Questions for Natural1

[waynelucky2]

I did ask very politely over at Ellington, as I said, could we please clear this up N1 ???

Natural1 wrote:
gmlongo wrote:
First of all, there is tension when pitching a ball.

Well yer to a degree. But you need to understand something. The greater the velocity (provided your attempting to move as fast as possible) the less tension there is.

Wrong there N1.

Stand on a scales with a light DB, and move as fast as possible, and then as slow as possible, you will note the reading on the scale, will be at its highest at the greater the velocity.

Thus you are using more force, so there will be more tension.

If large ACCELERATION of a load is involved, Newton's Second Law of Motion agrees that the resulting force will be large. Thus, the maximal force generated during rapid acceleration of a 100 pound bench press easily can exceed the maximal force produced during a slowly accelerated 150 pound bench press.

Power = Force x velocity.

However, if you want to exert your highest force, you will have to do this on an unmovable object.

Natural1 wrote:
This is why there is greater tension in an isometric (static) contraction, there is NO velocity. An explosive pichting of a ball has very little muscular tension.

But you/some will notice that the "highest force" as I suggested is at ZERO speed. That is simply indicative that if you allow something to move, the amount of force you can generate against it will decline, or you will have to attempt to accelerate it (if it has mass that is).

The 1RM of a movement will produce slightly less force than the maximal voluntary isometric contraction, as the 1RM is dynamic rather than static.

Example, an athlete's max squat 200kg, at 201kg, the athlete would not be able to move the bar; however, if he applied max effort the maximal voluntary isometric contraction force would be slightly greater than the force produced during the successful 1RM lift.

HOWEVER we are not talking about trying to lift weights above our 1RM attempts or lifting on an isokinetic device we are taking of bodybuilding, and for that you need to use roughly 70 to 90% of your 1RM, for reps, and doing these very fast produces far more force thus tension.

An explosive pitching of a ball has very high muscular tension. That is why it goes so fast and far, why do you say it has low force ???

gmlongo wrote:
Secondly, for the millionth time, those additional sets are for SKILL acquisition, just as a sport specific function such as pitching is. A powerlifter's goal is simply to move a weight from point A to point B...part of that is muscular strength, but a larger part is becoming as efficient as possible at performing the lift.

A powerlifters's goal is to get as strong as possible, something NOT possible simply using SSTF. You tell me how the muscles of the chest, shoulders and triceps can possibly tell the difference between so called "skill practice" and actual training? In both cases they are contracting against a load, what's the difference?

Definitely not possible using SSTF. A sticking point will come very soon.

Wayne

[all pro]

The type II motor units are divided into type IIA and type IIB. Both of these sub-groups are capable of greater levels of absolute force than type I and also fatigue a lot quicker. Type IIA and IIB are capable of roughly the same amount of peak force, but the IIA fibers take longer to reach their peak power in comparison to type IIB. Type IIA fibers reach peak power in about 50 milliseconds whereas type IIB reaches peak power in about 25 milliseconds. Because of their greater contraction speeds, the total peak power by IIB can be up to 5 times higher then the IIA's.

Fiber Type--Contraction Speed---Time to Peak Power---Fatigue

I (slow twitch)-------slow------------- 100 milliseconds-------slowly

IIA (fast twitch)-----fast---------------50 milliseconds-------fast

IIB (fast twitch)-----very fast-----------25 milliseconds------fast

Now, when we realize that sports movements usually occur in around 200 milliseconds or less, if you look at the time to peak power of the individual muscle fibers, it should then become obvious that each type (I,IIA,IIB) has enough time to reach peak power production. So, why the superiority in having more fast twitch II B fibers? Well, two things. Since they contract quicker, if you have an advantage for the first tenth (arbitrary) of the movement, it can result in superior performance. Since their total peak power is greater this could also give one an advantage when producing force under high velocity conditions.

This can be documented when you analyze a large group of athletes for vertical jump performance and their style of executing a vertical jump. Athletes with more FT fibers (A&B) change direction a bit quicker during their countermovement (down to up) switch and they tend to use less knee bend. (Bosco) These results can be confirmed by muscle biopsy and even by special force-plate analysis. This doesn?t mean that one with a lower FT fiber% can?t jump even higher, they just tend to do it a little slower and with a deeper knee bend.

Although having a high % of FT fibers may give one an advantage, there is little doubt that the nervous system is actually much more important and should take precedence.

Understanding Muscle Fiber Type


By: Kelly Baggett
http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/muscletyping.html

[jgreystoke]

Wayne, I think you are a little confused.

The Hill curve, also known as the Force - Velocity curve, clearly shows that max force/tension in a muscle is lowest when the movement is fastest, and maximum when the velocity becomes zero.

Thus isometric contractions, say during partial deads, the tension is greatest. Of course, the tension is greater still during heavy negatives > 1RM.

Power = the rate of doing work, ie work / time.

Work = force x distance.

That is why the tension is greater when you are pulling a 400lb deadlift compared to a 200lb power clean. The force is in fact 400lbs + a little extra because you have to accelerate it enough to get it to move to the lockout position before fatigue makes you lose tension. Your FIIb fibers fatigue in about 10 seconds or less!

Say you move it 1.5 feet in 5 seconds. The average velocity is very low, 1/3 of a foot per second. Say it took you two seconds to accelerate it to max velocity of say 2/3 of a second. Then your average acceleration of the bar is only 1/3 of a foot per second squared. This is only about 1% of the acceleration due to gravity of 32.2ft per second squared. When the bar is deccelerating at the top of the motion, the force is slightly reduced. The result is that the work done(ignoring friction against your thighs) is simply the integral of force with respect to distance.

