stretch-shortening cycle component, such as leg presses. Many athletes can do 65 reps on the leg press while using a weight that is 70% of their maximum!

6. The number of repetitions is the loading parameter that athletes adapt to the most quickly.

It's best to vary rep range prescriptions often because the body adapts very quickly to given rep ranges. In fact, the average athlete adapts to a given number of reps in six workouts. When this adaptation occurs, it's virtually pointless to continue the same program.

One method with which I have had great success it to prescribe a given rep bracket for 2 workouts, lower it by 1 rep for the next two workouts, and then lower it by 1 rep yet again for one or two workouts.

Here is an example of such a progression:

Workouts 1-2: 4 sets x 6-8

Workouts 3-4: 5 sets x 5-7

Workouts 5-6: 5 sets x 4-6

7. Elite athletes must pay attention to the specificity of contraction force.

Generally speaking, reps in the 1RM to 5RM range increase maximal strength with minimal gains in mass. Reps in the 8RM to 15RM range produce greater gains in hypertrophy, while reps between 6RM and 7RM produce equal changes in hypertrophy and strength.

However, when considering athletes who have several years of training experience, low repetitions (1-5) must be used with high loads (85% or higher) for both relative and absolute strength, while mid-repetitions (6-12) must be used with sub maximal loads (70-84%) for absolute strength gains. High repetitions should be combined with light loads for strength-endurance (less than 70%).

In other words, athletes with more years of experience can train with a broader range of repetitions.

Along the same lines, periodically "straying" into unfamiliar rep ranges can have positive training effects that are not consistent with the norm. For instance, in athletes seeking hypertrophy, periodically employing programs that use 1RM to 5RM ranges can lead to increases in muscle size in addition to strength.

8. Don't perform low reps too frequently.

Sport scientist Robert Roman has written extensively on the training of competitive lifters and he concluded that the most successful weightlifters tend to do most of their sets in the 3RM to 4RM range.

This observation was echoed by Canadian weightlifting coach Pierre Roy, who believes that the average rep range for athletes should be 3.

The take home point is that if an athlete does singles or doubles for too long, he will stagnate. This, of course, is especially true for athletes who seek hypertrophy.

9. Each muscle group or lift responds best to a specific average rep range.

Throughout my career, I have had the opportunity to analyze the training logs of the hundreds of athletes that I've coached. As such, it has become apparent that the optimal rep range should be specific to the muscle group or exercise chosen.

For instance, in the case of the elbow flexors, the best strength gains were obtained when no less than an average of 2.5 reps per set were performed, with a minimum total of 15 reps per workout.

Along the same lines, for hypertrophy purposes, triceps generally respond better to fewer reps than the biceps (because the triceps are generally more fast-twitch). Another example regards the hamstrings, which generally require fewer reps than quadriceps, or the gastrocs, which require fewer reps than the soleus.

10. The function of the muscle dictates the number of reps.

You have no doubt heard your physiology professor say, "Form dictates function." It is also my experience there are specific rep ranges that are more appropriate for certain muscle functions.

As an example, training the knee flexors (hamstrings) with sets of 12 results in little hypertrophy. However, when training the knee extensors, sets of up to 50 reps (leg press) can induce hypertrophy. This probably has to do with the fact that the knee flexors are used for explosive tasks, while the knee extensors are used primarily for maintaining posture and in the execution of certain stretch-shortening tasks.

11. Vary reps for the upper body more than the lower body.

Recent studies confirm that using programs that employ variation in rep ranges was more beneficial for the upper body than the lower body.

For example, if designing a program for the bench press, it's more important to vary the reps often than it is for movements like the squat and deadlift.

12. High-rep training can increase capillary density.

Studies have shown that sets of more than 20 reps can increase capillary density, and capillary dense muscle can eventually lead to hypertrophy when one resumes more traditional rep schemes.

One such study, performed in 1973, showed that as little as one high-rep workout was enough to double the amount of mitochondria in muscle cells.

I think this is one reason why cyclists and speed skaters have such large quadriceps - they expose the muscles to an extreme amount of time under tension, thus facilitating capillary growth and hypertrophy of lower threshold motor units.

However, from personal experience, it seems that the quads, deltoids and lats would benefit from this type of training more than other muscle groups.

13. Reps performed in one exercise may have a different effect than reps performed for another exercise, even though both movements are for the same body part.

When comparing squats against leg press, squats are far more effective in increasing leg strength and overall strength. However, there is some evidence to suggest that the leg press might result in more hypertrophy of the quadriceps. One study, at least, showed that for the same number of reps, the leg press resulted in a higher amount of Growth Hormone being produced than squats.

As possible evidence, the leg press is the exercise of choice when it comes to speed skating, and I have personally worked with speed skaters whose legs made Tom Platz's look like Woody Allen's.

While I am loathe to recommend leg presses instead of squats, I merely present it as an interesting discussion point.

There are many more principles regarding the manipulation of reps that I use in designing programs, but the ones I have presented here should put you light years ahead of the average weight training pack.

Editor's note: This article is a brief extract of some the material presented in the Poliquin International Certification Program Level Theory 1 Manual that can be purchased at www.CharlesPoliquin.net.


----------



## Tall

Natural1 said:


> Tall. You have twisted my words.
> 
> I never claimed that ALL fibers/MUs are immediately recruited. There is enough time through out the rep for all MU's to be recruited via *the size principle*.


I haven't twisted anything.

I've quoted your words exactly.

Either way, please show me cited sources which show during 1rm maximum effort all fibres/MU are recruited


----------



## Natural1

Tall said:


> I haven't twisted anything.
> 
> I've quoted your words exactly.


Tall.

I deleted that post you've quoted here as I was going to re-word it. Seems you replied at the same time I was editing.

Ok. I made the original post a while back and cannot recall what I said word for word. You're absolutely right I did say "immediately" my apologies.

Fair enough perhaps "immediately" was the wrong choice of words. The point was simply that there is *very* little time delay in waiting for the higher threshold MU's to be recruited as these fibers are required VERY quickly for force generation.

In answer to your request for a reference to suport my claim, no problem.

"The relative contribution of motor unit recruitment to muscle force varies between muscles. In some hand muscles for example, all motor units are recruited at around 50% of maximum. In other muscles, such as the bicep brachii, deltoid, and tiblias anterior, motor unit recuitment continues upto 85% of the maximum force (Deluca, LeFever, McCue & Xenakis, 1982a; Kukulka & Clamann, 1981; Van Cutsem et al,. 1997)"

From p290, Neuromechanics of Human Movement 3rd Edition. Roger M. Enoka

We're not talking 50 or 85%, we're talking *100%*.. see how all available fibers will be recruited..


----------



## Dsahna

:crying:i use very slow reps ant,for power and size.


----------



## Tall

Natural1 said:


> Tall.
> 
> I deleted that post you've quoted here as I was going to re-word it. Seems you replied at the same time I was editing.
> 
> Ok. I made the original post a while back and cannot recall what I said word for word. You're absolutely right I did say "immediately"
> 
> Fair enough perhaps "immediately" was the wrong choice of words. The point was simply that there is very little time delay in waiting for the higher threshold MU's to be recruited as these fibers are required VERY quickly for force generation.


Hi,

You're focussing on the word immediately as for some reason you *beleive* that the word immediately is my *issue* with that statement.

(I'm not sure how you have the time/patience to *bold* / italic / underline stuff?)

As before, please show me cited sources which show during 1rm maximum effort all fibres/MU are recruited 

Thanks in advance.

Tall


----------



## Natural1

Tall said:


> As before, please show me cited sources which show during 1rm maximum effort all fibres/MU are recruited
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Tall


"The relative contribution of motor unit recruitment to muscle force varies between muscles. In some hand muscles for example, all motor units are recruited at around 50% of maximum. In other muscles, such as the bicep brachii, deltoid, and tiblias anterior, motor unit recuitment continues upto 85% of the maximum force (Deluca, LeFever, McCue & Xenakis, 1982a; Kukulka & Clamann, 1981; Van Cutsem et al,. 1997)"

From p290, Neuromechanics of Human Movement 3rd Edition. Roger M. Enoka


----------



## Tall

Natural1 said:


> In answer to your request for a reference to suport my claim, no problem.
> 
> "The relative contribution of motor unit recruitment to muscle force varies between muscles. *In some hand muscles for example, all motor units are recruited at around 50% of maximum*. *In other muscles, such as the bicep brachii, deltoid, and tiblias anterior, motor unit recuitment continues upto 85% of the maximum force* (Deluca, LeFever, McCue & Xenakis, 1982a; Kukulka & Clamann, 1981; Van Cutsem et al,. 1997)"
> 
> From p290, Neuromechanics of Human Movement 3rd Edition. Roger M. Enoka
> 
> We're talking *100%*.. see how all available fibers will be recruited..


Thats 100% of MUs in the hand muscles being recruited at 50% maximum...

It doesn't state that is the case for the biceps / delts and so on.

Strength athletes who remain in a weight class will train to gain increased MU activation. Untrained athletes for example will never be able to recruit all MUs in FT fibres.

This means that all MUs/Fibres will not have been recruited.


----------



## martin brown

I'm fairly sure Siff said similar in Supertraining but I CBA going through it to find it lol..

Louie has spouted it a few times too. Obviously this is dependant upon skill (CNS pattern) in any given exercise or movement.

What's the argument Tall?


----------



## martin brown

I get you!

But 100% of all available types are recruited according to pattern, not necessarily 100% of the muscles MU's


----------



## Tall

martin brown said:


> I'm fairly sure Siff said similar in Supertraining but I CBA going through it to find it lol..
> 
> Louie has spouted it a few times too. Obviously this is dependant upon skill (CNS pattern) in any given exercise or movement.
> 
> What's the argument Tall?


His claim is that all fibres/MUs are recruited during 1rm. Immediately were his words (which cant be the case as theres an order of recruitment to consider, the type of movement and position of the weight in relation to the movement also plays a part)

This is based on a study which says some hand muscles have 100% MU/fibre recruitment at 50% of maximum effort.

Maximum Effort doesn't indicate maximum recruitment - thats dictated as you said by skill, or the successful application of technique which serves to increase recruitment of MU/fibres and increase firing rate.

And I think you're right on Siff commenting on that.


----------



## Tall

martin brown said:


> I get you!
> 
> *But 100% of all available types are recruited according to pattern, not necessarily 100% of the muscles MU's*


That certainly makes more sense Mr Brown.


----------



## Natural1

Tall said:


> Thats 100% of MUs in the hand muscles being recruited at 50% maximum...
> 
> It doesn't state that is the case for the biceps / delts and so on.


The study showed in these muscles that MU's were recruited UP TO 85% thus 100% would recruit all available MU's



Tall said:


> Strength athletes who remain in a weight class will train to gain increased MU activation. Untrained athletes for example will never be able to recruit all MUs in FT fibres.
> 
> This means that all MUs/Fibres will not have been recruited.


Absolutely correct Tall. It would be more accurate to say all "available" motor units. Strength training does increase neural efficiency which exposes a greater number of MU's to tension, this is something I mentioned in V's old journal namely here:



Natural1 said:


> The reason I am of the opinion that simple strength training is best for beginners-intermediates is this:
> 
> 1/ Heavy training increases neural efficiency enabling the lifter to expose a greater amount of motor units (MUs) to tension.


It would seem we agree on more than disagree?


----------



## martin brown

Yes 100% of controlled MU's. And the curve would suggest the slower enduance fibres only come into play after starting strength and acceleration has been achieved by the larger fibres, towards the end of a lift.

In an unskilled trainee a higher % of random other muscles contract when attempting a 1RM or o my experience has suggested! Like the flying legs when bench pressing lol


----------



## Natural1

Also I might add.

Just because a fiber has been recruited/activated, it doesn't mean that it's firing at max frequency (rate coding) this is another aspect of recruitment.

Not only are all available fibers recruited during a 1 rep max effort but they are also firing at high firing rates.

This changes depending on rep range and tempo.

Also the issue of force productions loss to velocity comes into play (terminal velocity) and varies among the continuum of MU's.

This is a really deep subject


----------



## TH0R

So, in English, whats the general consensus of opinion for strength, and for hypertrophy, reps/sets wise.

Is there one??

Great post Ant:thumbup1:


----------



## hackskii

Wow, love the responces, seems I may have been using too many reps between 8 and 12 ranges, yet higher reps some times would be a good idea.



anabolic ant said:


> I think this is one reason why cyclists and speed skaters have such large quadriceps - they expose the muscles to an extreme amount of time under tension, thus facilitating capillary growth and hypertrophy of lower threshold motor units.


Fantastic, I always wondered why cyclists have such huge legs for how long they can ride for.

Wow, great read.


----------



## martin brown

tel3563 said:


> So, in English, whats the general consensus of opinion for strength, and for hypertrophy, reps/sets wise.
> 
> Is there one??
> 
> Great post Ant:thumbup1:


Strength training = 1RM (or circa max) produces best gains.

Hypertrophy = Higher volume, longer TUT, somewhere between 3x5 and 10x10 lol


----------



## Tall

Natural1 said:


> The study showed in these muscles that MU's were recruited UP TO 85% thus 100% would recruit all available MU's
> 
> Absolutely correct Tall. It would be more accurate to say all "available" motor units. Strength training does increase neural efficiency which exposes a greater number of MU's to tension, this is something I mentioned in V's old journal namely here:
> 
> It would seem we agree on more than disagree?


Yes we agree that your previous statements were wrong 

You've moved from all fibres/MUs to all fibres in available MUs. Which isn't even close to being the same thing.


----------



## Tall

martin brown said:


> Strength training = 1RM (or circa max) produces best gains.
> 
> Hypertrophy = Higher volume, *longer TUT*, somewhere between 3x5 and 10x10 lol


Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :lol:

TUT is outdated now Mr Brown. A bit like HR recovery rate being the best indicator of fitness :thumbup1:


----------



## Natural1

martin brown said:


> Strength training = 1RM (or circa max) produces best gains.
> 
> Hypertrophy = Higher volume, longer TUT, somewhere between 3x5 and 10x10 lol


BINGO!

Though again it's not set in stone.

Hypertrophy in any given muscle (as a whole) is the sum total of individual muscle fibers and hypertrophy of the sarcoplasmic fluid.

Somebody with a high % of 2x fiber types may well grow better on heavy weight/lower reps.

Somebody 1/2a dominant would be better developing their strength-endurance quality using higher repped sets/longer TUT. 1 and 2a's take longer to fatigue than 2x.

In general for maxing out hypertrophy, higher repped sets are used to both fatigue the more endurance based fibers and also to hypertrophy the sarcoplasmic fluid, this requires the presence of fatigue through continuous TUT.

8-15 reps per set as a very general guide for general bodybuilding/hypertrophy in my opinion.


----------



## Natural1

Tall said:


> TUT is outdated now Mr Brown. A bit like HR recovery rate being the best indicator of fitness :thumbup1:


TUT is not outdated, it is an unavoidable side effect of higher rep sets. 10 reps is longer TUT then 5.


----------



## Natural1

Tall said:


> Yes we agree that your previous statements were wrong
> 
> You've moved from all fibres/MUs to all fibres in available MUs. Which isn't even close to being the same thing.


They are very similar Tall.

I originally said all MU's. In other words all MU's that are *voluntarily contractible*.

To write up everything on this subject would require a book and for the most part I TRY to keep things understandable for forum members of all levels.


----------



## TH0R

So what if one was to mix reps/sets up in the same workout? Or even the same exercise?

bit like the old pyramid style except exaggerated

IE

All to failure or near failure

12 reps

6 reps

1 rep

6 reps

12 reps

All after cns prep (warming up) of course


----------



## Natural1

tel3563 said:


> So what if one was to mix reps/sets up in the same workout? Or even the same exercise?


This would be a great way to target all fiber types. I know of a gentleman that uses a simple 20/10/5 rep scheme.

Each set is a rep max effort, after a warm up a 20 rep max set.

Followed by adding weight then a 10 rep max effort.

Finally more weight added and a 5 rep max effort.

This targets a vast amount of MU's.

Some may prefer the inverse 5/10/20.

I have personally used 1x5 followed by 2 x 10 to good effect.

Many ways to go about this.


----------



## Tall

Natural1 said:


> TUT is not outdated, it is an unavoidable side effect of higher rep sets. 10 reps is longer TUT then 5.


TUT as a "method" or "concept" for growth is outdated.

We've been through this before.

Powerlifters will not focus on TUT, yet they are not lacking in size - that is to say they've undergone muscular hypertrophy even with low rep sets.

If TUT were valid, then slow negs would always produce better results. They don't.

Some bed time reading for you:

The effects of eccentric and concentric training at different velocities on muscle hypertrophy

http://www.springerlink.com/content/crgptcbt64gdarpa/

There are a number of similar studies kicking around.


----------



## martin brown

Tall said:


> Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :lol:
> 
> TUT is outdated now Mr Brown. A bit like HR recovery rate being the best indicator of fitness :thumbup1:


Outdated Tall?!

