Training to Failure Revisited
JMW
"Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater
strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise
for elite junior team sport athletes."
Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, Lindsell RP, Pyne DB, Hunt PH, McKenna MJ.
Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength
gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005
May;19(2):382-8.
--
JMW
>The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and the same
>weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets) with the weight
>they could lift about 6 times when fresh.
Which would seem to approximate, as closely as possible, an "all else
equal" protocol, yes?
>So of two non-optimal setups
>the first is better.
Which leaves an undefined "optimal" setup that could be used across
the board, yes? And you can provide that definition?
--
Hobbes
<j...@event.horizon> wrote:
2-3 reps for multiple sets (5-8) at 85-90% of 1RM. (1RM is defined by
training 1RM during current training, not competition). Vary overall load
and intensity by day, week and cycle. Duh.
It's been studied - a lot.
--
Keith
JMW
Hmmm ...
Although I'm not a big proponent of training to failure, I found the
study interesting. I found it interesting in the sense that it at
least tried to make a head-to-head comparison with a non-failure
protocol. And I am a big proponent of challenging dogma ... any dogma.
Therein lies my challenge to you, Keith. Simply put ... references,
please. And please don't cite books written by gurus and Eastern
European lifting coaches. I want to see studies with the described
periodization matched head-to-head against other protocols. What
Eastern European lifting coaches do to coax good performances out of
carefully selected genetic wonders is irrelevant. If it has, indeed,
"been studied - a lot," then it should be no problem to cite
peer-reviewed literature.
Mr-Natural-Health
JMW wrote:
> Another interesting perspective ...
"Another myth propagated by the bodybuilding world, which also began in
the early 80's, is the idea that one must train to failure. Nothing
could be further from the truth. This notion came about when High
Intensity Training (HIT) was being espoused as gospel. Mike Mentzer was
the leader of this movement, however was also insane. In his 1925
classic "Secrets of Strength", Earle Liederman wrote that, "a
strong man never overextends himself in training." Olympic lifters and
powerlifters have never trained to failure, yet always make significant
progress. Dr. Terry Todd, a world powerlifting champion often says if
you are training to failure you are training to fail. Training to
failure does nothing more than over stress the central nervous system
and increase the time it takes to recover from training. Although it
seems hardcore and intense it is generally not a good idea. In fact,
well respected strength coach Chad Waterbury has stated that taking as
little as one set to failure in a particular workout can extend the
recovery process by up to 48 hours. Always end sets with at least one
rep left in the tank."
http://www.strengthcats.com/JFroadtorecovery.htm
Matthew
JMW <j...@event.horizon> wrote in message
news:b3q891hju9nr8m52u...@4ax.com...
For "elite junior team sport athletes" probably what Hobman
recommended; for me, probably something less intense.
Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Burkett LN, Ball SD. A meta-analysis to determine
the dose response for strength development. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003
Mar;35(3):456-64.
Hobbes
<jmwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
All eastern European John. Medeydev, Roman, Verkhoshanskey, etc. I
honestly don't know of any real good studies done with elite weightlifting
athletes since they won't do anything else. Pragmatic experience wins
here.
The eastern European research is poor from some perspectives and very good
from others. In terms of the scientific method it sucks. In terms of
having a huge pool of athletes who can control training variables it is
very good.
I don't have time to go through my books and pull out the referenced
studies (I'm taking two classes at intersession right now). But they
(Medeydev, etc.) do refererence studies to back up their claims.
--
Keith
JMW
>JMW <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>> DZ <2071@108403620.3015114732.23355.20054.26738> wrote:
>> >
>> >the first is better.
>>
>> Which leaves an undefined "optimal" setup that could be used across
>> the board, yes? And you can provide that definition?
>>
>The closest thing to specificity that allows for adequate recovery.
>For "elite junior team sport athletes" probably what Hobman
>recommended; for me, probably something less intense.
As I asked Keith: references, please. Do you have any direct,
head-to-head comparison of protocols which demonstrates that his
suggested periodization routine yields better performance? I have not
seen one. Perhaps you have.
>Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Burkett LN, Ball SD. A meta-analysis to determine
>the dose response for strength development. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003
>Mar;35(3):456-64.
Meta-analyses are subject to numerous criticisms. In this case:
"In summary, the results from Rhea et al. (5) are questionable because
they excluded certain published studies, used many non-independent
effect sizes, focused on mean effect sizes with less attention to the
large variation within a given training category, and could not
explain the pattern of outcomes with any theory or physiological
mechanism." Winett RA. Meta-analyses do not support performance of
multiple sets or high volume resistance training. JEPonline
2004;7(5):10,13.
I'm looking for a direct comparison.
--
JMW
>JMW <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>> DZ <2071@108403620.3015114732.23355.20054.26738> wrote:
>>>JMW <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>>>> Another interesting perspective ...
>>>>
>>>> "Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater
>>>> strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise
>>>> for elite junior team sport athletes."
>>>>
>>>> Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, Lindsell RP, Pyne DB, Hunt PH, McKenna MJ.
>>>> Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength
>>>> gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005
>>>> May;19(2):382-8.
>>>
>>>The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and the same
>>>weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets) with the weight
>>>they could lift about 6 times when fresh.
>>
>> Which would seem to approximate, as closely as possible, an "all else
>> equal" protocol, yes?
>
>and weight. So I would ask a different question - why is it sensible?
>First setup seems somewhat reasonable for hypertrophy training and the
>increase in strength is expected via that route. But what is the
>second one? Lifting 3 times of what can be lifted 6 times doesn't
>sound like either hypertrophy or strength oriented approach
>(insufficient reps for hypertrophy and insufficient weight for
>strength).
Not quite. See below.
>>>So of two non-optimal setups the first is better.
>>
>> Which leaves an undefined "optimal" setup that could be used across
>> the board, yes? And you can provide that definition?
>
>I cannot give a definition. But it is clear that the authors ignored
>common strength-oriented routines. My understanding is that training
>to failure is not specifically detrimental in terms of strength
>adaptation. And perhaps that is what the article confirmed.
>
>Staying away from failure has more to do with allowing sufficient
>load at intensities high enough so that they are still beneficial for
>strength training. There is also recovery time variable. Recovery time
>is probably longer when training to failure, and fixing it equal for
>two groups doesn't make sense.
>
>I'm not dissing the study, especially that I don't have access to full
>text of that journal. But I don't think it proves superiority of
>training to failure. Perhaps the title is careful - training to
>failure does result in strength increase.
Perhaps you should read the full text, or at least read the abstract
more closely. Not only were weights and total repetitions equal, but
the researchers made efforts to further equalize the routines. For
instance, rest periods between sets for the failure group were more
than twice as long as for the non-failure group (260 seconds vs. 113
seconds), thus providing some compensation equalize muscle fatigue.
That much was in the abstract. Furthermore, a bench throw on the
Smith machine was used to measure power at the end of the respective
routines to confirm an equalization of muscle fatigue.
I am not suggesting that training to failure is an optimal method. I
am suggesting that the doctrinal positions in this newsgroup have
grown stagnant, and that is largely because nobody is willing to
question them *and* produce countervailing evidence. [1] Maybe
somebody needs to shake that up every once in a while. And you know
I'm not shy about doing that.
[1] Links to pop fitness sites and pompous rants by kooks and trolls
like John Gohde and Blair P. Houghton don't count.
--
JMW
Sorry, Keith, but this is tanatmount to taking advice from the biggest
guy in the gym solely because he's the biggest guy in the gym.
I want science, not hero worship. I might also add that I have found
training to failure to provide the best strength gains for those who
are not absolute novices but still somewhat "beginners," or those who
are well-practiced in sport-specific training but not yet specifically
directed toward heavy weight training, such as those in the study I
mentioned. The practices of those who coach world-class Eastern
European weightlifters do not translate well for those groups.
--
Hank
> And I am a big proponent of challenging dogma ... any dogma.
With the obvious exception of the anti-American,
pro-war crime, pro-torture, pro-terrorism bu$h
regime dogma which you constantly and repeatedly
suck down and then puke back up without question
or thought...
-
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler
"The tsunami was a wonderful opportunity to show not just the
US government, but the heart of the American people, and I think
it has paid great dividends for us." Condoleezza Rice
"One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the
infrastructure in Iraq because in a few days we're going
to own that country," - Tom Brokaw
Cost of probing Bill Clinton's sex life: $65 million.
Cost of probing the Columbia shuttle disaster: $50 million.
Funds assigned to independent Sept. 11 panel: $3 million.
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
"After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and
Luftwaffe Commander in Chief
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
Hobbes
<j...@event.horizon> wrote:
Have you ever read Zatsiorsky, Medeyedev or any of the scientific writers?
I'd hardly restrict them to 'weightlifters' in terms of training
expertise. And they quote studies. But you seem to be of the mindset that
an eastern European study doesn't qualify as science. I don't see that.
Huge body of work there that can't be ignored.
Verkhoshansky has personally worked with over 250 olympic gold medalists,
primarily in weightlifting, track and gymnastics. You might call that the
biggest guy in the gym.
--
Keith
Steve Freides
I'd say you're looking for a fight, or at least a disagreement. The
responses you've received are more than adequate to explain why the
authors of the work you cite got the results they did, and why their
study wasn't useful or applicable to most people. You can periodically
shake up the assumption that the world isn't flat, if you like, but that
won't make the world flat again.
