MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
BIO-FORCE, Carpinelli, Bass
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Waynes

Switzerland

Hi all,

I found this on Johns {BIO-FORCE} site. However after chatting to Roger M. Enoka, Ph.D. last year and more recently, he noted that although the discussion was interesting, he did have some reservations about the "SOME", of the writings, as did I.

However a lot was spot on.

All authors, John {BIO-FORCE} and Ralph N. Carpinelli, PhD and Clarence Bass, seem to think there is a fundamental physiological difference between type I and II muscle fibers -- there is not!!! I have paraphrased the below on what Roger has explained/wrote to me, and what he also says in his books.

The below is "FAR" more easy to raed if you click or go the the link, as below it looks to long and is hard work.

bioforce.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=stuff&action=display&thread=256

BIO-FORCE wrote:
I have had a few friends (and less than friends) point me to an article posted on the site of Clarence Bass.

This article can be found here for all to read without my comments interspersed.

www.cbass.com/Carpinelli.htm

I wish to state that I have immense respect for Clarence and his viewpoints, as well as his contributions to the Exercise and Conditioning World.

However, that might not preclude my disagreeing with and questioning some of the contentions made in the article below.

I will insert my comments in red {I have put Johns in bold italic} as I feel nessessary to the article.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The bottom line seems to be that in the many studies that have compared training with heavy versus moderate resistance as long as sets end with a high degree of effort there are no differences in strength outcome. Richard A. Winett, PhD

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Right off the bat we have a VERY questionable suggestion. While there may be isolated research that shows the suggested differences, this suggestion leaves out significant information regarding exactly WHAT produces a strength gain.

It IS NOT true that the ermination
of a set is the deciding element of stimulus that causes a strength gain, but the level of TENSION stimulus to a significant enough number of Motor Units. Dr Winett is well known for his advocating HIT failure type training principles and this quote is a likely extension of that proclivity.

It is INCORRECT to assert that a fatigue based retirement of MUs can offer a greater strength specific stimulus to the muscles than a well planned multiple rep TENSION focused stimulus. The key issue here is that Winett is assuming the trainee will be training in a SSTF HIT style, and does not make allowances for the NTF use of multiple sets that DO NOT terminate in accumulated fatigue and have much higher tension stimuli.

The greater part of the Training World uses and has used that model, and the SSTF model cannot be presumed to usurp it in any way, if it is implemented properly.



Some people may have a fear of injury that need not exist. Ralph N. Carpinelli, PhD

Forget Heavy, Think Effort

Muscle Fiber Activation and Rep Range

The health establishment struggles mightily to persuade people to exercise regularly with mixed results at best. The latest scientific findings and government guidelines say that strength training should be part of the mix at least twice a week http://www.cbass.com/GetMoving... . Many people, including those that need it most, are turned off by weight training. They imagine themselves having to lift heavy weights, and that turns them away.

Is that true? Do they have to lift very heavy weights? An eyeopening new study says O.The study has the potential to change how strength training is perceived
and get many more people, perhaps millions more, pumping iron.

The study could revolutionize strength training for everyone, from pencil necks to muscle heads.

Im eager to tell you about it. Pour yourself a cup of coffee and pull up a chair.

We have been told that heavier resistance produces greater gains in size and strength. Only the heaviest possible weight will bring the maximum number of muscle fibers into action, I wrote in Ripped 2. The underlying idea is correctbut theres more to the story. It turns out that many experts in the field have made the same error.


The above is in error, the force at which a motor unit is activated (recruited). Which I have mentioned this point to you all here previously. The recruitment force of a motor unit varies with contraction speed. During rapid movements, for example, all the motor units are recruited from the onset of the contraction with loads as little as 40% of maximum, but this does not mean they are stimulated.

Many loads 40% to 100% can give you strength and size gains.


BIO-FORCE wrote:
Clarence you are not in error, but it is reasonable to further explain that it is the LEVEL OF MUSCLE TENSION CREATED that causes the stimulus, and that acting on and against a heavy load or relatively large force is generally what will cause such a stimulus.

IT IS NOT AN ERROR to have this understanding.



Dr Ralph N. Carpinelli, Human Performance Laboratory at Adelphi University in Garden City, New York, has made an exhaustive review of the scientific literature on this issue and reported his findings in the Journal of Exercise Science and Fitness, volume 6, number 2, 2008. His report is important, exciting, and complicated. Im going to summarize and, where necessary, explain the results. Please bear with me. Youll be glad you did.

Carpinellis analysis turns on the size principle, which governs how muscle fibers are recruited. Carpinelli says the size principle is perhaps the most supported principle in neurophysiology. So lets start there. What is it?

The Size Principle

The size principle is a law that explains the order in which muscle fibers contract. In a nut shell, it says small fibers contract before large fibers.

The small fibers are slowtwitch, and the large fibers are fasttwitch. The slow-twitch fibers are the endurance fibers, which predominate in marathon runners and other endurance athletes. Like the Energizer Bunny, they dont give out, they keep on contracting. They dont generate much force, however. Fasttwitch fibers are the strength fibers, which rule the roost in sprinters, weight lifters, and other strength athletes. They are strong, but fatigue rapidly. Most of us are born with a roughly equal balance of slow/small and fast/large fibers. (Some fast fibers, which well come to later, are intermediate in strength and endurance.)

Muscle fiber activation begins with a signal from the brain to motor units, which include a nerve and a companion group of muscle fibers. Fasttwitch and slow-twitch motor units operate separately; motor units are either slow or fast. Identicaltwitch fibers are serviced by a single motor nerve that comes down into the muscle like an electrical wire. Slow-twitch units have approximately 100 fibers. Fasttwitch units may have as many as 10,000 fibers. Slowtwitch units, therefore, take up less space and have many more connecting wires or nerve branches than do fasttwitch units. Consequentially, many more slow-twitch motor units are likely to be triggered than larger fasttwitch units. You might have 1,000 slow units activated compared to only 50 to 100 fast units.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
It should be mentioned that the number of each is determined on the level of the task, so without that information is it is not accurate to "how many" of each will be recruited. For relatively light tasks, we might find the TYPE I slower twitch fibers are doing most of the work, as that level of need is increased the number of "LARGER" TYPE II fast twitch are activated.

So it is VERY RELEVANT that it be made perfectly clear that recruitment is based on FORCE NEEDS and the priority of using the lower force fibers is only important to lower FORCE NEEDS.