It still is relevant - only thing that is outdated is the more recent interpretations of this concept. The idiots started taking 'Time' to the extreme and forgot about the tension aspect which is actually equally/more important for hypertrophy.

As you know, there is more involved, overall volume, load, frequency, etc all contribute to hypertrophy as much as they contribute to any other training.


----------



## Tall

Natural1 said:


> This would be a great way to target all fiber types. I know of a gentleman that uses a simple 20/10/5 rep scheme.
> 
> Each set is a rep max effort, after a warm up a 20 rep max set.
> 
> Followed by adding weight then a 10 rep max effort.
> 
> Finally more weight added and a 5 rep max effort.
> 
> This targets a vast amount of MU's.
> 
> Some may prefer the inverse 5/10/20.
> 
> I have personally used 1x5 followed by 2 x 10 to good effect.
> 
> Many ways to go about this.


The 10rm wouldn't be a true 10rm after the 20rm had been completed.

Neither would the 5rm be a true 5rm after the 20rm and 10rm* had been completed.

If it's a true 20rm, he'd had little left to play with and would be trying to avoid throwing up


----------



## martin brown

tel3563 said:


> So what if one was to mix reps/sets up in the same workout? Or even the same exercise?
> 
> bit like the old pyramid style except exaggerated
> 
> IE
> 
> All to failure or near failure
> 
> 12 reps
> 
> 6 reps
> 
> 1 rep
> 
> 6 reps
> 
> 12 reps
> 
> All after cns prep (warming up) of course





Natural1 said:


> Some may prefer the inverse 5/10/20.
> 
> I have personally used 1x5 followed by 2 x 10 to good effect.
> 
> Many ways to go about this.


I don't agree with going lighter after going heavy in an exercise. It isn't good for the CNS IMO and I really don't like doing it. Maybe for growth it isn't as detremental but I'm confident for skill and strength it isn't a good idea to go from a max 1,3,or5 down to a 10-20RM weight.



Tall said:


> TUT as a "method" or "concept" for growth is outdated.
> 
> We've been through this before.
> 
> Powerlifters will not focus on TUT, *yet they are not lacking in size* - that is to say they've undergone muscular hypertrophy even with low rep sets.
> 
> If TUT were valid, then slow negs would always produce better results. They don't.
> 
> Some bed time reading for you:
> 
> The effects of eccentric and concentric training at different velocities on muscle hypertrophy
> 
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/crgptcbt64gdarpa/
> 
> There are a number of similar studies kicking around.


Tall, the volume in PL'ing routines oozes time under tension 

Even on my westside style regieme the higher rep DE days and acessory work on max days ensure the volume is higher and TUT is too!


----------



## Tall

martin brown said:


> Outdated Tall?!
> 
> It still is relevant - only thing that is outdated is the more recent interpretations of this concept. The idiots started taking 'Time' to the extreme and forgot about the tension aspect which is actually equally/more important for hypertrophy.
> 
> As you know, there is more involved, overall volume, load, frequency, etc all contribute to hypertrophy as much as they contribute to any other training.


Very well put Mr Brown.

I'd love to be able to coin a Jazzy Acronym for what we actually mean, which is the period of contraction during which the muscles are forced to deal with a heavy load across a rep range which stimulates maximal fibre recruitment through an agreed range of motion.

The time element as you said has really minimal importance.


----------



## martin brown

Tall said:


> Very well put Mr Brown.
> 
> I'd love to be able to coin a Jazzy Acronym for what we actually mean, which is the period of contraction during which the muscles are forced to deal with a heavy load across a rep range which stimulates maximal fibre recruitment through an agreed range of motion.
> 
> The time element as you said has really minimal importance.


It's called the M Brown principle. Putting all this theory bullsh*t into real people's training programs and actually getting results :thumb:

That's the hard bit - you can sit reading books all day but if it doesn't help your training it doesn't matter.


----------



## Tall

martin brown said:


> Tall, the volume in PL'ing routines oozes time under tension
> 
> Even on my westside style regieme the higher rep DE days and acessory work on max days ensure the volume is higher and TUT is too!


Yes and no. IMHO.

DE days (or RE days depending on how you've interpretted what Louis says, or moved away from the base template and incorporated the changes other lifters have added) have a different focus to hypertrophy, with the focus being on skill and adding a sufficient load(overload) to ensure adaptation.

The TUT from 8-10 sets of 3 reps on DE bench would be considerably different to 3sets of 10 reps on DE bench. Fast Twitch fibres would tire considerably and slow the movement down.

The Volume and Load is there agreed, but in terms of TUT I would disagree. Perhaps my view of TUT is outdated? The classic TUT routines are normally 4-1--2 - 4 sec negs, 1 sec pause, 2 sec positive with the aim of keeping the muscle under tension for an elongated period of time.

Whereas the optimal method is rather to target fast twitch fibres with a more explosive movement for hypertrophy.


----------



## Tall

martin brown said:


> It's called the M Brown principle. Putting all this theory bullsh*t into real people's training programs and actually getting results :thumb:
> 
> That's the hard bit - you can sit reading books all day but if it doesn't help your training it doesn't matter.


Reading is, as you know, like Cardio / machines in the gym... Only for women and homos :lol:


----------



## Natural1

Tall said:


> TUT as a "method" or "concept" for growth is outdated.
> 
> We've been through this before.


Some applications of TUT I disagree with (slowed reps) however TUT is a direct side effect of tempo *and rep range*. To say that bodybuilders typically train using higher rep ranges is to say that they train using higher TUT and this continuous TUT triggers adaptations beyond that of JUST sarcomere hypertrophy.

And please don't forget that there are two types of TUT:

1/ Total accumulated TUT.

2/ Continuous TUT through higher rep ranges.



Tall said:


> Powerlifters will not focus on TUT, yet they are not lacking in size - that is to say they've undergone muscular hypertrophy even with low rep sets.


I agree here Tall but don't neglect the fact that many power lifters have a high total TUT even if it's not continuous. Also some TUT is a requirement, you NEED tension (load) and you NEED a certain amount of time under that load (TUT) and this depends according to goal.



Tall said:


> If TUT were valid, then slow negs would always produce better results. They don't.


I am primarily referring to an increase in TUT through increased rep range not through reduced tempo. 10 fast reps is still greater TUT than 5 fast reps.



Tall said:


> The 10rm wouldn't be a true 10rm after the 20rm had been completed.
> 
> Neither would the 5rm be a true 5rm after the 20rm and 10rm* had been completed..


They are "rep maxes" in context of the routine. I'd like to point out this is not my routine, just something that a very experinaced and very well conditioned lifter uses. I would not suggest it for beginners-intermidiates.


----------



## martin brown

Tall said:


> Yes and no. IMHO.
> 
> DE days (or RE days depending on how you've interpretted what Louis says, or moved away from the base template and incorporated the changes other lifters have added) have a different focus to hypertrophy, with the focus being on skill and adding a sufficient load(overload) to ensure adaptation.
> 
> The TUT from 8-10 sets of 3 reps on DE bench would be considerably different to 3sets of 10 reps on DE bench. Fast Twitch fibres would tire considerably and slow the movement down.
> 
> The Volume and Load is there agreed, but in terms of TUT I would disagree. Perhaps my view of TUT is outdated? The classic TUT routines are normally 4-1--2 - 4 sec negs, 1 sec pause, 2 sec positive with the aim of keeping the muscle under tension for an elongated period of time.
> 
> Whereas the optimal method is rather to target fast twitch fibres with a more explosive movement for hypertrophy.


Right well I CBA arguing over minor details but:

That's what I mean about TUT - it is appropriate but isn't the governing factor. 15 reps has more TUT than 5 reps in general. I view it as simple as that  The TUT routines are created by the time focused fools!

Have you read my log recently - last week was 90 rep bench press - hows that for TUT took about 2 minutes.

Maybe PL'ers get their size from their obvious lack of care for eating less than the government guidelines. Eating steaks and eggs and everything else all day promotes huge growth. Like the sumo wrestler saga (they don't spend much TUT) yet they have been argued to have more muscle than BB'ers and PL'ers. But hey, thats a whole new debate....


----------



## Tall

martin brown said:


> Right well I CBA arguing over minor details but:
> 
> That's what I mean about TUT - it is appropriate but isn't the governing factor. 15 reps has more TUT than 5 reps in general. I view it as simple as that  The TUT routines are created by the time focused fools!
> 
> Have you read my log recently - last week was 90 rep bench press - hows that for TUT took about 2 minutes.
> 
> Maybe PL'ers get their size from their obvious lack of care for eating less than the government guidelines. Eating steaks and eggs and everything else all day promotes huge growth. Like the sumo wrestler saga (they don't spend much TUT) yet they have been argued to have more muscle than BB'ers and PL'ers. But hey, thats a whole new debate....


Yes I spotted your 90 rep bench - did it make you massive? :lol:

I think we (me and you, not whats his face) are on the same page :thumbup1:


----------



## Natural1

Tall said:


> The TUT from 8-10 sets of 3 reps on DE bench would be considerably different to 3sets of 10 reps on DE bench. Fast Twitch fibres would tire considerably and slow the movement down.
> 
> The Volume and Load is there agreed, but in terms of TUT I would disagree..


What you're looking at here is high total accumulated TUT.

ANY routine will have a total accumulated TUT per muscle group and the way we manage this total TUT into sets and reps determines the amount of continuous TUT and training effect.


----------



## Tall

Natural1 said:


> What you're looking at here is high total accumulated TUT.
> 
> ANY routine will have a total accumulated TUT per muscle group and the way we manage this total TUT into sets and reps determines the amount of continuous TUT and training effect.


Genuine question:

Are you trying to bore me into conceding?


----------



## martin brown

Tall said:


> Yes I spotted your 90 rep bench - did it make you massive? :lol:
> 
> I think we (me and you, not whats his face) are on the same page :thumbup1:


No, it made me small because I totally forgot about the tension part - only used 40kg!!!

Im a spaz.

Yes we think in the same direction. Forwards. Simple really.


----------



## Tall

martin brown said:


> No, it made me small because I totally forgot about the tension part - only used 40kg!!!
> 
> Im a spaz.
> 
> Yes we think in the same direction. Forwards. Simple really.


All I need to do now is produce a 300kg+ squat in comp and I'll be happy :thumbup1:


----------



## Natural1

Tall said:


> Genuine question:
> 
> Are you trying to bore me into conceding?


Just stating facts. Do you disagree that at the end of a workout, a muscle would had accumulated a certain amount of TUT?

Two things matter:

1/ Total workload and TUT performed

2/ The way in which the sets/reps have been managed to accumulate this workload/TUT

To ignore such is to ignore reality.

Let me explain my opinion more clearly.

I think its important for beginners-intermediates working on strength to understand that when using a typical strength based routine, they may not use a lot of total reps (volume) but the amount of tension per rep should be quite high (relative to the individual)

On a typical hypertrophy routine aka bodybuilding, a different approach is used.

You tend to use moderate tension per rep (lighter load) but use more reps/sets (volume) to compensate, which results in the fatigue needed for optimal sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

IMO:

Strength training = ME work with DE/RE support.

Bodybuilding = RE work with optional ME support.

Get strength up first (improve 1-6 rep maxes), then use a hypertrophy phase of lower load and increased volume (bodybuilding)

TUT is more important in the advanced lifter looking to maximize hypertrophy.

Dave Tate an already advanced strength athlete made gains using TUT principles:

"According to some experiments he'd done with a select group of bodybuilders, he'd determined that maximum hypertrophy may take place when the muscle is under tension between thirty and forty-five seconds." What may not seem like a big deal to most was an epiphany for Tate. "Most guys who try to achieve that duration of tension will focus on the reps and how long each one should take," says Tate. "I took it differently and just decided to go for time."So Tate made a four-week program with absolutely no repetition guidelines. "Before this program my average sets usually lasted like 10 seconds," he says. "This was going to be hell and I knew it." At the end of the four weeks, Tate had gained 10 pounds of muscle and looked harder and leaner than ever. His Extended Tension training program was officially born."

http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/my_greatest_gains_ever_dave_tate


----------



## Tall

Natural1 said:


> Just stating facts. Do you disagree that at the end of a workout, a muscle would had accumulated a certain amount of TUT?
> 
> Two things matter:
> 
> 1/ Total workload and TUT performed
> 
> 2/ The way in which the sets/reps have been managed to accumulate this workload/TUT
> 
> To ignore such is to ignore reality.
> 
> Let me explain my opinion more clearly.
> 
> I think its important for beginners-intermediates working on strength to understand that when using a typical strength based routine, they may not use a lot of total reps (volume) but the amount of tension per rep should be quite high (relative to the individual)
> 
> On a typical hypertrophy routine aka bodybuilding, a different approach is used.
> 
> You tend to use moderate tension per rep (lighter load) but use more reps/sets (volume) to compensate, which results in the fatigue needed for optimal sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
> 
> IMO:
> 
> Strength training = ME work with DE/RE support.
> 
> Bodybuilding = RE work with optional ME support.
> 
> Get strength up first (improve 1-6 rep maxes), then use a hypertrophy phase of lower load and increased volume (bodybuilding)
> 
> TUT is more important in the advanced lifter looking to maximize hypertrophy.
> 
> Dave Tate an already advanced strength athlete made gains using TUT principles:
> 
> "According to some experiments he'd done with a select group of bodybuilders, he'd determined that maximum hypertrophy may take place when the muscle is under tension between thirty and forty-five seconds." What may not seem like a big deal to most was an epiphany for Tate. "Most guys who try to achieve that duration of tension will focus on the reps and how long each one should take," says Tate. "I took it differently and just decided to go for time."So Tate made a four-week program with absolutely no repetition guidelines. "Before this program my average sets usually lasted like 10 seconds," he says. "This was going to be hell and I knew it." At the end of the four weeks, Tate had gained 10 pounds of muscle and looked harder and leaner than ever. His Extended Tension training program was officially born."
> 
> http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/my_greatest_gains_ever_dave_tate


LMAO.

Do you genuinely beleive someone gained 10lbs of muscle in 4 weeks? :lol: :thumb:

Have you ever thought about getting a Slendertone for your abs...? :whistling:


----------



## hackskii

Tall said:


> I think we (me and you, not whats his face) are on the same page :thumbup1:


Come on man, can we have a civil debate instead of the digs.

That shows lack of respect tall, regardless if you agree or not.

His posts to you are not like above.

I love a good debate and I am learning here too, I am getting turned off from the flames of last week and the subtle digs.

Others (mods) have noticed this too, not just myself.


----------



## Natural1

I think Tall, Mr Brown and myself agree on more than we disagree.

I believe that BOTH the T's in TUT are important.

You NEED a certain amount of tension (load) and time (duration) the two will have an inverse relationship, the heavier the load (tension) the shorter the duration (time). The lighter the load (tension) the longer the duration (time).

It is the manipulation of load and duration that varies according to goals and desired training effect.

Bodybuilders and powerlifters tend to manipulate these variables differently although as I can't stress enough, nothing is set in stone.


----------



## Tall

hackskii said:


> Come on man, can we have a civil debate instead of the digs.
> 
> That shows lack of respect tall, regardless if you agree or not.
> 
> His posts to you are not like above.
> 
> I love a good debate and I am learning here too, I am getting turned off from the flames of last week and the subtle digs.
> 
> Others (mods) have noticed this too, not just myself.


Are you suggesting that my behaviour is unforgivable given his oleaginous tone in his posts...?

If you beleive that was disrespectful, I would suggest you are being oversensitive.

I have been very careful to ensure I haven't flamed.

Martin and I have had, I beleive, an interesting debate.

Your friend however continues to change his position when challenged and claims other peoples posts as his own which is frankly somewhat irksome.

If you wish I can direct you to your tone when you've had debates with Macro? I used them as a reference for acceptability.


----------



## Natural1

Tall said:


> Your friend however continues to change his position when challenged.


What's happened is that due to questions I have had to elaborate into greater detail. Saying "all MU's" is not so different to "all voluntarily contractible MU's". The deeper one delves into this deeper side of physiology the more comes out. I've explained to you already that I try to keep it understandable for the most part to all level of forum members.

I honestly cannot believe you make issue over one word.



Tall said:


> and claims other peoples posts as his own which is frankly somewhat irksome.


You've made this accusation before, please state who's posts I have used as my own and provide the link. Thankyou.


----------



## hackskii

You know I normally dont endulge in flaming others very often, Macro and myself are friends, yet he suggested a product that I bought and found it worthless and it costed me plenty.

That was why I flamed him, his stuff he suggested was crap, and I paid for it.

Last I checked natty isnt selling you anything other than something that is free, and he in my opinion has been very respectful, not like yourself and JW I might add.

Dont think I am the only one to notice this PS also asked both you and JW to tone it down.

Now, at what point do I take further action?

If others have noticed, then surely it isnt just me?

