pierinifitness
Caneguru
I do burpees, then I drink slurpees
Posts: 2,711
|
Post by pierinifitness on Jul 13, 2019 12:45:28 GMT
physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1113/JP278056#.XSnRYha06DY.emailAbstract Key points Performing resistance exercise with heavier loads is often proposed to be necessary for the recruitment of larger motor units and activation of type II muscle fibres, leading to type II fibre hypertrophy. Indirect measures (surface electromyography – EMG) have been used to support this thesis, but we propose that lighter loads lifted to task failure (i.e., volitional fatigue) result in similar activation of type II fibres. In this study we had participants perform resistance exercise to task failure with heavier and lighter loads with both a normal and longer repetition duration (i.e., time under tension). Type I and type II muscle fibre glycogen depletion was determined by neither load nor repetition duration during resistance exercise performed to task failure. Surface EMG amplitude was not related to muscle fibre glycogen depletion or anabolic signalling; however, muscle fibre glycogen depletion and anabolic signalling were related. Performing resistance exercise to task failure, regardless of load lifted or repetition duration, necessitates the activation of type II muscle fibres.
|
|
|
Post by gruntbrain on Jul 13, 2019 16:41:58 GMT
But but, lifting heavy loads is about the only legal activity that I enjoy.
|
|
jonrock
Caneguru
Rock-a-hula
Posts: 965
|
Post by jonrock on Jul 13, 2019 17:15:18 GMT
Time Under Load seems to be the key. BUT, if you don't use a significant load, connective tissue won't get worked.
That's why partials, supports, back lifts, hip and thigh lifts were used by Grimek, Zass, Saxon, etc... They load the ligaments, tendons, the whole skeletal structure like nothing else can and that is why light men like Zass, Maxick, Henry Steinborn, Dennis Rogers, Mike the machine Bruce, Mike MacDonald could/can perform amazing feats of strength.
I use both concepts in my training, as research shows that they are the true expression of strength: to resist against a load as much as you can and to resist as much load as you can.
|
|
|
Post by billfish on Jul 13, 2019 19:13:41 GMT
Ay Caramba ! You guys are are in danger of seriously overthinking this thing called exercise To me, it's all about consistency, effort and focus I like to keep it simple, enjoyable and pay no attention to these "studies" and all the other exercise science stuff and do what I like, how I like, for as long or as short as I like and have no fixed routines anymore My philosophy is listen to my body, not some guru and exercise to live, don't live to exercise Enjoy
|
|
MBS
Caneguru
Lean, lithe and feral
Posts: 1,298
|
Post by MBS on Jul 13, 2019 19:31:02 GMT
Ay Caramba ! You guys are are in danger of seriously overthinking this thing called exercise To me, it's all about consistency, effort and focus I like to keep it simple, enjoyable and pay no attention to these "studies" and all the other exercise science stuff and do what I like, how I like, for as long or as short as I like and have no fixed routines anymore My philosophy is listen to my body, not some guru and exercise to live, don't live to exercise Enjoy THIS.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Tackett on Jul 13, 2019 23:30:55 GMT
This validates what I figured out over ten years ago. One set to failure using a resistance that will enable you to perform 15 to 20 reps, I found, gave me the best results. Also, by using a moderately heavy resistance, you are able to perform at least the first five reps and more in good form, which I believe is important.
On the otherhand, what Jonrock says makes sense, too. For building strength you gotta hit the heavy artillery and really challenge your muscles and tendons.
|
|
|
Post by Deuce Gunner on Jul 14, 2019 0:30:19 GMT
This validates what I figured out over ten years ago. One set to failure using a resistance that will enable you to perform 15 to 20 reps, I found, gave me the best results. Also, by using a moderately heavy resistance, you are able to perform at least the first five reps and more in good form, which I believe is important. On the otherhand, what Jonrock says makes sense, too. For building strength you gotta hit the heavy artillery and really challenge your muscles and tendons. So you would do 50% or more of your reps with bad form? Sound like you were hitting failure at 5 reps.
|
|
macky
Caneguru
Upside down
CLUELESS TOSSER
Posts: 2,828
|
Post by macky on Jul 14, 2019 1:08:30 GMT
Ay Caramba ! You guys are are in danger of seriously overthinking this thing called exercise To me, it's all about consistency, effort and focus I like to keep it simple, enjoyable and pay no attention to these "studies" and all the other exercise science stuff and do what I like, how I like, for as long or as short as I like and have no fixed routines anymore My philosophy is listen to my body, not some guru and exercise to live, don't live to exercise Enjoy Absolutely. In all the years I have exercised in one form or another, I was never conscious during a set of benches or pushups, about Type I or II muscle fibres, or even the percentage of their activation. In fact, I had no concept of muscle "fibres" in the first place.
All I knew was that my muscles were certainly activated and pretty soon I had to stop, usually with one rep in reserve, in other words not to failure.
Even if I had known about muscle fibre glycogen depletion and anabolic signaling, I wouldn't have had a clue (nor do I now) about how to improve those parameters, for two.
The only signaling I was aware of was discomfort or outright pain at times, and general depletion of energy after a hard workout.
|
|
|
Post by josepz on Jul 14, 2019 21:13:33 GMT
Ay Caramba ! You guys are are in danger of seriously overthinking this thing called exercise To me, it's all about consistency, effort and focus I like to keep it simple, enjoyable and pay no attention to these "studies" and all the other exercise science stuff and do what I like, how I like, for as long or as short as I like and have no fixed routines anymore My philosophy is listen to my body, not some guru and exercise to live, don't live to exercise Enjoy Agree that overcomplicating things is always a bad thing. But I still like to keep an eye on the actual research, as science is in the end the most trustful way we have to understand the world and how it works. And even if most of the study doesn't do anything for you, the researchers may find something that gives you 1 or 2 practical ideas you didn't think about before. Knowledge is precious.
|
|
pierinifitness
Caneguru
I do burpees, then I drink slurpees
Posts: 2,711
|
Post by pierinifitness on Jul 14, 2019 22:17:15 GMT
Well expressed josepz and I agree. I think most of us “cherry pick” the research out there aligning with what we believe is true and discard the rest. I like my own anecdotal experiences to be my guiding light.
|
|
macky
Caneguru
Upside down
CLUELESS TOSSER
Posts: 2,828
|
Post by macky on Jul 15, 2019 3:20:52 GMT
I like my own anecdotal experiences to be my guiding light. Very much so, Sir. I think I just said that, as such.
I have enormous respect for science and the solid effort that researchers make to understand things normally unknown to the bulk of the population.
There are some of us who bypass all that (possibly at our cost) in order to maintain simplicity in our own efforts because we have learned that simplifying exercise information leads to better concentration, better concentration leads to "one-pointedness", and one-pointedness gets results.
|
|
|
Post by chanduthemagician on Jul 15, 2019 4:50:19 GMT
This validates what I figured out over ten years ago. One set to failure using a resistance that will enable you to perform 15 to 20 reps, I found, gave me the best results. Also, by using a moderately heavy resistance, you are able to perform at least the first five reps and more in good form, which I believe is important. On the otherhand, what Jonrock says makes sense, too. For building strength you gotta hit the heavy artillery and really challenge your muscles and tendons. I do a lot of 1 set to failure type stuff these days as well. I do think it's more effective for me doing the same rep range you talk about. I think one set of five reps is not enough time under tension. Heavy weights will recruit more motor units, but so does lifting lower weights long enough for fatique to force new ones to step up. That is what I think happens with 1 set to failure with medium to high reps. If I do sets of less than 5 reps I like to do a weight that I can maybe lift 8 times, but do only 3 reps, but then rest 20 seconds between sets. When you don't allow for full recovery you eventually stimulate a lot of fibers with low reps without needing to go heavy. I do this for variety, but it also has a good effect if you are doing a lift and want to work on your form. Just different ways to skin the cat. Everyone should experiement and do what works best for them.
|
|
|
Post by josepz on Jul 15, 2019 14:10:26 GMT
I like my own anecdotal experiences to be my guiding light. Very much so, Sir. I think I just said that, as such.
I have enormous respect for science and the solid effort that researchers make to understand things normally unknown to the bulk of the population.
There are some of us who bypass all that (possibly at our cost) in order to maintain simplicity in our own efforts because we have learned that simplifying exercise information leads to better concentration, better concentration leads to "one-pointedness", and one-pointedness gets results.
Well said. I guess having a clear goal and be willing to actually do things to reach it is what makes you get results. Even if you don't choose the most efficient method, will and consistency always work. That's what I call becoming an anti-BlackBelt (seriously, poor Rob🤣).
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Jul 15, 2019 14:51:14 GMT
As the article in the OP illustrates, "science" can't be trusted. One day "science" says that eggs are bad, even though people have been eating them forever. Then years later, "science" says eggs are good. Then more years pass and "science" says that eggs are bad again. More years go by and, guess what? .... eggs = good. More time goes by and eggs are bad. Recently I've read "science" say that eggs are good again! Holy shit! "Science" can't even figure out if we should eat eggs, how can I trust anything that "science" tells me? I can't. I don't. I wasn't there when the fully funded $$ study was done to verify every detail and even if I would have been, I couldn't be sure that the results were evaluated correctly. As has been stated in this thread, I have my experience to guide the way I filter info and take what makes sense to me. Our brains give meaning to things. Nothing has meaning unless we create (or allow someone else, like a religious leader, to create for us) beliefs. Then we look for evidence that what we believe is true. We sort info, looking for validation to our beliefs. I think science and faith may be the identical difference. Like Yin and Yang, one doesn't exist without the other. What do I REALLY KNOW, ABSOLUTELY? Not a damn thing.
|
|
|
Post by josepz on Jul 15, 2019 18:04:09 GMT
As the article in the OP illustrates, "science" can't be trusted. One day "science" says that eggs are bad, even though people have been eating them forever. Then years later, "science" says eggs are good. Then more years pass and "science" says that eggs are bad again. More years go by and, guess what? .... eggs = good. More time goes by and eggs are bad. Recently I've read "science" say that eggs are good again! Holy shit! "Science" can't even figure out if we should eat eggs, how can I trust anything that "science" tells me? I can't. I don't. I wasn't there when the fully funded $$ study was done to verify every detail and even if I would have been, I couldn't be sure that the results were evaluated correctly. As has been stated in this thread, I have my experience to guide the way I filter info and take what makes sense to me. Our brains give meaning to things. Nothing has meaning unless we create (or allow someone else, like a religious leader, to create for us) beliefs. Then we look for evidence that what we believe is true. We sort info, looking for validation to our beliefs. I think science and faith may be the identical difference. Like Yin and Yang, one doesn't exist without the other. What do I REALLY KNOW, ABSOLUTELY? Not a damn thing. Just 2 points that I want to make about that: 1) I refer to "science" not as a canon that must be believed, but as the scientific method. I have a hypothesis, I make a controlled experiment and draw some conclusions from it to see if my hypothesis was right or not. Of course the results may be misinterpreted by the scientist, and that's why different researchers tend to make the same experiments again and again. Some conclusions may be wrong, but it's the critical, scientific approach that matters. 2) Quite often contradictions come from the media, not the researchers themselves. As someone who has a degree in journalism and tried it many years ago, I can testify that journalists are often good with words but they don't know S•H•I•T about most things. They are the ones that misinterpret the research many times.
|
|