You see all authors seeming to think there is a fundamental physiological difference between type I and II muscle fibers -- there is not!!!

Roger wrote to me about this previously, and said. Wayne, it has to do with the concept of fast (type II) and slow (type I) muscle fibers. Although it is possible to identify two types of fibers with histochemical, biochemical, and molecular techniques, there is no such distinction when the properties of the muscle fibers are measured with physiological techniques.

For example, if you measure the contraction time (speed) of many fibers, you will not find two groups of fibers but a continuous distribution of contraction times. Both authors seem to think there is a fundamental physiological difference between type I and II muscle fibers -- there is not!

When most physiologists talk about type I and type II muscle fibers, they imply that the properties of all muscle fibers are either of one type or another. For example, type I fibers are often referred to as slow twitch and type II fibers are known as fast twitch.

If you measured the twitch speed of 100 muscle fibers, however, you would find a continuous range of speeds from the slowest to the fastest muscle fiber and NOT two groups. You would get the same result if you measured the fatigability of the muscle fibers.

Therefore, there are not really two groups of muscle fibers, it is an artifact of histochemical and biochemical techniques that are used to characterize muscle fiber properties.

I hope this helps.
Roger M. Enoka, Ph.D.

Hi Roger,
Hmm, this is tricky one to get your head around, do you mean in the above that if you had a 100 muscle fibers, and started to find the speed from slowest to fastest, that muscle fiber 1 would go at 1MPH, muscle fiber 2 at 2MPH and so on ???

If so, I am REALLY starting to get what you are saying, if not, well I best rethink. Am I getting right, yes or no please ???

Roger M. Enoka, Ph.D. wrote; Yes, that is correct Wayne.



Importantly, motor units operate on an all-or-none basis. For a unit to be recruited, the nerve impulse must be strong enough to activate all of the muscle fibers in the unit maximally. If that threshold is not met, no fibers in the unit contract. Motor units contract for all they?re worth or not at all.

The bottom line is that its much harder to trigger fast motor units than it is slow units; it takes a lot more current or stimulus, more intensity.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
And a greater NEED for more FORCE.


And again MANY MANY MANY times, you see all authors are seeming to think there is a fundamental physiological difference between type I and II muscle fibers -- there is not!!!

With that background, were ready to sum up the size principle, which Carpinelli expresses as follows: The size principle states that when the central nervous system recruits motor units for a specific activity, it begins with the smallest, more easily excited, least powerful motor units and progresses to the larger, more difficult to excite, more powerful motor units to maintain or increase force.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
That escalating recruitment strategy IS ONLY relevant at lower force needs. As soon as a greater need is sensed, or employed the additional fibers are called into immediate activation. It is VERY IMPORTANT that we not make it seem that we need to fatigue or retire TYPE I fibers before TYPE II can be recruited.

IT IS ENTIRELY BASED ON NEED.


In summarizing orderly motor unit recruitment, Jack Wilmore and David Costill drop the reference to size and say it more directly in the third edition of their highly regarded textbook Physiology of Sports and Exercise: In low-intensity activity, most muscle force is generated by slow-twitch fibers. As the intensity increases, fast-twitch fibers are recruited, and at the higher intensities, the fast-twitch fibers are activated.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
This is exactly true, and as noted the recruitment is based on INTENSITY. Intensity being the magnitude or density of effort to produce force.



Strange as it may seem, speed makes no difference. Motor units are recruited in an orderly sequence, slow to fast, no matter what the speed of the movement. Speed of action does, however, affect the amount of force developed. Slow movements generate more force.


BIO-FORCE wrote:
This is a significant error and VERY misleading. In general a fast movement if the force needs are great enough will activate both FAST TWITCH and Slow Twitch to cause a faster action. If it is a low force need such as quickly wiggling your fingers, it will likely be handled by Slow Twitch fibers.

If it is a higher force action like sprinting, or throwing a fastball or shot put, then the fast twitch fibers will be heavily recruited.

It an ERROR to state Slow movements generate more force. It is more correct to state that higher loads or opposing forces can SLOW a movement.

The assertion that Slow movements generate more force is FATAL to the rest of the argument.



The closer you get to zero velocity, the more force can be generated, say Wilmore and Costill. Slow motion dampens momentum; at zero speed force is maximized.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
This is ONLY TRUE UNDER A LOAD. Just simply MOVING SLOW DOES NOT cause greater force or recruitment.

It must be understood that the SPEED of an action and the FORCE acted on or against are the determinants to recruitment. Purposely slowing a movement DOES NOT and WILL NOT increase the force output. In fact acceleration WILL increase both recruitment and force output. It is in error to suggest it any other way.



Force, however, is not the variable that triggers muscle fiber contractions. Ill say that again, because its very important. Force is not the kick off factor.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
This too is in error. The FORCE that the muscle acts ON or AGAINST will determine the level muscular force required and will determine the level of recruitment.



As Carpinelli writes in his report, Force [is] not the prerequisite for recruitment; force [is] the result of a more intense stimulus. He continues, The level of effort?determines the degree of motor unit activity. Effort, of course, begins in the brain.

Keep the distinction between force and effort in mind, because well be coming back to it over and over. Effort generates force, not the reverse.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
While it is true that "effort" which is another term for "intensity" will determine the muscular force employed, the deployment of this muscular force is in a DIRECT RELATIONSHIP to the external force the muscle is working on or against.



That brings us to the big question that every weight trainer wants answered: Whats the best and safest way to stimulate and build the maximum number of muscle fibers?

Is heavier better?


BIO-FORCE wrote:All things equal the answer is yes, a higher load will create the greater stimulus and recruitment.


The studies that Dr. Carpinelli reviewed attempt to answer that question. But do they succeed? Do the findings support the conclusions? Where do the well designed studies come down? Read on and find out.

Some studies have misapplied the size principle, according to Carpinelli. Well look at those studies first.

Misunderstanding the Size Principle

Dr. Carpinelli analyzes more than 30 specific studies and, in some cases, books in this section of his report. I will summarize representative studies and explain how Carpinelli says the size principle was misapplied or bypassed.

Heres the problem, as Carpinelli sees it: Although the size principle is described reasonably accurately, it is often followed by a misunderstanding of the underlying neurophysiological concept and its practical application. For example, many authors conclude that maximum or near maximum force very heavy resistance is necessary in order to recruit the large motor units and maximize strength gains. In other words, they decide that heavier is better.