You are not a mod, I am and I dont get paid for this thankless job.

I will suggest that when it starts to become flaming, then I will step in.

If it is ignored then a temp ban.

If it is further ignored, then a perm ban.

I do think the moderators will back me on this as it has already been brought up.

I wont repeat myself again, and my words are NOT up for debate, unlike this post.


----------



## Tall

hackskii said:


> You know I normally dont endulge in flaming others very often, Macro and myself are friends, yet he suggested a product that I bought and found it worthless and it costed me plenty.
> 
> That was why I flamed him, his stuff he suggested was crap, and I paid for it.
> 
> Last I checked natty isnt selling you anything other than something that is free, and he in my opinion has been very respectful, not like yourself and JW I might add.
> 
> Dont think I am the only one to notice this PS also asked both you and JW to tone it down.
> 
> Now, at what point do I take further action?
> 
> If others have noticed, then surely it isnt just me?
> 
> You are not a mod, I am and I dont get paid for this thankless job.
> 
> I will suggest that when it starts to become flaming, then I will step in.
> 
> If it is ignored then a temp ban.
> 
> If it is further ignored, then a perm ban.
> 
> I do think the moderators will back me on this as it has already been brought up.
> 
> I wont repeat myself again, and my words are NOT up for debate, unlike this post.


Just to clarify - what are you suggesting I've done?

If you can show me where I've flamed that may be helpful.

All I can see is that you find my referring to someone without using their name is less than respectful, but that isn't flaming?

Those are genuine questions above.


----------



## jw007

hackskii said:


> You know I normally dont endulge in flaming others very often, Macro and myself are friends, yet he suggested a product that I bought and found it worthless and it costed me plenty.
> 
> That was why I flamed him, his stuff he suggested was crap, and I paid for it.
> 
> Last I checked natty isnt selling you anything other than something that is free, and he in my opinion has been very respectful, not like yourself and JW I might add.
> 
> Dont think I am the only one to notice this PS also asked both you and JW to tone it down.
> 
> Now, at what point do I take further action?
> 
> If others have noticed, then surely it isnt just me?
> 
> You are not a mod, I am and I dont get paid for this thankless job.
> 
> I will suggest that when it starts to become flaming, then I will step in.
> 
> If it is ignored then a temp ban.
> 
> If it is further ignored, then a perm ban.
> 
> I do think the moderators will back me on this as it has already been brought up.
> 
> I wont repeat myself again, and my words are NOT up for debate, unlike this post.


Errr????? :confused1: :confused1:

Why did I get a mention on this thread???

I made my point on another thread and left it there...

I purposefully did not post on here as I didnt want the thread going down same lines as the "other" one which you refer..

2 seperate threads, 2 seperate debates, nothing to do with me Scott....

Now that Im here, my view on all this is that it is all very interesting, however its my personal opinion that all references and studies quoted for the most part fail to take into consideration the use of AAS, GH, thyroid meds, IGF, nootropics etc etc which IMO all have a profound effect on the human pyhsiology and how it acts..

So for all intents and purposes this "debate" for me is a rather mute point...

As for Talls attidue, I see no reason to reprimand him, he has offered full rebutles and polite debating to put his point across..

Some would argue that condescension can be seen as rude....

I will concur that on the "other" thread, I was far more the aggressor than Tall.

Which I fail to see has any relevance on this "new" thread:confused1:

If you had a problem with my posting,I would suggest that the correct thing to do would be PM me rather than bring me into another futile debate.

As for flaming, I see none, in fact I see far worse everyday, mostly in the AAS section, by not so "senior" members as you put it, in which nothing is done about...

Hopefully this is my first and last post on this thread..

As being a Mod, being a thankless task, well thats not an opinion I share in anyway shape or from, I could post several advantages some might gain from said position, However thats a whole new debate that I shall leave there...

As like most things in life, We have choices...

No one forces us in the most part to do anything, if your unhappy......

I trust this post will be taken in the respectful manner it was meant


----------



## Natural1

jw007 said:


> its my personal opinion that all references and studies quoted for the most part fail to take into consideration the use of AAS, GH, thyroid meds, IGF, nootropics etc etc which IMO all have a profound effect on the human pyhsiology and how it acts..


Anabolics etc.. do not alter basic muscle physiology ie: size principle, recruitment patterns TUT/Fatigue and specific adaptation to load and rep ranges as per S.A.I.D


----------



## jw007

Natural1 said:


> *Anabolics etc*.. do not alter basic muscle physiology ie: size principle, recruitment patterns TUT/Fatigue and specific adaptation to load and rep ranges as per S.A.I.D


FFS:cursing:

The highlighted bit.... What exactly did you mean by anabolics ect

Please be crystal clear as I dont want to be accused of flaming or insulting your sorry ar5e, As i wanted to be left out of this...

I might not be typing any abuse, But im certainly thinking it...


----------



## Natural1

jw007 said:


> FFS:cursing:
> 
> The highlighted bit.... What exactly did you mean by anabolics ect


The things you mentioned. AAS, GH, IGF etc... These things do not alter the size principle, MU recruitment in order to meet demands, and specific adaptation to demands (S.A.I.D)



jw007 said:


> Please be crystal clear as I dont want to be accused of flaming or insulting *your sorry ar5e*, As i wanted to be left out of this...


You don't want to be accused of insulting me yet you just did. Enough is enough man seriously what is your issue with me?


----------



## TH0R

I hope this doesn't turn nasty again:rolleyes:


----------



## hackskii

tel3563 said:


> I hope this doesn't turn nasty again:rolleyes:


I hope not either.

Adding to that, next insult, next flame, next veiled comment, = 1 day ban.

Live is about choices.


----------



## Tinytom

in all fairness I think Natural 1 has some good info.

Maybe not about bummage or stella drinking but he can be forgiven for that.

We havent tolerated flaming or bullying on this forum ever before and Im sure Lorian doesnt want it now he's bought a new money pit to swim in. 

Im not singling out anyone in particular because it certainly isnt only one or two people

Im more concerned with the bandwagon type posting.


----------



## winger

Love this thread, more than anyone could imagine.

Sorry to cut out the middle and go straight to the end but here goes.

Can someone post up a routine to gain muscle, loose fat and get stronger...lol

No drugs xxxooo, have a nice day!


----------



## Natural1

Tinytom said:


> in all fairness I think Natural 1 has some good info.


Thanks I appreciate that. :beer:


----------



## winger

Learned lots and thanks Natural1.

Hell I should thank JW, only because he forced him (natural1) to step up with even more info..he he


----------



## Natural1

I think the misunderstanding with the discussion regarding time under tension originates with the focus on time. Obviously 60 seconds time under light tension isn't going to produce anything other than endurance adaptations. Significant tension (load) is required in context of strength/hypertrophy.

One minute under 5kg is not going to produce as much as strength stimulation as ten seconds under 100kg.

As a very rough guide:

Low tension high duration = endurance.

Moderate load and duration = hypertrophy/strength.

High tension low duration = strength/hypertrophy.

The above is very vague and the variables would depend from person to person.


----------



## 3752

excellant information mate.....


----------



## Natural1

As mentioned in the original post. We have a broad range of fibers ranging from.

low power/high endurance-----combination of power/endurance-----high power/low endurance.. And many inbetween.

With the following, bare this in mind.

A muscle as a whole is made up of muscle fibers. The size of a muscle equates to the accumulated number of hypertrophied fibers.

Myofibrillar hypertrophy (muscle fiber hypertrophy) as we understand it occurs as a result of micro trauma caused by contractions due to lifting heavy weight.

For example lets say each muscular contraction causes '1 unit' of micro trauma. The sum total of micro trauma to any given muscle fiber will be due to the accumulated number of contractions during a workout session.

The lower threshold fibers, the slower high endurance/low power based fibers are harder to 'micro trauma' than the faster higher threshold high power low endurance fiber types.. why? because these LTfibers are not capable of contracting as rapidly as the HTfibers (firing frequency/rate coding).

In other word these fibers cannot produce as much raw bio-mechanical work per unit of time as the faster more powerful but low endurance fiber types.

This is one reason why the LTfibers require more TUT than HTfibers to fatigue, they are simply harder to fatigue. Baring in mind the fact that there is a broad range of fibers, this should help explain why various rep targets and times under tension will work a group of fibers more effectively than others.

Our goal as a bodybuilder should be to hypertrophy as many fibers as reasonably and effectively possible which in turn equates to a bigger muscle as a whole.


----------



## winger

So do we vary rep ranges in one workout or one workout higher reps and one workout lower reps?

Or can I take a long time under tension going very slow and only doing a few reps?


----------



## TH0R

winger said:


> So do we vary rep ranges in one workout or one workout higher reps and one workout lower reps?
> 
> Or can I take a long time under tension going very slow and only doing a few reps?


x2


----------



## Natural1

winger said:


> So do we vary rep ranges in one workout or one workout higher reps and one workout lower reps?


There's no hard and fast rule. You can use heavy/light days or use different rep ranges withing the same session. I use both. That said, individuals may find they respond better to a certain range. 8-15 seems a 'sweet spot' for optimal hypertrophy.

Take for example a low rep target say 1-6 heavy reps. This will place the faster HTfibers under a lot of tension as they are recruited early and at high firing rates, however the set will be terminated before some LTfibers have had a chance to fully fatigue.

In a 20+ rep set, the LTfiber range have more time to fatigue. As lower threshold fibers fatigue and lose force production, the CNS both increases firing rates of already recruited fibers and recruits up the continuum to higher threshold fibers to maintain force. In this situation however because HTfibers are recruited gradually as required, they at first fire at lower frequencies until the CNS needs to increase their firing rates, during this process the fiber fatigues and may likely never reach maximum contraction rates.

There's no need to use combination training, 8-15 reps is a very balanced range to both provide some TUT for lower threshold fibers and place the HTfibers under high levels of tension, hence why 8-15 is so popular with bodybuilders.

I sometimes use rep schemes of 5/10/15 or 5/8/12 using the same exercise or choose 3 lifts for a body part and do go heavy/medium/light, that kind of thing. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with straight sets, but in my opinion, for bodybuilding/hypertrophy purposes straight sets are best used using a "middle of the row range" eg 8-15.



winger said:


> Or can I take a long time under tension going very slow and only doing a few reps?


My personal opinion is to never significantly purposely slow rep tempo. I always prefer a higher rep target at moderate-fast rep speeds over low rep purposely slowed reps for a longer TUT.

My view is that reps should slow only due to either 1/Sheer Load or 2/Fatigue.


----------



## winger

Very very nice. You just reaffirmed what I already thought to be true, but wasn't 100% sure.

Once again thanks Natural1.

I do a H.I.T. training and normally do 1 work set per exercise 2-3 exercises per body part. Two body parts per workout. Workouts last normally about 25 minutes with minimal talking. I train every other day. Is this enough?

I am 49 year old man. I am getting stronger but getting pretty close to my max for my body. I am also a natty for the most part.


----------



## hackskii

winger said:


> Very very nice. You just reaffirmed what I already thought to be true, but wasn't 100% sure.
> 
> Once again thanks Natural1.
> 
> I do a H.I.T. training and normally do 1 work set per exercise 2-3 exercises per body part. Two body parts per workout. Workouts last normally about 25 minutes with minimal talking. I train every other day. Is this enough?
> 
> I am 49 year old man. I am getting stronger but getting pretty close to my max for my body. I am also a natty for the most part.


Dude, are you that old?

Damn, you are an old fart. :whistling:


----------



## Natural1

winger said:


> I do a H.I.T. training and normally do 1 work set per exercise 2-3 exercises per body part. Two body parts per workout. Workouts last normally about 25 minutes with minimal talking. I train every other day. Is this enough?
> 
> I am 49 year old man. I am getting stronger but getting pretty close to my max for my body. I am also a natty for the most part.


Ok.

For adaptation to occur within a muscle it must be exposed to a stress greater than that of which it is used to. So long a lifter gets stronger then low volume training can work great.. but.. what happens when the lifter approaches his upper strength limits.. this is where an increase in volume may be of great benefit.

What rep range do you usually train in Winger?


----------



## winger

Natural1 said:


> What rep range do you usually train in Winger?


5-20. I have personal bests on 5 rep range, 8 rep range and about 12 rep range.

For example lets say chest.

I might do incline heavy and reps on flat. Then next chest workout I will go heavy on flat and reps on inclines. If I am not feeling 100% I will go lighter and try and get around 12 reps when maybe 11 reps was my old PB.


----------



## Hobbit JT

this thread has been such a good read, thanks to all those who have contributed!


----------



## winger

Hobbit JT said:


> this thread has been such a good read, thanks to all those who have contributed!


Thanks and bump!


----------



## essexboy

winger said:


> Very very nice. You just reaffirmed what I already thought to be true, but wasn't 100% sure.
> 
> Once again thanks Natural1.
> 
> I do a H.I.T. training and normally do 1 work set per exercise 2-3 exercises per body part. Two body parts per workout. Workouts last normally about 25 minutes with minimal talking. I train every other day. Is this enough?
> 
> I am 49 year old man. I am getting stronger but getting pretty close to my max for my body. I am also a natty for the most part.


hi winger. i feel i must interject.im the same age as you, i also train HIT although i use a weekly full body protocol.You have been misinformed. Muscle fibre typing is not an exact discipline.unless a biopsy is performed , its mere speculation.you say you are nearing your potential?Under no circumstances train more as you progress. this is in direct conflict to HIT protocol. you need less and HARDER exercise, to preserve your recovery abilitie.use advanced techniques, such as negative work, static holds, pre-exaust.in fact i think you are trainning too frequently, i d put in 2/3 days between w/o.anyone who tells you to train faster, is a fool.how can using momentum benefit the muscle, when the muscle isnt doing the work? you wolud do well to buy a copy of bodybyscience. It is just that the experience and proven science as it pertains to muscle growth.


----------



## carbsnwhey

Nice Article


----------



## Natural1

essexboy said:


> Under no circumstances train more as you progress. this is in direct conflict to HIT protocol.


HIT protocol is flawed in some aspects. A muscle will only grow under the circumstance of overload. This rule will never change.



essexboy said:


> you need less and HARDER exercise, to preserve your recovery abilitie.use advanced techniques, such as negative work, static holds, pre-exaust.


While the above have their place, they in fact in themselves are responsible for the necessity of greater recovery and reduced workload. When not using these 'intensity' methods and stopping shy of failure, more actual *muscular* workload may be performed.

Also, dual factor training (which in my experience most HITers reject) offers a way of training which does not require full recovery between workouts.



essexboy said:


> anyone who tells you to train faster, is a fool.how can using momentum benefit the muscle, when the muscle isnt doing the work?


This is inaccurate. Greater rep speeds = greater muscular recruitment and power expression. This 'momentum' argument is one used often by slow repping advocates but it's based on nonsense.

Momentum implies there is a force outside of what the muscle producing which aids the weight up, there is NO other force working on the bar other than that produced by your muscle. If you have decent weight on the bar (which you should) just how far does the weight travel on it's own at the top of a lift if you leave your hand open? Where is this 'momentum'?

A car rolls *long after* the engine dies, whens the last time you had to duck in the gym to avoid a flying barbell due to 'momentum'? If for some reason you feel the bar fly out of your hands due to 'momentum' ADD MORE WEIGHT!

I have no issue with abbreviated training or training with intensity but the momentum argument is based on false logic and not in line with science.


----------



## Guest

Bodybyscience is a great book, i made a total of 3 visits to the book store and in that time i had read the book cover to cover.

Overall HIT is lacking in info as the info there is such as the works of MM (i own close to all of his books/films) is very old info at this stage.

Its the best way to train imo because how can the fastest route not be the best route when it comes to training (obviously barring injuries). The problem is learning how to cycle your work outs and exercises correctly and this is a fine art. Most people rather follow an far easier "instictive" way of training as this sidesteps the extra work required.


----------



## essexboy

Con said:


> Bodybyscience is a great book, i made a total of 3 visits to the book store and in that time i had read the book cover to cover.
> 
> Overall HIT is lacking in info as the info there is such as the works of MM (i own close to all of his books/films) is very old info at this stage.
> 
> Its the best way to train imo because how can the fastest route not be the best route when it comes to training (obviously barring injuries). The problem is learning how to cycle your work outs and exercises correctly and this is a fine art. Most people rather follow an far easier "instictive" way of training as this sidesteps the extra work required.


I agree Con, that recovery abilities will vary, and cycling may help alleviate overtraining.As you say the most productive route is the best route.Instinctive training.A term that always makes me smile.if i was to exert my "instincts" it wolud tell me not to try and gain metabolically expensive muscle, but to lie in bed and preserve my energy to aid survival if a flight or fight response was needed!


