233521 Bullies, 3666 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 31 to 40 of 152
Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 1234 567814 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Nid is offline

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,530

    Posted On:
    10/24/2003 2:35pm

    supporting member
     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I take that back.

    You need speed training to compliment your strength training and vice versa.
    It's a one way street. Task specific skill development (aka "speed training) has no bearing on strength training neccesarily. Not unless the weight lifting is an atheltic endeavor in and of itself.
  2. Nid is offline

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,530

    Posted On:
    10/24/2003 2:38pm

    supporting member
     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Uncle Ben? Perfect? He can't even not get caught doping.
  3. Ronin is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    20,894

    Posted On:
    10/24/2003 2:51pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Shi Ja Quan

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Thats a LOW blow dude !!!!!!!!!
    You forget the speed, you forget the power !!!!
  4. Nid is offline

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,530

    Posted On:
    10/24/2003 4:13pm

    supporting member
     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Time under load:definition: The latest material to be regurgitated by nambypamby personal trainers
    If Dochter is still out there, wanna talk about what exactly a rep is? You could start by explaining why it's NOT a TUL function.
    Last edited by Nid; 10/24/2003 4:40pm at .
  5. Dochter is offline

    Neutral, or nearly so

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    8,049

    Posted On:
    10/24/2003 4:56pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Y"ou could start by explaining why it's NOT a TUL function."

    A rep is in portion a function of time under load, it is also a factor of distance that weight is moved over, the overall weight.

    I spent seven years in a commercial large chain gym where every month the trainers had a new "revolutionary" exercise program. In contrast they all shot up and did things in complete contrast to the latest muscle and fitness article they were preaching.

    Anytime I had legit questions that I'd ask of them all I got were canned answers.

    What'd you take offense to the pt comment or the body builder one.

    The first is opinion, based on observationscollected over the last seven years.
    The second is fact: in porportion to their amount of muscle they aren't as strong as oly. lifters, powerlifters or even many recreation strenght targeting lifters. They are looking to maximize size and definition not strength, two different ways to work out.
  6. Nid is offline

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,530

    Posted On:
    10/24/2003 5:33pm

    supporting member
     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    A rep is in portion a function of time under load, it is also a factor of distance that weight is moved over, the overall weight.
    I can buy that. The next question is: is a rep, as you define it, neccesarily neccesary?

    Also, what then is different about 3-6 reps as opposed to 8-10? If the cadences are the same...what are we left with? Total time of the set.

    I spent seven years in a commercial large chain gym...
    I empathize completely. I work in one part-time, and I am "certified", but only cuz I hadda be. I came away from the course dumber than when I started. Which, by the way, is precisely why I hate discussing exercise with such people. Hence, my presence here.

    What'd you take offense to the pt comment or the body builder one.
    Offense to neither...though I do disagree on a few things. I just find it's useful to be nitpicky and abrasive to stimulate discussion.

    The second is fact: in porportion to their amount of muscle they aren't as strong as oly. lifters, powerlifters or even many recreation strenght targeting lifters.
    They are looking to maximize size and definition not strength, two different ways to work out.[/quote]

    Depends what you mean by strength...as stupid as that may sound.

    Yes, there is Olympic lifting strength. He is interested purely in mechanical performance; moving a mass a certain distance in a certain way. But, is he interested in joint functions unrelated to the orthodox lifts? No. For him, undue consideration of unneccesary hypertrophy would be counter productive to his few specific tasks.

    However, in order to develop, for lack of a better word, "generic" strength, which applies to any undertaking unrelated to the neurologic pathway in which it was developed, one simply needs more muscle tissue.

    If someone consciously intends to build size, he can't help but get stronger. That's what a larger muscle will neccesarily be. That kind of strength isn't metaphysical. If someone trains for strength for one specific task, he can do by way of better coordinating the neuromuscular response without even having to make any visceral changes in the tissue itself....though he probably will by mere happenstance.

    Let's not forget about the role of genetics in those who call themselves "bodybuilders". People tend to stick with that which their latent tendencies accomodate. People who easily grow will get hyooooj and attribute that to all their hard work and knowledge. The thin wiry guy, though he might want to get hyooj, CAN'T. So he plays off his percieved lack of success as sour grapes: "I'm not training for size anyway..."

    If bodybuilding routines did differ markedly from strength training ones (as far as the muscle tissue is concerned) then every 15 year old who reads the rags would look like a bodybuilder. Am I right?
    Last edited by Nid; 10/24/2003 5:58pm at .
  7. Djimbe is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,058

    Posted On:
    10/26/2003 5:05am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Originally posted by keinhaar
    It's getting pretty deep here. Where to start...

    #1. Body builders are bodybuilders due to genetics and 'roids. Period. The same principles of fitness, however, apply to every human being. If a muscle is to become stronger it must become bigger. No way around that.
    WRONG :

    A Bodybuilder is ANY person that Uses Progresive Resistance Training for the Cosmetic Improvement of their Bodies .

    #2. Skill specific development is just that...skill (task)specific. One can't trigger nervous system "growth" per se...
    Wow ,Who told you this lie ?

    least of all with activities which aren't precisely those one wishes to develop. However, when there exists greater relative force output due solely to the neurologic adaptation to a given skill, there will be very little crossover to any other activity which, though engaging the same muscle (group), is not precisely the same movement.
    What you are referring to here is called "Muscle memorey" , and is a function of Co-Ordination , not Strength . the type of Nervous System Recruitment that we discuss in Strength Training terms has nothing to DO with that type of thing . Thats what doing your Forms are for in MA , or Running your Scales as a Musician . Thats not even what this Thread , nor the conversation herein are about .

    On the other hand, more strength due to more muscle will apply to any activity engaging said muscle.

    A "full force" bench press, for example, will not develop greater punching acumen. Only punching will.
    "Acumen" is SUCH a Loose Term . Usually it is used to mean Skill . Weight Lifting will not Produce more Accuracy , nor Co-Ordination , nor Timing with your Punches . It SURE AS **** WILL Produce more Punching POWER (Force) AND Speed , however .


    One doesn't practice the skills of competitive cross country skiing on a nordic track...they do it on skis, in the snow, in real world conditions.
    Weight Training has nothing to DO With Martial Skills , other than giving you more Force to use your Tools with . This alone , is Enough to Warrant it as a VERY High Priority , however .

    #3. Sets shmets. All that needs to done to grow muscle (and get stronger) is to threaten the body's margins of survival. Give it a very compelling reason to adapt. This can be accomplished in one set done with proper intensity. How many times must one stimulate the adaptation? That's a rhetorical question of course, but "once" is the answer.
    Its not a Rhetorical Query AT ALL . For starters , youre asking the WRONG Question and "Once" is bloody well NOT the Answer to the RIGHT one . This kind of Pseudo-Intellectal Claptrap is WHY little ppl stay little , and bitch and whine about "Genetics" and cry that "Everyone else Does Steroids !!!" and all of that Horseshit .

    What you SHOULD be asking is "What do I need to do to produce the OPTIMUM Adaptation ?" Not just SOME , but the MOST . THAT is why you need Sets , and Reps . Because you CANNOT Fully Tax your Muscles Properly in one Set , or in one Rep . If my body needs to "Hear The Signal" to Adapt 15 Times (5 sets of 3 reps) before it acknowledges it and Responds then thats how many times Im going to Send it . If my body will Adapt BETTER because it hears the signal more times , then I am going to Send it more Times .

    #4. Reps shmeps. Reps are a measure of time. A measure of time under which a muscle or muscle group is engaged in work.
    Wrong .

    Reps are about Contractility over a Range of Motion and Proper Form . Not Time . I can do HALF of my Max rep forever and NEVER get oiut of it what I will get out of doing 3 Reps at 95% of my 1RM .

    To be more precise, METABOLIC work...as opposed to mechanical work (which neccesarily hinges on MOVING a mass).
    Actually , its more about Mechanical Work than anything else . Move the Largest Possible Weight from Here to there , along XXX Arc , without Allowing Hinge YYY to move . That IS what its about .

    There is nothing magical about a given rep scheme, since not all reps are created equal. As far as the body is concerned, 1 rep lasting 60 seconds is the same as 2 reps each lasting 30 seconds is the same as 4 lasthing 15, 5 lasting 12, 10 lasting 6 etc etc.
    Since you seem to spend FAR more time reading than Lifting You SERIOUSLY NEED to read this :

    http://www.teenbodybuilding.com/shane6.htm

    You have so many Misconceptions about the way Muscles work in the real World that Im puzzled as to where to Start fixing them .

    A precise measure of metabolic output much more befitting the SCIENCE of exercise is a TUL standard. Time under load. What's the best TUL? That's rather subjective. Some respond better to relatively lower ones, some respond better to relatively higher ones. The subjectivity is due in part to the variation we have in our respetive muscle fiber distributions.
    Metabolic Output has SO VERY LITTLE to do with it that its not even funny .

    Oh , and Time Under Load is NOT quite Applicable here . Why ? Because while you MUST spend SOME measurable amount of time Lifting , they are not Scaleable uantities , and you get FAR more in terms of Strength lifting 85-95% of your Max for 2-5 reps than you will 75% for 10 Reps .
  8. Djimbe is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,058

    Posted On:
    10/26/2003 5:23am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Originally posted by keinhaar
    This was on another thread, but I wanted to add my 2 cents.

    Muscle mass does equate to strength, neccesarily. The problem, however, is in trying to make comparisons across more than one person, for there are other variables which account for greater or lesser degrees of MECHANICAL output; i.e. muscle fiber type, muscle attachments, height etc.
    This is WAY off . There are SO many more factors than just the one here :

    Muscle Type (is it Type I , Type IIb , Type IIa ?) and the Ratio that has been Generated/Recruited by the Lifting Strategem of the Lifter in Question .

    Cell Volumization . Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy greates greater Muscle mass without ANY additional Strength .

    Tendon/Ligament Strength/Conditioning .

    Nervous System Recruitment .

    Form (Cheating lets you Lift more)

    Actual Muscle thread Count .

    Cell Count per Muscle Thread .

    All of these things can be alered by Training Methodology , even though they may have Genetic Predispositions .



    More of my muscle will make me stronger.
    As is evidnced by the Above , this is not always True .

    However, because I have more of my muscle, that does not neccesarily mean I can or should produce the same mechanical work as someone ELSE with less muscle (but perhaps more favorable muscle attachments, for example). But, it still stands that more of HIS muscle will make HIM stronger.
    THIS is True . Also the differing LEengths of Levers on Hinges makes a difference (Long Forearms with Short Humerous bones , for Instance)
  9. Djimbe is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,058

    Posted On:
    10/26/2003 5:28am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Originally posted by keinhaar
    Regarding TUL, well, enlighten me as to what exactly a rep is a measure of.

    A Rep is a Measure of the Full Range of motion Path of Contractility of one Muscle Group (as in the case of , say , a Biceps Curl) or the Completion of a Lift (as in , Say , A High Clean Pull)
  10. Djimbe is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,058

    Posted On:
    10/26/2003 5:36am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Originally posted by keinhaar
    If there's a point of contention is how the speed training is performed.

    Sprinters, for example, could kiss their performance (and knees) goodbye if they ran sprints while rucking a backpack of bricks on account of how badly it would compromise the very specific form so crucial to performance in that very specific task. Coming out of the blocks would be a little different...keeping balance down the straightaway would be a little different...leaning towards the line would be a little different. Problem is, a little different is neccesarily a LOT different when it comes to such skills. The same applies to punching with resistance via a rubber band...if our bodies are logical and cohesive in any way whatsoever. Not good.
    Dude , you Do your Forms , you Shadowbox , you Do your Drills , you hit the Heavybag , the SpeedBag , the Double End Bag , learn to Play the Drums . Whatever .
Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 1234 567814 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.