The work done calculated well enough by taking the force x dist to be 400lb x 1.5ft = 600ft lb.

The power out put is only

600/5 = 120ftlb/sec or .218 horsepower

Say we power clean 200lbs. We move the bar approx 4 feet in 2 seconds. The acceleration was greater than for the deadlift, but still way less than the acceleration due to gravity. The work done is the integral of force with respect to distance as always. Moving the bar 4 feet in one second requires

200 x 4 = 800ft lb, so the WORK is greater, even tho' the force is LESS.

And the power is

800/2 = 400ftlb/sec = 0.727hp

So the power output is about 3.33 times greater than required for the deadlift, even tho the FORCE is LESS.

In the case of a 5 ounce baseball, the pitching velocity achieved is very high, well over a hundred feet per second. Both the force and the power output are very low compared to the examples above. Otherwise pitchers would have arms like Ronnie Coleman's leg. Or they would only be able to pitch say one maximum set of 5 per week, because fatigue and CNS blasting would be so great.

If you don't tense up for the deadlift, it won't leave the floor. If you tensed up for the throw, the ball wouldn't go very far. I normally do all calculations in SMI, but it is fun to work in the old pounds, feet units

[all pro]

If you don't tense up for the deadlift, it won't leave the floor. If you tensed up for the throw, the ball wouldn't go very far. I normally do all calculations in SMI, but it is fun to work in the old pounds, feet units

I still use the old school method.
1 horsepower = 33000 pounds of force per foot per minute. The torque for your dead lift example is higher than the power clean example but the horse power is higher for the power clean. Maybe that's why they call it a power clean!

[s4lnj]

thanks greystroke and all-pro, very informative.

[jgreystoke]

thanks greystroke and all-pro, very informative.

We're a couple of old pros in the iron game

[N@tural1]

We're a couple of old pros in the iron game

And both repped.

[waynelucky2]

Nice post All-pro.

Hi jgreystoke, and thx for chatting.

Wayne, I think you are a little confused.

Where and how ???

The Hill curve, also known as the Force - Velocity curve, clearly shows that max force/tension in a muscle is lowest when the movement is fastest, and maximum when the velocity becomes zero.

Yes you are very right; however I stated that in my fist post, here it is again.

The "highest force" as I suggested is at ZERO speed. That is simply indicative that if you allow something to move, the amount of force you can generate against it will decline, or you will have to attempt to accelerate it (if it has mass that is).

The 1RM of a movement will produce slightly less force than the maximal voluntary isometric contraction, as the 1RM is dynamic rather than static.

Example, an athlete's max squat 200kg, at 201kg, the athlete would not be able to move the bar; however, if he applied max effort the maximal voluntary isometric contraction force would be slightly greater than the force produced during the successful 1RM lift.

Thus isometric contractions, say during partial deads, the tension is greatest. Of course, the tension is greater still during heavy negatives > 1RM.

True.

Power = the rate of doing work, ie work / time.

Yes you are all too right, as power = the rate at which work is performed, or the energy is transferred, the amount of energy which is required or expended for a given unit of the time. A
P is Power, W is the work and T is the time.

Work = force x distance.

Yes mechanical work will be the amount of energy transferred by the force acting throughout a distance.

That is why the tension is greater when you are pulling a 400lb deadlift compared to a 200lb power clean. The force is in fact 400lbs + a little extra because you have to accelerate it enough to get it to move to the lockout position before fatigue makes you lose tension. Your FIIb fibers fatigue in about 10 seconds or less!

Agreed

Say you move it 1.5 feet in 5 seconds. The average velocity is very low, 1/3 of a foot per second. Say it took you two seconds to accelerate it to max velocity of say 2/3 of a second. Then your average acceleration of the bar is only 1/3 of a foot per second squared. This is only about 1% of the acceleration due to gravity of 32.2ft per second squared. When the bar is deccelerating at the top of the motion, the force is slightly reduced. The result is that the work done(ignoring friction against your thighs) is simply the integral of force with respect to distance.

The work done calculated well enough by taking the force x dist to be 400lb x 1.5ft = 600ft lb.

The power out put is only

600/5 = 120ftlb/sec or .218 horsepower

Say we power clean 200lbs. We move the bar approx 4 feet in 2 seconds. The acceleration was greater than for the deadlift, but still way less than the acceleration due to gravity. The work done is the integral of force with respect to distance as always. Moving the bar 4 feet in one second requires

200 x 4 = 800ft lb, so the WORK is greater, even tho' the force is LESS.

And the power is

800/2 = 400ftlb/sec = 0.727hp

So the power output is about 3.33 times greater than required for the deadlift, even tho the FORCE is LESS.

Yes all true

In the case of a 5 ounce baseball, the pitching velocity achieved is very high, well over a hundred feet per second. Both the force and the power output are very low compared to the examples above. Otherwise pitchers would have arms like Ronnie Coleman's leg. Or they would only be able to pitch say one maximum set of 5 per week, because fatigue and CNS blasting would be so great.

If you don't tense up for the deadlift, it won't leave the floor. If you tensed up for the throw, the ball wouldn't go very far. I normally do all calculations in SMI, but it is fun to work in the old pounds, feet units[/QUOTE]

Again all very true.

However N1 said,

Natural1 wrote:
This is why there is greater tension in an isometric (static) contraction, there is NO velocity. An explosive pichting of a ball has very little muscular tension.

However he was wrong as I and you said, and you kindly worked out for me, you said; In the case of a 5 ounce baseball, the pitching velocity achieved is very high, well over a hundred feet per second.