----------



## essexboy

Natural1 said:


> HIT protocol is flawed in some aspects. A muscle will only grow under the circumstance of overload. This rule will never change.
> 
> While the above have their place, they in fact in themselves are responsible for the necessity of greater recovery and reduced workload. When not using these 'intensity' methods and stopping shy of failure, more actual *muscular* workload may be performed.
> 
> Also, dual factor training (which in my experience most HITers reject) offers a way of training which does not require full recovery between workouts.
> 
> This is inaccurate. Greater rep speeds = greater muscular recruitment and power expression. This 'momentum' argument is one used often by slow repping advocates but it's based on nonsense.
> 
> Momentum implies there is a force outside of what the muscle producing which aids the weight up, there is NO other force working on the bar other than that produced by your muscle. If you have decent weight on the bar (which you should) just how far does the weight travel on it's own at the top of a lift if you leave your hand open? Where is this 'momentum'?
> 
> A car rolls *long after* the engine dies, whens the last time you had to duck in the gym to avoid a flying barbell due to 'momentum'? If for some reason you feel the bar fly out of your hands due to 'momentum' ADD MORE WEIGHT!
> 
> I have no issue with abbreviated training or training with intensity but the momentum argument is based on false logic and not in line with science.


Really?. please tell me what false logic is.All you have done is disagree. you have only posted opinions, merely disagreeing does not constitute valid response.your "car" analogy is not relavant.A car rolls because it has WHEELS. you are disagreeing with a well proven established protocol, and all you can do is post pseudo science. Anything i post has been PROVEN and observed by myself over a considerable time frame.i dont dream up ideas, then cite them as "science"please direct me too the double blind scientific trials, that PROVES that using greater speed , recruits more muscle fibres.


----------



## anabolic ant

Manipulating Reps for Gains in Size and Strength

by Charles Poliquin

Perhaps the most important loading parameter in designing exercise programs is not the number of sets, the tempo used, or even the specific exercises employed, but the number of repetitions selected.

It is clear that the most important variable to strength training is the amount of resistance used. The amount of weight determines the tension put on a muscle, and how long this tension is maintained determines the muscle's response. In fact, subtle manipulations can make the difference between increases in strength, increases in size and increases in endurance.

And the wrong manipulation can make the set, and indeed, the whole exercise session, worthless.

Obviously, the number of repetitions performed determines how much the athlete can lift, and given this fact, I have come up with 24 principles that can influence your decision, approximately half of which are presented in this article.

Whether you design programs for others or just yourself, many of these principles should help you in attaining your physique goals.

1. The number of reps done for a given time under tension dictates the training effect.

Training intensities can be altered in one of two ways: by having the athlete work at a higher percentage of his max (heavier weights), or moving the weight faster during the lifting, or concentric part of the lift.

While the number of reps an athlete performs also influences the training effect, it's mandatory that the speed used to execute the movement also be considered. It's too bad that very few researchers take into consideration the effects of different repetition speeds, and even worse that few coaches take tempo into consideration.

This is where the whole "super slow" theory of training falls flat. As far as sport is concerned, whoever produces the most amount of force in the shortest amount of time wins. By purposely training slow, you learn to become slow. Reducing the speed of movement just increases the time a muscle is under tension, not the intensity. As far as bodybuilding, however, it does not matter so much because functionality of the muscles is not crucial. In that regard, training slow for a brief period can lead to hypertrophy, especially if the trainee has been lifting explosively for a while.

Generally speaking, however, sets that subject the muscles to less than 20 seconds of time under tension build strength, while those that take from 40 to 60 seconds to complete cause hypertrophy.

2. MVC's (Maximal Voluntary Contractions) are essential to the strength building process.

To build size and strength, it is essential to incorporate maximal voluntary contractions. In short, this means recruiting as many motor units as possible to develop force.

Contrary to what you might assume, an MVC does not always equate to a 1RM load. Rather, an MVC could be the last rep of a 5 or 6RM load, where performing another rep is impossible.

Working with 1RM loads, though, enables an athlete to achieve maximal motor unit activation (MUA). Do this enough times, and neural adaptations and increased strength occur.

This is why the rest-pause training methodology is so valuable. For those of you unfamiliar with it, it involves using a 1RM load, which activates the maximal number of motor units. The athlete then racks the bar, removes 2-5% of the load, and then repeats the lift. The process is then repeated, for usually no more than 8 reps.

3. An athlete should use between 70 and 100% of maximum capacity to develop maximal strength.

While there is still some controversy as to the exact range of percentages, many leading experts in strength training believe that the best way to develop maximal strength is to use weights that allow the athlete to perform between 1 and 12 reps at 70 to 100% of the athlete's 1RM.

Some say, however, that anything below 75% is best suited for developing muscular endurance, while others put the number at 60%.

It is my experience, however, that the lower threshold is 70%, but beginners, and especially women, can often make progress using loads that are approximately 60% of 1RM.

4. The range in repetitions needed to develop strength and/or hypertrophy decreases with training age.

Training age, or the number of years the athlete has been training, influences the 1RM continuum.

While the average beginning weight trainee can often do 20 reps at 75% of maximum, that same trainee may do 10 reps at 75% of maximum after a year. If that same trainee is examined five years later, he may only do 4 reps at 75% of maximum.

Why is this important? Consider the athlete with a training age of one year who can bench press 12 reps at 140 pounds, which is 70% of his 1RM. Perhaps when this trainee has been training for four years, his new 1RM is 400 pounds. However, he may now only be able to complete 6 reps using 70% of his 1RM, which is 280 pounds.

Given that it is generally agreed upon by the strength training community that that 70% is the minimum threshold for strength development, it would not be a good idea to prescribe weights lower than 70%, or repetitions higher than 6, as the weight would be too light to promote gains in strength.

5. The 1RM continuum varies greatly among muscle groups.

If an athlete performs his 12RM (the amount of weight he can lift 12 times) in the bench press, he may only be working at 70% of maximum, but at 12RM in the leg curl, he may only be working at 57% of maximum.

The extreme is even more remarkable when you consider certain lower body movements that employ a high stretch-shortening cycle component, such as leg presses. Many athletes can do 65 reps on the leg press while using a weight that is 70% of their maximum!

6. The number of repetitions is the loading parameter that athletes adapt to the most quickly.

It's best to vary rep range prescriptions often because the body adapts very quickly to given rep ranges. In fact, the average athlete adapts to a given number of reps in six workouts. When this adaptation occurs, it's virtually pointless to continue the same program.

One method with which I have had great success it to prescribe a given rep bracket for 2 workouts, lower it by 1 rep for the next two workouts, and then lower it by 1 rep yet again for one or two workouts.

Here is an example of such a progression:

Workouts 1-2: 4 sets x 6-8

Workouts 3-4: 5 sets x 5-7

Workouts 5-6: 5 sets x 4-6

7. Elite athletes must pay attention to the specificity of contraction force.

Generally speaking, reps in the 1RM to 5RM range increase maximal strength with minimal gains in mass. Reps in the 8RM to 15RM range produce greater gains in hypertrophy, while reps between 6RM and 7RM produce equal changes in hypertrophy and strength.

However, when considering athletes who have several years of training experience, low repetitions (1-5) must be used with high loads (85% or higher) for both relative and absolute strength, while mid-repetitions (6-12) must be used with sub maximal loads (70-84%) for absolute strength gains. High repetitions should be combined with light loads for strength-endurance (less than 70%).

In other words, athletes with more years of experience can train with a broader range of repetitions.

Along the same lines, periodically "straying" into unfamiliar rep ranges can have positive training effects that are not consistent with the norm. For instance, in athletes seeking hypertrophy, periodically employing programs that use 1RM to 5RM ranges can lead to increases in muscle size in addition to strength.

8. Don't perform low reps too frequently.

Sport scientist Robert Roman has written extensively on the training of competitive lifters and he concluded that the most successful weightlifters tend to do most of their sets in the 3RM to 4RM range.

This observation was echoed by Canadian weightlifting coach Pierre Roy, who believes that the average rep range for athletes should be 3.

The take home point is that if an athlete does singles or doubles for too long, he will stagnate. This, of course, is especially true for athletes who seek hypertrophy.

9. Each muscle group or lift responds best to a specific average rep range.

Throughout my career, I have had the opportunity to analyze the training logs of the hundreds of athletes that I've coached. As such, it has become apparent that the optimal rep range should be specific to the muscle group or exercise chosen.

For instance, in the case of the elbow flexors, the best strength gains were obtained when no less than an average of 2.5 reps per set were performed, with a minimum total of 15 reps per workout.

Along the same lines, for hypertrophy purposes, triceps generally respond better to fewer reps than the biceps (because the triceps are generally more fast-twitch). Another example regards the hamstrings, which generally require fewer reps than quadriceps, or the gastrocs, which require fewer reps than the soleus.

10. The function of the muscle dictates the number of reps.

You have no doubt heard your physiology professor say, "Form dictates function." It is also my experience there are specific rep ranges that are more appropriate for certain muscle functions.

As an example, training the knee flexors (hamstrings) with sets of 12 results in little hypertrophy. However, when training the knee extensors, sets of up to 50 reps (leg press) can induce hypertrophy. This probably has to do with the fact that the knee flexors are used for explosive tasks, while the knee extensors are used primarily for maintaining posture and in the execution of certain stretch-shortening tasks.

11. Vary reps for the upper body more than the lower body.

Recent studies confirm that using programs that employ variation in rep ranges was more beneficial for the upper body than the lower body.

For example, if designing a program for the bench press, it's more important to vary the reps often than it is for movements like the squat and deadlift.

12. High-rep training can increase capillary density.

Studies have shown that sets of more than 20 reps can increase capillary density, and capillary dense muscle can eventually lead to hypertrophy when one resumes more traditional rep schemes.

One such study, performed in 1973, showed that as little as one high-rep workout was enough to double the amount of mitochondria in muscle cells.

I think this is one reason why cyclists and speed skaters have such large quadriceps - they expose the muscles to an extreme amount of time under tension, thus facilitating capillary growth and hypertrophy of lower threshold motor units.

However, from personal experience, it seems that the quads, deltoids and lats would benefit from this type of training more than other muscle groups.

13. Reps performed in one exercise may have a different effect than reps performed for another exercise, even though both movements are for the same body part.

When comparing squats against leg press, squats are far more effective in increasing leg strength and overall strength. However, there is some evidence to suggest that the leg press might result in more hypertrophy of the quadriceps. One study, at least, showed that for the same number of reps, the leg press resulted in a higher amount of Growth Hormone being produced than squats.

As possible evidence, the leg press is the exercise of choice when it comes to speed skating, and I have personally worked with speed skaters whose legs made Tom Platz's look like Woody Allen's.

While I am loathe to recommend leg presses instead of squats, I merely present it as an interesting discussion point.

There are many more principles regarding the manipulation of reps that I use in designing programs, but the ones I have presented here should put you light years ahead of the average weight training pack.

Editor's note: This article is a brief extract of some the material presented in the Poliquin International Certification Program Level Theory 1 Manual that can be purchased at www.CharlesPoliquin.net.


----------



## essexboy

With respect AA. I have read Poliquin before.im not all impressed.He merely attempts to complicate and expand "theories" that have no basis in science, and only exist in the vacuum of his head.ok lets call him on his last comment.Let him show me a speed skaters legs,(that he has trained) that make Tom Platzs look like Woody Allens.He cant, his jingoistic stance, and inflated sense of his own importance is obvious.He has even created his own certification FFS.


----------



## winger

I know we are talking about muscle size so this might not apply but worth saying.

I remember reading an article that some guy wrote and he interviewed the top 10 strongest benchers and they all had their disagreements but all of them said to explode off of the bottom.

Now if you explode off of the bottom you can not lift slowly.

I am a believer that if you explode off of the bottom you are telling all the muscles needed to push 100%. Now taking the bar down slowly is a different story, but even if you do take the bar down slowly wont that take away from the concentric part of the lift?

God I love this stuff and thanks for posting essexboy, nice to see another old timer on here...lol :beer:


----------



## godsgifttoearth

why does this all matter?

aslong as what ur doing allows you to add weight every session, or meet whatever targets you have.....then it surely all good? why overcomplicate things. people have been lifting heavy **** for years and years. long before all this diff type muscle fibres. they also learned that lifting heavier and heavier things made them stronger and stronger and then got subsequently bigger muscles.


----------



## winger

godsgifttoearth said:


> why does this all matter?
> 
> aslong as what ur doing allows you to add weight every session, or meet whatever targets you have.....then it surely all good? why overcomplicate things. people have been lifting heavy **** for years and years. long before all this diff type muscle fibres. they also learned that lifting heavier and heavier things made them stronger and stronger and then got subsequently bigger muscles.


Bingo! Hey, why clutter up the issues with the facts. :lol:

I have been saying this for a long time and thanks for that.


----------



## godsgifttoearth

winger said:


> Bingo! Hey, why clutter up the issues with the facts. :lol:
> 
> I have been saying this for a long time and thanks for that.


i mean, its interesting and all. and the info ive just aquired may come in handy on some obscure pub quiz at the rugby club someday. but now you know all of this, does it really change anything? has it just added 100lbs to your deadlift? (something that would make a pretty massive difference to everything you do)

i used to get so caught up on rep ranges, muscle recruitment, hormone responce patterns that i couldnt see the wood for the trees. then i was enlightened by a very clever man (who was also rather massive), who just said. 'ignore the bollocks, lift heavier than last time, eat lots of protein and food, use compound lifts' and now im on my way to the body i want.

sorry to be a kill joy, i just needed to say it! thanks for the info tho! :thumb:


----------



## winger

godsgifttoearth said:


> i mean, its interesting and all. and the info ive just aquired may come in handy on some obscure pub quiz at the rugby club someday. but now you know all of this, does it really change anything? has it just added 100lbs to your deadlift? (something that would make a pretty massive difference to everything you do)
> 
> i used to get so caught up on rep ranges, muscle recruitment, hormone responce patterns that i couldnt see the wood for the trees. then i was enlightened by a very clever man (who was also rather massive), who just said. 'ignore the bollocks, lift heavier than last time, eat lots of protein and food, use compound lifts' and now im on my way to the body i want.
> 
> sorry to be a kill joy, i just needed to say it! thanks for the info tho! :thumb:


You are preaching to the the choir mate. I agree!


----------



## Natural1

essexboy said:


> All you have done is disagree. you have only posted opinions, merely disagreeing does not constitute valid response.


You accuse me of posting mere opinion when the fact is, you have done the same. However, what I posted is not opinion but physiological fact, more below.



essexboy said:


> your "car" analogy is not relavant.A car rolls because it has WHEELS.


It rolls due to momentum, this law of physics applies to objects without wheels, a car was just the first eg that came to mind. Lets for another eg look at pitching a ball. After the initial explosive action of pitching the ball continues on it's course long after the force behind it has stopped. Lets take the eg directly to a barbell. Using an empty bar you may be able to perform an explosive bench press and release the bar at the top and have it continue traveling in an upwards direction for a couple of feet or so, this is momentum, however seriously, how far does a LOADED barbell travel at the top of a lift if at all? If you're having momentum issue then simply add some more weight to the bar. Bodybuilding is about RE work not DE.



essexboy said:


> you are disagreeing with a well proven established protocol, and all you can do is post pseudo science.


Please read my posts properly, what I actually said was SOME of HIT protocol is flawed where did I disagree with HIT per se?. There is nothing 'pseudo' about my reasoning in regards to rep speed. It's physiology/physics 101.



essexboy said:


> please direct me too the double blind scientific trials, that PROVES that using greater speed , recruits more muscle fibres.


Would you honestly suggest that moving a load explosively recruits no more motor units then moving it slowly? Think about this, which will recruit the most about of MU's/fibers, pitching a ball gently in play with a child or pitching it as hard as you can in sport? Do you think a pro tennis player recruits more MU's on his explosive first serve or the usual more gentle second? Does a boxer use more MU's to throw a punch as hard as possible or to punch half heartedly? High effort explosive movement = greater CNS output which in turn = greater MU recruitment and rate coding.

To accelerate a load faster requires MORE force than to move it slower, if your saying that this extra force does not come from a greater recruitment of MUs/fibers then where does it come from?

FACT: With any given load the faster acceleration ALWAYS recruits higher threshold MUs/fibers with a greater CNS output. To dispute this is to dispute basic physiology.


----------



## Natural1

essexboy said:


> With respect AA. I have read Poliquin before.im not all impressed.He merely attempts to complicate and expand "theories" that have no basis in science, and only exist in the vacuum of his head.ok lets call him on his last comment.Let him show me a speed skaters legs,(that he has trained) that make Tom Platzs look like Woody Allens.He cant, his jingoistic stance, and inflated sense of his own importance is obvious.He has even created his own certification FFS.


Just because one or two statement in the article do not appear to 'add up' it in no way invalidates the physiological accuracy of the information.


----------



## Natural1

godsgifttoearth said:


> i used to get so caught up on rep ranges, muscle recruitment, hormone responce patterns that i couldnt see the wood for the trees. then i was enlightened by a very clever man (who was also rather massive), who just said. 'ignore the bollocks, lift heavier than last time, eat lots of protein and food, use compound lifts' and now im on my way to the body i want.


You are absolutely right. However sometimes it's nice to know WHY something works and not just the fact that it does. But I agree for the most part, just lift heavier weight or same weight for more reps.


----------



## Natural1

winger said:


> I remember reading an article that some guy wrote and he interviewed the top 10 strongest benchers and they all had their disagreements but all of them said to explode off of the bottom.
> 
> Now if you explode off of the bottom you can not lift slowly.
> 
> I am a believer that if you explode off of the bottom you are telling all the muscles needed to push 100%. Now taking the bar down slowly is a different story, but even if you do take the bar down slowly wont that take away from the concentric part of the lift?


I absolutely agree that it is always better for strength/hypertrophy to be explosive (relatively) on the concentric. One of the reasons is that you cannot handle the same load during significantly deliberately slowed concentric actions.

Bare in mind that the we are stronger in the eccentric than concentric, in other words we are capable of lowering a weight greater than our concentric 1 rep max. Now if using a purposely slowed protocol that requires a slow concentric by withholding effort we will by necessity be using lighter weight, this has the effect of producing a rather underloaded eccentric.


----------



## jw007

essexboy said:


> Really?. please tell me what false logic is.All you have done is disagree. you have only posted opinions, merely disagreeing does not constitute valid response.your "car" analogy is not relavant.A car rolls because it has WHEELS. you are disagreeing with a well proven established protocol, and all you can do is post pseudo science. Anything i post has been PROVEN and observed by myself over a considerable time frame.i dont dream up ideas, then cite them as "science"please direct me too the double blind scientific trials, that PROVES that using greater speed , recruits more muscle fibres.


Nice Post


----------



## Natural1

It's my experinace with many HIT advocates that anything that disagrees with their philosophy is classed as 'pseudo science'. There is nothing 'pseudo' about the simple physiological fact that greater acceleration and force generation requires a greater recruitment of motor units. To argue this is akin to debating whether the sky is blue.


----------



## Natural1

jw007 said:


> Nice Post


I see you agree with essexboy.

Can you explain how a muscle generates a greater force without recruiting extra motor units and increasing firing frequency?


----------



## TH0R

godsgifttoearth said:


> lift heavier than last time, eat lots of protein and food, use compound lifts' and now im on my way to the body i want.


Good advice:thumbup1:................but how many reps and sets


----------



## TH0R

Natural, is there a pic of yourself I could see?? If all the stuff you disagree about is true

then you must be a rather large unit mate.

Not being funny, just interested:innocent:


----------



## Natural1

tel3563 said:


> If all the stuff *you disagree about* is true
> 
> then you must be a rather large unit mate.
> 
> Not being funny, just interested:innocent:


What specifically do I 'disagree' with?


----------



## TH0R

Natural1 said:


> What specifically do I 'disagree' with?


 :whistling: :whistling: :whistling:


----------



## Natural1

tel3563 said:


> :whistling: :whistling: :whistling:


So you had nothing in mind when you posted then?

I wonder what does my appearance have to do with basic physiology?


----------



## jw007

Natural1 said:


> I see you agree with essexboy.
> 
> Can you explain how a muscle generates a greater force without recruiting extra motor units and increasing firing frequency?


 :lol: :lol:

yes I agree with essexboy

Was a very good post:thumbup1:

Are you trying to "draw" me into another argument with your "ad-hominem" attack????

I shall not be expalining anything to you, essexboy was clear enough, or cant you read???

I shall leave you to post your "insights" and leave the 10x10 brigade to rep you and make you feel special


----------



## Natural1

jw007 said:


> :lol: :lol:
> 
> yes I agree with essexboy
> 
> Was a very good post:thumbup1:


Yet you fail to address my very thorough reply to that post.



jw007 said:


> Are you trying to "draw" me into another argument with your "ad-hominem" attack????


jw, I have NOT attacked you on a personal level, clearly you misunderstand what a 'ad hominem attack' means. I simply asked you (seeing as you agree with essex boys post) to explain how on earth a muscle can produce MORE force without recruiting more MU's or increasing rate coding, but as you well know, this cannot be done.



jw007 said:


> I shall not be expalining anything to you..


I understand.


----------



## TH0R

Natural1 said:


> So you had nothing in mind when you posted then?
> 
> *I wonder what does my appearance have to do with basic physiology?*


Well I see JWs physique and I think wow, guy knows what hes doing, hence

i will trust what he says as being of substance,

He has proved his theories with his training and appearance.

(If JW's reading this please ignore said statement as I'm only lieing to prove a point)


----------



## Natural1

tel3563 said:


> Well I see JWs physique and I think wow, guy knows what hes doing, hence
> 
> i will trust what he says as being of substance,
> 
> He has proved his theories with his training and appearance.


The above is very vague.

Can you be a little more *specific* on what you feel that JW is right about that I have wrong?

For example, essexboy seems to doubt that higher effort accelerated movements recruit more motor units and JW agreed with this. When I called him on it he failed to elaborate, I wonder why.

I don't care how huge JW is or how tiny I "might be" as it doesn't alter basic physiology.

Now if you have something more substantial than "jw is huge therefore must be right" I'll be happy to hear it.


----------



## TH0R

JW is huge therefore must be right


----------



## jw007

Natural1 said:


> The above is very vague.
> 
> Can you be a little more *specific* on what you feel that JW is right about that I have wrong?
> 
> For example, essexboy seems to doubt that higher effort accelerated movements recruit more motor units and JW agreed with this. When I called him on it he failed to elaborate, I wonder why.
> 
> I don't care how huge JW is or how tiny I "might be" as it doesn't alter basic physiology.
> 
> *Now if you have something more substantial than "jw is huge therefore* *must be right" I'll be happy to hear it*.


Listen to you Mr "natty" name dopper

Ive lost count of the amount of names youve dropped to try and prove your point, that average looking swimsuit dude Layne someone or other has been mentioned more times thani care to remember

Let see you back up and argument with resorting to "proving your point" with name dropping or "existing training principle dropping" with added name dropping for good measure..

Lets just use this board for examples and name drop accordingly

Tel has used Me "hulk" has an example

perhaps you would like to use and advocate of your system, Off top of my head you can have "hacksii" he uses your 10x10

we can have a physique "off" :lol: :lol: Or even a strength "OFF"

And see who wins

On Tels side however I call

Me

NYTOL

DMCC

DC55

D4EAD

CURLIE

Porbably supercell as he trains with NYTOL

CHRIS1

Hell lets add Zara:thumbup1:

METAL (250kg raw bencher)

DUTCH SCOTT

DSHANA

There are loads others, but will keep them, bring out the big guns as and when so to speak

on Nattys side

Hacks

????

Oh lets add winger here to

You could throw yourself into the fray:whistling:


----------



## godsgifttoearth

this is the other reason i dont like these types of debate.....they always get nasty in the end, cos no one ever agrees.

come on, please keep it amicable guys. i was enjoying reading this, but the tone is getting ****y now. please dont start the 'im bigger than you so im right' rubbish. its not fair, and its not a debate. its forcing ur views on someone. and using that logic, nothing i say can ever be correct as im not as big as most guys.


----------



## dtlv

Interesting debate.

Agree that the theory of mixed rep sets (high, moderate, low) all taken to maximum effort looks good for maximum stimulation of muscle fibres. Also agree that this approach works in real terms having made gains I'm happy with on heavy & light routines.

However, I also agree that standard rep schemes and progressions work and there are lot of good physiques out there to back this up. Is important to remember i think that growth and adaptation is NOT just about stimulation of muscle fibres and following theoretically optimum approaches to this, it's also about maximising hormonal response.

This means that under certain circumstances a routine with below maximal stimulation of all fibres can lead to equal or greater growth if the hormonal response is optimised. Hormones play a big role in hypertrophy - just ask anyone who juices.

Disagree completely that using TUT as a prime determinant of how to structure a workout is a useful way to go about things - TUT is just a way of saying how long a muscle or group of fibres is forced to contract for, whereas there are too many variables and other factors to add in (isometric or dynamic movement, relative load, speed of movement, continual or accumulated TUT etc) before it becomes a meaningful measure... and what makes it meaningful is not TUT itself but the other factors!

As for acusations of flaming, well am new here and don't know the personalities involved or any history from other threads - but i think its fair enough both to strongly challenge opinions as well as to vigorously defend them.


----------



## winger

jw007 said:


> Me
> 
> NYTOL
> 
> DMCC
> 
> DC55
> 
> D4EAD
> 
> CURLIE
> 
> Porbably supercell as he trains with NYTOL
> 
> CHRIS1
> 
> Hell lets add Zara:thumbup1:
> 
> METAL (250kg raw bencher)
> 
> DUTCH SCOTT
> 
> DSHANA
> 
> There are loads others, but will keep them, bring out the big guns as and when so to speak
> 
> on Nattys side
> 
> Hacks
> 
> ????
> 
> Oh lets add winger here to
> 
> You could throw yourself into the fray:whistling:


Not too many natty people can compete with guys using copious amounts of gear. But I do feel honored. :lol: :lol: :lol:

How did I get brought into this, I just agreed with Natural1's principles, only because I use them myself. :beer:


----------



## Natural1

jw007 said:


> Listen to you Mr "natty" name dopper
> 
> Ive lost count of the amount of names youve dropped to try and prove your point, that average looking swimsuit dude Layne someone or other has been mentioned more times thani care to remember
> 
> Let see you back up and argument with resorting to "proving your point" with name dropping or "existing training principle dropping" with added name dropping for good measure..
> 
> Lets just use this board for examples and name drop accordingly
> 
> Tel has used Me "hulk" has an example
> 
> perhaps you would like to use and advocate of your system, Off top of my head you can have "hacksii" he uses your 10x10
> 
> we can have a physique "off" :lol: :lol: Or even a strength "OFF"
> 
> And see who wins
> 
> On Tels side however I call
> 
> Me
> 
> NYTOL
> 
> DMCC
> 
> DC55
> 
> D4EAD
> 
> CURLIE
> 
> Porbably supercell as he trains with NYTOL
> 
> CHRIS1
> 
> Hell lets add Zara:thumbup1:
> 
> METAL (250kg raw bencher)
> 
> DUTCH SCOTT
> 
> DSHANA
> 
> There are loads others, but will keep them, bring out the big guns as and when so to speak
> 
> on Nattys side
> 
> Hacks
> 
> ????
> 
> Oh lets add winger here to
> 
> You could throw yourself into the fray:whistling:


JW I really have no idea why you felt it necessary to turn this into a popularity contest. Maybe to turn the attention away from the simple fact that you agreed with a physiologically inaccurate post and don't know how to 'back up' out of it.

Lets try to remain on track and on topic. I ask you again, you agreed with a post that questioned whether more MU's are recruited during faster movements. I have asked you repeatedly to substantiate that assertion which you are either unable or unwilling to do.

Now, instead of more pontification are you ready to provide a substantial answer?


----------



## jw007

Natural1 said:


> JW I really have no idea why you felt it necessary to turn this into a popularity contest. Maybe to turn the attention away from the simple fact that you agreed with a physiologically inaccurate post and don't know how to 'back up' out of it.
> 
> Lets try to remain on track and on topic. I ask you again, you agreed with a post that questioned whether more MU's are recruited during faster movements. I have asked you repeatedly to substantiate that assertion which you are either unable or unwilling to do.
> 
> Now, instead of more *pontification* are you ready to provide a substantial answer?


are you calling me a ponse:cursing: :cursing:

I do believe thats flaming:cursing: :cursing:


----------



## jw007

winger said:


> Not too many natty people can compete with guys using copious amounts of gear. But I do feel honored. :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> How did I get brought into this, *I just agreed with Natural1's principles*, only because I use them myself. :beer:


Its all very well agreeing with a post

But what exactly can you back that agreement up with????


----------



## Natural1

jw007 said:


> are you calling me a ponse:cursing: :cursing:
> 
> I do believe thats flaming:cursing: :cursing:


No, Im not, you can look that up. I'm still waiting for you to address the issue at hand.


----------



## martin brown

Bodybuilding / PL'ing / strenth training is about lifting weights not books

Theory is nice to use to your advantage but experience counts for alot too.


----------



## hackskii

Well, I also agree with natural1's post as well.

Now, I am not loaded up with a ton of gear, GH, slin, pre-workout meds, post workout meds, so I can only comment on my 34 years of training experiance comming from an older mans perspective.

Many routines work for people, not one size shoe fits all.

My time constraints keep me in the gym for the shortest period of time possible.

I would like to keep this nice thread on topic with as little personality issues as possible.


----------



## Dsahna

Im starting a new workout on sunday,anyone that reads my journal knows how i train so after this week of rest im trying something new,more a standard rep range routine to see how my body responds.

Ive had great results with my previous 1 compound exercise per workout with 6+sets in the 2-5 range to failure on all

It will answer many questions ive got about best rep range, feeling the muscle working and other such things ive never gave a sh!t about before.

We will see what happens in terms of growth in the next couple of months,after that time ill know which is best for me.


----------



## essexboy

tel3563 said:


> Good advice:thumbup1:................but how many reps and sets


Tel, you can Stimulate growth with one set.IF you perform it correctly. ive never used more than one set, ever.Lets take leg press as an example. If you have acess use the seated variety, not the sled type. the position can cause undue bp spikes, which we dont want at our age.Adjust the seat, so that your thighs are perpendicular to the ceiling.and your knees are at chin level, slightly narrower than your delts, toes slightly pigeon.Select a weight that you can perform 12/15 reps for.squeeze the weight up SLOWLY do not lock out then lower.Each rep should take 8/10 seconds, for 12 reps, or so, till failure.when you fail use a staic hold and fight the resistance, even though you cant move it for another 15/20 seconds.this should take about 2 minutes which is 12 reps or so.i count the reps and tul, so iknow postively if im progressing.this is what i did today to finish my full body w/o. my legs have got stronger every w/o for nearly a year. i ve maxed out the weight stack on the nautlius nitro, so now ihave had to use the plateloader.give it a go, and then tell me as you lay twitching on the floor you want more!! good luck mate.


----------



## essexboy

Natural1 said:


> It's my experinace with many HIT advocates that anything that disagrees with their philosophy is classed as 'pseudo science'. There is nothing 'pseudo' about the simple physiological fact that greater acceleration and force generation requires a greater recruitment of motor units. To argue this is akin to debating whether the sky is blue.


whenever anyone tells you to move faster,smile at them and walk away, for you are talking to a fool.- Arthur Jones.


----------



## jw007

hackskii said:


> Well, I also agree with natural1's post as well.
> 
> *Now, I am not loaded up with a ton of gear, GH, slin, pre-workout meds, post workout meds,* so I can only comment on my 34 years of training experiance comming from an older mans perspective.
> 
> Many routines work for people, not one size shoe fits all.
> 
> My time constraints keep me in the gym for the shortest period of time possible.
> 
> *I would like to keep this nice thread on topic with as little personality* *issues as possible*.


 :whistling: some what an ironic post


----------



## hilly

jw007 said:


> :whistling: some what an ironic post


LMAO

surely it doesnt really matter which book you read and which side your on as long as ure stimulating the muscle enough to grown and eating enough to grow then every1s a winner.

You dont have to know all the science to know lifting heavy ass weight with some good food is guna make you big. Keep increasing that weight and that food and your guna get bigger. lets keep it simple we are meat heads remember


----------



## Natural1

essexboy said:


> whenever anyone tells you to move faster,smile at them and walk away, for you are talking to a fool.- Arthur Jones.


I have discussed with many of Jones followers over the years and have found many to view him as some kind of superior fountain of knowledge. The truth is he was as fallible as anyone else and don't forget had machines to market. Using the argument that 'Aurthur Jones said so' is nothing more than appeal to authority we need to look at the bigger picture.

The assertion that a single set of significantly deliberately slowed reps being the 'ultimate stimulus' has never been proven true in the real world of bodybuilding and performance sports.

I know that Jones was against explosive lifting but try telling that to powerlifters, olympic lifters and strong men. Ok for the sake of bodybuilding/hypertrophy where performance isn't an issue rep speed isn't quite as important but even then, how many top champs use superslow?

A basic knowledge of physiology shows that purposely superslowed reps are not the most effective way to work a muscle, that said, there is always an exception to any "rule". Some very slow twitch dominant lifters may benefit.

Note: I have not advocated lifting at speeds bordering on unsafe. Also, I'm always very careful with my words hence why I say significantly purposely slowed. I'm not suggesting to go 'all out' all the time.


----------



## essexboy

Natural1 said:


> I have discussed with many of Jones followers over the years and have found many to view him as some kind of superior fountain of knowledge. The truth is he was as fallible as anyone else and don't forget had machines to market. Using the argument that 'Aurthur Jones said so' is nothing more than appeal to authority we need to look at the bigger picture.
> 
> The assertion that a single set of significantly deliberately slowed reps being the 'ultimate stimulus' has never been proven true in the real world of bodybuilding and performance sports.
> 
> I know that Jones was against explosive lifting but try telling that to powerlifters, olympic lifters and strong men. Ok for the sake of bodybuilding/hypertrophy where performance isn't an issue rep speed isn't quite as important but even then, how many top champs use superslow?
> 
> A basic knowledge of physiology shows that purposely superslowed reps are not the most effective way to work a muscle, that said, there is always an exception to any "rule". Some very slow twitch dominant lifters may benefit.
> 
> Note: I have not advocated lifting at speeds bordering on unsafe. Also, I'm always very careful with my words hence why I say significantly purposely slowed. I'm not suggesting to go 'all out' all the time.


when you say "discussed" what you mean is disagreed with.To state that he was infallable as "anyone else" is not pertinant. He wasnt anyone else he was Arthur Jones.If you want a brief resume of his life, its freely available.Unlike you however, his experience was gained from real life studies, and experimentation. Not only with average guys, but top bb, such as viator, mentzer and oliva.Along the way he created a revolution, and earned a few hundred million dollars.i made no mention of superslow reps.you have mentioned it twice? I dont need a basic knowledge of physiology to know that momentum doesnt build muscle.your correct , i cant name one "champion" who has used superslow. i also cant name one, who hasnt used drugs, or who has not got longer than average muscle insertions. your point?


----------



## essexboy

hilly2008 said:


> LMAO
> 
> surely it doesnt really matter which book you read and which side your on as long as ure stimulating the muscle enough to grown and eating enough to grow then every1s a winner.
> 
> You dont have to know all the science to know lifting heavy ass weight with some good food is guna make you big. Keep increasing that weight and that food and your guna get bigger. lets keep it simple we are meat heads remember


hilly your correct, you dont need to know the exact scince. what you do need is an effective, established protocol.I have no knowledge of fast /slow twitch. it doesnt matter.the only way it may help was if you were to have a biopsy done.Jones summed it in three words.Harder, slower briefer.


----------



## Guest

I agree with Essexboy in most regards as i love HIT training always have.

However, if you truly perform reps slowly on the positive portion you will not lift very heavy weights in certain movements. Try pulling even 300lb off the floor in a deadlift using a very slow tempo it just wont work. Thus you can forget ever deadlifting 500+lb and this will hold your whole development back. Now on moves like preacher curl i certainly agree.

Overload is what builds muscles IMO.


----------



## Dsahna

Con said:


> I agree with Essexboy in most regards as i love HIT training always have.
> 
> However, if you truly perform reps slowly on the positive portion you will not lift very heavy weights in certain movements. Try pulling even 300lb off the floor in a deadlift using a very slow tempo it just wont work. Thus you can forget ever deadlifting 500+lb and this will hold your whole development back. Now on moves like preacher curl i certainly agree.
> 
> Overload is what builds muscles IMO.


This is interesting,do you consider not going as slow and strict on deads to lift bigger poundages as a form of productive cheating?

If so what other exercises do you think would benefit from less strict, more explosive style to get the weight up and still promote extra growth?


----------



## Natural1

essexboy said:


> when you say "discussed" what you mean is disagreed with.


I meant what I said. Discussion does not necessitate 100% agreement.



essexboy said:


> To state that he was infallable as "anyone else" is not pertinant. He wasnt anyone else he was Arthur Jones.


Of course it's pertinent, AJ was just a man as everyone else, are you suggesting that everything he ever said was correct and everyone else that disagrees is wrong? Does empirical evidence back up AJ's beliefs?



essexboy said:


> but top bb, such as viator, mentzer and oliva.


The thing that strikes me about Jones followers is the fact that they always use these 3 as examples of the protocols success. Will they be doing the same in another 30 years?



essexboy said:


> Along the way he created a revolution


Yet this 'revolution' has not changed the way in which performance athletes train. Why?



essexboy said:


> I dont need a basic knowledge of physiology to know that momentum doesnt build muscle.


Maybe you didn't read my reply to your 'momentum' argument or perhaps you didn't understand it but it's an invalid argument, if there was any significant momentum aiding you in a lift then the bar would fly out of your hands, this doesn't happen, the only force being generated against a load is the force your muscle is generating.



essexboy said:


> i cant name one "champion" who has used superslow. i also cant name one, who hasnt used drugs, or who has not got longer than average muscle insertions. your point?


Drugs and genetics are a huge part of the elite training world I won't disagree with you there, however that being the case if slow single set to failure was a superior stimulus it would be used by these guys also, fact is it rarely is, if ever.

Con is right, deliberately slowing the concentric REQUIRES using lighter weight which imposes restriction.


----------



## Natural1

Con said:


> However, if you truly perform reps slowly on the positive portion you will not lift very heavy weights in certain movements. Try pulling even 300lb off the floor in a deadlift using a very slow tempo it just wont work. Thus you can forget ever deadlifting 500+lb and this will hold your whole development back. Now on moves like preacher curl i certainly agree.


Good post, agreed.


----------



## Guest

Dsahna said:



> This is interesting,do you consider not going as slow and strict on deads to lift bigger poundages as a form of productive cheating?
> 
> If so what other exercises do you think would benefit from less strict, more explosive style to get the weight up and still promote extra growth?


Honestly mate i have no idea how you would do a slow deadlift......

I grab the bar and get tight so i dont rip into it (ie loose arms and then jerk into it which makes bicep tears a possibility) and then as fast as possible i pull the weight up. I then lower the weight under control but once i get very heavy its nearly impossible to lower it with 100% control and not risk injury so i just play it by ear. Personally when i pull up 6 plates it takes about 3 seconds to finish the positive and thats pulling as fast as possible that said it takes even longer to pull up 7-8 plates. So its not like i am doing the reps at light speed despite pulling as fast as possible.

Deadlifts at least for me are like being in a fight, i use a lot of aggression and really power through the lift. Its always worked out for me as my back is my best body part and i can lift up 300kg on any day of the week if asked.

Now i have watched Mike M's dvd and the guy he trains lifts the weight pretty damn slowly but then he is only using 315lb and not to blow my own horn but his back couldn't hold a candle to mine........

Always stay strict as in keeping your body tight and dont yank the bar but by all means use as much speed and power as possible.

As far as other exercises where i do extremely explosive positive pretty much every compound exercise i keep the slow stuff for the isolation stuff where there are less weak places to power through.


----------



## Natural1

Excellent posts Con, you can testify that even though you're pulling the bar as hard and as fast as possible, there is no significant "momentum" aiding you, it's sheer muscle power moving the bar and the very second you quit the powerful muscular force generation the load would fall and not continue on it's path on it's own due to some magic "momentum"


----------



## jw007

Natural1 said:


> Excellent posts Con, you can testify that even though you're pulling the bar as hard and as fast as possible, there is no significant "momentum" aiding you, it's sheer muscle power moving the bar and the very second you quit the powerful muscular force generation the load would fall and not continue on it's path on it's own due to some magic "momentum"


Not much TUT in a DL would you say???


----------



## Guest

Natural1 said:


> Excellent posts Con, you can testify that even though you're pulling the bar as hard and as fast as possible, there is no significant "momentum" aiding you, it's sheer muscle power moving the bar and the very second you quit the powerful muscular force generation the load would fall and not continue on it's path on it's own due to some magic "momentum"


Yes exactly, that said if you are bouncing the bar off the floor then you do have momentum helping you and IMO this is a massive no no for several reasons. Same goes for lets say bench press if you drop the bar on your chest it will bounce up giving you the chance to drive through weak points again that is a bad idea.

Lift the weight as aggressively/fast as possible but stay within parameters of good form at all time. Which means controlled negatives and disallowing any sort of bouncing.


----------



## Natural1

jw007 said:


> Not much TUT in a DL would you say???


Deadlifts are not typically a high continuous TUT lift but there can be a high total accumulated TUT. This in no way negates the fact that some muscle fibers require longer periods of TUT. The back is not only trained using deadlifts, rows and chins are typically used which usually consist of higher continuous TUT's.

Did I ever state that there must be high continuous TUT for all goals? No, please read my posts regarding TUT again. *sigh*


----------



## Guest

jw007 said:


> Not much TUT in a DL would you say???


I would say there is a lot of TUT on a deadlift because surely you hold the lock out for a 2-3 seconds......6 reps lets say 2 seconds up 2 seconds at the top 2 seconds down that is 36 seconds and quite a long time under tension.


----------



## Natural1

Con said:


> I would say there is a lot of TUT on a deadlift because surely you hold the lock out for a 2-3 seconds......6 reps lets say 2 seconds up 2 seconds at the top 2 seconds down that is 36 seconds and quite a long time under tension.


Agreed. Maybe not as much CONTINUOUS TUT as is possible in some lifts but yes, there is considerable accumulated TUT on deadlifts.


----------



## jw007

Natural1 said:


> Deadlifts are not typically a high continuous TUT lift. This in no way negates the fact that some muscle fibers require longer periods of TUT. The back is not only trained using deadlifts, rows and chins are typically used which usually consist of higher TUT's.
> 
> Did I ever state that there must be high continuous TUT for all goals? No, please read my posts regarding TUT again. *sigh*


*sigh* now read my post again..

I inferred nothing, I implied nothing, I didnt ask how to build a back, neither did I ask what exercises are needed for back development, I didnt even refer to differing muscle fibers and what stimulation is needed.

It was a simple concise question

Not much TUT in a DL would you say???

*And so your answer would be???*


----------



## Guest

Natural1 said:


> Agreed. Maybe not as much CONTINUOUS TUT as some lifts but yes, there is considerable accumulated TUT on deadlifts.


 :confused1: I obviously am out of my depth as far as this convo goes as i had no idea there was a continuous and a non continuous tut i just go by how long the set takes.............carry on its interesting to read:beer:


----------



## jw007

Con said:


> I would say there is a lot of TUT on a deadlift because surely you hold the lock out for a 2-3 seconds......6 reps lets say 2 seconds up 2 seconds at the top 2 seconds down that is 36 seconds and quite a long time under tension.


Thats if you do them like that:lol: :lol:

what about speed DLs???

The TUT, once a lift is perfeormed and held, what difference would you say the distribution of load would be over the varying muscles on the body as opposed to the lifting part of the explosive movement???

So where woud most TUT occur and would it be target muscle??


----------



## Natural1

jw007 said:


> Not much TUT in a DL would you say???
> 
> *
> And so your answer would be???*


The accumulated TUT is often high after a set of deadlifts. It's important to understand the differences between continuous TUT and total accumulated TUT. I have written about this before.


----------



## Guest

jw007 said:


> Thats if you do them like that:lol: :lol:
> 
> what about speed DLs???
> 
> The TUT, once a lift is perfeormed and held, what difference would you say the distribution of load would be over the varying muscles on the body as opposed to the lifting part of the explosive movement???


Complicated questions here for this meat head:lol:

Speed dl's did nothing for growth as far as i am concerned and it did not increase my deadlifts so i haven't done them in years.

At the top point its mainly traps that are getting overloaded along with the arms while on the way up the lower back does most of the work.

But yes that is how i perform deadlifts, explode up hold for a couple of seconds then lower under control but at the very bottom i let it hit the floor because it would stress my back out too much to control the last 2 inches then pause and repeat.


----------



## jw007

Natural1 said:


> The accumulated TUT is often high after a set of deadlifts.


I dont understand???

Lets keep it simple, a one rep maxfor instance..

what does accumlulated TUT mean??


----------



## Guest

jw007 said:


> what does accumlulated TUT mean??


Is it the time it takes from the bar leaving the floor until it touches the floor again??? :lol:

Natural 1 can you link me to your own training methods, i have read bits here and there but i am now interested in seeing exactly how you train because you obviously know a lot more about body mechanics than i do


----------



## jw007

Con said:


> Complicated questions here for this meat head:lol:
> 
> Speed dl's did nothing for growth as far as i am concerned and it did not increase my deadlifts so i haven't done them in years.
> 
> At the top point its mainly traps that are getting overloaded along with the arms while on the way up the lower back does most of the work.
> 
> But yes that is how i perform deadlifts, explode up hold for a couple of seconds then lower under control but at the very bottom i let it hit the floor because it would stress my back out too much to control the last 2 inches then pause and repeat.


We are not interested in growth or personal experience we only want FACTS please Con

When you say arms,please be specific???

SO what body part has LEAST TUT in your opinion??


----------



## Guest

jw007 said:


> We are not interested in growth or personal experience we only want FACTS please Con
> 
> When you say arms,please be specific???
> 
> SO what body part has LEAST TUT in your opinion??


[email protected]:lol: the forearm and bicep muscles and even the triceps just look in the mirror when you do a deadlift your tris will be tensed.

Least TUT erm.... pectorals even though i pulled a pec doing deadlifts once (i was bet that i couldnt pull up 6 plates with no warm up in street clothes, i pulled it up but my pecs fired off so hard that it hurt for weeks).


----------



## jw007

Con said:


> Is it the time it takes from the bar leaving the floor until it touches the floor again??? :lol:
> 
> Natural 1 can you link me to your own training methods, i have read bits here and there but i am now interested in seeing exactly how you train because you obviously know a lot more about body mechanics than i do


But thats my point, there is no accumulated TUT as stress is moved from body part to body part during diration of movement

its not like preacher curls where stress or TUT is isolated directly on bicep and TUT can indeed be quantified..

Differing stess TUT for differing body parts, I fail to see how accumlated TUT can be applied in case of DL

However open to enlightenment as always


----------



## Natural1

jw007 said:


> I dont understand???
> 
> Lets keep it simple, a one rep maxfor instance..
> 
> what does accumlulated TUT mean??


Lets take two examples that total the same rep volume:

3 sets of 10

10 sets of 3

Both = 30 total reps.

The 3 sets of 10 have longer continuous TUT meaning the muscle is under tension without let up for a longer period (10 reps is higher than 3).

The 10 sets of 3 = the same rep volume 30 reps but is made up of shorter periods of continuous TUT (3 reps is completed quicker than 10 all else being equal) however the total accumulated time that the muscle was under load may be very similar to the 3x10.

Continuous = time spent working without break.

Total Accumulated = the total time a muscle was under load regardless of breaks.

These variables along with load, rest between sets etc.. can be manipulated according to desired goals.


----------



## Guest

jw007 said:


> But thats my point, there is no accumulated TUT as stress is moved from body part to body part during diration of movement
> 
> its not like preacher curls where stress or TUT is isolated directly on bicep and TUT can indeed be quantified..
> 
> Differing stess TUT for differing body parts, I fail to see how accumlated TUT can be applied in case of DL
> 
> However open to enlightenment as always


Well i will agree with that, bar the arm muscles which keep holding the bar in the same position through out thus that TUT could be quanitified.


----------



## jw007

Con said:


> [email protected]:lol: the forearm and bicep muscles and even the triceps just look in the mirror when you do a deadlift your tris will be tensed.
> 
> Least TUT erm.... pectorals even though i pulled a pec doing deadlifts once (i was bet that i couldnt pull up 6 plates with no warm up in street clothes, i pulled it up but my pecs fired off so hard that it hurt for weeks).


Is static stress ie holding a weight, the same then as TUT during full ROM???

Do we class all TUT in same catagory???

In which case full ROM is not needed and i can just hold a dumbell in a certain position to achieve the full quota of this TUT???


----------



## jw007

Natural1 said:


> Lets take two examples that total the same rep volume:
> 
> 3 sets of 10
> 
> 10 sets of 3
> 
> Both = 30 total reps.
> 
> The 3 sets of 10 have longer continuous TUT meaning the muscle is under tension without let up for a longer period (10 reps is higher than 3).
> 
> The 10 sets of 3 = the same rep volume 30 reps but is made up of shorter periods of continuous TUT (3 reps is completed quicker than 10 all else being equal) however the total accumulated time that the muscle was under load may be very similar to the 3x10.
> 
> Continuous = time spent working without break.
> 
> Total Accumulated = the total time a muscle was under load regardless of breaks.


well that would entirly depend on how each rep on DLwas performed would it not...

I could do speed DL and get 3 sets of 10 done far quicker than if I took my time and did 10 sets of 3, holding weight staticly for a length of time at top???

and which muscles are you refering too when stating TUT during DL


----------



## dtlv

Geeky rant coming up.

I think a lot of people get carried away with the idea of momentum without really fully considering what they are on about.

Without getting too nerdy about it and boring everyone to the point of switching off, when people use the term momentum what they are actually referring to is 'linear momentum' - movement of an object in a direction.

Three points on this. Firstly, linear momentum is relative. This means that when performing a bench press for example, the bar has momentum compared to your torso, but has no momentum relative to your hands. This indicates what momentum really is - a silly mathematical concept from physics (lol).

Second point. Most people say a cheat movement is going to be bad because the momentum robs the work from the muscles. But the bar starts at a speed of zero, with no momentum relative to anything, and the entire movement of the bar derives all its energy from where? Your muscles!

