Compound Exercises

[Emevas]

Why try to shoe-horn very low rep maximal strength CNS training in to everything ?

Because once again, it is you who said THAT'S WHAT MATTERS. Going by what you yourself say matters (bodyweight to strength ration), that is how you train to get the best of it.

My eyes can only take so much, so I may or may not keep posting on this.

[TheRuss]

Yes they do.

It's not just me who isn't getting an adequate answer here. Emevas isn't. Raining_Blood isn't. You can either assume we're all bigoted idiots, or you can try to elaborate. Your choice.

I'll ask again - what exactly were you trying to highlight with your added emphasis in this post?

[Raining_Blood]

Cullion seeing as you are asking infomation about atheltics potential, how much can you bench press? Deadlift? Squat? What is your 40 yrd time? 100m time? How high is your vertical leap? Standing Long Jump? Box Jump?

Fitness is highly multifaceted and asking about numbers on frankly obscure movements is irrelevant. Could you please provide a justification using science and accepted facts to your suggestion that bodyweight movements should be the sole training means as I cannot seem to find one and this argument cannot proceed without one.

[TheRuss]

I don't like the direction this thread is going... probably a good time to get back to this:

not that I have any technical know-how with this stuff, but one point where I'm confused is how hypertrophy vs hyperplasia overlap (or not) with-say Glycogen phase of muscle effort.

Well, I'd be lying if I said I was sure what you were asking... so here's a few random bits that'll hopefully help?

1) Hyperplasia in adult humans who have not used exogenous anabolic steroids/growth hormones is, as far as I know, a hypothetical at this point. Three key words there:
-adult: An adult presumably has more muscle fibers than an embryo. Not sure if this counts as hyperplasia, but it seems to me like it would.
-human: As noted in Sevilla's review, there have been animal studies that have demonstrated hyperplasia, but also as noted, there's significant inter-species variation.
-exogenous: IIRC, a study done on pro bodybuilders indicated that their muscle fibers are the same diameter as non-bodybuilders' (implying that they have more muscle fibers).

2) Re: "Glycogen phase" - there are two sources of glycogen for muscles (muscular and liver via blood glucose), and two (overlapping) methods of metabolizing it (anaerobic glycolysis and aerobic respiration).

The understanding I have is that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is triggered by depletion of muscular glycogen. In terms of anaerobic vs. aerobic, again, my understanding is that if your intensity level is low enough that aerobic respiration and the supply of oxygen can keep up with energy demands, the muscle will probably be getting glucose from liver glycogen as well, impeding the depletion of muscular glycogen.

Hope that helped.

[Cullion]

Because once again, it is you who said THAT'S WHAT MATTERS. Going by what you yourself say matters (bodyweight to strength ration), that is how you train to get the best of it.

No I didn't, you just misread something and ran with it.

[Cullion]

Cullion seeing as you are asking infomation about atheltics potential, how much can you bench press? Deadlift? Squat? What is your 40 yrd time? 100m time? How high is your vertical leap? Standing Long Jump? Box Jump?

Fitness is highly multifaceted and asking about numbers on frankly obscure movements is irrelevant. Could you please provide a justification using science and accepted facts to your suggestion that bodyweight movements should be the sole training means as I cannot seem to find one and this argument cannot proceed without one.

Nobody suggested they should be the sole training means. If you read the thread carefully you'd see that's not how I train myself.

[Cullion]

It's not just me who isn't getting an adequate answer here. Emevas isn't. Raining_Blood isn't. You can either assume we're all bigoted idiots, or you can try to elaborate. Your choice.

I'll ask again - what exactly were you trying to highlight with your added emphasis in this post?

That when somebody says 'challenge' you immediately jump to the assumption 'increasing resistance'.

[Emevas]

No I didn't, you just misread something and ran with it.

He'll be able to see progress even if he decides to shed a substantial amount of weight because it's strength-to-bodyweight ratio that matters here rather than his absolute strength level.

[Cullion]

You didn't do too well at algebra, did you Emevas?

You see, there are two variables. Strength. And bodyweight. Both can change, up or down.

[TheRuss]

That when somebody says 'challenge' you immediately jump to the assumption 'increasing resistance'.

I didn't "jump to" any "assumption". You misread me. Again.

Here's the quote again, unmodified:

And then you went on to recommend hard bodyweight exercises. One-armed push-ups in particular. If Q can do enough consecutive one-armed push-ups that he's clear of the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy range, I'd say the "challenge" is wearing thin.

Note a few key clauses:

hard bodyweight exercises

I'd say

If Q can perform 21+ consecutive one-armed push-ups, by my standards, they are no longer "hard" for him - in other words, the act of doing a one-armed push-up is no longer a challenge. This is not logically equivalent to saying "To challenge yourself, you must increase the resistance." It is, again, tautologically true to say that one can challenge oneself to do an action more times in succession than one could previously do. Perhaps I overestimated your intelligence in assuming you realized this as well?