Average force do not apply here

[all pro]

Hi All-pro,

Are you trying to say that quite a lot of things work, and variety is good, but you still need a good log, and a good basic routine to go back too ???

So most would do great at first if they did say 10 exercises x 3 sets of each, upped the weight each and every time, and good lots of good clean food down them.

Than after so and so, try the odd different thing to see if it works, as there are some many different combinations of reps, sets weights, and whatever out there.

Yes your right.

Put I only started this for one reason, not to try and tell or change anybodys training, just to see if 1 rep at 3/3 and 6 reps at .5/.5 and which has the most total force/strength/tension from/on the muscles. Or 4 reps at 3/3 and 25 at .5/.5, using the same weight, with 2 people of the same strength.

However, in reality, the person using the .5/.5 rep, would be using a heaver weight.

Wayne

The heavier weight will produce the most force EVERY TIME! In general, the slower the bar speed due to weight the higher the force!
SPEED IS POWER!
Proper dynamic effort work starts with 50% of a 1 rep max loaded on the bar. But chains or bands are used so that at lock out the resistance is 110% of a 1 rep max. That's the part that you're missing. That's why what you're doing WON'T work. Even your hero John has told you this several times.

[waynelucky2]

The heavier weight will produce the most force EVERY TIME! In general, the slower the bar speed due to weight the higher the force!
SPEED IS POWER!

Right.

Proper dynamic effort work starts with 50% of a 1 rep max loaded on the bar. But chains or bands are used so that at lock out the resistance is 110% of a 1 rep max. That's the part that you're missing. That's why what you're doing WON'T work. Even your hero John has told you this several times.

But I am not doing dynamic effort work with 50% ???

Wayne

[all pro]

But I am not doing dynamic effort work with 50% ???

Wayne

That's right. You aren't and that's why you're producing less maximum force than someone using a normal rep speed for 10 reps.
A 5 rep max lifted as fast as possible will produce more maximum force then what you are doing. And if you did 3 sets of 5 reps you'd probably gain size and strength AND power at a faster rate then what you're currently doing.

[Negativ]

all pro, how did you get suckered into talking with this guy again?

[all pro]

all pro, how did you get suckered into talking with this guy again?

I'm a glutton for punishment.

[waynelucky2]

Hi all,

Was waiting for the rest of the answers, but will start with these.

Hmm, however I did say I was talking outside physics. What I mean was if I produced 100 pounds of force/strength to lift the 1 rep at .5/.5 and 3/3, I must use more force/strength to lift the weight on the second to sixth rep on the .5/.5 reps. As the first force/strength I have using lifting it once at .5/.5 is gone, its been used up, actually I am using more and more of my force/strength every milly second. As a force/strength is a push or pull that accelerates things.

NWlifter wrote;
well, it's not more force, it's more work. If the first rep is 100lbs of force, and the second rep is 100lbs of force, it's just 'more' time with that force. It's not more force, or total force, it's more time with that force. Each rep is more time...

Well you could call if more work {but remember I am not just speaking physics here, I am using everything} yes, but that same, or should I say different, or new force has to be used again, the muscles have to use a force/strength again to lift the weight.

So rep 1 uses a force/strength to lift it, of say 100 pounds, then you back off this 100 pounds of force/strength to lower it, then again you use force/strength to lift it again, of 100 pounds.


Its because I am using a high force for a short time, say .5/.5 of a second to lift the weight up 1m and down 1m. But use used a lower force but for a longer time, say 2 seconds up and 4 seconds down, and in the end you also lifted it up 1m.

NWlifter wrote;
that's why distance doesn't matter. You used 100 for 1 second, I used 100 for 6 seconds. You used all your energy at first for acceleration, I used mine slowly for the whole time.

Hold on, this is where you and D. are going wrong; you only used 80.1 pounds to move the weight up, then 80 pounds for the whole 3 seconds concentric. I used 100 pounds from the start to just about the end on my .5 second concentric. I did NOT use all my energy/force at just the first acceleration, I keep on and on using it up until nearly the very end, and I do this 6 times.

So we could lay both concentric out, I would have moved the weight 6m to your 1m, and thats 500% more distance travelled in the same time frame. So how can you tell me that you have used the same force/strength as me, when I have moved the same weight 500% more in distance, all you have done is use 80 pounds of force, I have used 100 pounds of force, and 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.