[That] is an invalid reverse inference of the size principle, says Carpinelli. As noted above, force or resistance is not the controlling factor.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
This is somewhat strange, but it is Dr Carpinelli who has misinterpreted the size principle as well as the force/velocity curve. We all know that he is trying to make a case for fatigue based recruitment as an alternative "low force" training model. While that model can be employed to great success, there IS NO evidence that it is superior or even equal to the force based model.



For example, the authors claim, citing the size principle, that heavier resistance (3 to 5 rep max) recruits higher-threshold motor units than lighter resistance (12 to15 rep max). Force or resistance, they assert, is the factor that determines whether high- or low-threshold motor units are recruited.

Thats demonstrably wrong, according to Carpinelli. Resistance (poundage) makes little difference, says Carpinelli, as long as the last few reps are at or near maximum. Effort, not force, is the controlling factor.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
This is a serious error and not accurate. It makes the assertion (incorrectly) that a fatigue based recruitment is equal to a load based recruitment, without addressing the stress (stimulus) physiology involved.

It is very simply asserting that a low force and low intensity set that terminates due to fatigue, has the better or equal stressors (stimuli) as a set that has higher force stimuli to the involved Fibers during a far greater portion of the set.

This is simply not demonstrated in the Training World, nor is it supported by any Physiology.



The simplest example, says Carpinelli, is an isometric muscle action. If a person is holding a 20 kg [about 45 lbs] dumbbell at an elbow angle of 90 degrees the first 10 seconds may feel relatively easy. After about 60 seconds [however] the person will no longer be able to hold the 20 kg mass.

What changed? The force, the weight, remained the same, so force was not the controlling factor. It was the effort that changed, the required effort, wasnt it? The weight felt heavier and heavier as time passed, until the person was no longer able to hold it at a right angle.

Despite the increasing effort throughout the 60 seconds duration, the muscular force remained constant until it decreased at 60 seconds when the individual was no longer capable of producing [the] muscular force [necessary to hold the weight], Carpinelli explained. At the point of maximal effort (60 seconds), all the motor units in the pool were recruited [including the large/fast motor units] for that specific isometric muscle action.

Hes right, isnt he?

BIO-FORCE wrote:
No he is not.

While his experiment succeeded in fatigue based force reduction, it absolutely did not demonstrate that the muscle fibers received enough stimulus to adapt to anything but a greater endurance to hold a fixed force. Few athletes or Weight Sports participants would find this type of training valuable to either improving their strength, or their muscle size.




Other studies claim that heavier resistance produces greater strength gains, but provide no credible supporting evidence. Often citations are provided which offer no actual support. Some references allude to the size principle and others make claims or recommendations without supporting evidence.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
After reading the "claims" and distortions of these scientific principles, I am at a loss to suggest any credibility to the suggestions in this article.



Carpinelli methodically dissects study after study showing specifically how each authors citations failed to support their claims or recommendations. This is important, he maintains. It is not sufficient simply to cite the reference without noting exactly what the authors of those studies and reviews report.

Several studies claim that advanced weightlifters may be able to override the orderly recruitment of the size principle because they can inhibit the lower threshold motor units and preferentially activate the higher-threshold motor units. In other words, they are somehow able to recruit the large motor units first. No citation or other evidence is offered in support of the assertion that the size principle can be violated. This is unsubstantiated opinion.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
I think Dr Carpinelli is too interested in pushing an agenda. If one studies the "response times" of all fibers, it would be entirely possible for a very high force action to activate the Faster Responding TYPE II (fast twitch) fibers at such a speed and rate, as to appear to precede the slower responding fibers.

This type of citation displays a lack of consideration to the known physiology. It is also important to note that the citing parties said that "weightlifters MAY be able to override the orderly recruitment of the size principle". This signals that they were SPECULATING on the mechanism which has merit.



One author claimed that a 10 RM (repetition maximum) builds strength slower than a 5 RM. The reference cited, however, was a training study which compared 6-8 RM, 30-40 RM, and 100-150 RM. The study did not include 5 or 10 RM protocols. (Well discuss the drawbacks of very high reps below.)

Other authors claimed that high-velocity movements skip over the smaller motor units so that the larger units can be recruited first. Again, no supporting evidence was offered. By the same token, another author claimed that slow movements cannot generate enough force to trigger the larger motor units. As before, no training studies or other evidence was offered in support.

Still another author claimed that 5 RM is more effective for the bench press and squat, while 10-15 RM is most productive for other exercises such as the thigh curl. No rationale was presented for this apparent incorrect interpretation of the size principle, Carpinelli states, or why the hamstrings and quadriceps would require a different range of repetitions.?

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Since I don't have the full text of the studies and what Dr Carpinelli is arguing to, I cannot comment.



Heres another recommendation guaranteed to make you scratch your head: RM loads 6-8 are best for building maximum strength, while 10-12 RM are better for muscular hypertrophy. He cited no references to support his recommendations or his erroneous interpretation of the size principle,?Carpinelli writes. In fact, there is very little evidence to suggest that his recommended differences in the range of repetitions elicit different outcomes.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Finally something I might tend to agree on, in fact I have recently had "limited" discussion with some who have suggested that they can determine their Fast and Slow Twitch Fiber ratios via "fatigue testing" and that after such determination, they can then train in the correct "REP RANGE" for Hypertrophy and Strength for their fiber composition.

Strangely enough these are Carpinelli and Jones supporters.



Theres more, but you get the idea loud and clear. Lets move on to studies supported by solid evidence. Happily, there are plenty of studies that pass the test.

Lets start with a study of motor unit activation.

Effort and Motor Unit Activation

Again, Carpinelli maintains effort drives motor unit activation. Fortunately, scientists have devised a test to measure the effect of effort on activation level.

Motor unit activation level (AL) can be measured by comparing voluntary and induced response. During an MVC [maximal voluntary contraction], a supramaximal [greater than maximum] electrical stimulus is superimposed with surface electrodes onto a muscle or its nerve, Carpinelli explains. When the superimposed twitch technique is applied properly, the electrical stimulus fully activates all the motor units in the pool. If all the motor units have been recruited [voluntarily] and are firing at optimal frequencies, no additional force will be detected [as a result of the electrical stimulus].