As I ask again N2, An explosive pitching of a ball has very high muscular tension. That is why it goes so fast and far, why do you say it has low force ??? Or should I say very little muscular tension ??? As the pitcher all the force in his arms to throw the ball as fast as it will go, if like you said there was very little muscular tension, the ball would not go very far, and is it did not go very far, the pitcher would then use very little muscular tension, but he does not, he uses his most muscular tension.

Natural1 wrote:
gmlongo wrote:
First of all, there is tension when pitching a ball.

Well yer to a degree. But you need to understand something. The greater the velocity (provided your attempting to move as fast as possible) the less tension there is.

Now here is where N1 is WRONG again, as whatever weight you use, and pitching ball, or a 100 pound barbell, the greater the velocity, provided your attempting to move as fast as possible the MORE tension there is.
So lets calculate how much there is I would have used on both weights at two speeds


We can calculate that lifting a 100 pound barbell overhead a distance of 1m required 446J of work, and 1 pound barbell overhead a distance of 1m required 4.905J of work.

Since I am using the metric system, I will first need to convert the mass of the barbell into kilograms 100 lb divided 2.2 = 45.5 kg).

Secondly, to determine the force we will need to figure out what the weight of the barbell is (W = mg = 45.5 kg x 9.81 m/s? = 446 kg.m/s? or 446 N).
Now, if work is equal to Force x distance then, U = 446 N x 1m = 446Nm or 446Joules.

100 pounds = 446J

1 pound = 4.905J

You will notice that the time it took to lift the barbell was not taken into account as the concept of power however, takes time into consideration. If for example, it took .5 seconds to complete the lift, then the power generated is 445J divided .5 s = 892 J/s.

100 pounds = 446J.

However move it at a velocity of 2 seconds = 222.5

And a faster velocity of .5 seconds = 892

1 pound = 4.905J

However move it at a velocity of 2 seconds = 2.4525

And a faster velocity of .5 seconds = 9.81

NOW THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART FOR N1, PLEASE NOTE BOTH WEIGHTS WHEN MOVED AT A FASTER VELOCITY, PRODUCE MORE JOULS = MORE FORCE = MORE TENSION.

So the greater the velocity provided your attempting to move as fast as possible the MORE FORCE THUS MORE TENSION THERE IS, NOT LESS.

Wayne

[all pro]

Nice post All-pro.

Hi jgreystoke, and thx for chatting.

Yes you are very right; however I stated that in my fist post, here it is again.

[i]The "highest force" as I suggested is at ZERO speed. That is simply indicative that if you allow something to move, the amount of force you can generate against it will decline, or you will have to attempt to accelerate it (if it has mass that is).

The 1RM of a movement will produce slightly less force than the maximal voluntary isometric contraction, as the 1RM is dynamic rather than static.

Wayne

Incorrect. Maximum force is produced from 90% to 100% of a 1 rep max. In fact the total force produced is EXACTLY the same. For an isometric contraction maximum force produced is exactly the same as both of those, BUT it only lasts for a second or 2 in all 3 examples. 2X fibers have no endurance.

[Orlando1234977]

Nice post All-pro.

Hi jgreystoke, and thx for chatting.



Where and how ???



Yes you are very right; however I stated that in my fist post, here it is again.

The "highest force" as I suggested is at ZERO speed. That is simply indicative that if you allow something to move, the amount of force you can generate against it will decline, or you will have to attempt to accelerate it (if it has mass that is).

The 1RM of a movement will produce slightly less force than the maximal voluntary isometric contraction, as the 1RM is dynamic rather than static.

Example, an athlete's max squat 200kg, at 201kg, the athlete would not be able to move the bar; however, if he applied max effort the maximal voluntary isometric contraction force would be slightly greater than the force produced during the successful 1RM lift.



True.



Yes you are all too right, as power = the rate at which work is performed, or the energy is transferred, the amount of energy which is required or expended for a given unit of the time. A
P is Power, W is the work and T is the time.




Yes mechanical work will be the amount of energy transferred by the force acting throughout a distance.



Agreed



Yes all true

In the case of a 5 ounce baseball, the pitching velocity achieved is very high, well over a hundred feet per second. Both the force and the power output are very low compared to the examples above. Otherwise pitchers would have arms like Ronnie Coleman's leg. Or they would only be able to pitch say one maximum set of 5 per week, because fatigue and CNS blasting would be so great.

If you don't tense up for the deadlift, it won't leave the floor. If you tensed up for the throw, the ball wouldn't go very far. I normally do all calculations in SMI, but it is fun to work in the old pounds, feet units

Again all very true.

However N1 said,


However he was wrong as I and you said, and you kindly worked out for me, you said; In the case of a 5 ounce baseball, the pitching velocity achieved is very high, well over a hundred feet per second.

As I ask again N2, An explosive pitching of a ball has very high muscular tension. That is why it goes so fast and far, why do you say it has low force ??? Or should I say very little muscular tension ??? As the pitcher all the force in his arms to throw the ball as fast as it will go, if like you said there was very little muscular tension, the ball would not go very far, and is it did not go very far, the pitcher would then use very little muscular tension, but he does not, he uses his most muscular tension.



Now here is where N1 is WRONG again, as whatever weight you use, and pitching ball, or a 100 pound barbell, the greater the velocity, provided your attempting to move as fast as possible the MORE tension there is.
So lets calculate how much there is I would have used on both weights at two speeds


We can calculate that lifting a 100 pound barbell overhead a distance of 1m required 446J of work, and 1 pound barbell overhead a distance of 1m required 4.905J of work.