So the faster you move the weight, the more tension on the muscles per unit of time. So my high force rep per unit of time, is say 50% more, sounds fair ??? So call my .5 rep 1.5T on the muscles, and your low force rep for .5 of a second 1T, we first need to add your seconds up, so its 1T x 6 reps at.5 of a seconds {3 seconds concentric for now}= 6T, then add my 6 reps at 1.5 = 9T.

So that makes my 6 reps at .5/.5 = 6 seconds, to your 1 rep at 3/3, 50% more tension on the muscles, and if we both train for 24 seconds, I have put 200% more tension on the muscles.


So why/how can you say distance does not matter ??? As if I moved a weight 1m up in .5 of second, and you moved the weight .16 of a meter up in .5 of a second. As I have moved the same weight in the same time frame 500% more, I have used much more force thus putting huge amounts of tension on the muscles to your lift, how much more would you think ???

But as the eccentric is so under loaded, and if you use the first half or just over the let the weight gain a little speeds, so it will gain a little more force, thus in turn you will be then trying to slow a heaver weight, well not heavier weight, but you know what you mean, also then you have a larger force going into the transition, and doing it this way will get the highest of the highest forces thus tensions on the muscles. If I did them slow, it would compromise the peak forces by about half, and as these peak forces are one of the main keys to strength and hypertrophy, I would not want to do that, but thats really another debate.

NWlifter wrote;
Yes, a fast eccentric, with a hard 'braking' at the bottom produces very high peak forces. I myself, have read a lot on this, and research shows high peak forces are not superior, but some still believe they are. Your training has high peak forces, so it does do that well.

I would say the opposite of high peak forces are not superior, {AND WOULD LIKE A DEBATE ON THIS NEXT PLEASE ??? NOT SURE IF HE WILL COME IN, BUT I AM GOING TO CALL JOHN IN ON THIS ONE, AS HE KNOWS FAR MORE ABOUT THIS THAN ME} but that is not the debate at this moment in time. Its which has the highest overall/net force, or more important which puts the most tension on the muscles, 1 rep at 3/3 or 6 reps at .5/.5.

So are we agreeing that as the eccentric is so under loaded, that your 1 eccentric at 3 seconds puts out more force thus tension on the muscles than 1 of my eccentrics at .5 of a second, but the force of your 3 second eccentric is so low, its not worth adding up ??? But I do not think thats fair, I would hazard a guess that 6 of my eccentrics at .5 of a second puts the same amount of tension on the muscles as 1 of yours at 3 seconds, would you agree ??? If so, we are even Stephens on the eccentrics.

NWlifter wrote;
I wish I could get you to visualize something. Please, please I beg you to imagine this...
Imagine your doing a dumbell curl, and in the palm of your hand, between your hand and the bar, is a little tiny scale that shows how much 'weight/force/pressure' your pushing with during the curl. When I first start my slower curl, it jumps up a bit higher then the load, then as my speed evens out, it would show the same as the load, then at the very end it would drop to an amount lower then the load till it stopped. Let's say you took samples of the force during the 3 second concentric. And you took those force samples every .1 seconds, so 10 samples per second. You would see force doing something like (say the load is 100lbs)

Time... force
.1 s .....120
.2 s......120
.3 s......110
.4 s.....110
.5 s....105
.6 s.....100
.7 through 2.5 s...100
2.6 s....95
2.7 s....85
2.8 s....70
2.9 s ....40
3 s....0 (stopped)


Your fast rep
Time.. force
.1 s....150
.2 s...150
.3 s 130
.4 s 70
.5 s 0 (stopped)

Now if you do 6 of those reps, you have 1.2 seconds at 150, .2 seconds at 130, .2 seconds at 70, and .2 seconds at 0

These numbers are just pretend as they don't really add up right, but it's the concept I want you to see. If you rep has an average force of 100 that lasts for 1 second, you have to do 6 of them to have 6 seconds of that 100 lbs of average force. A single 3/3 rep also has 6 seconds of time at that average force of 100.

This is an excellent idea. I have taken a day just to see if I there is anything wrong in doing it this way, but I cannot see anything.

And I have had to redo the below a few times, I think what I put down is fair, but please say what/if you disagree with the numbers I put down. I have also training HIT for 15 years, so I do know how a slow rep, and now how fast reps feel. So your saying your RM is 125 pounds.

I would say its more like this, not counting sticking points. Also, I would say at your transition from positive to negative, you will/must have longer with zero loads then me. And started both on coming out of the eccentric, as we have to add in the peak forces, put on the muscles,

.1 s .....120
.2 s......120
.3 s......115
.4 s.....115
.5 s....110
.6 s.....105
.7s....105
.8s....105
.9s....105
.10s.... 105
.11s.... 100
.12s.... 100
.13s.... 100
.14s.... 100
.15s.... 100
.16s.... 100
.17s.... 100
.18s.... 100
.19s.... 100
.20s.... 100
.21s.... 100
.22s.... 100
.23s.... 100
.24s.... 100
.25s.... 100
.26s.... 100
.27s.... 100
.28s.... 100
.28.5s....50
.29s.... 000
.30s.... 000

= 2955.


My fast reps coming out of the eccentric. The study said about 35% more force on the muscles, not by the muscles, from the peak tensions, as its the force/tension the muscles are feeling, call this for .1 of a second. I would say the transition is very sort for the fast rep. Its the same if you did train to failure on the faster reps, failure twice as fast, or even faster with the fast reps, so I have added a 4.5 in the middle. As the way I do the reps its as hard/fast on the way up, then an.

Time.. force
.1 s....165
.2 s...120
.3 s 120
.4 s 120
.4.5s 60
.5 s 000

= 3510.

So thats about 19% more for 6 seconds, so 19% more tension on the muscles, but now we have to take something of as your reps eccentric puts more tension on the muscles than mine, however the eccentric is very under loaded. So I would say we need to take about 1 quarter of, but lets make it more fair and take one third off 19 – 33.3% = 12.5.

Thus in my opinion, for 6 seconds the fast rep puts 12.5% more tension on the muscles than the slow reps.


Points to remember, in real life and what actually happens in the gym,

If you did 5 reps {24 seconds} this then would equate to 62.5% more tension on the muscles.
10 reps {48 seconds} this then would equate to 123% more tension on the muscles.


I would actually for the same time frame be using a heaver weight, as you can move heavier weights faster, hope you all know what I mean there, as I am not trying to pull one on, its just you can use your RM when moving at your fastest, if you moved slower, you would not get your RM, thus you would have to use a lighter weight, I will have to work that out one day but not know.

Wayne

[all pro]

[waynelucky2]

That's right. You aren't and that's why you're producing less maximum force than someone using a normal rep speed for 10 reps.

All-pro, I lift weights from 65 to 95% and try to lift them as fast as possible, creating the higher forces. And lift in rep ranges of 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30 I pace the first few of the higher reps.

A 5 rep max lifted as fast as possible will produce more maximum force then what you are doing.

I do have weeks lifting something like 5RM, I do thinks like you gave me, and things like 6 x 6 and many things.

And if you did 3 sets of 5 reps you'd probably gain size and strength AND power at a faster rate then what you're currently doing.

I do all combinations of RMs reps and sets.

And used to be a 150 pound Bruce Lee type, but have always looked heaver than I am. Then I changed the higher force faster reps with more sets, and added about 40 pounds, in a few years. I am about 5 foot 8 inches, 185 to 195 pounds, 47 inch chest, shoulders and lats on par. Arms about 16.5. But legs not yet on par. And when I have a dress shirt on, and I have many of these, high size of large or XL Ben Sherman shirts, without sounding smug, cos I anint like that, but you can plainly see I work out, and every time I go out I get some comment, mostly asking if I am the bouncer doorman. And yes you have seen me of YouTube, but as you know, people do look far bigger in real life. And I am in no way saying I look like a brick s hit house on steroids, but I look the part, athletic with size, and not much interested in getting my torso any bigger, but legs need to, and arms a little more.

But we should all listen to our All-pro, as hes, dammed forgot, think hes done double his weight bench press, double his weight squat, and triple his weight dead lift, and that is very good.

Wayne

[waynelucky2]

That was funny, love it.

Bed time here.

Wayne

[all pro]

[waynelucky2]

Why are you saying my maths is now wrong ??? Not sure what your mean, could you show me an example.

I thought you meant that you can play numbers with the force/tension per unit of time Ron thought up, I think what I wrote was quite fair, if anybody thinks other, please put your own down, and why they think mine was not right, and why they think theirs is right.
Not it is really bed time.

Wayne

[douglis]

This is an excellent idea. I have taken a day just to see if I there is anything wrong in doing it this way, but I cannot see anything.

And I have had to redo the below a few times, I think what I put down is fair, but please say what/if you disagree with the numbers I put down. I have also training HIT for 15 years, so I do know how a slow rep, and now how fast reps feel. So your saying your RM is 125 pounds.

I would say its more like this, not counting sticking points. Also, I would say at your transition from positive to negative, you will/must have longer with zero loads then me. And started both on coming out of the eccentric, as we have to add in the peak forces, put on the muscles,

.1 s .....120
.2 s......120
.3 s......115
.4 s.....115
.5 s....110
.6 s.....105
.7s....105
.8s....105
.9s....105
.10s.... 105
.11s.... 100
.12s.... 100
.13s.... 100
.14s.... 100
.15s.... 100
.16s.... 100
.17s.... 100
.18s.... 100
.19s.... 100
.20s.... 100
.21s.... 100
.22s.... 100
.23s.... 100
.24s.... 100
.25s.... 100
.26s.... 100
.27s.... 100
.28s.... 100
.28.5s....50
.29s.... 000
.30s.... 000

= 2955.


My fast reps coming out of the eccentric. The study said about 35% more force on the muscles, not by the muscles, from the peak tensions, as its the force/tension the muscles are feeling, call this for .1 of a second. I would say the transition is very sort for the fast rep. Its the same if you did train to failure on the faster reps, failure twice as fast, or even faster with the fast reps, so I have added a 4.5 in the middle. As the way I do the reps its as hard/fast on the way up, then an.

Time.. force
.1 s....165
.2 s...120
.3 s 120
.4 s 120
.4.5s 60
.5 s 000

= 3510.

So thats about 19% more for 6 seconds, so 19% more tension on the muscles, but now we have to take something of as your reps eccentric puts more tension on the muscles than mine, however the eccentric is very under loaded. So I would say we need to take about 1 quarter of, but lets make it more fair and take one third off 19 – 33.3% = 12.5.

Thus in my opinion, for 6 seconds the fast rep puts 12.5% more tension on the muscles than the slow reps.


Points to remember, in real life and what actually happens in the gym,

If you did 5 reps {24 seconds} this then would equate to 62.5% more tension on the muscles.
10 reps {48 seconds} this then would equate to 123% more tension on the muscles.


I would actually for the same time frame be using a heaver weight, as you can move heavier weights faster, hope you all know what I mean there, as I am not trying to pull one on, its just you can use your RM when moving at your fastest, if you moved slower, you would not get your RM, thus you would have to use a lighter weight, I will have to work that out one day but not know.

Wayne

For god sake...this is just stupid.
Please ask you cousin who is a physicist to explain it to you face to face.Same average force means same force per unit of time.

[waynelucky2]

For god sake...this is just stupid.
Please ask you cousin who is a physicist to explain it to you face to face.Same average force means same force per unit of time.

Hi D.

No, same average force does not always mean same force per unit of time.

Its not stupid. Let me give you one example of where physics will and cannot give the right calculations. When Jeff worked out the force needed to push a weight up, with no stopping at the top, I think he worked it out that if you immediately stopped pushing at 1m with a speed of .5 with a weight of about 80% in the bench press, that the weight would move for another 3 inch before stopping and coming back down. Everyone who ever tried this, knows that the barbell does not even move out of your hands, unless your very dynamic.

Does this mean physics is wrong ??? No, what it means is you have to add in biomechanics into the equations. As because of the biomechanical advantages and disadvantages of the pushing muscles, they cannot push constantly like a machine would, thus the calculations do not work.

1,
Now has your equations took into account that because the eccentric is very under loaded, what the slow rep loses in the concentric, they can never make up in the eccentric, as the eccentric is like using 40 to 50% in the concentric, this the force output and tension on the muscles is about one third of what it is. I know the equations have and cannot take that into account, I would say that very few people have even thought of it.

2,
Do your equations take into account the peak forces from the transition from negative to positive ??? No, they cannot. The studies show them to be 35% higher than the concentric force; I would say they can easy get as high as 40%

3,
Does your equations take into account that my transition from positive to negative is going to be about 6 times faster thus shorter than your ???

4,
And lets forget your examples for now, but could you please say, or Ron, or anyone else, why did I fail 55% faster in my test ??? Why in the study I showed, did the subjects performed 96% more pull-ups in 16% less time, and 145% more push-ups in 51% less time, when performing the fast repetitions than when performing repetitions with a 2/4 cadence.

Sowing they failed 16% faster and 51% faster.

Please why did this happen ???

5,
Your questions, are not taking into account that we are going up and down constantly, They assume that we start from a standing start, to with we do, and finish with zero movement, too which we do, but they do not take into accounts all the ups and downs for each and every rep.

I thought what I put down above was quite fair, as I had to add the peak forces in, do you think that was wrong, or what was wrong ???

Wayne

[N@tural1]

*sigh*

[douglis]

5,
Your questions, are not taking into account that we are going up and down constantly, They assume that we start from a standing start, to with we do, and finish with zero movement, too which we do, but they do not take into accounts all the ups and downs for each and every rep.


Wayne

The 1.2.3.4 have been answered hundreds of times so don't expect from me to even bother with them.
BUT the number 5 deserves special attention!What are you talking about?

[Orlando1234977]

Why are you saying my maths is now wrong ??? Not sure what your mean, could you show me an example.

There's 24 hours in a day, all but February where there's 28.

[feltmann]

There's 24 hours in a day, all but February where there's 28.

Thats interesting





We fail faster on fast explosive reps because having peaks in tension causes the fatigue curve to drop sooner.

Physiological effect from peak (inducing fatigue) > Physiological effect from dip (relax: recovering from fatigue)

So even though force averages out, the fact that you have hit peaks will induce fatigue levels that take longer to recover from than the duration of the next dips. So cumulative fatigue increases faster than for slow reps.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post486184201

[douglis]

Thats interesting





We fail faster on fast explosive reps because having peaks in tension causes the fatigue curve to drop sooner.

Physiological effect from peak (inducing fatigue) > Physiological effect from dip (relax: recovering from fatigue)

So even though force averages out, the fact that you have hit peaks will induce fatigue levels that take longer to recover from than the duration of the next dips. So cumulative fatigue increases faster than for slow reps.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post486184201

Feltman...if you compare the time to failure with heavy weights(>12RM) you'll see that there's no difference.Take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-iL8ipfj4Y

The reason we fail faster with medium or lighter weights when lifted explosively is because the weight preserves speed at the end of ROM(average acceleration>0) and the average force is greater than when lifted slow.In reality we just hold the weight with the antagonist muscle at the end of ROM.

[waynelucky2]

The 1.2.3.4 have been answered hundreds of times so don't expect from me to even bother with them.
BUT the number 5 deserves special attention!What are you talking about?

Hi D. and all.

1,
I was the one who told you about this, I do not think anyone know this before, thus you have not explain nothing to me. What I actually wanted was your, Rons and all the others comments on what you this of my statement. Also if you agreed or do not, and if you do not say why.

2,
You have again not enplaned anything about the peak forces to me, I have mentioned them a lot, but your equations do not seem to mention them, if you have and I missed it, you add them again please. And what do you think about the peak tensions, do you think like most studies say that at the transition from negative to positive, when the MMMTs are there, do you also think that the forces the muscles have to take is roughly 35% And would you say these force last about .1 of a second or not all, or anyone debating ???

3
Again I think I am the first one to think of this, and thus the first one to say this, and its just a simple question, I was just wondering what you all thought of it ???

4,
Again nothing has been explained to me here, it was just a question, to why you think me and all the people in the studies failed roughly 50% faster, just wondering what you thought made them fail faster, was it the peck forces or ???

So number 5 needs special attention from my Greek friend, sounds cool, dog walk will explain more later.

For god sake...this is just stupid.
Please ask you cousin who is a physicist to explain it to you face to face.Same average force means same force per unit of time.

Wrong, as you have not taken account or added in the peak forces, and you have not taken account or added in that the negative is very under loaded, thus is impossible to make up in the negative the huge amounts in the positive that you lost, I thought my fast and slow examples with numbers was quite fair, do not you ??? And if not put your own down and say why.

Wayne

[waynelucky2]

Thats interesting





We fail faster on fast explosive reps because having peaks in tension causes the fatigue curve to drop sooner.

Physiological effect from peak (inducing fatigue) > Physiological effect from dip (relax: recovering from fatigue)

So even though force averages out, the fact that you have hit peaks will induce fatigue levels that take longer to recover from than the duration of the next dips. So cumulative fatigue increases faster than for slow reps.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post486184201

Well said. I have somthing to add later on EMG studies.

Wayne

[waynelucky2]

All-pro, is that you in the photo ??? ROL, if so how is Ernie ??? Only frendely leg pulling

Thats interesting





We fail faster on fast explosive reps because having peaks in tension causes the fatigue curve to drop sooner.

Physiological effect from peak (inducing fatigue) > Physiological effect from dip (relax: recovering from fatigue)

So even though force averages out, the fact that you have hit peaks will induce fatigue levels that take longer to recover from than the duration of the next dips. So cumulative fatigue increases faster than for slow reps.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post486184201

Wayne

[N@tural1]

The reason we fail faster with medium or lighter weights when lifted explosively is because the weight preserves speed at the end of ROM(average acceleration>0) and the average force is greater than when lifted slow.In reality we just hold the weight with the antagonist muscle at the end of ROM.

Not entirely sure what you meant (in bold) there douglis as we know that average force is equal regardless of rep speed?

[waynelucky2]

Not entirely sure what you meant (in bold) there douglis as we know that average force is equal regardless of rep speed?

The point is D. Has worked this out from a physicist equation, and do these physicist work out these equations going from the eccentric to the positive, with added peak forces of up to 40% on the muscles, no they do not, if they do then please say and I will say I am wrong, they work these forces out going from the positive to the negative, thus not adding in or taking the transition from negative to positive where the peak forces are, and the faster you move though this transition, the higher the peak forces, the MMMTs are. If they had these peak forces added in, they would be easily to tell me the forces, but as yet no one has.

Then there is the fact that on the slow rep, you will be in both transitions far longer, thus with zero load on the muscles, each of these transitions could be as long as .5 each side, to what ??? .1 in the faster reps.

Then have these physicists known about the under loaded eccentric, no they do not, as no one here even thought about that as the eccentric is under loaded, that the forces lost in the positive, can never be made up in the eccentric. These physicists never work of forces for human beings; all the equations are for machines.

Wayne

[waynelucky2]

Hope your baby I heard in the back ground is fine D.

Feltman...if you compare the time to failure with heavy weights(>12RM) you'll see that there's no difference.Take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-iL8ipfj4Y

You did the fast reps at 1/1, and could have gone twice as fast, and you could have done more, You did the slow curls at about 3/3, but could have done more, and your should be seated, with the other arm stabilising your body, there is no way of Earth I could curl like that.

And as I have said before, and sorry about this, but both curls are a little lame. And you went from one to the other without even a few seconds rest.

Feltman, I have 2 video if you have not seen them before, and are a bit more professional and scientific, as I said, sorry about this D. but I like things done right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRVQ_nmhpw

http://www.youtube.com/user/wayneroc...12/ywqBFfk5fHo

Showing you do fail far faster on the faster reps, the same as all these people did in this study.

http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/...oweFeb2007.pdf

The reason we fail faster with medium or lighter weights

I think the debate is on using 70 to 85% ??? Which is medium weight. As we know the closer you go to your RM, the closer the time to failure will be, and the lighter your go the further both reps time to failure will be further apart.

when lifted explosively is because the weight preserves speed at the end of ROM(average acceleration>0)

D. I think if a machine pushed up 80% at .5 of a second for 1m, and immediately let it go, it would travel 3 inches more. But this does not happen with the human body, as of its biomechanical advantages and disadvantages, this the equations do not really apply here, but even so, the weight is not let go, its immediately turned around, thus the forces are absorbed and took by the muscles.

Which transitions are you taking about ???

and the average force is greater than when lifted slow.

Tweedle dee tweedle dum, talk about calling the baker black, so now you are saying that the faster reps have greater overall force, net force and average force ??? How much more force in percentage ???

In reality we just hold the weight with the antagonist muscle at the end of ROM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRVQ_nmhpw

For milly second.





Who thinks that you fail roughly 50% faster on the faster reps on say a 10RM, is it because of the peak forces ???

Could you please say if you think that, if not please state why ???

Wayne

[all pro]

All-pro, is that you in the photo ??? ROL, if so how is Ernie ??? Only frendely leg pulling



Wayne

No Wayne. More like this,

[waynelucky2]

Here is one for Ron and D. as they seem to love studys.

And when training 3/3 for over 5 reps, most studys show the following.

When a sustained maximal effort for 30 seconds or longer, it will cause both maximum force and EMG to drop to below 50%, it has been shown that as fibres fatigue there is a it a decrease in the firing pattern of muscle fibers, decreased muscle activity and thus lower EMG.

Long duration sustained maximal efforts do NOT produce increased strength in muscle. Although there is a tremendous level of contractile fatigue in all muscle fibres, they are driven into fatigue at *sub maximal* forces (intensities). If they are unable to sustain high levels of force, they are unable to adapt to that stimulus, and only adapt to the sub maximal loads. Maximal strength is not developed, although strength-endurance at sub maximal intensities is enhanced.


To state the obvious, this protocol also does NOT train neural drive, or provide any stimulus to increase the firing frequency of the motor units innervating the muscle. In order to appropriately train neural drive, you need to accelerate maximally against a 70 to 80% resistance for maximal power output (P = f x v). This type of contraction generates the *highest* levels of EMG, sometimes over 200% of what is seen during a maximal contraction.


Everyone generally accepts the force-length curve of a muscle - i.e., you must train the muscle through its range of movement to develop strength at all muscle lengths. However, a force-velocity relationship also exists which deserves attention. If you do not train muscle at faster speeds, you cannot generate force at those speeds.

Wayne

[waynelucky2]

No Wayne. More like this, as I am oscartheboxinggrouch.

Nice one All-pro, {Burt behind is back ROL} hey me and you should get together someone and have a chat over some ??? Ahh cookies !!!

Wayne

[douglis]

Not entirely sure what you meant (in bold) there douglis as we know that average force is equal regardless of rep speed?

Hi N1,
Not always.Only when the average acceleration is zero.When the speed isn't zero at the end of ROM the average acceleration isn't zero too and the average force is greater.

Here's an example that I think it clears things up:
when you do bodyweight squats you start and end at rest and the average force is equal with your bodyweight.But when you do bodyweight squats jumps since your feets leave the ground the speed at the end of ROM isn't zero(average acceleration>0) and the average force much greater than your bodyweight.
That's basically the difference between walking and running when in walking the feets are always on the ground while in sprinting you try to minimize the time on the ground.

Of course when the weight is heavy enough(>12RM) the speed at the end of ROM is practically always zero and the average force always the same.

[waynelucky2]

Ok D. I am sorry for what I said about your videos.

Hi N1,
Not always.Only when the average acceleration is zero.When the speed isn't zero at the end of ROM the average acceleration isn't zero too and the average force is greater.

Here's an example that I think it clears things up:
when you do bodyweight squats you start and end at rest and the average force is equal with your bodyweight.But when you do bodyweight squats jumps since your feets leave the ground the speed at the end of ROM isn't zero(average acceleration>0) and the average force much greater than your bodyweight.
That's basically the difference between walking and running when in walking the feets are always on the ground

How are your feet always on the ground in walking ???

while in sprinting you try to minimize the time on the ground.

Not sure if thats right ??? You try to maximise the force exerted on the ground by the feet, from the leg muscles

Of course when the weight is heavy enough(>12RM) the speed at the end of ROM is practically always zero and the average force always the same.

If you note from my number sequences, and comments 1 to 5, the average force cannot be the same, as you are looking at it from a physicist point, and these points only seem to work on machines that have constant speed, or constant acceleration, and that can start immediately and stop immediately, and have no biomechanical advantages or disadvantages, and that is just the start of the list.

I wish when you have time you would answer my above questions if you can, I mean this is supposed to be a debate, and in a debate most people answer or counter what the other puts in, but you not seem to do this ???

Wayne

[waynelucky2]

Hi Ron,

I was just thinking of what I wrote below {by the way was I right in what you and D. were saying in my writings below ???} And I can not see how this can be right after all ???

Wayne wrote to Ron,

when you said distance did not matter, you meant that if its from a zero movement start, and ending at zero, as what your saying is that it does not matter the speed I cover the 1m, as the faster I cover it the more time I will need for deceleration, thus in the end all speeds will par out the same force in the end ??? I was referring to not zero movements at the end, but an extra time for the deceleration phase.

As if I cover 1m in .5 of a second or if I cover 1m in 2 seconds, I could start the deceleration at any time, {and as I said, the moment that you come to zero movement {is that a truth in physics ???} on the slow reps zero movement will be 6 times longer than the fast rep, which puts more tension on the fast rep} on both reps, so what if I started the deceleration for the transition 20% from the end on both rep speeds, thus now I am back to not understanding what you meant by this zero movement at both ends.

Wayne