Cheat movements may well displace the force away from the muscles you are trying to target but all the force that drives the movement comes from your muscles... so there's no real 'cheating' at all!

Third thing. For the bar to 'fly out of your hands' when performing an exercise you have to accelerate the movement of the bar away from you (it wont happen if you perform your rep at a consistent pace), and you must also actively remove your hands from the bar. So basically the bar aint gonna fly anywhere unless you are being stupid!

I'll now shut up, feck off, and go train


----------



## Guest

jw007 said:


> Is static stress ie holding a weight, the same then as TUT during full ROM???
> 
> Do we class all TUT in same catagory???
> 
> In which case full ROM is not needed and i can just hold a dumbell in a certain position to achieve the full quota of this TUT???


:laugh:Asking the wrong person i have never focused on TUT as a lot of the research is contradictory. Every month in MD there is some article stating the "right way to train" then next month that technique is proven wrong. Thus i stick to what works....heavy weights, explosive positives and slow negatives.

Static stress would have to be classed differently to full ROM but when its part of a set that involves full ROM i think it will make no difference to TUT.

^^^^^^^^that is a complicated post also!


----------



## winger

jw007 said:


> Its all very well agreeing with a post
> 
> But what exactly can you back that agreement up with????


Because I agree with a post I have to back it up? WTF

You actually agree with it too but your too prideful to admit it.


----------



## Natural1

jw007 said:


> well that would entirly depend on how each rep on DLwas performed would it not...
> 
> I could do speed DL and get 3 sets of 10 done far quicker than if I took my time and did 10 sets of 3, holding weight staticly for a length of time at top???


Which is why I included *all else being equal* in my original post.



jw007 said:


> and which muscles are you refering too when stating TUT during DL


Where do I start deadlifts activate almost the entire musculature.


----------



## Natural1

jw007 said:


> Is static stress ie holding a weight, the same then as TUT during full ROM???
> 
> Do we class all TUT in same catagory???
> 
> In which case full ROM is not needed and i can just hold a dumbell in a certain position to achieve the full quota of this TUT???


To some degree yes, if a static hold is performed for long enough and enough effort is put in then a great number of motor units will be called on to maintain force. A contracted fiber is a worked fiber regardless on whether there's movement or not.


----------



## essexboy

jw007 said:


> But thats my point, there is no accumulated TUT as stress is moved from body part to body part during diration of movement
> 
> its not like preacher curls where stress or TUT is isolated directly on bicep and TUT can indeed be quantified..
> 
> Differing stess TUT for differing body parts, I fail to see how accumlated TUT can be applied in case of DL
> 
> However open to enlightenment as always


the whole musculature to a greater or lesser degree is under tension.if you perform a 8 second rep, then the stress will vary and the load changes as the movement is executed, due to leverage factors.however, the tension is still maintained.Deads are not a good example, as the rom is very short in comparison to other compounds.A one second rep would indeed be fast, 2/3 seconds fairly slow.on movements with a larger rom, say squats 4/5 seconds is appropriate or less , or more, as long as its muscular work.Con emphasisis slow negative work, which is the most productive portion of the movement.


----------



## hackskii

jw007 said:


> Porbably supercell as he trains with NYTOL


Just for clarification mate.

Are you saying that you were involved in James getting his pro card through your protocols and training?

Strange as James got his card in Greece and you were not anywhere in sight on this board, when he did so.

Are you suggesting you had something to do with this or are you suggesting you are workout partners?

Are you taking credit for his achievements to further associate yourself with his success?

If I read that right, you are part of his success?

How great it is for one to be such an inspiration with training and the vast knowledge that you have to offer.


----------



## hilly

Surely TUT would be more of a concern or atleast something we would focus on more during isolation exercises than compounds anyway.

I do not know as much as you 3 but for me to try and think how long a rep is taking or time it etc during heavy bench/squat/and deadlift work would totally foook my lift up. Now on some of the more isolation movements then yes and i also like to do slow negatives when i remember  and feel they are very beneficial and some of the reading i have done since you guys started this thread such as TUT is just a complicated version of saying control your reps IMHO.

I mean theirs no may i would even considering thinking about this when im trying to do one of the 3 compound exercises i named id end up with a bad head lol


----------



## Natural1

hilly2008 said:


> Surely TUT would be more of a concern or atleast something we would focus on more during isolation exercises than compounds anyway.


The basic variables of TUT, the actual tension (load), tempo and rest between sets is relevant to all lifts be they single or multi joint lifts. The only difference is during the multi joint lifts these variables will apply to a larger group of musculature.



hilly2008 said:


> I do not know as much as you 3 but for me to try and think how long a rep is taking or time it etc during heavy bench/squat/and deadlift work would totally foook my lift up.


I always use a rep speed that feels natural relative to the load and I alter rep target for time spent under load/tension.



hilly2008 said:


> ...TUT is just a complicated version of saying control your reps IMHO.


Not exactly, though slowing rep speed is one way to increase TUT but I much prefer to use normal rep tempos and increase/decrease rep target for longer or shorter times under tension.


----------



## hilly

Yes i apprectiate their is time under tension in every lift obviously what i meant was i would not be giving it much thought and trying to alter it on my compound lifts as this would interfere with the lift so to speak.

As you said a natural tempo is better which is what i was getting at because people were discussing the speed of a rep at one point.

Again tho its just over complicated talk of saying you should vary your rep range.


----------



## jw007

hackskii said:


> Just for clarification mate.
> 
> Are you saying that you were involved in James getting his pro card through your protocols and training?
> 
> Strange as James got his card in Greece and you were not anywhere in sight on this board, when he did so.
> 
> Are you suggesting you had something to do with this or are you suggesting you are workout partners?
> 
> Are you taking credit for his achievements to further associate yourself with his success?
> 
> If I read that right, you are part of his success?
> 
> How great it is for one to be such an inspiration with training and the vast knowledge that you have to offer.


do i get to respod here or actually ask Natural1 what I have intented for the 3rd time or are you going to delete it??

I will just wait till beddy byes time in US if that be case


----------



## hackskii

jw007 said:


> do i get to respod here or actually ask Natural1 what I have intented for the 3rd time or are you going to delete it??
> 
> I will just wait till beddy byes time in US if that be case


Yes you can ask him the question, I dont mind.

Why bother deleting it as it is in another thread where it is of no relevence?


----------



## Uriel

Well, I've read the thread and I'll just add IMO.

Weight training, bodybuilding and powerlifting - after spending a pretty short amount time gaining a little bit of theory and time learning a selection of excersizes and form...

Is actually a physical pursuit not a mental one.

I just read what amounts to a fair bit of mental willy waving.

I've said it befor - it's not rocket science.

Natural 1 keeps avoiding pics (as does Essex boy) citing - Why does that matter (physiology is physiology after all)...... would be nice to see you hold the physical ability (and results) to invest time in the gym as well as time in the library.

Because - get this......some lad with half decent genetics, some guts, a basic decent diet and a handful of basic tried and tested movements can look awsome....and I'd wager better than 80% of internet highbrows who'll argue all day about things that are actuall pretty obvious... TUT!!


----------



## Natural1

Uriel said:


> Is actually a physical pursuit not a mental one.


Having the tools up top allows one to design a program specifically aimed towards certain goals.



Uriel said:


> I just read what amounts to a fair bit of mental willy waving.


Knowledge of WHY things work and not just THAT it works is invaluable in my opinion.



Uriel said:


> I've said it befor - it's not rocket science.


Depending on how deep in human biology/physiology you want to get, yes it can be "rocket science". Now as you say, knowing this isn't crucial in regards to the "lift heavy and eat" mindset if you happy with that but some like to explore a little deeper the behind the scenes.



Uriel said:


> Natural 1 keeps avoiding pics...


If you find anything inaccurate with any information I've provided then please quote it and state why, my appearance is invalid in the context of this discussion.



Uriel said:


> Why does that matter (physiology is physiology after all)...... would be nice to see you hold the physical ability (and results) to invest time in the gym as well as time in the library.


And this would help how? So you'd trust my posts on physiology more if I was "hooge"?

Posting pictures is a personal choice not a forum requirement. I'd rather people viewed my posts as useful based on their content as opposed to my appearance.


----------



## IanStu

Uriel said:


> Well, I've read the thread and I'll just add IMO.
> 
> Weight training, bodybuilding and powerlifting - after spending a pretty short amount time gaining a little bit of theory and time learning a selection of excersizes and form...
> 
> Is actually a physical pursuit not a mental one.
> 
> I just read what amounts to a fair bit of mental willy waving.
> 
> I've said it befor - it's not rocket science.
> 
> Natural 1 keeps avoiding pics (as does Essex boy) citing - Why does that matter (physiology is physiology after all)...... would be nice to see you hold the physical ability (and results) to invest time in the gym as well as time in the library.
> 
> Because - get this......some lad with half decent genetics, some guts, a basic decent diet and a handful of basic tried and tested movements can look awsome....and I'd wager better than 80% of internet highbrows who'll argue all day about things that are actuall pretty obvious... TUT!!


yeah I agree with the merman creature....i'd say about 80% physical 20% mental....there is a guy at the gym i use, a realy nice bloke but sadly extraordinarily thick...we chat quite alot and its apparent that he knows absolutely nothing about any of the ways muscles work or any of the more popular training methods...he simply comes to the gym and throws weights around in what appears to be a random fashion....and he has an amazing physique...the sort that I would aspire to....I have asked him what his secret is and he just looks perplexed and says things like "I like lifting weights"

So when I get bogged down in all the endless theory of bodybuilding and diets and start worrying I'm doing everything wrong I just think of him and try and remember its not that complicated realy!


----------



## Uriel

Natural1 said:


> And this would help how? So you'd trust my posts on physiology more if I was "hooge"?
> 
> Posting pictures is a personal choice not a forum requirement. I'd rather people viewed my posts as useful based on their content as opposed to my appearance.


You are posting decent info for people to read.

BUT - you are not just leaving it at that mate.

I get the feeling from your posting technique, username and modus operandi on the forum that you are heavily implying that your pouring over every possible nuance of theory some how makes you a fantastically shaped NATURAL Bodybuilder.... As far as I am concerned, putting your money where your mouth is would help back your claims up.

You may not state anywhere the foregoing but IMO - you are heavily insinuiting it.

Post any info you like, I'm actually intelligent enough to read it!!

But you're coming accross like some kind af fanatic, getting peoples backs up, looking a bit deranged - and probably not in great shape is my guess.

This pursuit is a "doing game" more than a "Talking Game". It's about Building a body more than it is about talking about building a body.

Info is good but I get the feeling you want adulation......only a pic of a decently built body will get you that on here.


----------



## Uriel

Natural1 said:


> Depending on how deep in human biology/physiology you want to get, yes it can be "rocket science". Now as you say, knowing this isn't crucial in regards to the "lift heavy and eat" mindset if you happy with that but some like to explore a little deeper the behind the scenes.


When I said it's not Rocket Science - I don't mean cellular biology.... I mean training..

Time under Tension, WoW! What? If I lifet a weight.......against gravity and put a strain on my muscle......it will grow, what a revelation!

Do it a bit quicker one week, a bit slower another .....add more weight the next....it keeps growing!! Wow, this is mind blowing!


----------



## essexboy

Uriel said:


> Well, I've read the thread and I'll just add IMO.
> 
> Weight training, bodybuilding and powerlifting - after spending a pretty short amount time gaining a little bit of theory and time learning a selection of excersizes and form...
> 
> Is actually a physical pursuit not a mental one.
> 
> I just read what amounts to a fair bit of mental willy waving.
> 
> I've said it befor - it's not rocket science.
> 
> Natural 1 keeps avoiding pics (as does Essex boy) citing - Why does that matter (physiology is physiology after all)...... would be nice to see you hold the physical ability (and results) to invest time in the gym as well as time in the library.
> 
> Because - get this......some lad with half decent genetics, some guts, a basic decent diet and a handful of basic tried and tested movements can look awsome....and I'd wager better than 80% of internet highbrows who'll argue all day about things that are actuall pretty obvious... TUT!!


Uriel. If you read my posts, im trying to simplify this.Forget all this slow/twitch, fast twitch,fast rep, slow rep, cycling, crapola.All i originally disagreed with is Naturals stance on moving fast(throwing) weights. Ill stand by what i said in the beginning.Move in a slow deliberate fashion, let the muscle do the work not momentum.Its not rocket science, as you rightly say, some however feel the need to complicate this stuff. Ill quote Jones again.Train, harder, slower , briefer.


----------



## Uriel

essexboy said:


> some however feel the need to complicate this stuff. Ill quote Jones again.Train, harder, slower , briefer.


Agreed.

I don't run but I bet if I were on a running forum, there'd be a running guru quoting blind double tests on running training BUT - the guy who can put one foot infront of another the quickest - is running - the fastest.

I know a guy who can explain in physics terms - the mechanics of tying his shoe laces but the gimpy cnut can't tie his!! Least I haven't seen a pic of him tying them! :whistling:


----------



## Natural1

Uriel said:


> You are posting decent info for people to read.
> 
> BUT - you are not just leaving it at that mate.
> 
> I get the feeling from your posting technique, username and modus operandi on the forum that you are heavily implying that your pouring over every possible nuance of theory some how makes you a fantastically shaped NATURAL Bodybuilder


The above is mere speculation and nothing more than your opinion. As you rightly said, I have made no claims about my level of natural development.



Uriel said:


> .... As far as I am concerned, putting your money where your mouth is would help back your claims up.


What claims in particular do you feel require "backing up"? If you direct me to anything I've posted that you feel is inaccurate I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you.



Uriel said:


> You may not state anywhere the foregoing..


Correct.



Uriel said:


> but IMO - you are heavily insinuiting it.


In your opinion.



Uriel said:


> But you're coming accross like some kind af fanatic, getting peoples backs up, looking a bit deranged - and probably not in great shape is my guess.


To be fair with you, the only people that have gotten a little "bent out of shape" with me are those that have argued against my posts yet have failed to substantiate there arguments. I would say judging by my rep comments and PM's that a significant amount of forum members have no issue with me whatsoever but enjoy reading the information. I would suggest if you have an issue with me, just don't read what I post.



Uriel said:


> Info is good but I get the feeling you want adulation....


Speculative opinion.

In fact Stu alluded to something very interesting:



IanStu said:


> he has an amazing physique...the sort that I would aspire to....I have asked him what his secret is and he just looks perplexed and says things like "I like lifting weights"


This guy at his gym had an amazing physique yet his knowledge appeared limited. Yet I'm requested to post pictures to back up my knowledge. How very odd.


----------



## Natural1

essexboy said:


> All i originally disagreed with is Naturals stance on moving fast(throwing) weights.


I would appreciate if you didn't take my claims out of context, NOWHERE have I encouraged anyone to "throw" weights.



essexboy said:


> Ill stand by what i said in the beginning.Move in a slow deliberate fashion, let the muscle do the work not momentum.


The ONLY force against the bar is the force coming from your muscle. Greater speed (safely) = greater muscular recruitment and power expression. Simple fact. If for some reason the bar uncontrollably flies out of your hands due to this "momentum" issue you seem to have, simply add more weight.


----------



## Uriel

Natural1 said:


> The above is mere speculation and nothing more than your opinion. As you rightly said, I have made no claims about my level of natural development.
> 
> My opinion and speculation are valid here, it's a discussion forum
> 
> What claims in particular do you feel require "backing up"? If you direct me to anything I've posted that you feel is inaccurate I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you.
> 
> All of them by seeing how they have worked for you in particular
> 
> Correct.
> 
> In your opinion.
> 
> Yes, that is what IMO means well done
> 
> To be fair with you, the only people that have gotten a little "bent out of shape" with me are those that have argued against my posts yet have failed to substantiate there arguments. I would say judging by my rep comments and PM's that a significant amount of forum members have no issue with me whatsoever but enjoy reading the information. I would suggest if you have an issue with me, just don't read what I post.
> 
> And a significant number may not - big deal - it is a discussion, what people say in loving PM's to you is invisisble on the thread and so irrelevent, I'll read what I like and comment on it if I like - it's a forum!
> 
> Speculative opinion.
> 
> Yes, so?
> 
> In fact Stu alluded to something very interesting:
> 
> This guy at his gym had an amazing physique yet his knowledge appeared limited. Yet I'm requested to post pictures to back up my knowledge. How very odd.


I don't think it is odd, he's a body buider, are you?


----------



## Natural1

Uriel said:


> My opinion and speculation are valid here, it's a discussion forum


Agreed, this is a discussion forum. Hence why you find me discussing.



Uriel said:


> All of them by seeing how they have worked for you in particular


The above is a cop out and a nothing more than a side step. I asked you SPECIFICALLY what I've posted that you disagree with. Kindly quote what I've said that you disagree with and provide your reason behind your disagreements. As you said, this is a discussion forum.



Uriel said:


> And a significant number may not - big deal - it is a discussion, what people say in loving PM's to you is invisisble on the thread and so irrelevent, I'll read what I like and comment on it if I like - it's a forum!


Actually, what you are doing here is not commenting on the thread topic. I have asked you to respond directly to anything SPECIFIC you disagree with and substantiate your claim. You fail to do so in favour of requesting pictures. This is not debating this is "fallacy"



Uriel said:


> I don't think it is odd, he's a body buider, are you?


A bodybuilder with a decent physique and limited knowledge according to stu correct?

I ask you again to quit avoiding the issue. Anything you disagree with of my posts, if you're specific and provide a rational counter argument then I will be glad to use this discussion forum in the manner for which it is intended... DISCUSSION.


----------



## Zara-Leoni

Tall said:


> LMAO.
> 
> Do you genuinely beleive someone gained 10lbs of muscle in 4 weeks? :lol: :thumb:
> 
> Have you ever thought about getting a Slendertone for your abs...? :whistling:


Nah its that bodyfortress steroid shakes from holland and barret innit... 



godsgifttoearth said:


> why does this all matter?
> 
> aslong as what ur doing allows you to add weight every session, or meet whatever targets you have.....then it surely all good? why overcomplicate things. people have been lifting heavy **** for years and years. long before all this diff type muscle fibres. they also learned that lifting heavier and heavier things made them stronger and stronger and then got subsequently bigger muscles.


Am only halfway through this thread so god knows how it ends up lol... but basically my thoughts too :thumbup1:

Eat lots of protein, go to the gym, lift heavy stuff.

Why overcomplicate....? The method works exceptionally well for the biggest people I know...



Natural1 said:


> The above is very vague.
> 
> Can you be a little more *specific* on what you feel that JW is right about that I have wrong?
> 
> For example, essexboy seems to doubt that higher effort accelerated movements recruit more motor units and JW agreed with this. When I called him on it he failed to elaborate, I wonder why.
> 
> *I don't care how huge JW is or how tiny I "might be" as it doesn't alter basic physiology.*
> 
> *
> *
> 
> *
> Now if you have something more substantial than "jw is huge therefore must be right" I'll be happy to hear it.*


Joking aside, Tel was on the money here....

JW is huge so therefore must be right is the correct answer IMO.

Why?

Because helllooooooo......! The aim of bodybuilding being to increase size as much as possible.... Well not only is he very big, but he has also massively beaten his own natural genetics... he was very slender as a teenager so clearly what he does works. Well. Very well infact because, well, he's big mate.... See where I am going with this....?



jw007 said:


> Listen to you Mr "natty" name dopper
> 
> Ive lost count of the amount of names youve dropped to try and prove your point, that average looking swimsuit dude Layne someone or other has been mentioned more times thani care to remember
> 
> Let see you back up and argument with resorting to "proving your point" with name dropping or "existing training principle dropping" with added name dropping for good measure..
> 
> Lets just use this board for examples and name drop accordingly
> 
> Tel has used Me "hulk" has an example
> 
> perhaps you would like to use and advocate of your system, Off top of my head you can have "hacksii" he uses your 10x10
> 
> we can have a physique "off" :lol: :lol: Or even a strength "OFF"
> 
> And see who wins
> 
> On Tels side however I call
> 
> Me
> 
> NYTOL
> 
> DMCC
> 
> DC55
> 
> D4EAD
> 
> CURLIE
> 
> Porbably supercell as he trains with NYTOL
> 
> CHRIS1
> 
> *Hell lets add Zara* :thumbup1:
> 
> METAL (250kg raw bencher)
> 
> DUTCH SCOTT
> 
> DSHANA
> 
> There are loads others, but will keep them, bring out the big guns as and when so to speak
> 
> on Nattys side
> 
> Hacks
> 
> ????
> 
> Oh lets add winger here to
> 
> You could throw yourself into the fray:whistling:


Good example cos I am prob one of the worst for lack of knowlege regarding the science of training muscle fibres on this board :lol: :lol:

........I do manage to grow though. Must be doing something right..... :tongue:


----------



## Uriel

Natural1 said:


> I ask you again to quit avoiding* the issue.* Anything you disagree with of my posts, if you're specific and provide a rational counter argument then I will be glad to use this discussion forum in the manner for which it is intended... DISCUSSION.


It depends what the issue is???

My Issue with your posting may not be what you suspect, hope or demand it to be.

Is the issue you original post? The desperate way you argue every post like a typical internet c0ckhead or the way you bullet point peoples reply and think you are picking them apart and making yourself look good (in your delusion)....

Which issue would you like?


----------



## Uriel

I'll spell it out for you nice and simple.

My issue with your postsing this thread is that you are taking a simple concept (applying a stress to a muscle to cause hypertropphy) which no one really disputes, and blowing it up to be some kind of esoteric jargon enshrouded mumbo jumbo (which it isn't) in an attempt to be clever (which you are not)


----------



## Zara-Leoni

Natural1 said:


> Knowledge of WHY things work and not just THAT it works is invaluable in my opinion.


I dont know how my car works. Yet strangely, I still arrive at my destination.



Natural1 said:


> If you find anything inaccurate with any information I've provided then please quote it and state why, my appearance is invalid in the context of this discussion.
> 
> And this would help how? So you'd trust my posts on physiology more if I was "hooge"?
> 
> Posting pictures is a personal choice not a forum requirement. I'd rather people viewed my posts as useful based on their content as opposed to my appearance.


Yes, yes and yes mate.

Your appearance is relevant in my opinion.

Say for example you have been following your own advice for the last 10 years.... the same advice you are offering here. And then you post a picture and it turns out you look like a skeleton with a skin graft.... well... it's pretty much gonna blow your theories out the water isn't it?

Whereas due to photographic evidence, we KNOW for sure that the methods used by other members such as Uriel, Nytol, JW and basically all the others in Joe's list, work for them.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating mate. You dont have to show your face, but the more you buck against it, the more people will assume you dont have the physique to do justice to all these wonderful complicated theories and advices you offer out. Unfair perhaps, but human nature.....



Natural1 said:


> The above is mere speculation and nothing more than your opinion. As you rightly said, I have made no claims about my level of natural development.


No.... but.... if you are applying your own methods to yourself and they haven't had any good effect.......

I think you know where am going with this lol.



Natural1 said:


> This guy at his gym had an amazing physique yet his knowledge appeared limited. Yet I'm requested to post pictures to back up my knowledge. How very odd.


Its not odd in the slightest. It just backs up what a lot of people here are saying.

Cave-boy in the gym knows less than fck all, goes in, lifts heavy, prob eats ok.

And he grows.

So clearly it works.

All your complicated theories and methods etc MAY also work.... all thats being said here I gather is lets see an example of it working. Some evidence. A real live case study. Before and after pictures perhaps.

If you cannot do so then fair enough, but you cannot really get agitated at people asking as tbh I can very much see their point.


----------



## winger

What is the point of posting a pic when it could be of someone else or you just photoshop the pic you have and look like a monster. I think it's pointless actually.


----------



## Uriel

winger said:


> What is the point of posting a pic when it could be of someone else or you just photoshop the pic you have and look like a monster. I think it's pointless actually.


Well, why photoshop a pic anyway? It's retarded. We've discussed it on here before.

Bodybuilding is about results and how you look - rightly or wrongly people do like what you say about training/diet/gear or whatever to be backed up.

Photoshopping in the UK (UK MUSCLE), you're going to meet some of us some day!


----------



## Natural1

Zara-Leoni said:


> Why overcomplicate....? The method works exceptionally well for the biggest people I know...


I've never claimed it didn't.



Zara-Leoni said:


> Joking aside, Tel was on the money here....
> 
> JW is huge so therefore must be right is the correct answer IMO.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because helllooooooo......! The aim of bodybuilding being to increase size as much as possible.... Well not only is he very big, but he has also massively beaten his own natural genetics... he was very slender as a teenager so clearly what he does works. Well. Very well infact because, well, he's big mate.... See where I am going with this....?


There's no denying that jw is huge. However he also agreed to a post that was physiologically incorrect on a most basic level. Some find this type of discussion interesting (I know this to be fact) any that do not are free not to read. Incidentally, I've never implied that what JW does doesn't work, whatever gave you that idea?



Zara-Leoni said:


> I dont know how my car works. Yet strangely, I still arrive at my destination.


Where do you take it when it stops working? To people THAT DO know how it works.



Zara-Leoni said:


> Your appearance is relevant in my opinion.


Your opinion has been noted. However forum rules do not require pictures. They require respectful discussion on various topics related to training. You're free to either agree or disagree with anything I write obviously so I'll put it to you to pick me up on ANYTHING you believe to be wrong and I shall address it.



Zara-Leoni said:


> Say for example you have been following your own advice for the last 10 years.... the same advice you are offering here. And then you post a picture and it turns out you look like a skeleton with a skin graft.... well... it's pretty much gonna blow your theories out the water isn't it?


This thread is about basic physiology, motor unit recruitment in response to effort and speed with a little physics thrown in. What actual training advice are you referring to here? And even IF I was a "skeleton" that STILL wouldn't negate anything I've posted here as it's physiologically correct.



Zara-Leoni said:


> Whereas due to photographic evidence, we KNOW for sure that the methods used by other members such as Uriel, Nytol, JW and basically all the others in Joe's list, work for them.


And have I ever disputed this? I do wish people would quit making speculative implications.



Zara-Leoni said:


> The proof of the pudding is in the eating mate. You dont have to show your face, but the more you buck against it, the more people will assume you dont have the physique to do justice to all these wonderful complicated theories and advices you offer out.


What complicated theories? All I've done here is provide accurate physiological based information for those that are interested. If you're not, then simply don't read.



Zara-Leoni said:


> Its not odd in the slightest. It just backs up what a lot of people here are saying.


I find it both shallow and amusing that one MUST provide pictures to prove very basic physiological concepts that have been known for years.



Zara-Leoni said:


> Cave-boy in the gym knows less than fck all, goes in, lifts heavy, prob eats ok.
> 
> And he grows.
> 
> So clearly it works.


Another speculative implication. Where have I ever said that lifting heavy weight and eating won't build muscle?



Zara-Leoni said:


> All your complicated theories and methods etc MAY also work....


I ask you again, what "complicated theories" are you referring to?



Zara-Leoni said:


> If you cannot do so then fair enough, but you cannot really get agitated at people asking as tbh I can very much see their point.


I am not agitated in the least Zara.

Nobody has disputed anything I've posted with good reason. The information I've presented here has either

1/ Been appreciated.

or

2/ Upset some (for some strange reason)

In the case of 2 I've asked that they show me what I've posted thats wrong and provide a reason, they have not. In which case I ask why the issue with me on a personal level if I've not presented anything wrong? Seriously guys..


----------



## Natural1

Uriel said:


> Is the issue you original post? The desperate way you argue every post like a typical internet c0ckhead or the way you bullet point peoples reply and think you are picking them apart and making yourself look good (in your delusion)....
> 
> Which issue would you like?


I'v been asked questions, I've answered them.

I've expressed my thoughts in an adult fashion on a discussion board (funny enough)

No, I don't see why you would find this offensive.

You obviously have no disagreement with my writing as you've failed to quote anything and make a rebuttal. So it seems I'm guilty of purely provided good information yet you feel it necessary to break forum rules with a direct personal insult.



Uriel said:


> My issue with your postsing this thread is that you are taking a simple concept (applying a stress to a muscle to cause hypertropphy) which no one really disputes, and blowing it up to be some kind of esoteric jargon enshrouded mumbo jumbo (which it isn't) in an attempt to be clever (which you are not)


Clearly you fail to understand the point of this thread. This thread is not about hypertrophy specifically, it is about motor unit recruitment in response to demands which many have found to be an interesting discussion. If you find the deeper side of things offensive then simply don't read my posts.


----------



## Uriel

Natural1 said:


> If you find the deeper side of things offensive then simply don't read my posts.


----------



## winger

Uriel said:


> Well, why photoshop a pic anyway? It's retarded. We've discussed it on here before.
> 
> Bodybuilding is about results and how you look - rightly or wrongly people do like what you say about training/diet/gear or whatever to be backed up.
> 
> Photoshopping in the UK (UK MUSCLE), you're going to meet some of us some day!


I agree Photoshoping a pic to make yourself someone you are not is just wrong.

So who ever looks the biggest knows the most?

That must mean Bertel Fox should be giving training advice then. Why not he was concidered a monster in the day. Watch him train. Lol.


----------



## fozyspilgrims

I think this is an interesting read and don't see the problem.


----------



## Uriel

winger said:


> I agree Photoshoping a pic to make yourself someone you are not is just wrong.
> 
> So who ever looks the biggest knows the most?
> 
> That must mean Bertel Fox should be giving training advice then. Why not he was concidered a monster in the day. Watch him train. Lol.


Winger, it's not as simple as who ever looks the biggest knows the most but I'll tell you something mate - it's rarley the person that makes a mountain out a mole hill, states the obvious and then pour over every detail written fererently repeating the same mantra that knows fuk all atall


----------



## winger

One mans fruit is another mans candy.

I love the thread myself.

Not to hijack the thread but I will be in the UK in September 2nd and I better get a chance to meet you beasts from the UK. I really hope I didn't make any body upset over the years..lol:beer:


----------



## hilly

winger were are you staying??

any special occasion


----------



## Natural1

Uriel said:


> it's rarley the person that makes a mountain out a mole hill.


Yet you're making a mountain out of the fact that I have no pics.



Uriel said:


> states the obvious..


Incidentally.. Saying "lift heavy and eat" is stating the obvious wouldn't you say?



Uriel said:


> and then pour over every detail written fererently repeating the same mantra that knows fuk all atall


So which is it, those that state the obvious or go into more detail?


----------



## winger

hilly2008 said:


> winger were are you staying??
> 
> any special occasion


I will be here for 1 day only. It's for a birthday present from my wife and UK wasn't even in the mix. So I told her to change it, after all it is my bd present..lol

I hope to see JW, Chris1, Darren and maybe Tel and I hope others as well.

Crowne Plaza Hotel LONDON-THE CITY

19 NEW BRIDGE STREET

LONDON, EC4V 6DB ENGLAND

1- 877-227-6963


----------



## Uriel

Natural1 said:


> Yet you're making a mountain out of the fact that I have no pics.
> 
> Incidentally.. Saying "lift heavy and eat" is stating the obvious wouldn't you say?
> 
> So which is it, those that state the obvious or go into more detail?


Bored with you now cut n paster, most blatant trolls are banned by now, you're doing well


----------



## Uriel

winger said:


> I will be here for 1 day only. It's for a birthday present from my wife and UK wasn't even in the mix. So I told her to change it, after all it is my bd present..lol
> 
> I hope to see JW, Chris1, Darren and maybe Tel and I hope others as well.
> 
> Crowne Plaza Hotel LONDON-THE CITY
> 
> 19 NEW BRIDGE STREET
> 
> LONDON, EC4V 6DB ENGLAND
> 
> 1- 877-227-6963


The gay brothel?? is that wise?


----------



## Natural1

Uriel said:


> Bored with you now cut n paster, most blatant trolls are banned by now, you're doing well


You're suggesting I "cut and copy" the information provided.

Any place I have done so I have included the link to the original, all else is my own wording.

Your "cut and paste" accusation is more fallacy.

You've accused me also of being a "troll" can you substantiate this? Show one example of a "trolling" post.

You sir, are full of hot air with nothing to back up your assertions.


----------



## hilly

winger said:


> I will be here for 1 day only. It's for a birthday present from my wife and UK wasn't even in the mix. So I told her to change it, after all it is my bd present..lol
> 
> I hope to see JW, Chris1, Darren and maybe Tel and I hope others as well.
> 
> Crowne Plaza Hotel LONDON-THE CITY
> 
> 19 NEW BRIDGE STREET
> 
> LONDON, EC4V 6DB ENGLAND
> 
> 1- 877-227-6963


ahh bit far way for me 5 hours or more lol.

were else you going?? sounds like a good present


----------



## Uriel

Natural1 said:


> You're suggesting I "cut and copy" the information provided.
> 
> Any place I have done so I have included the link to the original, all else is my own wording.
> 
> Your "cut and paste" accusation is more fallacy.
> 
> You've accused me also of being a "troll" can you substantiate this? Show one example of a "trolling" post.
> 
> You sir, are full of hot air with nothing to back up your assertions.


You're just a stain


----------



## 3752

Guys i have closed this thread as i see it as a group ganging up on one member for no real reason.....if you do not like what any member posts and cannot post without getting personel then don't post i don't like Bullies of any type.

Uriel if you abuse this or any other member again you will be banned swearing at other members is against the rules.....



Uriel said:


> It depends what the issue is???
> 
> My Issue with your posting may not be what you suspect, hope or demand it to be.
> 
> Is the issue you original post? The desperate way you argue every post like a typical internet *c0ckhead* or the way you bullet point peoples reply and think you are picking them apart and making yourself look good (in your delusion)....
> 
> Which issue would you like?


----------