AL is expressed as a percentage of the evoked response. If the voluntary response matches the electrical response, AL is 100%. If the voluntary response is less, the shortfall will be expressed as a percentage of the induced response.

Like body fat measurement, AL testing is indirect and not perfect. Although there are some questions, says Carpinelli, this type of testing is capable of detecting decrements in voluntary activation of less than 1%.

AL studies provide an objective measurement and are clearly more credible than unsupported claims or recommendations.

Motor unit activation studies, writes Carpinelli, strongly support the size principle. It is the intensity of effort that determines the AL of motor units and the resultant force output. A greater effort produces greater motor unit activation. Maximal effort produces maximal, or near maximal, activation of motor units. The resultant force, which is the dependent variable not the independent variable is a maximal force produced in a specific individual for a specific exercise. It is entirely dependent on the intensity of effort. However, it is important to recognize that none of the [AL] studies speculate on a minimal recruitment threshold for strength gains. A maximal effort only insures maximal voluntary motor unit activation.

Carpinelli describes what he considers to be the most relevant [AL] study with the greatest practical application to resistance training.

Researchers measured voluntary and evoked motor unit recruitment in 14 resistance trained males (age 21) before and after 5, 10 and 20 RM (repetition maximum) dumbbell curls. They found was no significant difference in voluntary motor unit AL after 5 RM (95.5%), 10 RM (93.5%), and 20 RM (95.1%).

They concluded: The commonly repeated suggestion that maximal strength methods (resistance heavier than a 6 RM) produce greater neural adaptations or increases in neural drive was not substantiated in this study.

In fact, Carpinelli adds, their study unequivocally demonstrates the direct relationship between intensity of effort not the amount of resistance or time under tension and voluntary motor unit activation.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
In case Dr. Carpinelli doesn't see it, using RM efforts IS using high force loads. He seems quite confused to what this demonstrates. It clearly demonstrates a relationship between high force/loads and recruitment levels.


Now, lets look at studies that measured strength gains using different reps and resistance.

Support for Heavier is Better

Although not cited in any of the studies we?ve been discussing, Dr. Carpinelli did find one study that reported some strength advantages for low reps and heavy resistance.

The 2002 study had previously untrained males (age 22 years) perform the leg press, squat, and knee extension for 4 sets of 3-5 RM or 3 sets of 9-11 RM for 8 weeks. The subjects doing 3-5 reps increased strength (1 RM) significantly more than those doing 9-11 reps in the squat (61% compared to 31%) and leg press (100% vs. 81%), but not in the knee extension (67% and 56%, respectively).

Interestingly, muscle hypertrophy gains (slow-twitch and fast-twitch fibers) were similar for both rep ranges. Muscle size increased significantly in both groups, with no significant difference between groups.

The similarity in the hypertrophy was due to the fact that the higher rep group had additional high force exposures.

The authors concluded: It has often been accepted that improved strength/power results from high intensity/low volume training, whereas low intensity/high volume training maximizes muscle hypertrophy. Based on data from the present investigation, this may not be entirely true. Indeed, data from the present investigation suggest low and intermediate RM training induces similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects.

Untrained subjects do not demonstrate the same resistance to stimulus as trained subjects so these results seem rather reasonable.

They did not attempt to explain why there was no significant difference in knee-extension strength. No mention was made of the size principle.

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that supporters of heavier-is-better training do not cite this inconclusive study.

Importantly, Carpinelli found many studies showing no advantage for heavier-is-better training.

No Support for Heavier-is-Better

Studies that report the effects of training with different amounts of resistance?strongly support the [size principle], states Carpinelli.

He lists 20 resistance training studies that reported no significant difference in strength gains for 2 to 20 RM.

Carpinelli singles out a study of 10 pairs of identical twins as especially noteworthy. Identical twins are ideal subjects for study because they have exactly the same genetic make-up. They take the nature out of the nature-or-nurture question. They lay bare the difference between training protocols. If heavier is better, comparison of identical twins should show it.

Carpinelli relates the results of the study: After training two times a week for 10 weeks, increases in isometric strength (averaged for the eight positions tested) were significant in both groups. However, there was no significant difference in the strength gain as a result of training with 7-10 RM (13.2%), or 15-20 RM (12.8%).

BIO-FORCE wrote:
I think many get VERY CONFUSED and do not understand that strength is a continuum, and that increasing strength at any point has an effect both above and below that point. So since the above study used RM levels of intensity, it would not be unusual for the results to be similar.


Why Moderate Weights and Reps Are Best

I promised that we?d talk about the drawbacks of very high reps. Lets do that before we discuss Dr. Carpinelli?s conclusions.

Both high and low reps are problematic. Moderate reps, 6 to 20, are probably best?for practical and scientific reasons.

From the practical standpoint, very high reps are unpleasant. For most people (me included), theyre mind-numbing, a drag. Low reps, on the other hand, are cumbersome and potentially dangerous. Except for competitive power or Olympic lifters, as we?ve seen, there?s little or no reason to do low reps.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
While it is true Heavy High Reps are difficult, that is really what separates the men from the boys. The ability to safely and with high intensity perform High Reps with Large Forces is one of the greatest stressors in Strength Training.


Very high RMs (loads lighter than 20 RM), says Carpinelli, may involve mechanisms of fatigue that are not conducive to stimulate optimal increases in muscular strength.?

BIO-FORCE wrote:
This is totally without foundation, and while it must be known that higher reps can involved higher fatigue levels, they do and can be performed with significant load levels and cause incredible strength gains.


Body by Science, an important book by Doug McGuff, MD, and John Little (2009), explains the problem: If you use a weight that is too light?.you will recruit the slow-twitch fibers into service, but because they fatigue so slowly, by the time you have started to recruit the intermediate fibers, some of the same slow-twitch motor units will have started to recover. They will then recycle back into the contraction process, thus preventing you from ever engaging the higher-order muscle fibers.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
This is true, but clearly displays the authors lack of experience with Heavy High Rep training. The ASSUMPTION is that the load will be TOO LIGHT, because the author has never trained with a model that has fully conditioned him for that level.

Also the authors have a "restricted" framework of training parameters that do not allow them to train with full Intensity at those rep ranges.


McGuff and Little say the problem is similar with a weight that allows only one or two reps: All motor units (slow and fast) are activated, but the fast-twitch units fatigue so fast that the set will terminate before youve had the opportunity to thoroughly involve and stimulate the bulk of your slow and intermediate twitch fibers.

Dr. Carpinelli might say its supposition, but McGuff and Little argue that a moderately heavy weight allows you recruit the full range of motor units, but not so quickly that only the fast-twitch fibers receive the bulk of the stimulation, and not so slowly that the slow and/or intermediate twitch motor units can recover and you end up cycling through the same lower-order motor units again.

Makes sense, doesnt it? Moderation in all things.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Actually it doesn't.

Strength Training IS NOT about moderation. It is about stressors and stimuli, and the adaptations they cause. The "PROBLEM" these authors quibble over are products of their restrictive training model, NOT the physiology they are working against.


Carpinellis Conclusions?and Mine

Recommendations to train with very heavy resistance (loads heavier than 6 RM), because they purportedly result in superior strength gains, are based on a faulty [understanding of the size principle] and have very little supporting evidence, Carpinelli concluded.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Not one thing in this article has offered support to that suggestion. In fact the "interpretation" of the size principle has been clearly distorted and misunderstood.


Resistance is largely a matter of personal preference, says Dr. Carpinelli. If a maximal?or near maximal?effort is applied at the end of a set of repetitions, the evidence strongly suggests that the different external forces produced with different amounts of resistance elicit similar outcomes.

Thats it. So simple, yet so meaningful?and potentially influential.


BIO-FORCE wrote:And it is SO WRONG. However I might agree to a small extent if I know what "similar outcomes" meant. My current understanding is that Carpinelli is saying that fatigued based recruitment strategies can offer "similar outcomes" to Tension/Force/Exposure outcomes. In that case I disagree. They are NOT similar.

If the size principle was correctly applied, effective resistance training may appeal to a larger proportion of the population, Carpinelli opines. ?This would include competitive and recreational athletes as well as those in the general population who perceive resistance exercise as the lifting of very heavy weights and therefore potentially dangerous.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
I agree for the general population and fitness goals, this should be perfectly adequate. But when Carpinelli forays into the realm of competitive athletes, then he is way out of his league.


He continues, Because some people may have a fear of injury?that need not exist?the heavier-is-better perception may actually be a deterrent to resistance training, which deprives those most in need of health-related benefits.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
I agree for fitness training purposes it is perfectly fine.


Reducing resistance by even a little can be the difference between satisfaction and aversion. I know from my own experience.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
While it is perfectly natural to "project" your own needs into a paper, it is illogical to think that your needs and requirements have a blanket projection to greater populations.


The dumbbell bench press is one of my favorite exercises, but getting the bells in position is a big problem. I have to psyche up more to get the dumbbells in position than to do the presses. If I miss the groove and fail to get the weights in position, it jams my shoulder and hurts like hell. While writing this article I decided to drop each dumbbell by five pounds, and do slower more controlled reps. Wow, it made all the difference. Getting the dumbbells in position was no longer an ordeal--and the muscle response was much better. I could feel every muscle fiber in my chest working. The movement was a joy again.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Clarence, your example is not one of how a training load recruits, stresses and cause adaptation, but more of reducing the stress to make the movement more enjoyable.

You will not make additional progress in strength until you increase that load or exposures to it. So it is certainly nice to back off, it does not demonstrate anything to the science of physiological stresses and their adaptations.




If ever there was a landmark review study in the resistance training field, this is it. Dr. Carpinellis impressive?and bold?effort has the potential to open the door to the health and fitness benefits of resistance training for millions of additional people. Lets hope the powers that be are listening?and that the many who can benefit get the message.

BRAVO, Ralph.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
I cannot say I share your enthusiasm for the misinformation exposed here. While I am all in agreement about making fitness level programs interesting and more comfortable, I cannot abandon Sports and Strength Science to try and make that point.

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with lower force approaches to exercise and the fact that it makes it more attractive for the masses, but to cloak this focus in a science bending study, does no one any good.


I think 99% of people that chat about muscle fibers makes the above mistake, I know I did, so thought I would share with all here, as its quite hard to get it to sink in, as I like many thought that there were rows of slow fast and faster muscle fibers. Hope we all debate the above, the parts on all authors seemed to think there is a fundamental physiological difference between type I and II muscle fibers, but there is not!!!, and many of the other issues, brought up, for us to all learn.

Once again;
The concept of fast (type II) and slow (type I) muscle fibers. Although it is possible to identify two types of fibers with histochemical, biochemical, and molecular techniques, there is no such distinction when the properties of the muscle fibers are measured with physiological techniques.

For example, if you measure the contraction time (speed) of many fibers, you will not find two groups of fibers but a continuous distribution of contraction times. Both authors seem to think there is a fundamental physiological difference between type I and II muscle fibers -- there is not!

When most physiologists talk about type I and type II muscle fibers, they imply that the properties of all muscle fibers are either of one type or another.

For example, type I fibers are often referred to as slow twitch and type II fibers are known as fast twitch. If you measured the twitch speed of 100 muscle fibers, however, you would find a continuous range of speeds from the slowest to the fastest muscle fiber and NOT two groups. You would get the same result if you measured the fatigability of the muscle fibers.

Therefore, there are not really two groups of muscle fibers, it is an artifact of histochemical and biochemical techniques that are used to characterize muscle fiber properties.
One more from Roger, concerns the concept of effort.

This is a difficult quantity to measure as it relies on a subjective interpretation of the contraction intensity. It is thought to be related to the magnitude of the command sent from the brain to the spinal cord; this signal is referred to as the corollary discharge.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

I expect it would be a bell curve. Everything else is.
Open User Options Menu

notinheritable

Spot on Wayne, well done.
Open User Options Menu

BretC

New York, USA

What is BIO-FORCES website?

Thanks
Bret
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

My god Wayne, you get the record for the longest first post in a thread! I'd have to take a vacation and just sit and do nothing else but read it to ever figure it all out, ha ha.
Scott
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Oh Waynes, what will it take for John to change the red star on your chart back to a gold one?
<sigh>
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

No time for any more, just going out.

BretC wrote:
What is BIO-FORCES website?

