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
Type 2B Fibers: The Big Guns
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

overfiftylifter

One element that may be a factor in promoting hypertrophy is the amount of time or cumulative amount of time in which muscular "pressure" is increased(and it doesn't require high loads) promotes intramuscular tension which in turn promotes muscle protein synthesis, reductions in myostatin and increases in local hormonal factors. 10 seconds of pressure may not promote this.

My correspondence with the researchers at McMaster yields their suggestion that load may not be a significant factor for hypertrophy. Effort applied to the training load is suggested to be the significant element to promote muscular growth. Kaatsu research suggests that partitioning blood flow for a prolonged period may produce similar effects without training to failure.
Open User Options Menu

Dan Davidson

Connecticut, USA

marcrph wrote:
douglis wrote:
marcrph wrote:
On the contrary, it has the unfortunate effect of actually causing the super fast fibers to decrease or atrophy, further impeding natural HGH production.


Even heavy weight or power training will eventually decrease or even disappear the super fast fibers.That's unavoidable for the average person.

Dude,

Get your quotes correct.

Makes you look entirely stupid.


Go back and re-read the thread, Not sure what you're referring to but I think Fred just made you look stupid.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

Seriousstrength wrote:
"HIT has misinterpreted the size principle in regards to high intensity and strength development."

HIT doesn't interpret.


HIT most certainly does. Quite frankly, the vast majority do not agree with YOUR interpretation of training. You would have us believe that everyone is doing some form of HIT....but the truth is.....most train according to what I espouse.



It's a form of training. What I wrote is from two text books Guyton's and Brunstroms.


Not to mention your interpretation of the material. It's funny, how most professional trainers read the same material and come up with a different interpretation than yours.



"For great strength, the fast twitch fibers must be stressed anaerobically in the first 10 seconds."

Do you have a reference to support this claim?


Yes.....do you own research....interpret it any way you see fit......look for ATP-CP.



"Training to failure will not recruit the fast twitch fibers better when the phosphagen system can not replenish ATP when failure occurs."

Better? What do you mean? If you take a weight load that is 70% of your 1RM as opposed to 90%, your set will last a little longer. But when you reach failure, you will tap into and recruit the FT fibers. This is a known fact. To argue this is silly.

This is your dogmatic interpretation. Most professional trainers do not agree with you.


"HIT is based on false reasoning that training to failure is desirable. And, you have been deceived."

HIT principles ask the trainee to put forth an intense effort for every set of an exercise. Concentirc failure assures that the effort is of an intense nature.

One again this is your dogmatic interpretation. Look around....not many professionals agree with you. Intensity is defined as percentage of your one rep maximum weight. You are simple describing "effort" not intensity.



I said:
"Fast reps are not the answer. Moving fast does not selectively recruit the FT fibers. Fast and slow refer to their fatigue characteristics only."

You replied: "I guess you know more than others with experience in great strength development."

No I am quoting the physiology books. You are stating opinion.


Your interpretations of these books, rather.


"What Drew Baye failed to pontificate is this,..."

That is not how you use the word "pontificate."

Use it the any way you want to, much like your interpretations of exercise information.


"...fast twitch fibers do fatigue more quickly, AND, they get their name because they are able to fire more rapidly."

Drew knows that they fatigue more quickly. I said you don't have to train fast or explosively to recruit the FT fibers and you don't. If you disagree, please provide us all with the citations to support your statement.

Would it make a difference? I doubt it.


"Perhaps commenting on machines and superslow is your forte?"

One of, yes.

I said: "Whether you use bands, rocks, weights, etc. makes no difference."

You said "And Nautilus machines?"

No difference in terms of FT recruitment.

"Gravity and proprioception do make a difference."

Last I checked, gravity remains the same for all of us. Proprioception hasn't a thing to do with fiber recruitment.


I would not have expected you to have ever considered the role of gravity exercise.......but your comment on proprioception shows your ignorance of an important facet of human physiology.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

Dan Davidson wrote:
marcrph wrote:
douglis wrote:
marcrph wrote:
On the contrary, it has the unfortunate effect of actually causing the super fast fibers to decrease or atrophy, further impeding natural HGH production.


Even heavy weight or power training will eventually decrease or even disappear the super fast fibers.That's unavoidable for the average person.