> --
>
> JMW
> http://www.rustyiron.net
JMW
Zatsiorsky has authored a lot of biomechanical stuff, but mostly on
the biomechanics of grasping and finger movement; very little seems to
have been published by the others. Nobody seems to have done any
comparative studies on strength training protocols.
Those studies are out there, Keith. They may conform to the
conventional wisdom of the Eastern European gurus, and they may not.
Conventional wisdom changes, even in biomechanics. Remember the
introduction of the "Fosbury Flop" in the '68 Olympics? Weird, but
now everybody does it. If you scream "Heresy!" every time new
findings seem to be at odds with the current conventional wisdom, you
never learn anything.
I'm not trying to convince you that training to failure is a superior
protocol. I'm just suggesting that you open your mind.
--
JMW
Bullshit, Steve. I'm looking for people to reconsider the deeply
ensconced beliefs around here. The last place I would expect that to
take effect would be in the mind of a fully indoctrinated Pavelite.
I will admit that I fully expected the reaction I got to my original
posting, despite the fact that I tried to make my first observations
as neutral as possible. My predictions seem to have been "dead on."
--
Charles
In my experience, and it makes no difference what your motivation for
training with weights, be it strength training, OL, PL or
body-building, whatever method you employ must result eventually in a
plateau situation.
It is therefore only sensible to vary the programme to stimulate
further gains, and working to failure has always been an option for
that purpose.
However, whatever the merits of training to failure, it is not a
system that can be use indefinitely as it will inevitably lead to
injury.
Mr-Natural-Health
What is wrong with training to failure?
Training to failure directly inhibits voluntary strength. Basically,
training to failure fries your nerves (not the technical term ) and
prevents them from being able to contract the muscles for long periods
of time. So when one trains to failure and then waits until strength is
recovered to train a muscle again, oftentimes the muscle has long
recovered and is waiting for the nervous system to catch up.
The alternative to training to failure is HST (hypertrophy-specific
training) which was advocated by Bryan Haycock
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html
With HST, you training through soreness. Soreness is not harmful, and
people generally find that training a sore muscle will cause the
soreness to stop.
It is commonly misunderstood that muscle failure is the stimulus for
muscle growth. Unfortunately, this is not true! The tension on the
muscle is what actually causes growth
- Warren GL, Hayes DA, Lowe DA, Armstrong RB. Mechanical factors in the
initiation of eccentric contraction-induced injury in rat soleus
muscle. J Physiol. 1993 May;464:457-75
HST is based on physiologically sound principles not numbers. In short,
they are:
· Progressive load
· Training volume
· Training frequency
· Conditioning (Repeated Bout effect)/Strategic Deconditioning
So we are dealing with 4 basic issues, Load, Volume, Frequency and
Conditioning. Within these basic factors we have reps, sets, and rest.
HST differs from previous training methods in many aspects, but
particularly in how it incorporates knowledge of how the "cell"
physiologically responds to the training stimulus in its methodology.
Previous methods focus on effort (A.K.A Intensity), current voluntary
strength, and psychological factors such as fatigue and variety.
· The number of Reps is determined by the minimum effective load
(this changes over time based on Conditioning)
· The number of Sets is determined by the minimum effective volume
(this changes over time according to current load and Conditioning.)
· The Rest between sets is determined by the amount of time required
to regain sufficient strength to successfully achieve the minimum
effective Volume.
The Frequency (rest between workouts) is determined by the ability of
the CNS to recover sufficiently to maintain baseline "health"
indicators. It is also determined by the time course of genetic
expression resultant from the previous workout.
· The interval of Strategic Deconditioning (SD) is determined by the
time course of adaptation to the individuals maximum weight loads. In
other words, SD is required to reset growth potential after plateauing.
The duration of SD is determined by the level of conditioning attained
during the training cycle.
Mechanical tension on the protein structures of the muscle cells is the
primary stimulus for hypertrophy. This tension can elicit anabolic
processes with or without damaged to the cell membrane. However, some
damage to the cell membrane seems to be critical for the action of
autocrine and paracrine growth factors (FGF, IGF-1, etc). Without the
activity of these growth factors outside the cell there will be no
increase in myonuclei, and thus no significant increase the the volume
and/or number of the cells.
Some improvements in muscle cell function do occur even if the number
of myonuclei remains the same. These won't lead to significant
hypertrophy though. These improvements in muscle cell functional
capacity involve ERK1/2. This is the pathway activated most when you
get an intense burn and/or train to failure.
Muscle "activity" such as the typical repetition, and the metabolic
byproducts and change in the internal millieu of the cell also
"contribute" to hypertrophy, but only indirectly. Reps, and fatigue
activate signaling proteins and transcription factors that increase
protein synthesis. This increase in protein synthesis allows an
increase in crucial enzymes, receptors (yes even androgen receptors),
membrane and structural proteins. Remember that protein breakdown is
also accelerated so the net effect is most often merely a maintenance
of muscle protein levels. This is what goes on after each workout when
plateauing after years of training.
As mentioned, without the activity of IGF-1 and FGF outside of the
cell, satellite cells will not contribute significantly to hypertrophy.
The process is dependant on microtrauma at some degree.
Studies have shown that the ability of a given amount of tension to
elicit hypertrophy decreases over time in a given muscle. This is
because the same adaptive process that leads to muscle growth, also
leads to resistance to the stimulus of muscle growth. It has a lot to
do with the principle of homeostasis, in other words, the body will
always fight further change as it's changing.
Studies have shown too much microtrauma is a bad thing. The rapid
infiltration of immune factors (the primary cause of DOMS) actually
causes significant breakdown of muscle proteins and the death of some
cells.
Now, the ability of mechanical tension to cause microtrauma to the cell
membrane is dependant on the condition of the extracellular matrix. If
it is robust as a result of chronic strain, is will take an
unaccustomed load to induce any trauma. Your ability to apply this load
is dependant on your voluntary strength. Your body is able to protect
your muscle cells from microtrauma even when using max loads. It isn't
always able to protect tendons.
Anytime you do a set and it burns like crazy (painful burn) you are
creating the same conditions of the occlusion studies. In other words,
its not that the effects seen in this study don't happen without
cutting off the blood supply, they do depending on the type of set. I
would guess the vascular occlusion is increasing phosphorylation of
MAPKerk1/2. erk1/2 appears to be more sensitive to acidosis, and oxygen
radicals, both of which would be increased by lack of blood flow.
Although less of a contributor than p38, erk1/2 does appear to
contribute to hypertrophy.
Keep in mind that as a muscle contracts, it squeezes the blood out from
the blood vessels around it. That is why your blood pressure goes up as
large muscle groups contract (even clenching your fists actually raises
blood pressure). This is also why pilots learn to contract their
musculature to keep from passing out during high G-forces.
Contracting and relaxing a muscle acts like a blood-pump and plays a
role in proper function of the cardiovascular system during exercise.
As was mentioned earlier, if you can increase the level of metabolic
byproducts, decrease the pH and increase the level of oxygen radicals
you will "help" to stimulate hypertrophy. However, this is not
sufficient to elicit significant hypertrophy in the absence of
progressive loading. In other words, flexing your muscles until they
really burn won't really make you grow all that well. But combine it
with progressive load and you will facilitate growth.
For more information, go here:
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/articles.html
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bi...cgi?act=SF;f=13
Matthew
"JMW" <j...@event.horizon> wrote in message
IMHO the burden of proof lies with those who do. The study you posted
originally does not convince me for the reasons that have already been
discussed. That said, I do hope you find the direct comparisons you are
looking for.
Matthew
Steve Freides
I don't disagree that you got the reaction you expected to get, and that
your predictions were correct. I could post pictures of naked women, or
any of a thousand other things, and get a predictable reaction as well.
If you want people to reconsider a widely-held point of view, you need
to offer a good reason for them to do so, and I don't think you have. I
don't understand why you picked this particular study to try and start a
discussion about.
Seth Breidbart
Charles <cha...@msn.com> wrote:
>However, whatever the merits of training to failure, it is not a
>system that can be use indefinitely as it will inevitably lead to
>injury.
Proof? I don't see why that has to happen.
Seth
--
Who cares? Shut up and lift. -- Watson (the pencil neck) Davis
Charles
Breidbart) wrote:
>In article <0v1b91198ek3llip0...@4ax.com>,
>Charles <cha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>However, whatever the merits of training to failure, it is not a
>>system that can be use indefinitely as it will inevitably lead to
>>injury.
>
>Proof? I don't see why that has to happen.
You are aware that I avoid scientific and medical explanations when a
more simple alternative is applicable. I just happen to know the
theory from past experience.
However, there are any number of 'experts' who will agree with my
uncomplicated assertion, who can be referenced by simply Googling:
Training to failure.
Here's an excerpt I found for you at:
http://www.strengthcats.com/finalrep.htm
"Noted exercise scientist Paul Ward warns that training to failure
results in ischemic reperfusion, or oxygen deprivation, followed by
oxygen perfusion. This results in massive free-radical damage to DNA
and cell membranes.
International Sports Sciences Association co-founder Dr. Sal Arria
cautions that many soft tissue injuries occur when failure terminates
a repetition in mid-stroke. "When the weight on the bar exceeds the
muscle's ability to lift it, something has to give and usually, it's
the musculotendonous junction" One of the most important functions of
a spotter is to stay alert and keep the bar moving in order to avoid
such injuries, according to Arria.
According, to powerlifting legend Fred Hatfield, if fatigue is so
great that stabilizers and synergists (which typically tire faster
than the prime movers) become too fatigued to allow maintenance of
proper form, you're asking for trouble."
Seth Breidbart
Mr-Natural-Health <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
>Training to failure directly inhibits voluntary strength.
Immediately afterwards, sure. But some people have discovered that
mere minutes later they're capable of a second set with _more_ reps,
at the same weight, than their first.
> Basically,
>training to failure fries your nerves (not the technical term ) and
>prevents them from being able to contract the muscles for long periods
>of time. So when one trains to failure and then waits until strength is
>recovered to train a muscle again, oftentimes the muscle has long
>recovered and is waiting for the nervous system to catch up.
Seems like something recovered pretty quickly.
>The alternative to training to failure is HST (hypertrophy-specific
>training) which was advocated by Bryan Haycock
>http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html
The only alternative? What about the umpty-million other methods
we've seen here?
>With HST, you training through soreness. Soreness is not harmful, and
>people generally find that training a sore muscle will cause the
>soreness to stop.
People generally find that _weakly_ working the sore muscle (I
recommend half the weight used in the workout) will end the soreness
fairly quickly.
>HST is based on physiologically sound principles not numbers. In short,
>they are:
>
>· Progressive load
Training to failure also used that.
>· Training volume
>· Training frequency
Training volume and Training frequency are not principles.
>· Conditioning (Repeated Bout effect)/Strategic Deconditioning
So deconditioning is good when it's part of HST but bad when it
happens due to training to failure? Can you explain why?
>So we are dealing with 4 basic issues, Load, Volume, Frequency and
>Conditioning.
Are those issues or principles? They aren't numbers, according to you
(although measuring volume and frequency without numbers would be an
interesting trick).
>· The number of Reps is determined by the minimum effective load
>(this changes over time based on Conditioning)
Which is known how?
>· The number of Sets is determined by the minimum effective volume
>(this changes over time according to current load and Conditioning.)
Only it doesn't.
Other quoted stuff elided due to boredom.
Seth
--
Can I suggest that you just declare yourself the winner and shut up
and squat? -- Wendy Marsden
Hobbes
JMW <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
I'm open to new stuff. Training to failure isn't new - it has been
discussed over and over and over. As I've said in the past - I'm not
against it. It has it's place as a discrete training protocol. I am
against it as the 'only' way to train for all people for all time. If
the goal is protein degradation or to increase local endurance than
obviously it has it's place. For strength training as defined by 1RM
than obviously it isn't as specific, although there are still places.
I've gotten to where I am by challenging dogma, not accepting it. I'm
not aware of what is causing you to perceive what you are - perhaps you
are projecting the consensual opinion of the group to me.
I don't know of any kind of training that I haven't tried and my one
constant is that pretty much everything you see has some application for
someone at some stage in time.
--
Keith
JMW
Because, perhaps to your surprise, there's still one person in this
newsgroup who scans the journals. Note that the article is from May
2005. It was on a topic frequently discussed in MFW, and its
conclusion was at odds with the general consensus of many in MFW. Why
*wouldn't* I want to pick this study and start a discussion about it,
Steve?
JMW
>
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with challenging traditional thought, but
> IMHO the burden of proof lies with those who do. The study you posted
> originally does not convince me for the reasons that have already been
> discussed.
And what is it about the meta-analysis of Rhea, et al., that does
convince you, despite the critique I posted? I think I know the
answer, but I'd like to hear it from you.
JMW
I left the quote to the whole thread for a reason. Scroll back up.
Your first comment ended with the reference "Duh," thus implying that
the described routine was universally accepted as optimal, a given.
Now do you understand?
>I don't know of any kind of training that I haven't tried and my one
>constant is that pretty much everything you see has some application for
>someone at some stage in time.
In general, I agree. My whole purpose in this thread was to put forth
the proposition that the unwanted bastard child known as "training to
failure" may have some value after all.
--
Steve Freides
news:1117143451.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The very first reply you received answered this question. You quote
from the article about its method of testing, which is clearly faulty.
DZ wrote:
> The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and
> the same weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets)
> with the weight they could lift about 6 times when fresh. So of
> two non-optimal setups the first is better.
It's a classic "garbage in, garbage out" study, or "post hoc ergo
propter hoc" if you prefer. The fact that a conclusion was offered in
the article doesn't make it anything other than published words. The
way the study was conducted needs to be scrutinized under the light of
common sense, which clearly the authors did not do, and DZ explained
this succinctly. What I can't figure out is why you find the study's
conclusion worth discussing at all.
John Hanson
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
un·der·state·ment [ ùnder stáytment, únder stà ytment ] (plural
un·der·state·ments)
JMW
>"JMW" <jmwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And you didn't read any further in the thread, did you, Steve? Why
does that not surprise me?
>The fact that a conclusion was offered in
>the article doesn't make it anything other than published words. The
>way the study was conducted needs to be scrutinized under the light of
>common sense, which clearly the authors did not do, and DZ explained
>this succinctly.
So succinctly, it appears, that you missed out on his statement that
he had not read the whole article. And naturally, you didn't read
further into that thread where some of those matters were addressed.
>What I can't figure out is why you find the study's
>conclusion worth discussing at all.
What I can't figure out is why I'm wasting my time discussing this
with you.
--
Steve Freides
If you have a point, make it. I've read this thread in its entirety so
far as I'm aware.
Matthew
basically following the "biggest guy in the gym" approach. It's working, but
I'm a relative beginner so probably anything will work.
Matthew
Mr-Natural-Health
DZ wrote:
> There is also recovery time variable. Recovery time
> is probably longer when training to failure, and fixing it equal for
> two groups doesn't make sense.
The term training to failure is pretty much a meaningless term.
It is should be called training to failure only when referring to one
set, and at most two sets. With multiple, or more than 2, sets the
more appropriate term would be "training to fatigue." Training to
fatigue requires a longer recovery period than using training to
failure.
But, when you consider that training to failure could also include a
preliminary warm up set, the term becomes pretty much meaningless.
Mr-Natural-Health
>
> It is should be called training to failure only when referring to one
> set, and at most two sets. With multiple, or more than 2, sets the
> more appropriate term would be "training to fatigue." Training to
> fatigue requires a longer recovery period than using training to
> failure.
>
> But, when you consider that training to failure could also include a
> preliminary warm up set, the term becomes pretty much meaningless.
And, to prove my point I can point to:
Schlumberger A, Stec J, Schmidtbleicher D.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11710652&query_hl=3
Single- vs. multiple-set strength training in women.
J Strength Cond Res. 2001 Aug;15(3):284-9.
PMID: 11710652
Training to fatigue with multiple sets is more effective than training
to failure with only one set simply because most people are unable or
unwilling to push themselves hard enough to achieve what is required by
training to failure with only one set.
JMW
>
>DZ wrote:
>
>> There is also recovery time variable. Recovery time
>> is probably longer when training to failure, and fixing it equal for
>> two groups doesn't make sense.
>
>The term training to failure is pretty much a meaningless term.
>
>It is should be called training to failure only when referring to one
>set, and at most two sets. With multiple, or more than 2, sets the
>more appropriate term would be "training to fatigue." Training to
>fatigue requires a longer recovery period than using training to
>failure.
Muscle fatigue is a gradual, exercise-induced reduction in the
generation of muscular force.
The reference here means task failure.
--
JMW
You didn't even read the abstract, did you?
"The single-set group's program consisted of only 1 set of 6-9
repetitions until failure, whereas the multiple-set group trained with
3 sets of 6-9 repetitions until failure (rest interval between sets, 2
minutes)."
Both groups trained to failure, moron.
--
Mr-Natural-Health
And, I am telling you not so politely that you are the moron.
Just like Mike Mentzer has also stated elsewhere if you are training to
failure than you can do that in only one set. :)
If you still can do another set with the same number of reps, then you
really have NOT trained to failure, by definition. All you are really
doing is gradually fatiguing the muscle.
Remember fellow moron, I do multiple sets. :)
It is no accident that I picked a study with women, since they are
prone to bodybuild with laughably light weights. Yeah, right, sure ...
just try to tell me that the women at my gym who have been trained by a
personal trainer are training to failure. I have not seen one female
workout with anything approaching a heavy weight that really really had
to push to do that last rep.
You can throw around all you want, the buzz phrase training to failure.
It is totally meaningless as it is currently being used by jocks. It
should obviously refer to doing only one set.
Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. And, I don't mind saying so.
:)
Mr-Natural-Health
> Both groups trained to failure, moron.
And, that is total bullshit, even when written in an abstract. :)
One group did one set and then stopped.
The other group continued to do two more sets.
To say that the first group could NOT have continued on to do two more
sets, because they had trained to failure is total BullShit. :)
Just thought that you might want to know.
Mr-Natural-Health
JMW wrote:
> rest interval between sets, 2 minutes)."
2 minutes is way too long. At that interval, you could continue to do
sets all day long provided you have built up any type of muscle
endurance at all.
JMW
>
>You can throw around all you want, the buzz phrase training to failure.
>It is totally meaningless as it is currently being used by jocks. It
>should obviously refer to doing only one set.
>
>Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. And, I don't mind saying so.
>:)
You have never been averse to exhibiting your own stupidity.
However, for those whom you might confuse with your moronic opinions,
please allow me to share some definitions used by Dr. Simon Gandevia,
PhD, MD, DSc, one of the foremost authorities on neuromuscular
fatigue:
"Muscle fatigue: Any exercise-induced reduction in the ability of a
muscle to generate force or power; it has peripheral and
central causes."
"Task failure: Cessation of a bout of exercise. This may be
accompanied by peripheral fatigue, central fatigue, or both."
Gandevia SC. Spinal and supraspinal factors in human muscle fatigue.
Physiol Rev. 2001 Oct;81(4):1725-89.
Perhaps you should avoid discussions of muscle physiology and limit
your exhibitions of stupidity to the discussion of so-called health
foods.
--
WillBrink
JMW <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
> "Mr-Natural-Health" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
> >> The term training to failure is pretty much a meaningless term.
> >>
> >> It is should be called training to failure only when referring to one
> >> set, and at most two sets. With multiple, or more than 2, sets the
> >> more appropriate term would be "training to fatigue." Training to
> >> fatigue requires a longer recovery period than using training to
> >> failure.
> >>
> >> But, when you consider that training to failure could also include a
> >> preliminary warm up set, the term becomes pretty much meaningless.
> >
> >And, to prove my point I can point to:
> >
> >Schlumberger A, Stec J, Schmidtbleicher D.
> >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abs
> >tract&list_uids=11710652&query_hl=3
> >Single- vs. multiple-set strength training in women.
> >J Strength Cond Res. 2001 Aug;15(3):284-9.
> >PMID: 11710652
> >
> >Training to fatigue with multiple sets is more effective than training
> >to failure with only one set simply because most people are unable or
> >unwilling to push themselves hard enough to achieve what is required by
> >training to failure with only one set.
>
> You didn't even read the abstract, did you?
He might have, but he would not understand it anyway.
>
> "The single-set group's program consisted of only 1 set of 6-9
> repetitions until failure, whereas the multiple-set group trained with
> 3 sets of 6-9 repetitions until failure (rest interval between sets, 2
> minutes)."
>
> Both groups trained to failure, moron.
He takes moron to a new level. Ultra moron?
--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
WillBrink
"Mr-Natural-Health" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
Moron says what?
WillBrink
"Matthew" <matthew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "JMW" <jmwill...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1117143822....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Matthew wrote:
> > >
> > > There is absolutely nothing wrong with challenging traditional thought,
> but
> > > IMHO the burden of proof lies with those who do. The study you posted
> > > originally does not convince me for the reasons that have already been
> > > discussed.
> >
> > And what is it about the meta-analysis of Rhea, et al., that does
> > convince you, despite the critique I posted? I think I know the
> > answer, but I'd like to hear it from you.
> >
> I can't say I am convinced by the Rhea study either. Personally I'm
> basically following the "biggest guy in the gym" approach.
You are mixing Anadrol and Sust?
> It's working, but
> I'm a relative beginner so probably anything will work.
True.
>
> Matthew
Matthew
WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WillBrink*NOSPAM*-362BD1.090...@comcast.dca.giganews.com.
..
> In article <119d4j4...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Matthew" <matthew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Personally I'm
> > basically following the "biggest guy in the gym" approach.
>
> You are mixing Anadrol and Sust?
>
alt.support.diet so you might imagine hypertrophy isn't my objective.
When I say "follow the biggest guy" approach, I'm just saying I'm
being pragmatic and doing what has worked for others with similar
objectives.
Matthew
Mr-Natural-Health
Perhaps, if you were to focus?
Do you think that the Dick Zone, or any gym in the country is a
classroom, Dork?
Perhaps, you are dumb enough to try to use task failure in the Dick
Zone, but I will stick with training to fatigue. Thank you. :)
Mr-Natural-Health
WillBrink wrote:
> In article <1117196305.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "Mr-Natural-Health" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
>
> > JMW wrote:
> >
> > > rest interval between sets, 2 minutes)."
> >
> > 2 minutes is way too long. At that interval, you could continue to do
> > sets all day long provided you have built up any type of muscle
> > endurance at all.
>
> Moron says what?
Any dude who cannot work all day long, taking 2 minute breaks is a
girlie man. Brink should know. Her buns is girlie man's biggest
muscle.
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
WillBrink
"Mr-Natural-Health" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
> WillBrink wrote:
> > In article <1117196305.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Mr-Natural-Health" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
> >
> > > JMW wrote:
> > >
> > > > rest interval between sets, 2 minutes)."
> > >
> > > 2 minutes is way too long. At that interval, you could continue to do
> > > sets all day long provided you have built up any type of muscle
> > > endurance at all.
> >
> > Moron says what?
>
> Any dude who cannot work all day long, taking 2 minute breaks is a
> girlie man.
Really? Care to post a picture of yourself showing us what great shape
you are in? On my worst day, I am still far stronger then you are.
Donovan Rebbechi
OK, as an endurance weenie, I'd have to say that I find this quite laughable.
But instead of laughing, I have an interesting challenge for you -- your
assignment is to complete a total of 30 minutes of time doing squats, with
a weight of 60% 1rm or more. You are allowed at most a 1:1 work rest ratio.
You must maintain a reasonable power output -- 6 seconds a rep should give you
enough time to rack and unrack.
So in other words, I'm asking that you complete 360 squats at 60% 1rm in no
more than 30 minutes. Good luck.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Mr-Natural-Health
WillBrink wrote:
> > Any dude who cannot work all day long, taking 2 minute breaks is a
> > girlie man.
>
> Really?
Yes, Mr. Numb Nuts is a girlie man. :(
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
WillBrink
"Mr-Natural-Health" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
Nice snip job coward. Where is that picture?
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
That would be the response of anyone who actually sees what you look
like, a toothless flabby loser.
Mr-Natural-Health
> > >> It is should be called training to failure only when referring to one
> > >> set, and at most two sets. With multiple, or more than 2, sets the
> > >> more appropriate term would be "training to fatigue." Training to
> > >> fatigue requires a longer recovery period than using training to
> > >
> > >Training to fatigue with multiple sets is more effective than training
> > >to failure with only one set simply because most people are unable or
> > >unwilling to push themselves hard enough to achieve what is required by
> > >training to failure with only one set.
>
> It is no accident that I picked a study with women, since they are
> prone to bodybuild with laughably light weights. Yeah, right, sure ...
> just try to tell me that the women at my gym who have been trained by a
> personal trainer are training to failure. I have not seen one female
> workout with anything approaching a heavy weight that really really had
> to push to do that last rep.
Mr. Numb Nut's silence on my above points is deafening!
Ha, ... hah, Ha!
Training to fatigue with multiple sets is more effective than training
to failure on one set.
And, the reason is obvious. Few people are able or willing to push
themselves that hard. While multiple sets that approach, but never
achieve, training to failure tears down and/or stresses your muscles
enough to stimulate growth.
Mr-Natural-Health
>
> The other group continued to do two more sets.
>
> To say that the first group could NOT have continued on to do two more
> sets, because they had trained to failure is total BullShit. :)
Perhaps, if the girlie man was to focus?
Training to failure is about doing one set.
But, doing multiple sets in the real world has been proven to be more
effective for the average joe, than doing only one set.
Everything else is bullShit, just like your big butt Girlie Man!
Just my opinion, but I am right as usual Dick Brain. :)
WillBrink
"Mr-Natural-Health" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
>
> Training to fatigue with multiple sets is more effective than training
> to failure on one set.
And we are still waiting to see how effective it's been for you. Where
is that pic toothless one? That you give health and nutrition advice on
sci (or lack there of) med.nutrition is sad. That you attempt to give
bodybuilding advice on mfw is hilarious!
Mr-Natural-Health
WillBrink wrote:
> And we are still waiting to see how effective it's been for you.
How effective depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Not
everybody is trying to look like a muscle bounded freak!
I saw some recent photos of Arnold Swarchenegger last night. That guy
now looks like the adverage fat slob who has never worked out in their
entire life, with absolutely no muscle definition. :(
Arnold Swarchenegger's image is all BullShit.
And, you if you actually bothered to check out bodybuilding
definitions:
Failure = Fatigue
Just thought that you might want to know, Dick Brain.
Hobbes
"Mr-Natural-Health" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
While failure may be caused by local muscle fatique, failure and fatique
are not identical terms or equivilant. So while I'll stay out of the flame
war I'm really not sure what you are getting at here.
Also, while I'm not a bodybuilder and don't really care much Arnold S.
accomplishments in the field are well documented, both by photography and
by awards.
--
Keith
WillBrink
"Mr-Natural-Health" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
> WillBrink wrote:
>
> > And we are still waiting to see how effective it's been for you.
>
> How effective depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Not
> everybody is trying to look like a muscle bounded freak!
Fine, let's see a picture of what YOU have accomplished as a fit,
healthy, person who gives out endless advice on nutrition, and now (sad
as it is) bodybuilding.
>
> I saw some recent photos of Arnold Swarchenegger last night. That guy
> now looks like the adverage fat slob who has never worked out in their
> entire life, with absolutely no muscle definition. :(
I saw Arnold in person a few months ago, as I do every year, and he
looked great for his age.
>
> Arnold Swarchenegger's image is all BullShit.
And what the fuck does that have to do with this thread you toothless
idiot?
>
> And, you if you actually bothered to check out bodybuilding
> definitions:
>
> Failure = Fatigue
That too would be wrong.
Mr-Natural-Health
WillBrink wrote:
> > I saw some recent photos of Arnold Swarchenegger last night. That guy
> > now looks like the adverage fat slob who has never worked out in their
> > entire life, with absolutely no muscle definition. :(
>
> I saw Arnold in person a few months ago, as I do every year, and he
> looked great for his age.
>
> > Arnold Swarchenegger's image is all BullShit.
I don't know when or where the pictures were taken, but Arnold
Swarchenegger was at a beach in swiming trunks. And, he was clearly
totally out of shape. :(
It appears that Arnold maintains his bodybuilding image by wearing
clothes.
Ha, ... Hah, Ha! At some point in his recent life, Arnold clearly lost
his bodybuilding physique.
Perhaps, Arnold engages in yo yo bodybuilding?
Mr-Natural-Health
Hobbes wrote:
> I'm really not sure what you are getting at here.
What I am trying to do is:
#1:Ignore Mr. Numb Nuts comments.
#2:Develop a new workout routine that makes sense for my objectives.
>From my research: Only relatively intense and long duration
(exhaustive) exercise induced hyperplasia. Prolonged training or
exercise consisting of relatively intense and long duration (wholly
exhaustive) regimens induce muscle hypertrophy following hyperplasia.
The ideal workout should produce muscle fiber damage.
"Training regimens inducing hyperplasia consist of repeated bouts and
provide sufficient recovery time under normal physiological conditions.
... It is also speculated that these recovery phases may contribute to
the hyperplasia. A resting state under normal physiological conditions
is required for better adaptation of the muscle."
I need to "use a moderately high load and relatively high number of
repetitions, and certain muscle groups are exercised separately. This
exercise is usually followed by or combined with two or more additional
exercises which activate the same muscle group, interspersed with short
resting times. Furthermore, as many as 16-20 consecutive sets
stressing a certain muscle might be executed within 30-40 minutes to
achieve the state termed 'muscle pumping up'. This system is
exhaustive for the muscle."
Therefore, I will need to implement exercising different muscle groups
on different days once a week allowing for at least 5 days to recover.
Use more sets, than I have been used to. Use complex exercises, perhaps
followed by isolation exercises. While, cutting my total workout time
to below one hour. And, rather than implementing muscle confusion by
varying the exercise routine, I will simply periodically stop
bodybuilding in a technique HST calls Strategic Deconditioning.
This will reduce the total time that I spend exercising while still
promoting both hyperplasia and hypertrophy. I want to simply maintain a
normal amount of muscle mass of a 50 year old as I progress into my
70's, 80's and 90's. I don't want super big muscles, now or anytime in
the future.
WillBrink
"Mr-Natural-Health" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
> WillBrink wrote:
>
> > > I saw some recent photos of Arnold Swarchenegger last night. That guy
> > > now looks like the adverage fat slob who has never worked out in their
> > > entire life, with absolutely no muscle definition. :(
> >
> > I saw Arnold in person a few months ago, as I do every year, and he
> > looked great for his age.
> >
> > > Arnold Swarchenegger's image is all BullShit.
>
> I don't know when or where the pictures were taken, but Arnold
> Swarchenegger was at a beach in swiming trunks. And, he was clearly
> totally out of shape. :(
Everyone saw the picture, and no, it was not flattering to him I agree.
How does that = his image is bullshit?
>
> It appears that Arnold maintains his bodybuilding image by wearing
> clothes.
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha! At some point in his recent life, Arnold clearly lost
> his bodybuilding physique.
News flash: Everyone loses their bodybuilding physique.
>
> Perhaps, Arnold engages in yo yo bodybuilding?
I'm sure Arnold wishes oh so much he could exchange his physique and
life for yours.
Mr-Natural-Health
WillBrink wrote:
> > > > Arnold Swarchenegger's image is all BullShit.
> >
> Everyone saw the picture, and no, it was not flattering to him I agree.
> How does that = his image is bullshit?
Perhaps, if you were to focus on the pictures that show Arnold as a fat
bum?
> I'm sure Arnold wishes oh so much he could exchange his physique and
> life for yours.
You truly do work hard at being a Dick Brain, Mr. Numb Nuts. I suppose
it comes naturally, when you are nothing but a Dick Head? :(
WillBrink
"Mr-Natural-Health" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
> WillBrink wrote:
>
> > > > > Arnold Swarchenegger's image is all BullShit.
> > >
> > Everyone saw the picture, and no, it was not flattering to him I agree.
> > How does that = his image is bullshit?
>
> Perhaps, if you were to focus on the pictures that show Arnold as a fat
> bum?
He looked nothing like a fat bum. Still waiting for that picture of
yours showing you to look so much better then Arnold or anyone else.
Mr-Natural-Health
WillBrink wrote:
> He looked nothing like a fat bum. Still waiting for that picture of
> yours showing you to look so much better then Arnold or anyone else.
Sorry, but I don't want to be held responsible for your suicide. :(
I will gladly, post my picture in 20 years when I am 75 still looking
like my present age of 55 with thick legs. :)
Katt
>
> I'm sure Arnold wishes oh so much he could exchange his physique and
> life for yours.
I reckon he does! I mean, who wouldn't want to be in Gohde's shoes? Look,
for example, what he posted a while back (Google may be your friend, but it
sure as hell ain't Gohde's...!). What a paragon of physical and mental
perfection he is! No wonder he just can't stop lecturing other people on how
they, too, can reach such peaks...!
--------
Sir John May 17 2002, 11:54 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: "Sir John" <Sir J...@GetStev.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:54:52 GMT
Local: Fri,May 17 2002 11:54 am
Subject: Re: Whole Grains & John's colic
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
"Willy Wouters" <w...@drmagu.com> wrote in message
news:3CE52024...@drmagu.com...
> JEDilworth wrote:
> <snip>
> > ... You're entirely more uneducated
> > than I suspected at first.
> <snip>
> Understatement of the decade ;-)
> Cheers, Willy
Actually, Dilworth and the other academics just get their jollies stomping
on the physically handicapped.
I happen to be a physically handicapped individual.
I have been documented to have physical brain damage and slight CP.
I have been documented to have a physically abnormal brain.
I have an obvious speech impediment, among other physical problems, due to
my physical brain damage. The right corner of my mouth is also physically
paralyzed.
My physical handicap has existed since birth. My brain is wired differently
from other people. English as a result has always been my weakest subject.
But, that did not prevent me from succeeding academically in both French and
German at college.
Like many other people, I do have trouble in the language department due to
my physical handicap. But, I have largely over come my language problems
except for the occasional A-Hole on these ngs.
It is always amazing to me how the supposedly so intelligent can be so
profoundly stupid! As long as I am still breathing, I will be posting and
expanding my website, grammar and spelling errors or no. :-)
I make no apologizes for being born screwed and having to constantly deal
with A-Holes like you people.
I bet scum like you also go around kicking cripples too?
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the biomedical
model of natural health. Weighing in at 17 webpages, Nutrition
(www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspect虹ve.com/) is now with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
-----
Katt.
Blair P. Houghton
>DZ <5309@2094719772.2812425130.21332.17265.18026> wrote:
>>JMW <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>>> DZ <2071@108403620.3015114732.23355.20054.26738> wrote:
>>>>JMW <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>>>>> Another interesting perspective ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater
>>>>> strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise
>>>>> for elite junior team sport athletes."
>>>>>
>>>>> Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, Lindsell RP, Pyne DB, Hunt PH, McKenna MJ.
>>>>> Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength
>>>>> gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005
>>>>> May;19(2):382-8.
>>>>
>>>>The two groups were lifting the same total number of reps and the same
>>>>weight. It was (6 reps x 4 sets) vs. (3 reps x 8 sets) with the weight
>>>>they could lift about 6 times when fresh.
>>>
>>> Which would seem to approximate, as closely as possible, an "all else
>>> equal" protocol, yes?
>>
>>I think we can define exactly what is equal in this study: total reps
>>and weight. So I would ask a different question - why is it sensible?
>>First setup seems somewhat reasonable for hypertrophy training and the
>>increase in strength is expected via that route. But what is the
>>second one? Lifting 3 times of what can be lifted 6 times doesn't
>>sound like either hypertrophy or strength oriented approach
>>(insufficient reps for hypertrophy and insufficient weight for
>>strength).
>
>Not quite. See below.
>
>>>>So of two non-optimal setups the first is better.
>>>
>>> Which leaves an undefined "optimal" setup that could be used across
>>> the board, yes? And you can provide that definition?
>>
>>I cannot give a definition. But it is clear that the authors ignored
>>common strength-oriented routines. My understanding is that training
>>to failure is not specifically detrimental in terms of strength
>>adaptation. And perhaps that is what the article confirmed.
>>
>>Staying away from failure has more to do with allowing sufficient
>>load at intensities high enough so that they are still beneficial for
>>strength training. There is also recovery time variable. Recovery time
>>is probably longer when training to failure, and fixing it equal for
>>two groups doesn't make sense.
>>
>>I'm not dissing the study, especially that I don't have access to full
>>text of that journal. But I don't think it proves superiority of
>>training to failure. Perhaps the title is careful - training to
>>failure does result in strength increase.
>
>Perhaps you should read the full text, or at least read the abstract
>more closely. Not only were weights and total repetitions equal, but
>the researchers made efforts to further equalize the routines. For
>instance, rest periods between sets for the failure group were more
>than twice as long as for the non-failure group (260 seconds vs. 113
>seconds), thus providing some compensation equalize muscle fatigue.
>That much was in the abstract. Furthermore, a bench throw on the
>Smith machine was used to measure power at the end of the respective
>routines to confirm an equalization of muscle fatigue.
>
>I am not suggesting that training to failure is an optimal method. I
>am suggesting that the doctrinal positions in this newsgroup have
>grown stagnant, and that is largely because nobody is willing to
>question them *and* produce countervailing evidence. [1] Maybe
>somebody needs to shake that up every once in a while. And you know
>I'm not shy about doing that.
>
>[1] Links to pop fitness sites and pompous rants by kooks and trolls
>like John Gohde and Blair P. Houghton don't count.
You're utterly supporting my position on training to
failure, and then you're calling me a kook. What's that
make you?
--Blair
"You have two guesses, then
I tell you anyway."
JMW
>JMW <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>>
>>[1] Links to pop fitness sites and pompous rants by kooks and trolls
>>like John Gohde and Blair P. Houghton don't count.
>
>You're utterly supporting my position on training to
>failure, and then you're calling me a kook.
No. Gohde is a kook. You are a troll. I cite studies. You bluff
and bluster.
And for the record, I did not claim that training to failure is an
all-around optimal method for improving strength; I only observed that
there is support for its effectiveness.
--
Blair P. Houghton
>Training to failure directly inhibits voluntary strength. Basically,
>training to failure fries your nerves (not the technical term ) and
Not the truth, either.
>prevents them from being able to contract the muscles for long periods
>of time. So when one trains to failure and then waits until strength is
Define "long", because I can contract mine immediately
after putting down the weight I can't lift another rep.
>recovered to train a muscle again, oftentimes the muscle has long
>recovered and is waiting for the nervous system to catch up.
You're confusing muscular and neuromuscular exhaustion.
A few reps of a big weight aren't going to scare your
nerves, much less knock them out.
>The alternative to training to failure is HST (hypertrophy-specific
>training) which was advocated by Bryan Haycock
>http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html
HST prescribes lifting a predetermined N-rep-max weight
N times in the third session at a given number of reps
(the first two sessions use lower weights; the next three
sessions use higher weights and lower reps). That sounds
like trying to train to failure to me.
>With HST, you training through soreness. Soreness is not harmful, and
>people generally find that training a sore muscle will cause the
>soreness to stop.
I don't recall HST specifying that as a feature, just
reminding users not to worry about soreness.
>It is commonly misunderstood that muscle failure is the stimulus for
>muscle growth. Unfortunately, this is not true! The tension on the
>muscle is what actually causes growth
>- Warren GL, Hayes DA, Lowe DA, Armstrong RB. Mechanical factors in the
>initiation of eccentric contraction-induced injury in rat soleus
>muscle. J Physiol. 1993 May;464:457-75
Hypertrophy and strength gains are two different things.
I believe that hypertrophy can occur with sub-failure
exercise. I believe that strength can increase with
sub-failure exercise. I believe that exercising to
failure will increase strength faster. I don't know what
exercising to failure will do to the rate of hypertrophy.
That's what I'm going to find out next time I'm anabolizing
(probably about 10 weeks away; I haven't set any firm
goals yet; I'm still trying to chart a trend so I can know
where to go).
>HST is based on physiologically sound principles not numbers. In short,
>they are:
After using it pretty much as presented, I have problems
with their rather unsubtle numbers-based approach to
selecting weights and reps for each session. The weight
increments are allowed to be too large to maintain a
monotonic increase across the entire program, which
would be more in keeping of their theory of maintaining
increasing stress to maximize anabolic hormone levels.
And the granularity between numbers of reps is too large,
and is iirc arbitrarily made large so as to reduce the
complexity of the system.
But they tell us this via a computer.
It's almost trivial (maybe a little tedious and prone
to typos) to enter the known N-rep-max weights for each
exercise and calculate detailed increments for weights
and decrements for reps.
It's a little harder to approximate those weights in
the typical gym. I'm seriously considering finding
someone who can make me shot-bags with 1-4 lb capacities
that I can strap to the back of my hand for use with
the gym's 5-lb increment dumbbells. I've seen the ads
for the magnetic incremental weights, and I don't think
they'll work well with the rubber-clad bells we have.
You really don't want one of those things dropping off
and hurting someone or - far worse - interfering with the
diligent progress of your program.
Otherwise I agree, HST seems to have come up with some
reasonable and sound principles, and even with the problems
I believe it exhibits, I seem to have made okay gains on it.
>The Frequency (rest between workouts) is determined by the ability of
>the CNS to recover sufficiently to maintain baseline "health"
>indicators. It is also determined by the time course of genetic
>expression resultant from the previous workout.
I just had this argument elsewhere.
If your CNS is affected by weight training, then either
you're bending your spine too hard or dropping the weights
on your head.
"Central" is not "Peripheral".
>Studies have shown too much microtrauma is a bad thing. The rapid
>infiltration of immune factors (the primary cause of DOMS) actually
>causes significant breakdown of muscle proteins and the death of some
>cells.
Good. Make room for new ones to grow with the correct
placement and innervation to support the activity the
muscle is adapting to.
Or wasn't that the obvious point of the process?
>As was mentioned earlier, if you can increase the level of metabolic
>byproducts, decrease the pH and increase the level of oxygen radicals
>you will "help" to stimulate hypertrophy. However, this is not
>sufficient to elicit significant hypertrophy in the absence of
>progressive loading. In other words, flexing your muscles until they
>really burn won't really make you grow all that well. But combine it
>with progressive load and you will facilitate growth.
Flexing your muscles is loading them. Flexing them harder
is progressing the load. To the muscle, flexing while
moving the joint should be indistinguishable from flexing
while lifting the same force in a weight. Why doesn't it
just work? Maybe the body understands the contralateral
forces are cancelling out and can't produce enough tension.
Maybe you can't calibrate the force and while it feels
higher it's not. Working with the empirical data stamped
on the side of the dumbbell makes you certain that you
are applying progressive force to the muscle.
--Blair
"Don't guess at what you're eating,
either."
JMW
>
>you're bending your spine too hard or dropping the weights
>on your head.
>
>"Central" is not "Peripheral".
"During sustained maximal contractions the discharge of motoneurones
declines, commonly to below the level required to produce maximal
force from the muscle whose contractile speed is usually slowed. Thus,
some 'central' fatigue develops. Recent findings using transcranial
stimulation have revealed that the motor cortex is one site at which
suboptimal output develops during human muscle fatigue." Gandevia SC.
Neural control in human muscle fatigue: changes in muscle afferents,
motoneurones and motor cortical drive. Acta Physiol Scand. 1998
Mar;162(3):275-83.
But please feel free to continue exhibiting your ignorance. It amuses
us.
--
Charles
My own casual observation of your mutually interactive pseudo
intellectual pissing competition with Houghton, results in a state of
stultifying indifference which has absolutely nothing to do with
anything remotely concerned with amusement!!
HTH!
Ugh! It's Tuesday!! ;o(
Mr-Natural-Health
Katt wrote:
> I reckon he does! I mean, who wouldn't want to be in Gohde's shoes? Look,
> for example, what he posted a while back (Google may be your friend, but it
> sure as hell ain't Gohde's...!).
Hello Dick Brain,
What makes you think that nobody on this planet knows how to look up
old posts besides you? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Boy are you stupid.
Yes, I have over 5,000 posts out there in Google land.
That still doesn't change the fact that MFW consists mostly of Penis
Brains and assorted perverts who don't know Dick about about anything,
let alone bodybuilding.
You guys couldn't write clearly about bodybuilding if your life
depended on it. You write total BullShit.
Just thought that you might want to know. :)
Mr-Natural-Health
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> Hypertrophy and strength gains are two different things.
> I believe that hypertrophy can occur with sub-failure
> exercise.
That old post was almost entirely written by Bryan Haycock, the founder
of HST, in some forum.
My primary interests are hyperplasia, followed by hypertrophy and then
strength.
My later information which I posted elsewhere on this thread came from
Tetsuro Tamaki, Department of Physiology, Tokai University School of
Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan .
I need to avoid the training routines of powerlifters. And, follow
what a few bodybuilders do. I have already outline what my new routine
will look like.
Mr-Natural-Health
JMW wrote:
> No. Gohde is a kook. You are a troll.
If I am a kook, you are a Penis Brain. And, I don't mind saying so
either. :)
NEWSFLASH: Dick Head, people workout for many different reasons.
People engage in weightlifting for many different reasons.
Not everybody wants to look like a muscle bounded freak, such as
yourself.
Your are a Dick Brain. You have my condolences. :)
WillBrink
"Mr-Natural-Health" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
> JMW wrote:
>
> > No. Gohde is a kook. You are a troll.
>
> If I am a kook, you are a Penis Brain.
Penis Brain? What, are you in 6th grade? Your training knowledge does
read at a 6th grade level at least.
WillBrink
"Katt" <seruhs...@dfhu.net> wrote:
>
> I have been documented to have physical brain damage and slight CP.
> I have been documented to have a physically abnormal brain.
Shocking...not.
JMW
> "Mr-Natural-Health" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
>
>> JMW wrote:
>>
>> > No. Gohde is a kook. You are a troll.
>>
>> If I am a kook, you are a Penis Brain.
>
>Penis Brain? What, are you in 6th grade? Your training knowledge does
>read at a 6th grade level at least.
Have some compassion, Will. Don't forget that he was brain-damaged
from birth.
--
WillBrink
JMW <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
True, but being brain damaged seems to be his excuse for being an
asshole.
Mr-Natural-Health
WillBrink wrote:
> Penis Brain? What, are you in 6th grade?
I am 55 years old. I have thick legs. I look like a bodybuilder and
the females are beginning to notice. And, I can literally run the
average 20 year old into the ground because I have a lot of endurance.
And, like I said before Mr. Numb Nuts, I don't want to be held
responible for you committing suicide.
Ha, ... Hah, Ha! You have my condolences, Dick Brain.
WillBrink
"Mr-Natural-Health" <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
> WillBrink wrote:
> I have thick legs. I look like a bodybuilder and
> the females are beginning to notice. And, I can literally run the
> average 20 year old into the ground because I have a lot of endurance.
More bullshit, you look like an out of shape flabby loser with no teeth.
Easy to prove me wrong: post a pic.
Mr-Natural-Health
WillBrink wrote:
> Penis Brain? What, are you in 6th grade?
Perhaps, if you were to concentrate Mr. Numb Nuts?
You are in the Dick Zone.
Just thought that you might want to know, Penis Brain.
Blair P. Houghton
>Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:
>>JMW <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>>>
>>>[1] Links to pop fitness sites and pompous rants by kooks and trolls
>>>like John Gohde and Blair P. Houghton don't count.
>>
>>You're utterly supporting my position on training to
>>failure, and then you're calling me a kook.
>
>No. Gohde is a kook. You are a troll. I cite studies. You bluff
>and bluster.
I can cite studies showing that Jews are an inferior
species. I don't suppose you'd maintain your intellectual
integrity if I did.
>And for the record, I did not claim that training to failure is an
>all-around optimal method for improving strength; I only observed that
>there is support for its effectiveness.
Now you're demonstrating that pedalling backwards is a
survival mechanism.
--Blair
"Godwin says shut up."
Blair P. Houghton
>Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:
>>
>>If your CNS is affected by weight training, then either
>>you're bending your spine too hard or dropping the weights
>>on your head.
>>
>>"Central" is not "Peripheral".
>
>"During sustained maximal contractions the discharge of motoneurones
>declines, commonly to below the level required to produce maximal
>force from the muscle whose contractile speed is usually slowed. Thus,
>some 'central' fatigue develops. Recent findings using transcranial
>stimulation have revealed that the motor cortex is one site at which
>suboptimal output develops during human muscle fatigue." Gandevia SC.
>Neural control in human muscle fatigue: changes in muscle afferents,
>motoneurones and motor cortical drive. Acta Physiol Scand. 1998
>Mar;162(3):275-83.
Reread the protocol. You will find where they ensured that
the exhaustion of the actual muscle fiber is prevented in
order to allow the contractions to be sustained until the
nervous exhaustion occurs.
Taking a muscle to failure using normal weight-training
methods does not involve a significant amount of neural
exhaustion, if it involves even a measurable one.
>But please feel free to continue exhibiting your ignorance. It amuses
>us.
That'd be what we who know what we're talking about
would call "irony."
--Blair
"Thick as the Earth's core."
JMW
>JMW <j...@event.horizon> wrote:
>>Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:
>>>
>>>If your CNS is affected by weight training, then either
>>>you're bending your spine too hard or dropping the weights
>>>on your head.
>>>
>>>"Central" is not "Peripheral".
>>
>>"During sustained maximal contractions the discharge of motoneurones
>>declines, commonly to below the level required to produce maximal
>>force from the muscle whose contractile speed is usually slowed. Thus,
>>some 'central' fatigue develops. Recent findings using transcranial
>>stimulation have revealed that the motor cortex is one site at which
>>suboptimal output develops during human muscle fatigue." Gandevia SC.
>>Neural control in human muscle fatigue: changes in muscle afferents,
>>motoneurones and motor cortical drive. Acta Physiol Scand. 1998
>>Mar;162(3):275-83.
>
>Reread the protocol. You will find where they ensured that
>the exhaustion of the actual muscle fiber is prevented in
>order to allow the contractions to be sustained until the
>nervous exhaustion occurs.
Another bluff. Now you're just plain lying.
--
Seth Breidbart
Donovan Rebbechi <ab...@aol.com> wrote:
>On 2005-05-27, Mr-Natural-Health <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
>> Any dude who cannot work all day long, taking 2 minute breaks is a
>> girlie man.
>OK, as an endurance weenie, I'd have to say that I find this quite laughable.
>
>But instead of laughing, I have an interesting challenge for you -- your
>assignment is to complete a total of 30 minutes of time doing squats, with
>a weight of 60% 1rm or more. You are allowed at most a 1:1 work rest ratio.
>You must maintain a reasonable power output -- 6 seconds a rep should give you
>enough time to rack and unrack.
>
>So in other words, I'm asking that you complete 360 squats at 60% 1rm in no
>more than 30 minutes. Good luck.
In the troll's case, that's 4.8 lbs, or over 2 actual kilograms, he
needs to squat with.
Seth
--
"People that don't listen to me live to regret it." -- Will Brink
Seth Breidbart
Charles <cha...@msn.com> wrote:
>International Sports Sciences Association co-founder Dr. Sal Arria
>cautions that many soft tissue injuries occur when failure terminates
>a repetition in mid-stroke. "When the weight on the bar exceeds the
>muscle's ability to lift it, something has to give and usually, it's
>the musculotendonous junction"
He's full of it. I've trained to failure in thousands of sets, and
that _never_ happened. Almost always, my concentric strength fails
and I lower the weight under control. *Once* I actually failed on the
eccentric, and the weight dropped. (But that is why most
practitioners of training to failure prefer machines: they're safer.)
>According, to powerlifting legend Fred Hatfield, if fatigue is so
>great that stabilizers and synergists (which typically tire faster
>than the prime movers) become too fatigued to allow maintenance of
>proper form, you're asking for trouble."
Again, machines avoid that issue.
Seth
--
Who cares? Shut up and lift. -- Watson (the pencil neck) Davis
Blair P. Houghton
You didn't reread the protocol, and now you're just plain
projecting.
Any reduction in motor cortex activity is because the
brain is telling you to stop lifting the weight because
you're done, not because of any sort of CNS exhaustion.
--Blair
"When you have to go to Sweden
to find intellectual dishonesty,
you're digging."
JMW
That's how I knew you were bluffing. There was no protocol to
re-read. It's a review article, Blair. But if I'm mistaken, why
don't you quote it? I have the full article in PDF, so I'm sure I
could find it. Tell us where that elusive protocol can be found,
Blair, and I'll gladly discuss it with you.
Of course, there's also your ignorant comment about "exhausting" the
muscle fiber. How do you "exhaust" a muscle fiber? Sure, you can
damage myofibers as observed from plasma membrane disruption and
Z-line streaming in the sarcomere, but how do you "exhaust" it, Blair?
The bottom line is that you have no idea what you're talking about,
and you didn't count on the fact that some people here actually
understand the subject. I believe some of your old pals from other
newgroup have made similar observations.
--
Charles
Breidbart) wrote:
>In article <6gvb91hnrc9n2pa15...@4ax.com>,
>Charles <cha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>International Sports Sciences Association co-founder Dr. Sal Arria
>>cautions that many soft tissue injuries occur when failure terminates
>>a repetition in mid-stroke. "When the weight on the bar exceeds the
>>muscle's ability to lift it, something has to give and usually, it's
>>the musculotendonous junction"
>
>He's full of it. I've trained to failure in thousands of sets, and
>that _never_ happened. Almost always, my concentric strength fails
>and I lower the weight under control. *Once* I actually failed on the
>eccentric, and the weight dropped. (But that is why most
>practitioners of training to failure prefer machines: they're safer.)
It is clear that Arria said that " many soft tissue injuries occur
when failure terminates a repetition in mid-stroke". The good doctor
did not say that such injuries will occur on every occasion that
someone exercises to failure.
>
>>According, to powerlifting legend Fred Hatfield, if fatigue is so
>>great that stabilizers and synergists (which typically tire faster
>>than the prime movers) become too fatigued to allow maintenance of
>>proper form, you're asking for trouble."
>
>Again, machines avoid that issue.
It is likely that poor form is as easily achieved using machines as it
is with free weights, with the same likely consequential ill effects
leading to injury!!
Have a great Sunday Se th, I'm going to!! ;o)
Mr-Natural-Health
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> >>"Central" is not "Peripheral".
>
> >"During sustained maximal contractions the discharge of motoneurones
>
> Reread the protocol. You will find where they ensured that
> the exhaustion of the actual muscle fiber is prevented in
> order to allow the contractions to be sustained until the
> nervous exhaustion occurs.
>
> Taking a muscle to failure using normal weight-training
> methods does not involve a significant amount of neural
> exhaustion, if it involves even a measurable one.
The comments about nervous exhaustion have been quite amusing. :)
They come straight out of the 19th century. Need I remind you guys
that this is the new millennium, or are you just a bunch of Dicks
trying to impress the ladies by pounding on your chests?
"1881>{Modern Stress}{Lifestyle Diseases}George Beard, MD wrote
_American Nervousness_. Neurasthenia was first described as American
nervousness. Beard saw a significant correlation between American
social organization and nervous illness. Beard wrote: "American
nervousness is the product of American civilization." Unlike other
countries, America offered its inhabitants the possibility of unlimited
freedom which resulted in unlimited ambition among the populace. Beard
wrote: "It has long seemed the especial province of Americans to abuse
their nerves from the cradle to the grave." A deficiency in nervous
energy was the price exacted by industrialized urban societies,
competitive business and social environments, and the luxuries, vices,
and excesses of modern life. "The chief and primary cause of ... [the]
very rapid increase of nervousness is modern civilization, which is
distinguished from the ancient [civilizations] by these five
characteristics: steampower, the periodical press, the telegraph, the
sciences, and the mental activity of women." American nervousness was
alarmingly frequent "among the well-to-do and the intellectual, and
especially among those in the professions and in the higher walks of
business life, who are in deadly earnest in the race for place and
power."
http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/history2.html
If you want a direct reference quoting "nervous exhaustion" then you
would have to read the entire book. It is available online.
Nevertheless, nervous exhaustion is a 19th century concept.
Just thought that you fools might want to know. :)
Donovan Rebbechi
> The comments about nervous exhaustion have been quite amusing. :)
>
> They come straight out of the 19th century. Need I remind you guys
Bollocks. People talk baout such things today. See Noakes and the "central
governor model", for example. Maybe you'd know about this if you'd read
something current instead of sticking to 19th century publications. Who's
stuck in the dark ages again ?
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Mr-Natural-Health
Joe Humble wrote:
> >The comments about nervous exhaustion have been quite amusing. :)
> >
> >They come straight out of the 19th century. Need I remind you guys
> >that this is the new millennium, or are you just a bunch of Dicks
> >trying to impress the ladies by pounding on your chests?
> >
> IOW, you just thought you'd share that.
Here, is a more direct quote of the same author, one year earlier.
"1880>{Modern Stress}George Beard, MD, a neurologist, wrote _A
Practical Treatise on Nervous Exhaustion (Neurasthenia)_. Neurasthenia,
or Nervous Exhaustion, was defined as a condition of general malaise,
and was attributed by Beard to the stresses of modern life. It was the
first book to express the concept that your mental life can have a
profound negative impact upon your physical health. Beard completed his
pre-med studies at Yale in 1862, and received his medical degree from
New York's College of Physician's (now known as Columbia University) in
1866. He became a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of
New York in 1886. Beard, a real physician, was one of the most
important American electrotherapists of the 19th century. His
contemporary critics referred to him as the "P.T. Barnum of
medicine." Beard's nervous exhaustion of neurasthenia would
eventually develop into the modern concepts of
Chronic-Fatigue-Syndrome, Fibromyalgia and Multiple Chemical
Sensitivities.[27]"
Runs With Knives
Wow, *that* kind of argument will certainly persuade people to
take you seriously.
--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
jsey...@LinxNet.com | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876
Mr-Natural-Health
Runs With Knives wrote:
> Wow, *that* kind of argument will certainly persuade people to
> take you seriously.
Wow, all the penis brain comments and threads here will be sure to have
MFW taken seriously by all the penis enlarger SPAMMERS. :(
Sorry, but I don't want to be associated with Dick Heads, like you. :)
Blair P. Houghton
You don't know the difference between an inferrence and
a citation.
I didn't read the paper. I never said I read the paper.
I read the part you quoted. From it I inferred the
protocol. There was a protocol, or there would have been
no data. But now you say it was a review paper. So maybe
there wasn't a protocol. And maybe the papers reviewed
don't state what the review authors think they state.
But you go on believing everything you read just because
it's in a "peer-reviewed journal" (if this one is even
peer-reviewed). Because if you do, you'll have entirely
missed the point of science.
>don't you quote it? I have the full article in PDF, so I'm sure I
>could find it. Tell us where that elusive protocol can be found,
>Blair, and I'll gladly discuss it with you.
So your defense to the fact that you don't understand
what you read is to pretend that it matters whether there
was a protocol in the paper that was reviewed (thus eliding
the protocol so you could be totally uninformed and end up
here making a total idiot of yourself and an amused skeptic
of me).
>Of course, there's also your ignorant comment about "exhausting" the
>muscle fiber. How do you "exhaust" a muscle fiber? Sure, you can
>damage myofibers as observed from plasma membrane disruption and
>Z-line streaming in the sarcomere, but how do you "exhaust" it, Blair?
Do you know what Creatine Phosphatase is? How about
ATP? ADP? Ice cream? Water?
How about crow? Because you're eating it by the gallon right now.
>The bottom line is that you have no idea what you're talking about,
>and you didn't count on the fact that some people here actually
>understand the subject. I believe some of your old pals from other
>newgroup have made similar observations.
Keep that projecting going. You're the only one bluffing,
here. I do know what I'm talking about, and I don't need
to hide it behind obscure and possibly nonexistent Swedish
journals and PDF files I don't produce, nor do I need to pretend
that a review paper is a scientific study.
--Blair
"Your CNS is clearly fatigued."
Blair P. Houghton
>Blair's argument that weight training would not affect the CNS is
>pretty silly. It appears, at a cursory glance, it would be more
That's not my argument. Someone said that muscle fatigue
in weight training was due to CNS fatigue rather than
muscle fatigue. I said that is wrong.
--Blair
"I am right."
Blair P. Houghton
>On 2005-06-05, Mr-Natural-Health <john...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
>
>> The comments about nervous exhaustion have been quite amusing. :)
>>
>> They come straight out of the 19th century. Need I remind you guys
>
>Bollocks. People talk baout such things today.
People talk about Christ like he's alive today. At the
moment I couldn't tell you the technical term for that
fallacy. Appeal to Stupidity, or something like that.
>See Noakes and the "central
>governor model", for example. Maybe you'd know about this if you'd read
>something current instead of sticking to 19th century publications. Who's
>stuck in the dark ages again ?
The CGM has to do with protecting the heart from damage
due to aerobic overexhertion.
Since low-rep weightlifting isn't an aerobic exercise,
I don't think it applies.
--Blair
"Someone give me a $5 million grant
and I'll see if it does."
JMW
You didn't read the article, Blair. You're busted. 'Fess up, boy.
FWIW, I've read several of Simon Gandevia's articles. He's well
qualified, with an MD, a Phd, and a DSc, and he may well be the
foremost expert in the field of muscle fatigue. Maybe you should plug
his name into PubMed before you inadvertantly establish who the real
idiot is.
>>Of course, there's also your ignorant comment about "exhausting" the
>>muscle fiber. How do you "exhaust" a muscle fiber? Sure, you can
>>damage myofibers as observed from plasma membrane disruption and
>>Z-line streaming in the sarcomere, but how do you "exhaust" it, Blair?
>
>Do you know what Creatine Phosphatase is? How about
>ATP? ADP? Ice cream? Water?
>
>How about crow? Because you're eating it by the gallon right now.
Therefore, your contention is that "exhaustion" of the muscle fiber is
caused by an insufficient supply of adenosine triphosphate and its
substrates to fuel the contractions of the sarcomere, and that some
protocol was created to prevent this from occurring before the onset
of neuromuscular fatigue, correct? Please explain, Blair.
>>The bottom line is that you have no idea what you're talking about,
>>and you didn't count on the fact that some people here actually
>>understand the subject. I believe some of your old pals from other
>>newgroup have made similar observations.
>
>Keep that projecting going. You're the only one bluffing,
>here. I do know what I'm talking about, and I don't need
>to hide it behind obscure and possibly nonexistent Swedish
>journals and PDF files I don't produce, nor do I need to pretend
>that a review paper is a scientific study.
Then you will surely accomodate my request for an explanation of your
earlier assertion. I anxiously await your answer.
-- John
"Tell us all about your Daddy,
Blair. That'll impress us!"
--
Donovan Rebbechi
>>See Noakes and the "central
>>governor model", for example. Maybe you'd know about this if you'd read
>>something current instead of sticking to 19th century publications. Who's
>>stuck in the dark ages again ?
>
> The CGM has to do with protecting the heart from damage
> due to aerobic overexhertion.
>
> Since low-rep weightlifting isn't an aerobic exercise,
> I don't think it applies.
Except that I think Noakes uses the same reasoning when discussing running at
a faster pace, that is he suggests that a similar mechanism cuts in to protect
muscle tissue from damage. I'll see if I can get a page ref out of "Lore of
Running" when I get home.
Donovan Rebbechi
>>Of course, there's also your ignorant comment about "exhausting" the
>>muscle fiber. How do you "exhaust" a muscle fiber? Sure, you can
>>damage myofibers as observed from plasma membrane disruption and
>>Z-line streaming in the sarcomere, but how do you "exhaust" it, Blair?
>
> Do you know what Creatine Phosphatase is? How about
> ATP? ADP?
Sorry, are you saying that the mechanism behind momentary muscle failure is
some sort of metabolic exhaustion ? My recollection is that this doesn't
actually happen, that you reach failure before you completely deplete these
resources. Which suggests that something else cuts in first (sounds a bit like
the CGM doesn't it ?).