Since I am using the metric system, I will first need to convert the mass of the barbell into kilograms 100 lb divided 2.2 = 45.5 kg).

Secondly, to determine the force we will need to figure out what the weight of the barbell is (W = mg = 45.5 kg x 9.81 m/s? = 446 kg.m/s? or 446 N).
Now, if work is equal to Force x distance then, U = 446 N x 1m = 446Nm or 446Joules.

100 pounds = 446J

1 pound = 4.905J

You will notice that the time it took to lift the barbell was not taken into account as the concept of power however, takes time into consideration. If for example, it took .5 seconds to complete the lift, then the power generated is 445J divided .5 s = 892 J/s.

100 pounds = 446J.

However move it at a velocity of 2 seconds = 222.5

And a faster velocity of .5 seconds = 892

1 pound = 4.905J

However move it at a velocity of 2 seconds = 2.4525

And a faster velocity of .5 seconds = 9.81

NOW THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART FOR N1, PLEASE NOTE BOTH WEIGHTS WHEN MOVED AT A FASTER VELOCITY, PRODUCE MORE JOULS = MORE FORCE = MORE TENSION.

So the greater the velocity provided your attempting to move as fast as possible the MORE FORCE THUS MORE TENSION THERE IS, NOT LESS.

Wayne[/QUOTE]

I have calculator tape laying all over the room now and I still come up with different figures..

[all pro]

Wayne said...blah, blah, blah

I have calculator tape laying all over the room now and I still come up with different figures..[/QUOTE]

BECUASE HE'S WRONG!
He is confusing maximum torque [force] with horse power, SPEED X STRENGTH.
90% + will produce maximum force/tension. Maximum horsepower will occur with between 60-70% of a 1 rep max when moved at maximum speed. Maximum speed only produces maximum force [1 rep max force] for a few milliseconds at best and the skeletal system doesn't receive much of anything.

[waynelucky2]

Incorrect. Maximum force is produced from 90% to 100% of a 1 rep max. In fact the total force produced is EXACTLY the same. For an isometric contraction maximum force produced is exactly the same as both of those, BUT it only lasts for a second or 2 in all 3 examples. 2X fibers have no endurance.

Hi All-pro,

You could join a few physics forums, and they will say I am right.

Just stand on a scales and move 60% of you RM, then 80% and then your 1RM, then put all your force/strength into a non movable object, you will note the relative readings will go larger and larger, and largest on the non movable object.

The heaver the weight the more or your force/strength you will be able to use. Please notice that the highest force as I suggested is at ZERO speed. That is simply indicative that if you allow something to move, the amount of force you can generate against it will decline, or you will have to attempt to accelerate it (if it has mass that is).

The 1RM of a movement will produce slightly less force than the maximal voluntary isometric contraction, as the 1RM is dynamic rather than static.

Example, an athlete's max squat 200kg, at 201kg, the athlete would not be able to move the bar; however, if he applied max effort the maximal voluntary isometric contraction force would be slightly greater than the force produced during the successful 1RM lift.

Wayne

[waynelucky2]

Again all very true.

However N1 said,


However he was wrong as I and you said, and you kindly worked out for me, you said; In the case of a 5 ounce baseball, the pitching velocity achieved is very high, well over a hundred feet per second.

As I ask again N2, An explosive pitching of a ball has very high muscular tension. That is why it goes so fast and far, why do you say it has low force ??? Or should I say very little muscular tension ??? As the pitcher all the force in his arms to throw the ball as fast as it will go, if like you said there was very little muscular tension, the ball would not go very far, and is it did not go very far, the pitcher would then use very little muscular tension, but he does not, he uses his most muscular tension.



Now here is where N1 is WRONG again, as whatever weight you use, and pitching ball, or a 100 pound barbell, the greater the velocity, provided your attempting to move as fast as possible the MORE tension there is.
So lets calculate how much there is I would have used on both weights at two speeds


We can calculate that lifting a 100 pound barbell overhead a distance of 1m required 446J of work, and 1 pound barbell overhead a distance of 1m required 4.905J of work.

Since I am using the metric system, I will first need to convert the mass of the barbell into kilograms 100 lb divided 2.2 = 45.5 kg).

Secondly, to determine the force we will need to figure out what the weight of the barbell is (W = mg = 45.5 kg x 9.81 m/s? = 446 kg.m/s? or 446 N).
Now, if work is equal to Force x distance then, U = 446 N x 1m = 446Nm or 446Joules.

100 pounds = 446J

1 pound = 4.905J

You will notice that the time it took to lift the barbell was not taken into account as the concept of power however, takes time into consideration. If for example, it took .5 seconds to complete the lift, then the power generated is 445J divided .5 s = 892 J/s.

100 pounds = 446J.

However move it at a velocity of 2 seconds = 222.5

And a faster velocity of .5 seconds = 892

1 pound = 4.905J

However move it at a velocity of 2 seconds = 2.4525

And a faster velocity of .5 seconds = 9.81

NOW THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART FOR N1, PLEASE NOTE BOTH WEIGHTS WHEN MOVED AT A FASTER VELOCITY, PRODUCE MORE JOULS = MORE FORCE = MORE TENSION.

So the greater the velocity provided your attempting to move as fast as possible the MORE FORCE THUS MORE TENSION THERE IS, NOT LESS.

Wayne

I have calculator tape laying all over the room now and I still come up with different figures..

You would have done the calcalatuions wrong then, please put them down.

I went to the nearest .5

The only mistake was a writeing error, I put 445, and it should have been 446,

And this part is wrong;
100 pounds = 446J.

However move it at a velocity of 2 seconds = 222.5

And a faster velocity of .5 seconds = 892

It should be;
100 pounds = 446J.

However move it at a velocity of 2 seconds = 223

And a faster velocity of .5 seconds = 892

Wayne

[waynelucky2]

And both repped.

Would you like to answer the questions please Natty ???

Wonder how many people are actually debating with you from the gym that JamesT works in, or are there lots of aliases ??? Not saying they are JamesT, but they could be someone else from the gym, as there are so many that sound the same.

Wayne

[all pro]

Hi All-pro,

You could join a few physics forums, and they will say I am right.

Just stand on a scales and move 60% of you RM, then 80% and then your 1RM, then put all your force/strength into a non movable object, you will note the relative readings will go larger and larger, and largest on the non movable object.

The heaver the weight the more or your force/strength you will be able to use. Please notice that the highest force as I suggested is at ZERO speed. That is simply indicative that if you allow something to move, the amount of force you can generate against it will decline, or you will have to attempt to accelerate it (if it has mass that is).

The 1RM of a movement will produce slightly less force than the maximal voluntary isometric contraction, as the 1RM is dynamic rather than static.

Example, an athlete's max squat 200kg, at 201kg, the athlete would not be able to move the bar; however, if he applied max effort the maximal voluntary isometric contraction force would be slightly greater than the force produced during the successful 1RM lift.

Wayne

Your example is wrong. Maximum force [torque] is maximum force. The only difference in any of your examples is time. An isometric contraction = ZERO horsepower. 70ish percent at maximum speed = maximum horsepower. 90-100% of a 1 rep max = maximum torque. None of the 3 examples produce a flat line of torque. They all produce a curve. The longest line and therefore the highest average torque is produced at about 90% of 1 rep max. A 5 rep max is about 90% Want to know why the 5x5s are so damned effective? 3x3 or 1x5. The only difference is total work load.
3x3x90%= 810
1x5x90%= 450....but all you have to do is add 1x10 at 70ish, 450+700=1150
Are you getting it now?

[waynelucky2]

Still waiting Natty ???

Wayne

[waynelucky2]

Your example is wrong. Maximum force [torque] is maximum force. The only difference in any of your examples is time. An isometric contraction = ZERO horsepower. 70ish percent at maximum speed = maximum horsepower. 90-100% of a 1 rep max = maximum torque. None of the 3 examples produce a flat line of torque. They all produce a curve. The longest line and therefore the highest average torque is produced at about 90% of 1 rep max. A 5 rep max is about 90% Want to know why the 5x5s are so damned effective? 3x3 or 1x5. The only difference is total work load.
3x3x90%= 810
1x5x90%= 450....but all you have to do is add 1x10 at 70ish, 450+700=1150
Are you getting it now?

I do not see why you are not getting it in my example above ???

Maybe I should have said you can exert more force on a static object, than a dynamic moving object, but when taking of lighter weights than your RM, and if large ACCELERATION of a load is involved, Newton's Second Law of Motion agrees that the resulting force will be large. Thus, the maximal force generated during rapid acceleration of a 100 pound bench press easily can exceed the maximal force produced during a slowly accelerated 150 pound bench press.

Power = Force x velocity.

Let us say you are 200 pounds, and your 1RM dead lift is 400 pounds, and your standing on a scales. As this lift is going to be very slow, thus the reading on the scales would register 600 roughly for the whole lift.

However if you then tried to use you max force on a 600 pound bar {forget the extra 200 pounds for now} you could most probably get the reading up to 605 pounds. Its like if you crashed into a car with its brakes on, you would do more damage to your car, than if the brakes were off.

That is simply indicative that if you allow something to move, the amount of force you can generate against it will decline.

It takes 400.5 pounds to move a 400 pound bar, but only 400 pounds to keep it moving.

Wayne

[_XYDREX_]

Highest force can be produced at any speed.

If a lifter can generate maximum 100kg, then a 100kg weight obviously can only be held statically with no movement. Force will be 100x9.81 = 981Newtons.

If he uses his maximum 981N force on a weight of 90kg, this means he will be able to accelerate this weight 981/90 = 10m/s^2.

In practice acceleration is of most relevance , not speed. But theoretically it doesnt matter, its just hard to replicate with your own body due to practical limitations. For example in a movement with a very light weight, once u accelerate it up to maximum speed with no further accerleration, u can still be producing maximum force. It simply means that your maximum force is balanced by the friction force in your joints (which does increase with speed at extreme levels). This is not easy to understand simply because we do not have enough range of motion to actually reach such a limit. But it IS there.

[all pro]

Hi All-pro,

You could join a few physics forums, and they will say I am right.


Wayne

But weight training forums, especially the ones that tailor to performance lifters will tell you you are wrong and you are! A lite weight moved at maximum speed produces maximum force for a few fractions of a second. A weight of 90-100% of a 1 rep max moved as quickly as possible produces maximum force for a few seconds. HUGE difference.

[_XYDREX_]

But weight training forums, especially the ones that tailor to performance lifters will tell you you are wrong and you are! A lite weight moved at maximum speed produces maximum force for a few fractions of a second. A weight of 90-100% of a 1 rep max moved as quickly as possible produces maximum force for a few seconds. HUGE difference.

LOL exactly, the higher the speed obviously the quicker you get to the end, where u must stop & reverese (in case of weight exercises). Maybe these fanatics can lower the bar in a bench press so fast that they actually turn it into a pulldown/row by accelerating the weight down faster than it would fall by gravity.