Dude,

Get your quotes correct.

Makes you look entirely stupid.

Go back and re-read the thread, Not sure what you're referring to but I think Fred just made you look stupid.


Dude,

I did not state what is said...
LOOK for once.
Open User Options Menu

WesH

overfiftylifter wrote:
One element that may be a factor in promoting hypertrophy is the amount of time or cumulative amount of time in which muscular "pressure" is increased(and it doesn't require high loads) promotes intramuscular tension which in turn promotes muscle protein synthesis, reductions in myostatin and increases in local hormonal factors. 10 seconds of pressure may not promote this.

My correspondence with the researchers at McMaster yields their suggestion that load may not be a significant factor for hypertrophy. Effort applied to the training load is suggested to be the significant element to promote muscular growth. Kaatsu research suggests that partitioning blood flow for a prolonged period may produce similar effects without training to failure.


OFL,
what kind of time frames per set are we talking about for increasing "muscular pressure?" I'm guessing you're referencing the 30% 1RM, 30 rep, 4 sets to failure, McMaster study.
Open User Options Menu

douglis

marcrph wrote:

Dude,

Get your quotes correct.


You quoted an article from another site so I assumed it reflects your opinions.

Anyway...are you aware of the fact that any kind of resistance training....even heavy weight training or power training or even sprinting...will eventually convert almost all of your type 2Bs in to type 2As.

Open User Options Menu

Seriousstrength

New York, USA

marcrph wrote:
Seriousstrength wrote:
"HIT has misinterpreted the size principle in regards to high intensity and strength development."

HIT doesn't interpret.

HIT most certainly does. Quite frankly, the vast majority do not agree with YOUR interpretation of training. You would have us believe that everyone is doing some form of HIT....but the truth is.....most train according to what I espouse.



It's a form of training. What I wrote is from two text books Guyton's and Brunstroms.

Not to mention your interpretation of the material. It's funny, how most professional trainers read the same material and come up with a different interpretation than yours.



"For great strength, the fast twitch fibers must be stressed anaerobically in the first 10 seconds."

Do you have a reference to support this claim?

Yes.....do you own research....interpret it any way you see fit......look for ATP-CP.



"Training to failure will not recruit the fast twitch fibers better when the phosphagen system can not replenish ATP when failure occurs."

Better? What do you mean? If you take a weight load that is 70% of your 1RM as opposed to 90%, your set will last a little longer. But when you reach failure, you will tap into and recruit the FT fibers. This is a known fact. To argue this is silly.
This is your dogmatic interpretation. Most professional trainers do not agree with you.


"HIT is based on false reasoning that training to failure is desirable. And, you have been deceived."

HIT principles ask the trainee to put forth an intense effort for every set of an exercise. Concentirc failure assures that the effort is of an intense nature.
One again this is your dogmatic interpretation. Look around....not many professionals agree with you. Intensity is defined as percentage of your one rep maximum weight. You are simple describing "effort" not intensity.



I said:
"Fast reps are not the answer. Moving fast does not selectively recruit the FT fibers. Fast and slow refer to their fatigue characteristics only."

You replied: "I guess you know more than others with experience in great strength development."

No I am quoting the physiology books. You are stating opinion.


Your interpretations of these books, rather.


"What Drew Baye failed to pontificate is this,..."

That is not how you use the word "pontificate."
Use it the any way you want to, much like your interpretations of exercise information.


"...fast twitch fibers do fatigue more quickly, AND, they get their name because they are able to fire more rapidly."

Drew knows that they fatigue more quickly. I said you don't have to train fast or explosively to recruit the FT fibers and you don't. If you disagree, please provide us all with the citations to support your statement.
Would it make a difference? I doubt it.


"Perhaps commenting on machines and superslow is your forte?"

One of, yes.

I said: "Whether you use bands, rocks, weights, etc. makes no difference."

You said "And Nautilus machines?"

No difference in terms of FT recruitment.

"Gravity and proprioception do make a difference."

Last I checked, gravity remains the same for all of us. Proprioception hasn't a thing to do with fiber recruitment.

I would not have expected you to have ever considered the role of gravity exercise.......but your comment on proprioception shows your ignorance of an important facet of human physiology.


You have yet to support any of your opinions with facts. I have. My interpretaion of what is written in those texts is devoid of bias whereas yours is not.

Please provide a direct reference that supports your position. You can read mine in Brunnstrom's pages 85 - 96 and 127 - 156 in the 5th edition. From page 90:

"The size principle of recruitment describes the fact that the SMALLEST motor neurons ar the FIRST to be recruited and the LARGEST motor units are recruited LAST (Henneman, 1981). Small motor neurons participate in most functional activities because small motor neurons TEND to innervate slow-twitch, type I fibers that fatigue slowly. Only when contractions requiring greater strength are attempted do the largest fast-twitch motor units become active."

No mentions of over 85% only fast twitch are recruited.

From page 96 where they discuss safety in attempting top recruit IIB fibers:

"Therefore, to avoid injury, a muscle should be activated to a moderate degree at first, and then a gradual increase in the force exerted on the points of attachment may occur."

I've attached a page that I hope is readable on contraction speed.

The orderly recruitment theory is considered valid to date as is the all or none theory.

I'm all ears and ready to alter my position if you can support your opinions.

And please, explain to me HOW I misinterpreted the references. Enlighten us all.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

douglis wrote:
marcrph wrote:

Dude,

Get your quotes correct.


You quoted an article from another site so I assumed it reflects your opinions.


So you knowingly misquoted.....which speaks poorly of you.



Anyway...are you aware of the fact that any kind of resistance training....even heavy weight training or power training or even sprinting...will eventually convert almost all of your type 2Bs in to type 2As.



I have not read or researched this area enough to make such sweeping assumptions. Unlike you....I try not to assume. Is it a FACT?
Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

douglis wrote:
marcrph wrote:

Dude,

Get your quotes correct.


You quoted an article from another site so I assumed it reflects your opinions.

Anyway...are you aware of the fact that any kind of resistance training....even heavy weight training or power training or even sprinting...will eventually convert almost all of your type 2Bs in to type 2As.



So 2b stimulation converts them to 2a's?
WTF!
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Fred wrote; Small motor neurons participate in most functional activities because small motor neurons TEND to innervate slow-twitch, type I fibers that fatigue slowly. Only when contractions requiring greater strength are attempted do the largest fast-twitch motor units become active."

No mentions of over 85% only fast twitch are recruited.

....................................

Turpin writes; At around 85% effort ( high effort OR `when contractions require great strength`) ALL fibre type are recruited !

If one utilises high effort ( 85% + ) as a basis of their multi set training , then even in NTF workouts the HTMU`s are realising more stimulus ( & repeated exposure to such )than a single set carried to failure.
Hence powerlifters perform multi sets of low rep exposures of percentages of 85% & above to realise strength increase.

T.

Open User Options Menu

overfiftylifter

http://www.springerlink.com/...43378082314861/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...9219.x/abstract

http://biomedgerontology.oxfor...

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

A common intellectually-dishonest tactic in debate is changing the subject or a straw man argument, when no one has made such argument.

Such is the case here.

I am not discounting the Henneman's size principle. This principle is generally regarded as correct and has scientific evidence to back this principle up.

Chad Waterbury says it best:

"The last few reps of a set is where the results happen," has long been the dogma in resistance training circles. The theoretical reason why some coaches said this was true is because they figured that additional motor units were recruited at the end of a long, agonizing set to failure. However, if you look at the neuroscience research it's clear that this postulate holds no water."

I have informed the forum audience of the ATP-CP energy pathway, and how it is related to heavy training. Heavy training also recruits ALL available fast twitch fibers from the beginning. There is nothing controversial about this. However, this flies in the face of HIT dogma. I'm contrarian.....so be it.

Dr Darden states in "The Bowflex Body Plan" on page 116, in "Fiber Types: The Skinny On Slow And Fast"

"If the force requirements are high, as in seeing how much you can bench press one time, you'll be using both your slow-twitch and fast-twitch fibers, even if you're moving slowly."

This is what I'm talking about, and applying the ATP-PC energy pathway information. This leads to superior strength production, as the existing empirical and historical evidence is simply overwhelmingly convincing.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

summaHIT wrote:
douglis wrote:
marcrph wrote:

Dude,

Get your quotes correct.


You quoted an article from another site so I assumed it reflects your opinions.

Anyway...are you aware of the fact that any kind of resistance training....even heavy weight training or power training or even sprinting...will eventually convert almost all of your type 2Bs in to type 2As.



So 2b stimulation converts them to 2a's?
WTF!


There is conversion, but complete conversion????????????

The converted Type IIA fibers can also regain Type IIB status after time.

Sprinters improve their time by heavy training. All training....including HIT....converts fiber types.....is no training an option????only if you want to be a couch potato.
Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

marcrph wrote:
summaHIT wrote:
douglis wrote:
marcrph wrote:

Dude,

Get your quotes correct.


You quoted an article from another site so I assumed it reflects your opinions.

Anyway...are you aware of the fact that any kind of resistance training....even heavy weight training or power training or even sprinting...will eventually convert almost all of your type 2Bs in to type 2As.



So 2b stimulation converts them to 2a's?
WTF!

There is conversion, but complete conversion????????????

The converted Type IIA fibers can also regain Type IIB status after time.

Sprinters improve their time by heavy training. All training....including HIT....converts fiber types.....is no training an option????only if you want to be a couch potato.


I do not get what either of you are saying. We may convert fibers based on our training but it is training specific. A 2b training stimulus should convert some different fibers to 2b's but training the 2b's should not convert 2b's to 2a's. That is counter to the training stimulus.
Open User Options Menu

douglis

marcrph wrote:
summaHIT wrote:
douglis wrote:
marcrph wrote:

Dude,

Get your quotes correct.


You quoted an article from another site so I assumed it reflects your opinions.

Anyway...are you aware of the fact that any kind of resistance training....even heavy weight training or power training or even sprinting...will eventually convert almost all of your type 2Bs in to type 2As.



So 2b stimulation converts them to 2a's?
WTF!

There is conversion, but complete conversion????????????

The converted Type IIA fibers can also regain Type IIB status after time.

Sprinters improve their time by heavy training. All training....including HIT....converts fiber types.....is no training an option????only if you want to be a couch potato.


Almost complete.
In most cases the average % of 2Bs goes from 9% to 2% in a few weeks.
However if you're interested in athletic performance it has a meaning to train explosively because you improve to your rate of force development.
But certainly not because you "target" your 2Bs.

Open User Options Menu

douglis

summaHIT wrote:
I do not get what either of you are saying. We may convert fibers based on our training but it is training specific. A 2b training stimulus should convert some different fibers to 2b's but training the 2b's should not convert 2b's to 2a's. That is counter to the training stimulus.


In this study from 18% to 1%.I would call that almost complete.

The percentage of type IIb fibers decreased (P < 0.05) from 18 +/- 3 to 1 +/- 1%,

http://jap.physiology.org/...pe2=tf_ipsecsha
Open User Options Menu

Seriousstrength

New York, USA

marcrph wrote:
A common intellectually-dishonest tactic in debate is changing the subject or a straw man argument, when no one has made such argument.

Such is the case here.

I am not discounting the Henneman's size principle. This principle is generally regarded as correct and has scientific evidence to back this principle up.

Chad Waterbury says it best:

"The last few reps of a set is where the results happen," has long been the dogma in resistance training circles. The theoretical reason why some coaches said this was true is because they figured that additional motor units were recruited at the end of a long, agonizing set to failure. However, if you look at the neuroscience research it's clear that this postulate holds no water."

I have informed the forum audience of the ATP-CP energy pathway, and how it is related to heavy training. Heavy training also recruits ALL available fast twitch fibers from the beginning. There is nothing controversial about this. However, this flies in the face of HIT dogma. I'm contrarian.....so be it.

Dr Darden states in "The Bowflex Body Plan" on page 116, in "Fiber Types: The Skinny On Slow And Fast"

"If the force requirements are high, as in seeing how much you can bench press one time, you'll be using both your slow-twitch and fast-twitch fibers, even if you're moving slowly."

This is what I'm talking about, and applying the ATP-PC energy pathway information. This leads to superior strength production, as the existing empirical and historical evidence is simply overwhelmingly convincing.


First of all, I haven't changed the subject not have I constructed a straw man argument. If I am wrong, please explain.

We actually seem to be saying the same thing only I am saying that you do NOT need to use 85%+ 1RM load to get there so long as you take a set to failure or close to it.

If you take a set to failure you ARE/HAVE recruiting/recruited the IIB fibers. Do you have to go to gut busting failure where you keep at the effort past the last hard rep? Seems not.

But the question is, when does THAT rep happen? If you can do 10 reps and not 11, do you stop at 6? 7? 9? Where?

If an 85% 1RM allows for 4 reps, the first rep most certainly does NOT recruit the IIB fibers YET but the 4th certainly does.

This is how HIT philosophy has always seen it and it seems this is how it actually is.

In fact, it may very well be that loads of 90%+ are inferior at recruiting the FT fibers fully or, fatiguing them sufficiently.

Scores of drug free body builders have used moderate and even lightish loads to build mountains of muscle. Few if any body builders would use extremely heavy loads (90%+ 1RM) for building mass.

As for Chad Waterbury, he unfortunately get's a lot of info wrong. I wouldn't consider him the top source of resistance training info. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he's got a lot of off-base ideas on training such as this nonsense:

http://chadwaterbury.com/...nt-reigns-king/

Or this:

http://chadwaterbury.com/...t-for-fat-loss/

Sure. He claims this is a way to improve health. You can't eat junk but then says you can eat pasta - which is junk. In short, he's all over the place on diet and training.

Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

douglis wrote:
summaHIT wrote:
I do not get what either of you are saying. We may convert fibers based on our training but it is training specific. A 2b training stimulus should convert some different fibers to 2b's but training the 2b's should not convert 2b's to 2a's. That is counter to the training stimulus.

In this study from 18% to 1%.I would call that almost complete.

The percentage of type IIb fibers decreased (P < 0.05) from 18 +/- 3 to 1 +/- 1%,

http://jap.physiology.org/...pe2=tf_ipsecsha


It is a 1993 article. I am sure it was the first and only study to show such results.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

douglis wrote:
marcrph wrote:
summaHIT wrote:
douglis wrote:
marcrph wrote:

Dude,

Get your quotes correct.


You quoted an article from another site so I assumed it reflects your opinions.

Anyway...are you aware of the fact that any kind of resistance training....even heavy weight training or power training or even sprinting...will eventually convert almost all of your type 2Bs in to type 2As.



So 2b stimulation converts them to 2a's?
WTF!

There is conversion, but complete conversion????????????

The converted Type IIA fibers can also regain Type IIB status after time.

Sprinters improve their time by heavy training. All training....including HIT....converts fiber types.....is no training an option????only if you want to be a couch potato.

Almost complete.
In most cases the average % of 2Bs goes from 9% to 2% in a few weeks.
However if you're interested in athletic performance it has a meaning to train explosively because you improve to your rate of force development.
But certainly not because you "target" your 2Bs.



I'd be interested in data.....
Sprinters do convert.
OTOH....Training does help.
Rock & A hard place?
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

Seriousstrength wrote:
marcrph wrote:
A common intellectually-dishonest tactic in debate is changing the subject or a straw man argument, when no one has made such argument.

Such is the case here.

I am not discounting the Henneman's size principle. This principle is generally regarded as correct and has scientific evidence to back this principle up.

Chad Waterbury says it best:

"The last few reps of a set is where the results happen," has long been the dogma in resistance training circles. The theoretical reason why some coaches said this was true is because they figured that additional motor units were recruited at the end of a long, agonizing set to failure. However, if you look at the neuroscience research it's clear that this postulate holds no water."

I have informed the forum audience of the ATP-CP energy pathway, and how it is related to heavy training. Heavy training also recruits ALL available fast twitch fibers from the beginning. There is nothing controversial about this. However, this flies in the face of HIT dogma. I'm contrarian.....so be it.

Dr Darden states in "The Bowflex Body Plan" on page 116, in "Fiber Types: The Skinny On Slow And Fast"

"If the force requirements are high, as in seeing how much you can bench press one time, you'll be using both your slow-twitch and fast-twitch fibers, even if you're moving slowly."

This is what I'm talking about, and applying the ATP-PC energy pathway information. This leads to superior strength production, as the existing empirical and historical evidence is simply overwhelmingly convincing.

First of all, I haven't changed the subject not have I constructed a straw man argument. If I am wrong, please explain.

We actually seem to be saying the same thing only I am saying that you do NOT need to use 85%+ 1RM load to get there so long as you take a set to failure or close to it.

If you take a set to failure you ARE/HAVE recruiting/recruited the IIB fibers. Do you have to go to gut busting failure where you keep at the effort past the last hard rep? Seems not.

But the question is, when does THAT rep happen? If you can do 10 reps and not 11, do you stop at 6? 7? 9? Where?

If an 85% 1RM allows for 4 reps, the first rep most certainly does NOT recruit the IIB fibers YET but the 4th certainly does.

This is how HIT philosophy has always seen it and it seems this is how it actually is.

In fact, it may very well be that loads of 90%+ are inferior at recruiting the FT fibers fully or, fatiguing them sufficiently.

Scores of drug free body builders have used moderate and even lightish loads to build mountains of muscle. Few if any body builders would use extremely heavy loads (90%+ 1RM) for building mass.

As for Chad Waterbury, he unfortunately get's a lot of info wrong. I wouldn't consider him the top source of resistance training info. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he's got a lot of off-base ideas on training such as this nonsense:

http://chadwaterbury.com/...nt-reigns-king/

Or this:

http://chadwaterbury.com/...t-for-fat-loss/

Sure. He claims this is a way to improve health. You can't eat junk but then says you can eat pasta - which is junk. In short, he's all over the place on diet and training.



Comparing notes would seem to be A more civil path.

I'm not sold on accelerating light weights as a way to improve strength or RFD. However, there is empirical evidence that makes me pause and consider their merit......Westside.....Steve Justa....John McKean.....who have gotten good results from accelerated reps.....while using resistance bands. Argue if you must.....but results speak volumes. I'M NOT SOLD YET ON ACCELERATED REPS.

Barry Ross, who is a sprint expert, believes that ballistic reps are "expressions" of maximal weight. In other words, a snatch is an expression of how much you deadlift. Why do them? Concentrate on the deadlift instead. He may be right. My experience is heavy deadlifts do just that, and they have improved my performance in the past more than anything else.

For sure plyometrics done right after heavy lifts are great. Post activation potential will improve athletic performance.

I no longer believe in the HIT dogma of failure training, and I have seen as good or better results from heavy, slow training, done non-failure, with long rest intervals. It is amazing what heavy deadlifts will do. Heavy weights above a certain percentage of your maximal will recruit FT fibers from the beginning, if you use enough weight.

The big question????The really big guns of the human body are the butt muscles, not the biceps. How do you maximize sprinting performance, speed, and quickness by strengthening these muscles? Is it the game changer? I doubt it. LOTS OF MONEY TO BE MADE HERE.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Fred wrote; If an 85% 1RM allows for 4 reps, the first rep most certainly does NOT recruit the IIB fibers YET but the 4th certainly does.

.....................................

Turpin writes; How do YOU know that the first rep doesn't recruit type 2b fibres?
85% effort ( & above ) is certainly high effort , and high effort is a prerequisite of HTMU activation.
Is a set of 10 reps with the 10th rep ( at failure ) using the least force/effort of the total 10 reps high effort ?

T.
Open User Options Menu

douglis

summaHIT wrote:
douglis wrote:
summaHIT wrote:
I do not get what either of you are saying. We may convert fibers based on our training but it is training specific. A 2b training stimulus should convert some different fibers to 2b's but training the 2b's should not convert 2b's to 2a's. That is counter to the training stimulus.

In this study from 18% to 1%.I would call that almost complete.

The percentage of type IIb fibers decreased (P < 0.05) from 18 +/- 3 to 1 +/- 1%,

http://jap.physiology.org/...pe2=tf_ipsecsha


It is a 1993 article. I am sure it was the first and only study to show such results.


Oh God...

the training resulted in a significant decrease in the percentage of IIB with a concomitant increase in IIA fibers
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../pubmed/2311599

Resistance training also caused a significant decrease in the percentage of type IIb fibers after 2 wk in women and 4 wk in men
http://jap.physiology.org/...pe2=tf_ipsecsha

The present results suggest that heavy-load resistance training decreases the amount of MHC IIX while reciprocally increasing MHC IIA content
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...pubmed/10883005

However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...pubmed/12436270


Open User Options Menu

Seriousstrength

New York, USA

"Comparing notes would seem to be A more civil path."

I am being civil.

"I'm not sold on accelerating light weights as a way to improve strength or RFD. However, there is empirical evidence that makes me pause and consider their merit......Westside.....Steve Justa....John McKean.....who have gotten good results from accelerated reps.....while using resistance bands. Argue if you must.....but results speak volumes. I'M NOT SOLD YET ON ACCELERATED REPS."

Anything that makes muscles stronger improves athletic performance. The bands decrease acceleration by adding resistance.

But you still have not supported your arguments with any citations.

"Barry Ross, who is a sprint expert, believes that ballistic reps are "expressions" of maximal weight. In other words, a snatch is an expression of how much you deadlift."

That's ridiculous. At best it's a coincidence.

"Why do them? Concentrate on the deadlift instead. He may be right. My experience is heavy deadlifts do just that, and they have improved my performance in the past more than anything else."

The strength in your hips, legs and back
is what has improved your performance not the dead lifts per se.

"For sure plyometrics done right after heavy lifts are great. Post activation potential will improve athletic performance."

I disagree. Please some citations.

"I no longer believe in the HIT dogma of failure training, and I have seen as good or better results from heavy, slow training, done non-failure, with long rest intervals."

It's not a matter of belief. It about obeying science. As I said, how not to failure should one train?

"It is amazing what heavy deadlifts will do. Heavy weights above a certain percentage of your maximal will recruit FT fibers from the beginning, if you use enough weight."

But the same FT fibers will be recruited with lighter weights as well. This is a fact.

"The big question????The really big guns of the human body are the butt muscles, not the biceps. How do you maximize sprinting performance, speed, and quickness by strengthening these muscles? Is it the game changer? I doubt it. LOTS OF MONEY TO BE MADE HERE.
[/quote]

You lost me here. Are you asking a question?

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

Seriousstrength wrote:
"Comparing notes would seem to be A more civil path."

I am being civil.

"I'm not sold on accelerating light weights as a way to improve strength or RFD. However, there is empirical evidence that makes me pause and consider their merit......Westside.....Steve Justa....John McKean.....who have gotten good results from accelerated reps.....while using resistance bands. Argue if you must.....but results speak volumes. I'M NOT SOLD YET ON ACCELERATED REPS."

Anything that makes muscles stronger improves athletic performance. The bands decrease acceleration by adding resistance.

But you still have not supported your arguments with any citations.

"Barry Ross, who is a sprint expert, believes that ballistic reps are "expressions" of maximal weight. In other words, a snatch is an expression of how much you deadlift."

That's ridiculous. At best it's a coincidence.

"Why do them? Concentrate on the deadlift instead. He may be right. My experience is heavy deadlifts do just that, and they have improved my performance in the past more than anything else."

The strength in your hips, legs and back
is what has improved your performance not the dead lifts per se.

"For sure plyometrics done right after heavy lifts are great. Post activation potential will improve athletic performance."

I disagree. Please some citations.

"I no longer believe in the HIT dogma of failure training, and I have seen as good or better results from heavy, slow training, done non-failure, with long rest intervals."

It's not a matter of belief. It about obeying science. As I said, how not to failure should one train?

"It is amazing what heavy deadlifts will do. Heavy weights above a certain percentage of your maximal will recruit FT fibers from the beginning, if you use enough weight."

But the same FT fibers will be recruited with lighter weights as well. This is a fact.

"The big question????The really big guns of the human body are the butt muscles, not the biceps. How do you maximize sprinting performance, speed, and quickness by strengthening these muscles? Is it the game changer? I doubt it. LOTS OF MONEY TO BE MADE HERE.


You lost me here. Are you asking a question?



No
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

==Scott==
Ok Marcrph and Serious strength and some of you others in this thread,the more I read this discussion the more I get confused about what you personally recommend to build size and strength.I'm personally more interested in size gains than strength so can each of you please give me a sample your best thoughts on building muscle size? Reps, sets, failure or not to failure, fast or slow reps, rest between sets, etc etc.

Thanks
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Ellington Darden
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy