Sento,
Thank you very much. I am going to keep a copy of your post on my computer.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Sento,
Thank you very much. I am going to keep a copy of your post on my computer. [/quote]
Glad I could help. 
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Also, why do you say that they did multiple set/same weight routines? Do you have video evidence that they did so? Because I haven’t ever seen any. If you do please post it, it’s always great to see the champs (past or present) training.
I’ve read lots of ghost written articles that say that such and such BB’er trains doing multiple sets of an exercise. And if you listened to the majority of trainers out there (or articles) you’d think that means that they do multiple sets at the same weight. But, when you actually watch them train, they ramp their sets up to a top weight.
I can’t get to any vids right now, but I do have books written by most of these guys and they all list multiple sets of the same load. And in fact, Franco’s book actually states to not do more (meaning go to failure) in any workout even if you feel like it because he feels it will hurt your future progress.
Even Arnold wrote something like that (if I remember correctly), something like: “select a weight that let’s you fail at the desired rep-range for each set…”
Look at his vids. What does he do? Not what he wrote in that book/article/whatever.
Same for using good form/textbook form/what-have-you.
They ALL write that, yet all of them use loose form, half reps, etc.
(Of course they cheat properly and also do their half reps in the part of the ROM (usually the bottom half) that hit’s the targeted muscle the hardest. A lot of people don’t know that and thus misinterpret all of it.)
I certainly believe that you’ve read such things, I have as well. Unfortunately, it’s not what people do in reality.
That’s very true. I think they all use juice and don’t state that in their books either.
As for half reps, I have to disagree with you. They do not target the muscle the hardest. They target the muscle fibers in that ROM the hardest. But also only strengthen that rep range, not the entire ROM. If anything, because of the joint angle, they allow more TUT, which would be beneficial to hypertrophy. But would not work well or the best for a strength only focus.
Ahhh…but aren’t we talking about BB’ing, not a strength only focus?
Yes, that is why I mentioned TUT (time under tension), which is a main factor in hypertrophy, but not so much for strength only.
Also, you are aware that the fibers run lengthwise throughout the muscle right? So, there are no fibers that are recruited at the bottom ROM of a rep that aren’t recruited in the top ROM of a rep. You know that right?
You know it’s actually motor units that are recruited and not individual fibers, right?
Yup, and you know that if a motor unit is recruited then all of the fibers it innervates is recruited. Right? That still doesn’t change anything.
You also know they don’t run lengthwise, right?
By lengthwise I mean origin to insertion, not necessarily in an exactly straight line (depending on what shape the muscle is). So, yes, the do run lengthwise, see attached illustration.
If they didn’t run lengthwise and instead ran widthwise then muscular contraction either would not occur, or would have to be performed in a completely different form than huxley’s sliding fillament theory states that it does (which is the accepted theory on how muscular contraction occurs).
So the direction of the fibers is irrelevant as there are many motor units that activate differently all along the fiber. You know that, right?
The direction of the fibers is not irrelevant. My point is that when muscular contraction occurs, the insertion is pulled to the origin. This is caused by the fibers shortening, by way of all of the sarcomeres along it’s length shortening, by way of the actin/myosin cross bridges pulling on each other. All of the sarcomeres along a fiber shorten as contraction occurs, not some at the beginning and some at the end. The ROM only determines how shortened the sarcomeres/fiber are. So you don’t have full contraction at the bottom ROM if that’s what you are referring to.
Now I will agree that there are numerous MU’s that activate different fibers, but this has more to do with things like the load being lifted, the speed of contraction, and the presence of fatigue than it does with ROM.[/quote]
Sentoguy:
We started this discussion because you stated: - Also, you are aware that the fibers run lengthwise throughout the muscle right? So, there are no fibers that are recruited at the bottom ROM of a rep that aren’t recruited in the top ROM of a rep. You know that right?
The issue is MU, not fibers. So while it is true that there are no fibers that are not recruited with angle-specific training, the MU’s recruited throughout the different angles are quite different.
Much research demonstrates that the most MU’s are recruited when the muscle is fully contracted in its shortest position.
So just lifting in the mid-range joint angle would not active all MU’s and does not train the muscle as effectively as full ROM training. However, there may be some value to having a more heavy load applied to the fully contracted muscle (whatever that angle maybe). So in a sense this angle training would be beneficial, but not mid-angle or more open.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Also, why do you say that they did multiple set/same weight routines? Do you have video evidence that they did so? Because I haven’t ever seen any. If you do please post it, it’s always great to see the champs (past or present) training.
I’ve read lots of ghost written articles that say that such and such BB’er trains doing multiple sets of an exercise. And if you listened to the majority of trainers out there (or articles) you’d think that means that they do multiple sets at the same weight. But, when you actually watch them train, they ramp their sets up to a top weight.
I can’t get to any vids right now, but I do have books written by most of these guys and they all list multiple sets of the same load. And in fact, Franco’s book actually states to not do more (meaning go to failure) in any workout even if you feel like it because he feels it will hurt your future progress.
Even Arnold wrote something like that (if I remember correctly), something like: “select a weight that let’s you fail at the desired rep-range for each set…”
Look at his vids. What does he do? Not what he wrote in that book/article/whatever.
Same for using good form/textbook form/what-have-you.
They ALL write that, yet all of them use loose form, half reps, etc.
(Of course they cheat properly and also do their half reps in the part of the ROM (usually the bottom half) that hit’s the targeted muscle the hardest. A lot of people don’t know that and thus misinterpret all of it.)
I certainly believe that you’ve read such things, I have as well. Unfortunately, it’s not what people do in reality.
That’s very true. I think they all use juice and don’t state that in their books either.
As for half reps, I have to disagree with you. They do not target the muscle the hardest. They target the muscle fibers in that ROM the hardest. But also only strengthen that rep range, not the entire ROM.
If anything, because of the joint angle, they allow more TUT, which would be beneficial to hypertrophy. But would not work well or the best for a strength only focus.
Ahhh…but aren’t we talking about BB’ing, not a strength only focus?
Yes, that is why I mentioned TUT (time under tension), which is a main factor in hypertrophy, but not so much for strength only.
Also, you are aware that the fibers run lengthwise throughout the muscle right? So, there are no fibers that are recruited at the bottom ROM of a rep that aren’t recruited in the top ROM of a rep. You know that right?
You know it’s actually motor units that are recruited and not individual fibers, right?
Yup, and you know that if a motor unit is recruited then all of the fibers it innervates is recruited. Right? That still doesn’t change anything.
You also know they don’t run lengthwise, right?
By lengthwise I mean origin to insertion, not necessarily in an exactly straight line (depending on what shape the muscle is). So, yes, the do run lengthwise, see attached illustration.
If they didn’t run lengthwise and instead ran widthwise then muscular contraction either would not occur, or would have to be performed in a completely different form than huxley’s sliding fillament theory states that it does (which is the accepted theory on how muscular contraction occurs).
So the direction of the fibers is irrelevant as there are many motor units that activate differently all along the fiber. You know that, right?
The direction of the fibers is not irrelevant. My point is that when muscular contraction occurs, the insertion is pulled to the origin. This is caused by the fibers shortening, by way of all of the sarcomeres along it’s length shortening, by way of the actin/myosin cross bridges pulling on each other.
All of the sarcomeres along a fiber shorten as contraction occurs, not some at the beginning and some at the end. The ROM only determines how shortened the sarcomeres/fiber are. So you don’t have full contraction at the bottom ROM if that’s what you are referring to.
Now I will agree that there are numerous MU’s that activate different fibers, but this has more to do with things like the load being lifted, the speed of contraction, and the presence of fatigue than it does with ROM.
Sentoguy:
We started this discussion because you stated: - Also, you are aware that the fibers run lengthwise throughout the muscle right? So, there are no fibers that are recruited at the bottom ROM of a rep that aren’t recruited in the top ROM of a rep. You know that right?
The issue is MU, not fibers. So while it is true that there are no fibers that are not recruited with angle-specific training, the MU’s recruited throughout the different angles are quite different.
Much research demonstrates that the most MU’s are recruited when the muscle is fully contracted in its shortest position.
[/quote]
Really? Can you site some sources to back that statement up (not saying that you’re wrong, just that from my understanding of how muscular contraction operates, I have never heard of such a thing)?
Also, aren’t those two statements somewhat contradictive? You admit that no fibers are only recruited at certain angles, but then state that some MU’s (which innervate the fibers) are only recruited at certain angles. That just doesn’t make any sense.
Right, which is generally the application of partials. I doubt that Carnage meant only doing mid range movements when he mentioned partials.
Here is a study that suggests that all available MU’s can be recruited while in the mid-range of ROM.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
We started this discussion because you stated: - Also, you are aware that the fibers run lengthwise throughout the muscle right? So, there are no fibers that are recruited at the bottom ROM of a rep that aren’t recruited in the top ROM of a rep. You know that right?
The issue is MU, not fibers. So while it is true that there are no fibers that are not recruited with angle-specific training, the MU’s recruited throughout the different angles are quite different.
Much research demonstrates that the most MU’s are recruited when the muscle is fully contracted in its shortest position.
Really? Can you site some sources to back that statement up (not saying that you’re wrong, just that from my understanding of how muscular contraction operates, I have never heard of such a thing)?
[/quote]
Here are a couple references and a quote from one of them.
-motor unit discharge rate at recruitment was greater in shortened muscle than in lengthened muscle-
The effect of muscle length on motor unit discharge characteristics in human tibialis anterior muscle.
Exp Brain Res. 1991;84(1):210-8.
Change in muscle fascicle length influences the recruitment and discharge rate of motor units during isometric contractions. J Neurophysiol. 2005 Nov;94(5):3126-33.
Interestingly enough, Author Jones had this theory long ago and wrote about it in one of his books. It’s the concept behind the Nautilus cam machines he developed. These machines increase the load/tension in the most fully contracted (muscle shortened position). I don’t see many of these machines around anymore, but it is an interesting concept.
If I said that then I was confused because your statement just confused me. It should be that muscle units are recruited throughout the range of motion but more in certain joint angles than others.
I don’t know if this has been shown to increase strength or hypertrophy by training specific angles, but it makes sense that the angle with the most MU’s functioning would work the best for both strength and hypertrophy.
[quote]
Right, which is generally the application of partials. I doubt that Carnage meant only doing mid range movements when he mentioned partials.[/quote]
I though that was what he said - partials in the mid-range or most open position?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
We started this discussion because you stated: - Also, you are aware that the fibers run lengthwise throughout the muscle right? So, there are no fibers that are recruited at the bottom ROM of a rep that aren’t recruited in the top ROM of a rep. You know that right?
The issue is MU, not fibers. So while it is true that there are no fibers that are not recruited with angle-specific training, the MU’s recruited throughout the different angles are quite different.
Much research demonstrates that the most MU’s are recruited when the muscle is fully contracted in its shortest position.
Really? Can you site some sources to back that statement up (not saying that you’re wrong, just that from my understanding of how muscular contraction operates, I have never heard of such a thing)?
Here are a couple references and a quote from one of them.
-motor unit discharge rate at recruitment was greater in shortened muscle than in lengthened muscle-
The effect of muscle length on motor unit discharge characteristics in human tibialis anterior muscle.
Exp Brain Res. 1991;84(1):210-8.
Change in muscle fascicle length influences the recruitment and discharge rate of motor units during isometric contractions. J Neurophysiol. 2005 Nov;94(5):3126-33.
Interestingly enough, Author Jones had this theory long ago and wrote about it in one of his books. It’s the concept behind the Nautilus cam machines he developed. These machines increase the load/tension in the most fully contracted (muscle shortened position). I don’t see many of these machines around anymore, but it is an interesting concept.
Also, aren’t those two statements somewhat contradictive? You admit that no fibers are only recruited at certain angles, but then state that some MU’s (which innervate the fibers) are only recruited at certain angles. That just doesn’t make any sense.
If I said that then I was confused because your statement just confused me. It should be that muscle units are recruited throughout the range of motion but more in certain joint angles than others.
I don’t know if this has been shown to increase strength or hypertrophy by training specific angles, but it makes sense that the angle with the most MU’s functioning would work the best for both strength and hypertrophy.
Right, which is generally the application of partials. I doubt that Carnage meant only doing mid range movements when he mentioned partials.
I though that was what he said - partials in the mid-range or most open position?
[/quote]
Not that you have to train with partials on all exercises. There are simply a few which seem to work way better when done in partial ROM (shoulder-pressing exercises, for example), if you want to get the targeted muscle-group as big/bb-looking as possible.
Where you do your partials depends on the exercise… Lockouts and rack-pulls are different from Shoulder-presses and such.
One would do partials from the stretch or semi-stretched position up to about half-way (or even three-quarters) of the range of motion when shoulder-pressing.
On smith OHP’s (seated, more of a high incline press), I’d go from chin level up to the part of ROM where I feel my tris starting to do the brunt of the work.
That way I can overload the part of ROM where the shoulders work the hardest, as opposed to going full-ROM and fatiguing both tris and shoulders with a lighter weight.
I train triceps either with exercises dedicated to them on the same day or on a different day. It would be counterproductive for me to unnecessarily fatigue them now.
This is bodybuilding. There is a reason for us giving attention to each of our main muscle-groups and not just going full-body every session.
If I wanted to go full-body, I’d do the exercises with full-ROM.
Then there is the deadlift vs. rack-pull thing.
I do not compete in powerlifting or strongman, so I see no reason to pull from the floor (where the lower part of ROM is extremely dangerous, especially if you lack in the hip-mobility/flexibility part…).
I can lift way more when doing rack-pulls. I use those as a back-thickness exercise, and due to the increased load, they work very well for that (I also shrug backwards after lockout on every rep).
They do however pretty much take the hamstrings out of the movement(for the most part). That is of no concern to me, as I train hamstrings seperately with a variation of SLDL’s and other exercises.
Or take Pulldowns, Chinups, Pullups,… I do those in the upper half (if even) of ROM (stretch-position again), because pulling further down doesn’t seem to help my lat-width much… And I already train back-thickness with rack-pulls etc.
Of course I now allowed myself to get pulled into this debate…
Now I know how it happens to you all the time, Sento 
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
We started this discussion because you stated: - Also, you are aware that the fibers run lengthwise throughout the muscle right? So, there are no fibers that are recruited at the bottom ROM of a rep that aren’t recruited in the top ROM of a rep. You know that right?
The issue is MU, not fibers. So while it is true that there are no fibers that are not recruited with angle-specific training, the MU’s recruited throughout the different angles are quite different.
Much research demonstrates that the most MU’s are recruited when the muscle is fully contracted in its shortest position.
Really? Can you site some sources to back that statement up (not saying that you’re wrong, just that from my understanding of how muscular contraction operates, I have never heard of such a thing)?
Here are a couple references and a quote from one of them.
-motor unit discharge rate at recruitment was greater in shortened muscle than in lengthened muscle-
The effect of muscle length on motor unit discharge characteristics in human tibialis anterior muscle.
Exp Brain Res. 1991;84(1):210-8.
Change in muscle fascicle length influences the recruitment and discharge rate of motor units during isometric contractions. J Neurophysiol. 2005 Nov;94(5):3126-33.
Interestingly enough, Author Jones had this theory long ago and wrote about it in one of his books. It’s the concept behind the Nautilus cam machines he developed. These machines increase the load/tension in the most fully contracted (muscle shortened position). I don’t see many of these machines around anymore, but it is an interesting concept.
Also, aren’t those two statements somewhat contradictive? You admit that no fibers are only recruited at certain angles, but then state that some MU’s (which innervate the fibers) are only recruited at certain angles. That just doesn’t make any sense.
If I said that then I was confused because your statement just confused me. It should be that muscle units are recruited throughout the range of motion but more in certain joint angles than others.
I don’t know if this has been shown to increase strength or hypertrophy by training specific angles, but it makes sense that the angle with the most MU’s functioning would work the best for both strength and hypertrophy.
Right, which is generally the application of partials. I doubt that Carnage meant only doing mid range movements when he mentioned partials.
I though that was what he said - partials in the mid-range or most open position?
Not that you have to train with partials on all exercises. There are simply a few which seem to work way better when done in partial ROM (shoulder-pressing exercises, for example), if you want to get the targeted muscle-group as big/bb-looking as possible.
Where you do your partials depends on the exercise… Lockouts and rack-pulls are different from Shoulder-presses and such.
One would do partials from the stretch or semi-stretched position up to about half-way (or even three-quarters) of the range of motion when shoulder-pressing.
On smith OHP’s (seated, more of a high incline press), I’d go from chin level up to the part of ROM where I feel my tris starting to do the brunt of the work.
That way I can overload the part of ROM where the shoulders work the hardest, as opposed to going full-ROM and fatiguing both tris and shoulders with a lighter weight.
I train triceps either with exercises dedicated to them on the same day or on a different day. It would be counterproductive for me to unnecessarily fatigue them now.
This is bodybuilding. There is a reason for us giving attention to each of our main muscle-groups and not just going full-body every session.
If I wanted to go full-body, I’d do the exercises with full-ROM.
Then there is the deadlift vs. rack-pull thing.
I do not compete in powerlifting or strongman, so I see no reason to pull from the floor (where the lower part of ROM is extremely dangerous, especially if you lack in the hip-mobility/flexibility part…).
I can lift way more when doing rack-pulls. I use those as a back-thickness exercise, and due to the increased load, they work very well for that (I also shrug backwards after lockout on every rep).
They do however pretty much take the hamstrings out of the movement(for the most part). That is of no concern to me, as I train hamstrings seperately with a variation of SLDL’s and other exercises.
Or take Pulldowns, Chinups, Pullups,… I do those in the upper half (if even) of ROM (stretch-position again), because pulling further down doesn’t seem to help my lat-width much… And I already train back-thickness with rack-pulls etc.
Of course I now allowed myself to get pulled into this debate…
Now I know how it happens to you all the time, Sento
[/quote]
All great examples Carnage. And all good illustrations of why using what a couple scientific studies say to create laws about lifting is a bad idea.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
By the say, I think a blog is an excellent idea Brick. [/quote]
I took this to mean people wanted Sen Say to have a blog:
[quote]sen say wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
By the say, I think a blog is an excellent idea Brick.
I took this to mean people wanted Sen Say to have a blog:
[/quote]
Really nice writing, damn funny. I liked it, well done man.
Brick-
I’m certainly not one to spend tons of time looking over the same types of boring blogs that most people keep, although having been corresponding with several top competitors since I first thought about competing, I have done all that I can to pick their brains, and find ‘common threads’ (success does leave clues!).
Your posts have always been enlightening, and with your background, and passion for training, I’ve always found worthwhile tidbits in your contributions on here. I’d certainly be interested to see what you put together.
S
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
Really nice writing, damn funny. I liked it, well done man.[/quote]
Why didn’t you sign up to ‘follow’ me??? Ain’t you want to be in my blog army !?!?!