[waynelucky2]

But weight training forums, especially the ones that tailor to performance lifters will tell you you are wrong and you are! A lite weight moved at maximum speed produces maximum force for a few fractions of a second. A weight of 90-100% of a 1 rep max moved as quickly as possible produces maximum force for a few seconds. HUGE difference.

Hi All-pro,

We are both right, as it seems we are talking of slightly different things, semantics.

I was NOT talking of the max force/strength you could produce with lighter weight, only with your RM and a non movable static object.

[i]The "highest force" as I suggested is at ZERO speed. That is simply indicative that if you allow something to move, the amount of force you can generate against it will decline, or you will have to attempt to accelerate it (if it has mass that is).

The 1RM of a movement will produce slightly less force than the maximal voluntary isometric contraction, as the 1RM is dynamic rather than static.

Natty wrote:
John/Jeff.

Simple way to solve it.

Lets take everything out of the equation but pure and simple muscular contraction. No tendon recoil/SSC etc, no momentum, no transitions from eccentric-concentric.

But this is how muscles and physics work; you cannot take them out of the equation if you want to find out how much force you can use.

Natty wrote:
A bench press, starting at the bottom of the movement - bar on chest (2 spotters)

It will always require more force to raise the heavier load and therefore slower load.

Wrong.


There are two more ways to produce more force/strength than your 1RM.


1,
The "highest force" if we are talking of RM loads and above, is at ZERO speed. That is simply indicative that if you allow something to move, the amount of force you can generate against it will decline, or you will have to attempt to accelerate it (if it has mass that is).

The 1RM of a movement will produce slightly less force than the maximal voluntary isometric contraction, as the 1RM is dynamic rather than static.

Example, an athlete's max squat 200kg, at 201kg, the athlete would not be able to move the bar; however, if he applied max effort the maximal voluntary isometric contraction force would be slightly greater than the force produced during the successful 1RM lift.

However, you will not be producing your MAX force/strength/tension with/against your muscles.

2,

You NEED, time, distance and velocity to accomplish this, on the turnarounds from negative to positive, using something like 80%, you should be able to hit 140%

Also when you attempt to accelerate the weight the acceleration component means that the forces exerted on the load, and thereby by the muscles, by far exceeds the nominal weight of the load.

Per Aagaard Professor, PhD
Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics
University of Southern Denmark

When a given load is lifted very fast, the acceleration component means that the forces exerted on the load (and thereby by the muscles) by far exceeds the nominal weight of the load.

For instance, a 120 kg squat can easily produce peak vertical ground reaction forces (beyond the body mass of the lifter) of 160-220 kg's when executed in a very fast manner! Same goes for all other resisted movements with unrestricted acceleration (i.e. isokinetic dynamometers (and in part also hydralic loading devices) do not have this effect).

This means that higher forces will be exerted by MORE muscles fiber when a given load is moved at maximal high acceleration and speed - i.e. contractile stress (F/CSA) will be greater for the activated muscle fibers than when the load is lifted slowly....
best wishes
Per

Siff and Verkhoshansky used a force plate machine to determine the maximum effort a highly skilled weight lifter could display. This lifter generated 264 pounds of force on a 154 pound bar; 154 is 65% more than 154 pounds. This demonstrates the optimal relationship between force and velocity, where speed strength is best developed.

Newtons 2nd Law,
An increase in the upward acceleration will increase and not offload the force exerted on the lifter. The only way to offload a muscle is to accelerate downwards with the load, not to slow it down while going upwards. The only way to totally eliminate production of momentum is to do isometric training. Mind you, load or force does not change with speed of repetition, but with only with acceleration, no matter what speed you are moving at.

If large ACCELERATION of a load is involved, Newtons Second Law of Motion decrees that the resulting force will be large. Thus, the maximal force generated during rapid acceleration of a 100 pound bench press easily can exceed the maximal force produced during a slowly accelerated 150 pound bench press. Both a small load accelerated rapidly and a heavy load accelerated strongly involve the FT fibres. Likewise, explosive movements rely heavily on the action of FT fibres.

Natty wrote:
So long as you are attempting to move the load as fast as possible, the slower the actual speed in this case, the more pure muscular force/tension there will be.

Now I know things are a lot more complex once we start performing reps as fast as possible, other forces come into play as discussed hence the confusion. But purely from a muscular force point of view, muscle will always produce more force against the heavier and slower load reaching max force/tension levels during a maximum isotonic contraction.

False.

You will get/put your muscles to far greater force/tension with a faster movement on a lighter weight, as explained above, and on a non movable static object.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
jeffpinter wrote:
Natty wrote:
Jeff.

I disagree that you are able to generate as much force against a 20 rep max load as you are against a 1 rep max.

The 1 rep max will always be producing more muscular force/tension than anything lighter.
Hey Nat,

OK, let's see if I can convince you. Who knows...maybe along the way I'll convince myself that you're right!

Hi Jeff, actually it is possible that you are both right from your individual perspectives.

Nat is looking at the reality of the "force/velocity" curve when applied to a "NORMAL" 20 reps load, which is typically quite light, and easily accelerated.

You on the other hand are coming from the perspective of using 70%-80% of your 1RM weight and "SPRINTING" through the set with significant accelerations to a relatively heavy weight.

Additionally, peak force wise, the accelerated heavy load might even exceed the 1RM simply due to the fact that one can learn to use controlled speed on the eccentric to create an even greater transient (peak) load.

Agreed. You should be able to hit 140% on a good turnaround.

jeffpinter wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:

Assume that your 1RM is 200 pounds. In order to complete the rep you must generate a force slightly above 200 pounds, but let's call it an even 200, which is the maximum force you can generate.

And let's assume that the load for your 20RM set is 150 pounds, probably a reasonable estimate, which is 75% of your 1RM.

This % is not uncommon for those who train Rogue HIT, but is unlikely for those who haven't, so it may still offer questions.

jeffpinter wrote:
Now, if you take that 150 pounds and lift it very slowly, so it takes maybe 5 seconds to complete the lift, there will be negligible acceleration. This means that the force you generate is 150 pounds all the way to the top, which is what is required to overcome the weight of the bar due to gravity alone.

However, if you were to lift it to the top in exactly one second, the acceleration would not be negligible, and would equal 2 ft/sec2 (assuming you move it one foot). This acceleration requires an additional 12 pounds of force, for a total force of 162 pounds.

This is arrived at using basic physics which I will not detail, unless you want to see the calculations. It is simply Newton's 2nd Law at work - F=ma. The force needed to accelerate an object is proportional to the acceleration.

Likewise, lifting it in 3/4 second requires a total force of 222 pounds.

Is this a mis-type? Would the 3/4 second be greater than the 1/2 sec reps?

jeffpinter wrote:
And lifting it in 1/2 second requires a total force of 200 pounds, exactly equal to your maximum. Saying it another way, if you generate your maximum force of 200 pounds to the 150 pound bar you will complete the concentric in 1/2 second, the fastest possible speed with 150 pounds.

If, as I say you can generate more force on a static object, could not you then maybe generate more on the 150 pound bar, without the turnarounds, but with very high accelerations ??? As Siff wrote, however we do not know the % the person was using on these tests.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Excellent and clear example.

jeffpinter wrote:
Natty wrote:

A isometric static contraction even more than a 1 rep max.


Not sure I agree with you here. Technically the 1RM involves more force, as it takes slightly more force than the weight in order to get it moving. A static requires a force exactly equal to the weight in order to keep it from moving. And note that we are neglecting friction here.

I agree with N1 here Jeff. See what you are saying Jeff, but you look at my example above; you might see where I am coming from.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
This gets very complex, since some state that the eccentric action creates the most force, when that is not true. If you measure actual intramuscular force, the greatest forces are produced "just before" the muscle is forced into lengthening. Yielding to a higher load is not actually creating a greater force.

That said, here is where you get into the "stickier" inter-relationships between muscular and external load/force interactions.

In visualizing what both of you are talking about, you have to look at the fact that we do not (in both cases) have "exact" forces. We have a force interaction that is subject to the strength curve and the motor impulse, both of which are subject to feed forward and feedback loops that modulate their true capabilities.

jeffpinter wrote:
Natty wrote:
It takes far more force to rep a 1 rep max as hard and as fast as possible compared to pitching a ball as hard and fast as possible.


Now I think we finally agree! The reason why this is so is because the weight (the ball) is so light that the speed needed to throw it in order to attain a 1RM force exceeds the maximum speed that the muscles can contract under. This is a "terminal velocity" issue...BIO knows more about this than I.

Well maybe a little, but this becomes even MORE complex. Muscle action IS NOT linear, and when you employ a complex multiple action like pitching you are getting even more complex.

Pitching a baseball is HIGH EFFORT and HIGH FORCE, it is also a MAXIMALLY attempted effort. To pitch a 100mph fastball requires EXTREME force. The force however comes more from elastic preloading that allows a greater and continuous accelerative force to be applied to a light object through a very complex group of levers.

Due to this technique, when the pitcher is throwing "all out" terminal velocity is not a factor, since the action is synchronized to store and release muscle force tensions through a complex biomechanical means.

It would be an interesting study to see just how much "force" need be generated to accelerate a baseball to 100mph, and then do a biomechanical study of the muscular forces involved through the leverage systems.

Wayne

[waynelucky2]

Ok N1, seems that you were wrong, and do not like to comment on what you thought was right.

Hi All-pro, you agreeing with what I am saying now ???

LOL exactly, the higher the speed obviously the quicker you get to the end, where u must stop & reverese (in case of weight exercises). Maybe these fanatics can lower the bar in a bench press so fast that they actually turn it into a pulldown/row by accelerating the weight down faster than it would fall by gravity.

Hi manfred99,

Not sure the point you are trying to make ???

The faster the speed the faster you fatigue the muscles, this means they have been worked harder.

As long as the weight is relatively heavy, the faster you move the more force/strength you are using, and you are NOT off-loading the muscles, but on loading them

I think we all agree that tension is the main muscle builder, and where/how do you think you will get the highest tension in a normal positive negative rep ??? Tensions that will be as high as 140% ???

Wayne

[all pro]

Hi All-pro, you agreeing with what I am saying now ???
Wayne

What was the question?

[GuyJin]

AP,

Thanks for an interesting and informative post.

Wayne is off in his calculations.
Wayne is off in his theories.
Wayne is off his meds...

[waynelucky2]

AP,

Thanks for an interesting and informative post.

Wayne is off in his calculations.
Wayne is off in his theories.
Wayne is off his meds...

If you are wrong, why not just say it, if you think you are not, please provide evidence and proof for what you say.

My calculations are basic physics, and are right.

My theories are again how the World and physics basically works, thus are not theory, but basic physics.

I might need meds, as some people seem to always go against, its like that on the HIT boards, just about everything you say to them, and explain, they still seem to go against.

Let us see you try to prove me wrong, the funny part you have put down no proof or evidence for your wild claims.

So you are saying Per Aagaard Professor, PhD
Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics
University of Southern Denmark.

Siff and Verkhoshansky.

And Newton are wrong ???

Wayne

[waynelucky2]

What was the question?

There are two more ways to produce more force/strength than your 1RM.


1,
The "highest force" if we are talking of RM loads and above, is at ZERO speed. That is simply indicative that if you allow something to move, the amount of force you can generate against it will decline, or you will have to attempt to accelerate it (if it has mass that is).

The 1RM of a movement will produce slightly less force than the maximal voluntary isometric contraction, as the 1RM is dynamic rather than static.

Example, an athlete's max squat 200kg, at 201kg, the athlete would not be able to move the bar; however, if he applied max effort the maximal voluntary isometric contraction force would be slightly greater than the force produced during the successful 1RM lift.

However, you will not be producing your MAX force/strength/tension with/against your muscles.

2,

Or as I said, you will have to attempt to accelerate the weight, and this will have to lighter than your RM.

You NEED, time, distance and velocity to accomplish this, on the turnarounds from negative to positive, using something like 80% for 15 very fast reps, you should be able to hit 140% And over 100% on the positives.

Also when you attempt to accelerate the weight the acceleration component means that the forces exerted on the load, and thereby by the muscles, by far exceeds the nominal weight of the load.

Per Aagaard Professor, PhD
Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics
University of Southern Denmark

When a given load is lifted very fast, the acceleration component means that the forces exerted on the load (and thereby by the muscles) by far exceeds the nominal weight of the load.

For instance, a 120 kg squat can easily produce peak vertical ground reaction forces (beyond the body mass of the lifter) of 160-220 kg's when executed in a very fast manner! Same goes for all other resisted movements with unrestricted acceleration (i.e. isokinetic dynamometers (and in part also hydralic loading devices) do not have this effect).

This means that higher forces will be exerted by MORE muscles fiber when a given load is moved at maximal high acceleration and speed - i.e. contractile stress (F/CSA) will be greater for the activated muscle fibers than when the load is lifted slowly....
best wishes
Per

Siff and Verkhoshansky used a force plate machine to determine the maximum effort a highly skilled weight lifter could display. This lifter generated 264 pounds of force on a 154 pound bar; 154 is 65% more than 154 pounds. This demonstrates the optimal relationship between force and velocity, where speed strength is best developed.

Newtons 2nd Law,
An increase in the upward acceleration will increase and not offload the force exerted on the lifter. The only way to offload a muscle is to accelerate downwards with the load, not to slow it down while going upwards. The only way to totally eliminate production of momentum is to do isometric training. Mind you, load or force does not change with speed of repetition, but with only with acceleration, no matter what speed you are moving at.

If large ACCELERATION of a load is involved, Newtons Second Law of Motion decrees that the resulting force will be large. Thus, the maximal force generated during rapid acceleration of a 100 pound bench press easily can exceed the maximal force produced during a slowly accelerated 150 pound bench press. Both a small load accelerated rapidly and a heavy load accelerated strongly involve the FT fibres. Likewise, explosive movements rely heavily on the action of FT fibres.

jeffpinter wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:

Assume that your 1RM is 200 pounds. In order to complete the rep you must generate a force slightly above 200 pounds, but let's call it an even 200, which is the maximum force you can generate.

And let's assume that the load for your 20RM set is 150 pounds, probably a reasonable estimate, which is 75% of your 1RM.

This % is not uncommon for those who train Rogue HIT, but is unlikely for those who haven't, so it may still offer questions.

jeffpinter wrote:
Now, if you take that 150 pounds and lift it very slowly, so it takes maybe 5 seconds to complete the lift, there will be negligible acceleration. This means that the force you generate is 150 pounds all the way to the top, which is what is required to overcome the weight of the bar due to gravity alone.

However, if you were to lift it to the top in exactly one second, the acceleration would not be negligible, and would equal 2 ft/sec2 (assuming you move it one foot). This acceleration requires an additional 12 pounds of force, for a total force of 162 pounds.

This is arrived at using basic physics which I will not detail, unless you want to see the calculations. It is simply Newton's 2nd Law at work - F=ma. The force needed to accelerate an object is proportional to the acceleration.

Likewise, lifting it in 3/4 second requires a total force of 222 pounds.

Is this a mis-type? Would the 3/4 second be greater than the 1/2 sec reps?

jeffpinter wrote:
And lifting it in 1/2 second requires a total force of 200 pounds, exactly equal to your maximum. Saying it another way, if you generate your maximum force of 200 pounds to the 150 pound bar you will complete the concentric in 1/2 second, the fastest possible speed with 150 pounds.

Wayne

[Orlando1234977]

You would have done the calcalatuions wrong then, please put them down.

I went to the nearest .5

Hi Wayne,

Ah yes, they old 1/2 or .5 trick. So for example a .38 and a .72 both get lumped into the nearest .5, hence being equal?

I'll post final results of proof later, currently ran out of calculator ink and swimming in curled tape scattered across the room.

ps. good find on the 446, glad I didn't have to point out 445 would be rather obtuse.

[Kelei]

lol not this **** again

[GuyJin]

LOL, yes, Kelei, the loony has escaped and taken refuge in this forum...again.

Tried doing wayne's calculations while standing on a force plate and throwing a ball at top speed while whipping down a pullover machine at less than .35 of a second. I think I sprained my intralateral intercostal oblique...

[Kelei]

LOL, yes, Kelei, the loony has escaped and taken refuge in this forum...again.

Tried doing wayne's calculations while standing on a force plate and throwing a ball at top speed while whipping down a pullover machine at less than .35 of a second. I think I sprained my intralateral intercostal oblique...

I agree with wayne that moving a load as fast as possible produces best results but why the need for such a pointless discussion, people seriously take the whole science approach a little too far. JFT people.