-
.
Achievements:- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Toronto
- Posts
- 18,496
- Points
- 29,632




Posted On:
1/25/2005 12:18am--
Didn't read, too blurry. Lazy layman terms:
Skimmed it, yes # of reps affects what grows most.
Shorter guys need less strength to move weight. Shorter joints = better leverage.Surfing Facebook at work? Spread the good word by adding us on Facebook today! https://www.facebook.com/Bullshido -
Registered Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Location
- San Diego, California
- Posts
- 340
Posted On:
1/25/2005 6:07pm
Style: Fabio Santos BJJ--
This article is sort of all over the place.
The first problem is that looking at a bodybuilder versus a powerlifter is subject to the skews of perception. Bodybuilders tend to have low bodyfat levels, which accentuates muscularity. Bodybuilders also have favorable genetics for muscle SHAPE, since that's the nature of what they do. Particular insertion points, tendon lengths, muscle belly sizes.....things like that make a given amount of muscle mass APPEAR larger. Remember, Arnold was 6 foot 2 and only 235 pounds in his prime. It is never random that people excel in the areas that they do.
There is some merit to avoiding very low repetition/TUL schemes, much like mentioned here. Using a resistance close to maximum allows one to fatigue only a small percentage of fibers. Being that fiber fatigue is a fairly important part of the stimulation process, one would want to achieve greater inroad. This is why the typical target range is 30-90 seconds of TUL for a given movement. If one is moving in a proper (read: slow and controlled) fashion, this is easily achieved in 1 or 2 sets in the 5 to 15 repetition range (depending on actual cadence and target TUL). If one bangs out reps like most ignorant gym inhabitants, it will take more sets and/or sets of more repetitions of an inferior degree of loading. Let us not forsake efficiency.
As for the variance in hypertrophy....if one is really the type who is spending hours and hours a week in the gym doing countless repetitions of every possible movement from every angle to "pump" the hell out of oneself......then the problem is psychological, not physical. -
Light Heavyweight
Achievements:- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 3,531
- Points
- 14,992

Posted On:
1/25/2005 6:14pm--
This is worthy of note.Particular insertion points
http://neutrino.phys.washington.edu/...tes/lect9.html
Chimpanzees, by the way, are designed "better" from the point of view of strength. The total muscle mass of an adult chimpanzee is only about one third that of an adult human male. But chimpanzees can exert over twice the force that humans can for certain motions. The reason is that the point of attachment between the biceps and the forearm is further from the elbow in chimps than in humans, hence the chimp's mechanincal advantage (d2/d1) is greater.


Just in case anyone was still polluted by Djimbe's ideas about more "juice" flowing to chimp muscles and our supposed ability to train ourselves to do likewise.Last edited by Nid; 1/25/2005 6:24pm at .
-
Light Heavyweight
Achievements:- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 3,531
- Points
- 14,992

Posted On:
1/25/2005 6:28pm -
Safe For Work
Achievements:- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Location
- Las Vegas, NV
- Posts
- 1,456
- Points
- 9,257

Posted On:
1/25/2005 6:38pm -
Didn't so much Fall as Saunter Vaguely Downwards
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Location
- Ooooooklahoma!!!
- Posts
- 1,593
Posted On:
1/25/2005 10:25pm
Style: Ex-TKD, BJJ, Muay Thai--
Keinhaar: In physics last semester, I recall the teacher saying that humans' arms weren't designed for lifting things; otherwise the anchor (insertion?) points for the tendons would be farther down the forearm. What we're really supposed to do is lift with our legs and throw with our arms. Somewhere along the line humans evolved to be better at throwing than lifting.
sudo make me a sandwich! -
Light Heavyweight
Achievements:- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 3,531
- Points
- 14,992

Posted On:
1/25/2005 10:29pm -
Yes Koto got his name changed, quit asking...
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Posts
- 4,993
Posted On:
1/26/2005 10:04am--
What most people don't know about the 20-rep squats is how you actually go about doing the program. Most people think you just throw on enough weight to do 20 reps with, and boom, that's all it takes. To properly do the routine, you need to take the weight you can normally only do TEN reps with, and then do the twenty. This relates to the overload principle, because if you're not doing more than you're used to, you're not gaining size and strength. "No pain, no gain" probably came from someone using the overload principle. After the tenth rep, your body is virtually done and that's when sheer mental willpower takes over and you strive to finish. Add to that progressive resistance (throwing a nickel or dime on each time), often combined with deep full breathing and there you have it.
Originally Posted by Stupid Mother ‘Frigerator
Take my test subject for the 20-rep squat routine. Today he finally graduated to breathing squats. He's now doing 20 breathing squats (butt to calf) with 160lbs, and hurting every minute of it. That's 55 more pounds than he had when he first started a mere 2 1/2 weeks ago. He had tears streaming down his face after rep 15, rep 17 had him screaming like he was being crucified, and after rep 20 he fell onto his back and just laid there rasping for air for over three minutes.
If you want more info, check out "Super Squats" by Randall J. Strossen, Ph.D. and the president of IronMind. He explains it all in there.



Reply With Quote

















Registered Member
Posted On:
1/24/2005 11:55pm
Style: Delusional Idiocy
Functional power production and "sarcoplasm".