232396 Bullies, 4098 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 21 to 30 of 39
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 123 4 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Djimbe is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,058

    Posted On:
    11/12/2003 12:53am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    umm , That dosent clear anything up for me , so Ill try asking Differently/a different Question .

    But, being able to get the fibers to do that across a different joint function is different matter entirely (the incidental accompanying hypertrophy notwithstanding). I disagree that it's applicable; that's where I say having greater strength across ANY joint function is primarly a result of regular old hypertrophy.

    The Nervous System Recruitment ONLY Relates to the muscles FIRING . It has NO Relation to Hypertrophy OF ANY KIND , nor to how the Joint is being used that is not purley Co-incidental or Corrallary .

    To put it as simply as I can possibly think to , if you give the muscle more Juice , it will lift more , without anything else changing , altering , or being a Factor .
  2. Nid is offline

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,530

    Posted On:
    11/12/2003 9:05pm

    supporting member
     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The Nervous System Recruitment ONLY Relates to the muscles FIRING.
    I agree here.

    It has NO Relation to Hypertrophy OF ANY KIND,
    I agree here, in fact it's what I'm trying to drive home.

    nor to how the Joint is being used
    I disagree here. It has everything to do with how the joint is being used. That's the absoloute crux of the matter. That is what makes skills different. That is why olympic lifters take a periodized approach. Repeated executions of the same exact movement under sub maximal loads. You already noted that the movements are not particularly complex feats as far as external body mechanics; but nonetheless they waste no time whatsoever with the lifts they don't actually use. Something, presumably, is going on internally and it's not hypertrophy and it's NOT related to other lifts.

    To put it as simply as I can possibly think to , if you give the muscle more Juice , it will lift more , without anything else changing , altering , or being a Factor.
    In the other thread, you gave the example of a chimp to illustrate this, I believe. Unless you found something I can't find, the only reliable feat of chimp strength I can find is that of a pulling motion.

    It's a lot easier to get a chimp in roller skates than it is to get him to pump iron--hence, most of the data on chimp strength is anecdotal and decidedly unscientific. In tests at the Bronx Zoo in 1924, a dynamometer--a scale that measures the mechanical force of a pull on a spring--was erected in the monkey house. A 165-pound male chimpanzee named "Boma" registered a pull of 847 pounds, using only his right hand (although he did have his feet braced against the wall, being somewhat hip, in his simian way, to the principles of leverage). A 165-pound man, by comparison, could manage a one-handed pull of about 210 pounds. Even more frightening, a female chimp, weighing a mere 135 pounds and going by the name of Suzette, checked in with a one-handed pull of 1,260 pounds. (She was in a fit of passion at the time; one shudders to think what her boyfriend must have looked like next morning.) In dead lifts, chimps have been known to manage weights of 600 pounds without even breaking into a sweat. A male gorilla could probably heft an 1,800-pound weight and not think twice about it.

    http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_001b.html


    That's the first I've hever heard of a dead-lift, but I do remember the pulling records from elsewhere too. Nonetheless...

    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.

    http://www.phys.washington.edu/~wilk...tes/lect9.html

    Ape legs are pretty damn short too.

    There's a lot more going on in apes than neurology advantages. Not to say there aren't any, but I can't find such facts. could you provide them?
    Last edited by Nid; 11/12/2003 10:36pm at .
  3. Djimbe is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,058

    Posted On:
    11/13/2003 3:00pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    K :

    You seem to have a very Limited perspective of the differring things that CAN happen within the muscle , and seem to have some Preconcieved Limitations on what "Does" nad "Dosent" happen in a Muscle , that somehow seems to make it so that no matter what you do you will get the same Result or something . There are Enneumerate things happening in the muscle , or POTENTIALLY happening depending upon Stimulus or "Plan Of Attack" .

    http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/252rabb.jsp :

    Okay, heavy weights seem to induce growth, as does higher volume. Interestingly, both of these very different types of training result in similar adaptations… up to a point. Indeed, as a trainer graduates from the beginner-to-intermediate phase of his bodybuilding career (1-3 years), his body has approached its maximum size. (Not to say great changes aren’t still possible, he’s simply closer to his maximum potential.) The choice of stimulus at this point will dictate the neuro-endocrine and body composition adaptations of his future.

    If he gravitates toward "power bodybuilding," he’ll become more explosive, and have better firing (basically all) motor units (a nerve and all the muscle fibers it touches) rapidly and early during a set. His "nerve terminal branching" will increase.(2) His muscles will gradually enlarge and look more and more like the fast twitch (Type II) fiber type — if not in percentage, at least in total area of the muscle.(19)

    Of course, fast twitch fibers are metabolically and morphologically different than the slow, endurance type. But let’s avoid a detailed debate on the muscle fiber spectrum and its importance. Our power-bodybuilder’s body fat may level off or even climb a bit due to the relatively few kcal he expends during his brief workouts. He will become specialized. But back to the big question: Will he be bigger than if he had decided to go with higher reps and sets?

    A bodybuilder who enters his "advanced stage" by increasing volume with additional sets or reps — as opposed to increasing intensity with huge weights - will ultimately look different than the power bodybuilder above. He will be teaching his large motor units to kick-in later in a set, as the smaller ones become fatigued (the classic "size principle").

    There will be a neural and muscular change toward a slightly more "endurance looking" type of fiber (e.g. the moderate, "FOG" type II fiber). This is typical of fairly high-volume "bodybuilding" training.(18) He will have hormonal changes and energy (kcal) expenditure that are conducive to a leaner physique. He’ll need a greater proportion of carbohydrate in his diet to replenish his muscles after those grueling workouts. But again the question arises: Will he be bigger than if he had decided to go with heavier weights?
    The higher your intensity , the closer you are to complete muscular failure . So if you dont lift to failure , how is your intensity high ? Hypertrophy is caused by microtears , or inroads in the muscle . Volume works , because the sets add up to create a number of inroads , except it is easy to over train using volume . HIT works , because in that one set , you take it to complete failure , and the closer you get to this , the more inroads you have created .

    You see , you cant Write everything off so very Simply as being "A Metabolic Process" or "Hypertrophy" ... There are two different types of hypertrophy , which is a distinction very seldom made by the muscle rags and most bodybuilders . Contractile growth is the result of enlargement of muscle fibers . Sarcoplasmic Reticulum is all non-contractile growth , which results in things like Increased Glycogen Storage , etc. . The reason many bodybuilders are weaker than they would appear is that they use the typical 8-12 reps , short rest periods and a many sets , which tend to cause a proportionately greater amount of sarcoplasmic growth than using low-reps (At Higher Weights) and short rest periods .

    Muscular Failure is not simply "A Metabolic Process" , either . Its NOT just that when your Glycemic stores run out that your muscles stop Working - not for CERTAIN , that is . The second consideration in muscle failure is in the signalling apparatus , that is , the neural mechanisms which tell a muscle to contract .

    As a maximum voluntary contraction continues , the frequency of motor unit firing decreases , by as much as 80% in 30 seconds . Eventually , there is insufficient twitching to sustain the required tension . Nerves rely on numerous substances to continue their actions so they reduce activity as these substrates are depleted . Thus , there is less activation of motor units and tension decreases .

    The Nerves may fail first in some activities !!!

    The Central Nervous System (CNS) must also CONTINUE to send impulses down the nerve . The CNS cannot maintain the frequency of impulses as the nerve uses up its fuels required to transmit the signals . The rate of signalling falls , and motor activation falls .

    Then , on top of ALL OF THAT , there is the body's Falesafe :

    The Golgi Tendon Organ is a proprioceptive receptor that is located within the tendons found on each end of a muscle. It responds to increased muscle tension or contraction as exerted on the tendon, by inhibiting further muscle contraction. When muscle contraction is excessive, the Golgi tendon organ protects against muscle damage. The proprioceptive sensory neuron of a Golgi tendon organ, projects to the motor neurons located within the ventral horn of the spinal cord, where the inhibition occurs. Unlike the muscle spindle, Golgi tendon organs do not indicate muscle length, but rather muscle tension.
    Oh , and Read this :

    http://www.mesomorphosis.com/exclusive/staley/ss.htm
  4. Ronin is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    20,894

    Posted On:
    11/13/2003 3:06pm

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

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I have to agree with the "HIT" part of the post, high intensity works very well for me.
    I do 2-3 warm up sets on the major exercises ( I find that works better for me, even though some HIT advocates say you don't need warm up sets if you go slow), I do 1 work set to failure and then strp the weight and do more reps to failure, I find this method works best for ME, considering I only do 1 ST workout a week. I constantly progress on the weight I handle from work out to workout, I have been doing this workout for the last 5 months, after a 1 month break.
  5. Ronin is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    20,894

    Posted On:
    11/13/2003 3:36pm

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

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Example of high intensity:
  6. Nid is offline

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,530

    Posted On:
    11/13/2003 8:21pm

    supporting member
     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You seem to have a very Limited perspective of the differring things that CAN happen within the muscle,
    Well, yeah. That's because we can only consciously manipulate and measure a very limited range of things. The only thing I'm limiting myself to, as much as possible, are factors that can be measured outside of the body; which is what counts, right?

    Sarcoplasmic reticulum, I have no reason to doubt, exists but is there really any way whatsoever to determine if that is what's responsible for the size and performance of any given lifter? Do we even have any objective idea of what defines "high volume"? No and no.

    That said, let me ask a loaded question. Did Mike Mentzer experience sarcoplasmic reticulum? Is it neccesarily "no", because he didn't train with high volume? Or is it "yes" because he's a "body builder"? Or are we, in fact, pretty clueless as to what's going on inside him; other than his strength increases correlated to his size increases (and vice versa).

    Another question, if given a line-up of randomly selected resistance trainers (non-elite athletes), could you tell which ones are training for size and which for strength, respectively? How? And not by judging their gym routines; let's say by judging their strength in an oddball activity like hand-stand pushups against a wall (provided nobody has specifically undertaken this activity). Even then there are a number of other factors to consider which, really, makes comparisons across more than a single person's gains (relative to himself) pretty futile.

    The reason many bodybuilders are weaker than they would appear is that they use the typical 8-12 reps
    To that I say, "Huh? Which ones?".
  7. Djimbe is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,058

    Posted On:
    11/13/2003 11:04pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Originally posted by keinhaar
    Well, yeah. That's because we can only consciously manipulate and measure a very limited range of things. The only thing I'm limiting myself to, as much as possible, are factors that can be measured outside of the body; which is what counts, right?
    Not quite . Every one of those factors is Controllable . I wouldnt have listed them if they were not . In fact , they are all controllable by lifting in the manner which Ive Outlined .

    Sarcoplasmic reticulum, I have no reason to doubt, exists but is there really any way whatsoever to determine if that is what's responsible for the size and performance of any given lifter? Do we even have any objective idea of what defines "high volume"? No and no.
    Actually "Yes" , and "Yes" .

    That said, let me ask a loaded question. Did Mike Mentzer experience sarcoplasmic reticulum? Is it neccesarily "no", because he didn't train with high volume? Or is it "yes" because he's a "body builder"? Or are we, in fact, pretty clueless as to what's going on inside him; other than his strength increases correlated to his size increases (and vice versa).
    Thats not a Loaded question . Thats asking if everyone is clueless just because you are . In fact , Metzger has trained MANY people with his system , and Ive never met anyone that it didnt work for exactly as predicted . the programme that I use ius very Similar , but tailored more to the needs of Martial Artists . Did you READ the Staley Article ? Are you DOING your own Research ? Or are you just sitting back waiting for me to Spoon-Feed you Information ? Im a VERY Poor Teacher , About the BEST you can hope from me is a point in the correct Direction , or the Programme that Works .

    Another question, if given a line-up of randomly selected resistance trainers (non-elite athletes), could you tell which ones are training for size and which for strength, respectively? How? And not by judging their gym routines; let's say by judging their strength in an oddball activity like hand-stand pushups against a wall (provided nobody has specifically undertaken this activity). Even then there are a number of other factors to consider which, really, makes comparisons across more than a single person's gains (relative to himself) pretty futile.
    *Sigh*

    Im going to cut through how silly that "test" is and get straight to the point .

    It dosent MATTER what the Individual's Potential is .

    It ALSO does not matter how close to Achieving it he/she is .

    What matters is the Effects that a type of Training , and charting the Progress of the body that is under said Training , over time . What gains in Explosive and Maximal Strength are made over what Time .

    What matters is the best way to ACHIEVE your Full Potential , not what it is .

    To that I say, "Huh? Which ones?".
    THE ONES THAT USE 8-12 REPS . It was written right there in the Portion that you C&Ped .
  8. Nid is offline

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,530

    Posted On:
    11/13/2003 11:12pm

    supporting member
     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Im going to cut through how silly that "test" is and get straight to the point .
    Which is developing strength across joint functions unrelated to how it was developed, since, in a sport, you'll neccesarily be moving in ways dissimilar to the lifts which developed said strength. Which is what ya want.

    Other than *how* the strength was developed, I'm still confused as to how you can tell the difference between those who say they train for strength and those who train for size when all is said and done...if both, are in fact, stronger.

    I realize there are better ways than others to do so, but you're saying there's some inherent difference in how the muscle contracts *after the fact* in *unrelated* activities as a RESULT of someone who developed their strength with 15 rep squats in a single set as opposed to 5 reps and multiple sets.

    Do you take biopsies or something?

    The Nerves may fail first in some activities !!!
    That'd suck, since the fibers you want to fatigue are those which are generally last to be recruited. It'd behoove one to make sure that doesn't happen if the goal is to maximize intensity.

    Before you continue with any barbed remarks, remember the point here is to disagree and challenge. If this is a chore, you might want to refrain.

    And if if it puts your mind at ease I also, personally, follow a Mentzer-esque approach.
    Last edited by Nid; 11/13/2003 11:55pm at .
  9. FingerorMoon? is offline

    The man they call FoM

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,592

    Posted On:
    11/13/2003 11:51pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates may be the most famous of the HIT clan but
    they don't represent the majority, not even 10% of the population.

    Mentzer himself was a big believer in genetics and would state flat out that he had amazing genetics for bodybuilding and that the majority of the population would look nothing like him by following his methods.
    The Wastrel - So attractive he HAS to be a woman.
    - Pizdoff
  10. Nid is offline

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,530

    Posted On:
    11/13/2003 11:53pm

    supporting member
     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Many an NFL and college team follow a hit approach too. Last year's NFC finalists come to mind...last I heard, at least.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 123 4 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.