Thanks
Bret


Here is Johns site.

bioforce.proboards.com/index.cgi?

entsminger wrote:
My god Wayne, you get the record for the longest first post in a thread! I'd have to take a vacation and just sit and do nothing else but read it to ever figure it all out, ha ha.
Scott


Hi Scott,

Yep it is a bit long to read from this site, but the debate is FAR easier to read from Johns site, its in; Educational Items, and Items of Interest and called; Forget Heavy, Think Effort - My Comments.

Wayne


Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

John: To have this "guy" on your Side is at best - Troublesome - Seriously. (You have an Internet Stalker to say the least)
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland


Acerimmer1 wrote:
I expect it would be a bell curve. Everything else is.


Even thou I stated to learn about this last year, I am still finding it hard to accept, as I have the old idea in my head of different muscle fibers firing, but its not at all what I thought.

notinheritable wrote:
Spot on Wayne, well done.


Thx notinheritable.

Wayne

Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

simon-hecubus wrote:
Oh Waynes, what will it take for John to change the red star on your chart back to a gold one?
<sigh>


To be honest I am not sure how John will take this, as I did PM him first, but he deleted both.

I am not sure if he will think I am trying to show him up for being wrong, or trying to help him, actually it was to help us ALL. But it would be very nice if he chatted to me again, as I was always sincere and polite to him, and only wanted to learn and help. And did twice apologise when I was wrong.

I think I have a very black star in Johns books. But he did tell me to open my mind, and boy did I take the biggest tin opener to my head and prise it open, and let the knowledge from John and many more flood in, what a learning experience it has been, but now I have to relearn lots on muscle fibers that I thought was gospel.

As I would say that in ALL forums, that debate training, that not one person actually knew what I found out, its like you thought you had a manual car for 20 years, and thought you knew how the gears worked, but one day you found out all along it has no gears, but/and works like an automatic.

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Obviously you have certainly seen that I often challenge some of these incorrect or distorted concepts, and the response is often uncivil indignation as if one had blasphemed a religious leader. In fact, the responses are virtually identical to religious zealots pointing to religious icons as the ultimate authorities and belief is the answer, and one cannot challenge the unprovable.


This is all that I am doing, challenging some of the incorrect or distorted concepts, and please let me make it clear, I am NOT just picking on John, I am picking on every one who has every chatted muscle fibers.

I only put in Johns debate as it was what I gave to Roger to read, and when he wrote back, it all started to slowly sink in. But I am still thinking and learning it all, as to be honest it has only a little sank in, that is why I want to debate it here.

Landau wrote:
John: To have this "guy" on your Side is at best - Troublesome - Seriously. (You have an Internet Stalker to say the least)


John does not want me on his side as you call it, I and he have make it clear that what we both say is from independent people, that do not interact anymore.

There is no internet stalker, you and John years ago were very interested in what Arthur had to say, and were interested in what other bodybuilders and so forth had to say back, thus I am just very interested in what John and many others on this and other forums have to say, it isnt no big deal, as I just like to learn from people.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

Landau wrote:
John: To have this "guy" on your Side is at best - Troublesome - Seriously. (You have an Internet Stalker to say the least)



I know, it is unbeleivable, like a bad dream.

Won't you please re-indoctrinate him?
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

What I would like to know David is why YOU stalk ME! You constantly post to me telling me to "get lost" I'm a "musclehead" and various other insults only worthy of child in a playground. Yet Bioforce, a man you seem to have a respect for and myself share A LOT of the same opinions regarding HIT and SSTF! So it's NOT my training opinions that upset you so much so what's your problem?
Open User Options Menu

douglis

Hi Wayne,
there're many studies that show different kinds of training can change the composition of fiber types inside the muscle.Doesn't this prove that there's a difference in physiology between fibers?
Waynes wrote:
During rapid movements, for example, all the motor units are recruited from the onset of the contraction with loads as little as 40% of maximum, but this does not mean they are stimulated.

Many loads 40% to 100% can give you strength and size gains.

It's true that even loads as little as 40% of maximum when moved explosively can recruit all motor units but the momentum reduce the TUT to minimum so strength and size gains are minimal too.
Open User Options Menu

Supersteve

BIO-FORCE wrote:
I know, it is unbeleivable, like a bad dream.

Won't you please re-indoctrinate him?


You are too hard on him John. He is only trying to increase your awareness on certain issues.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Wayne.

You are absolutely right there is a continuum of muscle fibers ranging from high endurance low strength to low endurance high strength. No two fibers are identical.

Fiber 1 may have 1 power and 100 endurance, fiber 100 may have 100 power and 1 endurance, fiber 2 would have 2 power and 99 endurance, fiber 99 would have 99 power and 2 endurance etc..

There's no "magical" transition from type 1 to type 2 as such. We use the type classification as a very broad and vague distinction.

A more accurate term is to refer to fibers in terms of the amount of effort required for them to fire, this way we would class them as I have much on this board.

Low threshold motor units/fibers (LTMU)
Medium threshold motor units/fibers (MTMU)
High threshold motor units/fibers (HTMU)

LTMU would be the slower weaker more endurance based type 1. MTMU would be the more powerful 2a fiber group that display some endurance. HTMU are the faster most powerful but least enduring type 2x

1, 2a and 2b is a very vague terminology, the continuum is far more accurate.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

John.

I'm not sure I 100% agree with you. Using low rep set such as 1-6 do leave the lower threshold fibers relatively unworked hence why 1-6 reps may not be optimal for hypertrophy. There is a distinction between strength and hypertrophy.

Likewise higher rep sets can be far from optimal for the HTMU being mostly type 1-2a dominant. I am of the opinion that either a mixed qualities approach such as your 20/10/5 remedies this situation but also so does training in a moderate rep range approx 8-15.

There's a reason bodybuilders usually train in the 8-15 rep range John. Hypertrophy is not JUST about high muscle tensions etc..
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Natty wrote:
Wayne.

You are absolutely right there is a continuum of muscle fibers ranging from high endurance low strength to low endurance high strength. No two fibers are identical.

Fiber 1 may have 1 power and 100 endurance, fiber 100 may have 100 power and 1 endurance, fiber 2 would have 2 power and 99 endurance, fiber 99 would have 99 power and 2 endurance etc..

There's no "magical" transition from type 1 to type 2 as such. We use the type classification as a very broad and vague distinction.

A more accurate term is to refer to fibers in terms of the amount of effort required for them to fire, this way we would class them as I have much on this board.

Low threshold motor units/fibers (LTMU)
Medium threshold motor units/fibers (MTMU)
High threshold motor units/fibers (HTMU)

LTMU would be the slower weaker more endurance based type 1. MTMU would be the more powerful 2a fiber group that display some endurance. HTMU are the faster most powerful but least enduring type 2x

1, 2a and 2b is a very vague terminology, the continuum is far more accurate.


Cool post N1, thats sort of what I was thinking, but you saying it like that has made me far more see and understand it, thx.

However, I now see why Roger said that the debate you and me were having did not really add up, and both of us could not be right, as we were thinking in two or three groups of fibers, but is a continuous distribution of contraction times in say a bundle of a 100 muscle fibers, and no two are the same.

Some great posts, but I have no time tonight.

Supersteve wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:
I know, it is unbeleivable, like a bad dream.

Won't you please re-indoctrinate him?

You are too hard on him John. He is only trying to increase your awareness on certain issues.


Nice one Steve, ROL.

But all joking apart its a very Good point you made.

As John, and many here try to increase peoples awareness on certain issues, they hope that some people, on certain issues, will say to them, yes you were right, thank you, as I did to John, and a few others on many occasions.

However, how can ANY of the members here, learn {if they want/feel, what you say is right} different things from BIO-FORCE {or anyone else for that matter} if you are unable to say you were wrong on some things you wrote on muscle fibers ???

As Roger wrote; For example, if you measure the contraction time (speed) of many fibers, you will NOT find two groups of fibers but a continuous distribution of contraction times. ALL authors seem to think there is a fundamental physiological difference between type I and II muscle fibers -- there is NOT!

Until last year I thought the same, but have to say I was wrong.

Come on John, lets just get along ???

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Waynes wrote:
I now see why Roger said that the debate you and me were having did not really add up, and both of us could not be right, as we were thinking in two or three groups of fibers, but is a continuous distribution of contraction times in say a bundle of a 100 muscle fibers, and no two are the same.


Wayne. I knew this stuff when we having that "debate" hence WHY I understood the issue in question. When I refer to type 1, 2a and 2x it's merely a generalization.
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

Natty wrote:
John.

I'm not sure I 100% agree with you. Using low rep set such as 1-6 do leave the lower threshold fibers relatively unworked hence why 1-6 reps may not be optimal for hypertrophy. There is a distinction between strength and hypertrophy.


Actually it depends on what you mean by "worked".

Loads commonly used in lower reps "work" ALL fiber types, but do not have the longer metabolic durations to "fatigue" the TYPE I's (if you train at natural speeds)

So ALL fibers receive work, and all receive stimulus, but in low rep work the fatigue stimulus to the TYPE I's may not produce a metabolic adaptation.

Natty wrote:

Likewise higher rep sets can be far from optimal for the HTMU being mostly type 1-2a dominant. I am of the opinion that either a mixed qualities approach such as your 20/10/5 remedies this situation but also so does training in a moderate rep range approx 8-15.



Discussions of this type will not lead to a reasonable conclusions since "reps and load" have no meaning without the intensity level or "Power Expression". The 20 rep set in a Rogue HIT application will eventually have "significant" HTMU activation. But it is difficult for one who hasn't trained for 20RM sets every workout to understand that since the "frame of reference" is not sufficient.

So when attempting to discuss "recruitment" it is not only relevant to understand "loads and reps" it is MOST IMPORTANT to understand "intensity". And when I say intensity, I mean as per the scientific definition of intensity, meaning "magnitude of available effort" to each second of the action.

Natty wrote:
There's a reason bodybuilders usually train in the 8-15 rep range John. Hypertrophy is not JUST about high muscle tensions etc..


Hypertrophy is "primarily" about tensions "times" exposures. It will always be relative. It is difficult for a generalization of what is heavy to be agreed on since it is relative to the individual. and not everyone uses the same "measuring stick".

If you see the top pros workout, they generally train HEAVY with sufficient Power and Work. The goal is first to load heavy tensions and second to perform multiples of that heavy tension. So it is relative. 30# curls for 15 reps, or 100# x 15. The heavier, will always be the greater stimulus. So that is the relativity.

I am not sure where you got the 8-15 reps number for bodybuilders, but I have never seen such a range in practice among the bodybuilders I have seen, or trained with. I have seen wide variations from Singles to over 100 reps, and everything in between.

If I was to "guess" or estimate numbers from what I have seen, it would be "mostly" from 4-20 reps, but that not based on anything except how they trained and what we did. It was also highly dependant on the action involved and the goal of the individual sets.

But in the end, if you don't include the level of intensity to a set, then the reps and weight mean little.

Hope that makes sense.
Open User Options Menu

Ryo

Switzerland

There's a reason bodybuilders usually train in the 8-15 rep range John. Hypertrophy is not JUST about high muscle tensions etc..

The reason is non-contractile hypertrophy : endurance-hypertrophy - energy storage hypertrophy. Long TUT or High Density Training deplete glycogen and the response is a 'surcompensation' : increased energy/water storages.

Hypertrophy is "primarily" about tensions "times" exposures.

If it was the case multiple sets would be much much better than a single set. It's not the case because Hypertrophy is related to Energy Depletion / Time not workload : tension x time. Contractile hypertrophy is obtained via ATP/CP depletion and non-contractile hypertrophy via Glycogen depletion.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland


Well from the debate at hand, you can clearly see that, BIO-FORCE, Carpinelli, Bass, seem to think there is a fundamental physiological difference between type I and II muscle fibers -- there is not!!! and as yet has not been able to admit he is wrong. Sorry about this John, but on two very big occasions I admitted I was wrong, not sure why you can not ???

Natty wrote:
Waynes wrote:
I now see why Roger said that the debate you and me were having did not really add up, and both of us could not be right, as we were thinking in two or three groups of fibers, but is a continuous distribution of contraction times in say a bundle of a 100 muscle fibers, and no two are the same.

Wayne. I knew this stuff when we having that "debate" hence WHY I understood the issue in question. When I refer to type 1, 2a and 2x it's merely a generalization.


But looking back you seemed to think there were bundles of muscle fibers, lets just say there are three for now, and the person has the same amount of each, and just for now we chat about 100 muscle fibers.

So 33 slow, 33 fast and 33 very fast, and they all contract with more force from slow to fast to very fast. However thins is not the case, as lets say the very fast muscle fibers are male, and the slow muscle fibers are female, and on general the male is the faster and stronger.

However many times, like in a womens 100m or womens weightlifter, the women will be stronger than the male. This is what happens on muscle fibers, as you can also get slow muscle fibers that are faster than the fast muscle fibers, because they are bigger.

As he said; there is no fundamental physiological difference between type I and II muscle fibers.

Roger M. Enoka, Ph.D. Wrote;
One important point to emphasize in these types of discussions is the concept of slow and fast twitch muscle fibers. Unfortunately, this terminology is misleading because there are not two (or three) types of muscle fibers; rather, there is a continuous distribution in every muscle from the fibers with slow contractile kinetics through to those with fast kinetics.

Because there are not distinct types of muscle fibers, it is NOT possible to design an exercise program that stresses either "fiber type".

A more appropriate functional distinction between muscle fibers is the force at which the motor units are activated during a muscle contraction, which is known as recruitment threshold.

Motor units with low recruitment threshold can be either slow or fast twitch, whereas motor units with high recruitment thresholds are all fast twitch. But, recruitment thresholds decrease with contraction speed so that all motor units in a muscle are activated when rapid contractions are performed with loads 40% of maximum. The faster you lift, the muscle fibers lowers their activation, recruitment force, so that more can be recruited faster, and are thus recruited faster, as more are needed faster.

The force that a muscle must exert to move a load depends on two factors: the mass of the load and the amount of acceleration imparted to the load. The number of muscle fibers recruited during the lift increases with the speed the lift.

The rate at which any motor unit, low or high threshold, can discharge action potentials is not maximal during slow contractions. As contraction speed increases, so does discharge rate for all motor units.

Despite the popularization of the terms slow and fast muscle fibers, the characteristics of muscle fibers are not so black and white. Human muscle fibers are often classified as types I, IIa, and IIx.

This distinction is NOT based on contraction speed (slow or fast) but is based on the activity of an enzyme that is related to contraction speed. When the enzyme activity is assessed with an histochemical stain, the fiber types appear quite distinct: black, grey, and white.

When the enzyme activity is quantified, however, there is a continuous distribution of enzyme activity across the population. Furthermore, muscle fiber size (a measure of force capacity) varies continuously across the population and in some cases type I ("slow") fibers are actually the biggest.


After saying all that N1, maybe you did see things different to me, but as you know its not easy to put your point over on the internet.

However you still say you can design an exercise program that stresses either "fiber type". But because there are not distinct types of muscle fibers, it is NOT possible to design an exercise program that stresses either "fiber type" ???

But you will NOT find two groups of fibers but a continuous distribution of contraction times of muscle fibers.

As far as I am concerned, the faster you move 80%, the more you will work ALL muscle fibers.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

Waynes wrote:

Well from the debate at hand, you can clearly see that, BIO-FORCE, Carpinelli, Bass, seem to think there is a fundamental physiological difference between type I and II muscle fibers -- there is not!!! and as yet has not been able to admit he is wrong. Sorry about this John, but on two very big occasions I admitted I was wrong, not sure why you can not ???


Wayne I will respond to your post only to clarify for others.

It is difficult for you to grasp and understand what people post and write, and as well your comprehension and association is poor. Due to this you blather on and on about subjects you have no knowledge of, and not enough background in to even begin to understand.

Yes there ARE differences between muscle fibers, their physiology and their biomechanics. The fact that they work "in harmony and in concert" has never been in question.

In fact you recently posted to a thread about "rep/fatigue testing" to determine your fiber distribution, and claimed that you could determine such by your fatigue performance, when I stated that you could not.

The facts are that motor units DO have TYPES and these TYPES are determined by physiological and biomechanical characteristics. All training can have an affect on these characteristics and your posting poor Roger and misinterpreting both his and my writings does not place you in a "helping" position as you would like to be.

You are confused, and you confuse others by attempting to understand that which you do not have the education or awareness to process. You would be better served to sit back and read and asked questions, rather than take my, Roger's and others work and try to patchwork it into some semblance of congruity.

You are NOT a teacher, nor a facilitator, nor do your copy and pastes serve any purpose. I hope you have Roger's permission to be posting him all over the internet, and you know you do NOT have mine. I trust he will eventually see your MO and realize that he is supplying fuel for someone who is not capable of using the information is a reasonable and useful manner.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Wayne.

John has told you that you lack understanding. I have told you this numerous times. Will the penny drop now? Is everyone else wrong but you? John is right you need to read, learn and ask questions and not tell everyone they are wrong simply because you don't understand them.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

N1 PLEASE answer my last post, it has nothing to do with John, you making VERY snide remarks, and have the audacity to tell me that I lack understanding, lack understanding in WHAT issue now ???

Will the penny drop on WHAT ???

John is right on what ???

I never tell everyone else they are wrong, WHAT now do you think I do not understand ???

N1, I proved to you that you were wrong in the last debate, as you left out TIME; you forgot to add up the time in the faster reps to the slow reps.

However, as I now know that there is NO fundamental physiological difference between type I and II muscle fibers, I know that we were BOTH wrong, CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS ???

You can creep up to John all you want, and fail to answer my last post, it only shows you like I failed to understand how muscle fibers worked, if you did as you claim understand them, you would NEVER have said what you did, nor would John BIO-FORCE.

Natty wrote:
Wayne.

John has told you that you lack understanding. I have told you this numerous times. Will the penny drop now? Is everyone else wrong but you? John is right you need to read, learn and ask questions and not tell everyone they are wrong simply because you don't understand them.


You now butt in and claim John is right ??? Right on what ??? PLEASE explain what you NOW THINK he is right on ??? What are you on about ???

Can you not just have a friendly debate, and put you view in ??? Seems like you cannot, and you blame others for being unfriendly ???

LET YOU PROVE YOU DID UNDERSTAND, OR THINK/THOUGHT YOU UNDERSTOOD, AND REPLY TO MY LAST POST, THE CLUES ARE ALL IN THERE.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

coomo

Natty wrote:
Wayne.

John has told you that you lack understanding. I have told you this numerous times. Will the penny drop now? Is everyone else wrong but you? John is right you need to read, learn and ask questions and not tell everyone they are wrong simply because you don't understand them.

This is what you do.You choose to disagree with subjects of which you have no understanding.Correct your own thinking , before crticising others.

Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Ellington Darden
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy