Posted On:10/27/2003 1:35pm
Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu
That's a fine example of the inapplicablity of mechanical work. Those both represent the same exact amount.
Your body calls in as much as is need to do the task no more.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean... could you elaborate on that? Our muscles can exceed the force required to equal gravity. By that, I mean if I'm curling 20 pounds at a constant velocity, my bicep is producing force equal to that of gravity (that is, zero force). However, accelerating the weight subjects me to to an equivolent poundage in excess of gravity (force). Just how much more? It's in relation to just how much acceleration there was.
Posted On:10/27/2003 1:37pm
Style: Shi Ja Quan
Dude, can't tell you, I don't know, the example I gave ( 301lbs to 00lbs) was just that, an example.
If you want to move something the weights 300lbs and you exert 300lbs of force, it won't move, not enough to overcome the inertia right? so you need to exert more than it weight, how much more I don't no.
This of course as it refers to weight lifting.
Posted On:10/27/2003 1:41pm
Ah, I see. Yes, that's right. In the real world, it does take force above and beyond that which is equal to gravity in order to overcome inertia to move a mass. But just because one is lifting 300 pounds doesn't mean he HAS to produce *just* enough to move it. Perhaps, if he so chooses (and is able) he produces 350 pounds of force. He'll obviously move the 300 pounds....but with greater acceleration (because it's far in excess of 300 which is equal to gravity).
Last edited by Nid; 10/27/2003 1:44pm at .
Posted On:10/27/2003 1:46pm
Maybe, I wish I could answer that for you.
I don't know how much the body does produce to lift X weight, but I am sure it only does what it need to and no more.
Why would it do more than it has to?
How could you make it? if your body need to produce 302lbs for example, how could you make it produce more?
Posted On:10/27/2003 2:07pm
Unless you are at your 1RM (one rep max), your body is always capable of producing more force than what's required to lift a particular weight. The further you are from your 1RM, the more the force can be manipulated. Generating alot of force to move a little weight means increased acceleration. Using only the force required to move a particular weight means decreased acceleration. This is obvious when lifting weights of any kind. On bench for example, the weight you use to warm up with you could almost throw through the ceiling and rep speed is easily manipulated. The faster you push the weight the more force you generate (and therefore the heavier the weight feels). The weight you max out with is lifted slowly and the rep speed is not so easily manipulated (if at all). Generally, the stronger you are, the heavier the weight you are able to move more quickly. What I max out on and can move only very slowly, may be somebody elses warm up that he can throw up and down quite easily. This is the symbiotic relationship between force and strength.
Last edited by Chudo; 10/29/2003 7:58am at .
Posted On:10/27/2003 9:56pm
Spot-on; provided that answers Ronin's question.
Posted On:10/27/2003 10:29pm
I'm sorry if this sounds dumb but .. if the muscles used in anerobic workouts are the fast twitch muscles then aren't you using them wrong if you train them for endurance? I mean, a curl is a slow and drawn out movement compared to a punch .. compared to most of the actual work an arm does in life. For an arm, a curl is the endurance exercise, not a punch or parry.
How does training your muscles to resist their own motion and go slow increase their speed? Why don't weight trainers do their reps as fast as possible if they are building fast twitch muscles?
I know you get "more out" of the exercise by doing it slow .. the muscle peaks more in the center .. but is that really the right shape for a muscle? Maybe it's cool looking to have the mass bunched up in the middle but is it better for function? When you look at athletes (ones who don't weight train more than they play and do steroids to excess) .. their body isn't cut and segmented. When you look at workers who get their muscle by digging ditches and mining coal, their muscles are not bunched up in the center.
(unless they spend all their time off in the gym) There are smooth looking transitions from muscle to muscle within muscle groups. The ends of the muscles are more full and thick. The shoulder to bicep and the bicep to elbow parts are thick as well as the center. I notice these things mainly because I draw people.
In combat all motion is fast. Would you perform a suplex slow and steady so you work the entire bicep muscle or would you do it fast? Isn't slow reps kind of training your muscles to resist their own speed? Isn't it forcing yourself to lift something slower than you would in an actual work situation?
Such as thou art, sometime was I.
Posted On:10/27/2003 10:42pm
Style: Brazilian Jiujitsu
What does this mean?
mass bunched up in the middle
Are you talking about bodybuilders?
9Chambers, "fast twitch" doesn't just mean "moves fast". It means explosive stimulus and performance. If you're lifting a weight that is 90% of your 1rm, you can't lift it quickly 3-5 times...you are training so that you CAN lift it quickly. Like if you want to better your two-mile time, you run a longer distance.
And you should maybe check out Charles Staley's stuff for more info.
Normally, I'd say I was grappling, but I was taking down and mounting people, and JFS has kindly informed us that takedowns and being mounted are neither grappling nor anti grappling, so I'm not sure what the **** I was doing. Maybe schroedinger's sparring, where it's neither grappling nor anti-grappling until somoene observes it and collapses the waveform, and then I RNC a cat to death.----fatherdog
Posted On:10/27/2003 11:24pm
Yea, the tall peaks on body builder type arms where the muscle is all thick in the middle .. like a little mountain rather than a smooth curve. Maybe its just the way they flex the muscle. You don't see a lot of athletes standing around posing. When they do though - they usually look thicker around the shoulder and on down towards the elbow than body builders do.
> ... you are training so that you CAN lift it
>quickly. Like if you want to better your
>two-mile time, you run a longer distance.
I see what you are saying .. if you run 20 miles a day then sure you will be able to endure a mile run like cake. That doesn't necessarily mean you will do it faster than the next guy though. My Dad used to coach track. He had a guy who went on to the Olympics. The way that guy trained was like this. He would sprint 220 yards and then walk a 220 yards. He would sprint half a lap and walk half a lap .. for dozens and dozens of laps. I don't know if that is what made the difference, the guy had a huge stride too.
I'm saying, endurance training makes it less of a strain and being easier may free you up to be faster .. but that doesn't make you faster by itself. Just like being flexible makes your muscles more easy to move and should make you faster too. That isn't always true. There are some really flexible yoga women who aren't that fast.
I don't think speed has anything to do with resistance training or yoga or whatever. I think you have to train fast if you want to be fast. Maybe I'm wrong. I didn't study tons of books and articles on this so I am not sure. You fight how you train though. Why wouldn't weight training be included in that saying? When someone slows their reps down to get more work in the rep - aren't they training opposing muscles to work together in a way that fixes the arm in a position instead of promotes it's movement in a single direction?
Last edited by 9chambers; 10/27/2003 11:31pm at .
Posted On:10/27/2003 11:49pm
Well, bodybuilder's are different. AND they cut down like maniacs.
On the run thing, I'm not talking about a 20 mile to train for two. I'm thinking 2.5 to 3 to train for two, and exactly as you said it. But isn't that a pefect example of how you DON'T always train as you fight. Too simplistic.
Anyway, muscle doesn't make you faster. It increases MASS which is the other hlaf of the force equation, and very important when you clinch or grapple...or catch a glancing blow on the shoulder, no?
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info