The sky is green.
You know what the **** I meant! Get over it! To be continued.... ;)
False Paralell .
You should have used azure , or "the Sea Is Teal" . Same meaning and Intent , but not TECHNICALLY Correct .
People say Power and mean Force . Physicists get over it , why cant you ?
Oh , and Check yoru PMs (on another matter that i think I can help you with)
Djimbe, let me see if my understanding is correct.
There are 3 types of muscle fibers (I, IIa, IIb). Each individual fiber has set strength and speed at which it can apply it's strength (depending on fiber type, and...anything else?). The only ways to make a muscle stronger is to:
1. recruit more fibers
2. increase the % of fibers which simultaneously flex
The speed of any movement obeys the equation: F=ma. So to the only way to improve punching speed (assuming fixed mass and technique) is to increase the net force of the muscles involved in the punch. Either by increasing the force of the muscles contributing to the motion or by reducing the force from muscles opposing the motion (relaxing).
The ways to increase punching speed are then:
1. loose weight
2. improve technique
4. increase fast strength*
*the BEST way to increase fast strength is to do 3 sets of 3-5 reps using 80-95% of your one-rep max weight.
Question: how fast can the fastest muscles twitch? Can they keep up with the speed of a fast punch throughout the motion, or do they only contribute in the beginning of the motion?
It is impossible to apply force slowly. You simply apply a certain amount of force (though you control the length of time you apply the force for).
The only way to improve speed is better technique and doing the technique faster.
See my thread on the genetic limitations of increasing speed.
Many of these "speed building" exercises just aren't as effective as proclaimed.
How would you do the technique faster?
Now, ain't THAT the million dollar question !!!!
Good question. It's kind of moot, however, since it's not trainable...at least not in a way that can be measured outside of the body. See the "all or nothing principle". Increasing acceleration is a function of recruitment. As for the question as it stands, I don't know. I'd imagine it could be measured in a lab enviroment though.
Question: how fast can the fastest muscles twitch?
Another good question. The answer is no to the first part....kind of. Let's take a simpler example though. Let's use concentric portion of a rep on the bench press through the entire ROM. The weight you're using is far below your 1RM....could be just the bar. Point is, it's relatively light.
Can they keep up with the speed of a fast punch throughout the motion, or do they only contribute in the beginning of the motion?
The barbell starts at your chest. To get this going as rapidly as possible you need to recruit as many fibers as possible. That much you can do. So in the first few fractions of a second you're able to propel this weight up and off you. However, something else happens in the process. The muscles in the applicable muscle group are producing force and explicit movement, but also around an axis of rotation (torque). At the very beginning of the lift (the first 20 degrees of elbow rotation or so), you have the least amount of mechanical advantage. As your elbow becomes straighter and straighter you keep gaining mechanical advantage. So your force output drops as rapidly as your arms straighten. To acclerate the same weight at the same rate in the last part of the ROM, in theory, would require far less in terms of immediate recruitment. You probably know this already if your perform the bench press to concentric failure. You invarialy run out of gas down in the weakest ROM, and one finds they can usually finish off the rep if helped "over the (mechanical) hump".
Djimbe refuses to answer me, so let me ask you.
What kind of reps are you talking about? I'll assume full ROM, but what about cadence?
Djimbe is correct that the under 5 rep system is, indeed, best for..
Lots of poinions on that, I don't agree with the super slow thing.
Now, if you are using a weight that you can only lift for 4 maybe 5 reps at the most, that is a serious weight, chances are you will lift it as fast as you can, and with that amount of weight, it won't be very fast at all, maybe 3-4 seconds up, maybe less, maybe more when it comes to the final rep.
Remeber, if you are doing 200 lbs for 10 reps, when you get down to 3, 4 or 5 reps, you are doing something like 250 lbs.
I'm having problems with this:
>You Do NOT see Marathoners with a Huge
>Type IIa Build , and you do NOT see
>SUCCESSFUL MMA Fioghters with a Type
>I build .
Let me say that when there were no weight classes 170# Royce won the UFC repeatedly. 190# Keith Hackney took out a 400 pound Sumo wrestler and 190 pound Vitor Belfort took out Tank Abbot and Ferozzo. Stuff like that happened regularly. Look at the size difference between Nog and Bob Sapp. Size doesn't = winner in MMA. There are little guys that do very well in MMA.
Earlier you said:
>If you can generate enough foce to bench
>Press 600 lbs at 3-5 Mph, then how fast
>do you think that that SAME AMOUNT OF
>FORCE will push your EMPTY hand ? (As in
>when you Punch)
and now you are saying:
>You Do NOT see Marathoners with a
>Huge Type IIa Build
Hmm, doesn't your physics lesson kind of point to the fact that the guys who can squat 600 pounds would be the fastest runners? I mean, they aren't carrying the weight on the track so they should bolt around it like lightning. Isn't that true?
Yet you, and I agree, are saying that most distance runners are thin. I would add that most sprinters are relatively thin as well. This makes no sense according to your theory. If it works with punching it should work with running too.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO