Hmm. I understand. Thanks for breaking that down.
Very good explanation JJ.
[quote]5.0 wrote:
Brown nosing aside, I would argue that I could do more pull-ups quickly than I could slowly. I can do, let’s say 20 when doing them quickly, and only 15 when doing them slowly. That to me means I am taxing the muscle that much more when performing the exercise slowly.[/quote]
Or it could just mean that you’re spending more time hanging from the bar when you do them slowly. Lactic acid’s a bitch.
Time under tension seemed like it was a big deal a few years ago, but research has consistently shown peak tension to be of superior importance for both size and hypertrophy. Increasing the speed of execution is one way to achieve this.
Or, you can just look at any really big guy. Ronnie Coleman doesn’t lift any thing slowly; he lifts it any way he can, which is fast.
To play devils advocete though, i do think there is a place for slow concentric in BB. somewhere. lol!
As with abso-lutely fucking everything else, it can be useful applied occasionally…
But TUT is still a very important thing, there is no reason you cant have the maximum motor unit fatigue while keeping tut longer… think DC rest/pause which i now incorporate into many workouts), or think full ROM not letting the slack take during a rep… this is still TUT. But i now often do it with a forceful concentric.
dallasused - it is a very good question TBH, and i dont have a clue. I have a very thick, and difficult to read book where i am sure the answer lies, but i’ll be damned if i am opening that thing any time soon!
J
well the thread became dependant on your book 
No you dont understand, it wont take 5 mins, more like a month…!
ohh my bad :d
i am sure this thread will last very long as nothing is answered yet.
i will also report my cycle closely when i begin. i will try to understand it.
when more and more people, pl’ers join , this thread will be hilarious hopefully.
it is very enjoying to find and learn the unknown or unresearched.
but next cycle is test/dbol. tren wont be in this one so i cant really give an answer on experience for at least 9 months.
i have experienced one thing for sure. during my pct, i was only giving importance to one body part. i was only eating well at the days i train that muscle grop. and the morning of the other day.
results— all of my body except that part lost a lot of mass and strength while that bodypart improved !!! (prisoner’s pct by the way)
so what we can learn from this lesson that diet is much much more important than what people think.
and if you arent close to your limits, it will be very easy to hold onto mass.
i will write about the strength part probably in a few weeks.
because i am still regaining the mass. i am also off creatine for over 2 weeks and i am sure that affectts my strength too.
we will see what happens
[quote]5.0 wrote:
Dave_ wrote:
5.0 wrote:
If I can do 20 pull-ups at a dead hang, slow with proper form, my body is going to benefit multitudes more from that, rather than cranking out 20 pull-ups as fast as I can.
But what’s harder, pulling from a deadhang slowly or pulling from a deadhang as fast as you can?
I’d say the latter. Lifting the same weight faster is obviously more taxing, as it requires more power (force/time).
I think the reason “fast” pullups are considered easier is because most people don’t drop to a deadhang in a effort to do them quicker, and they don’t control the eccentric.
Dave_, your physique looks awesome! Very impressive.
Brown nosing aside, I would argue that I could do more pull-ups quickly than I could slowly. I can do, let’s say 20 when doing them quickly, and only 15 when doing them slowly. That to me means I am taxing the muscle that much more when performing the exercise slowly.[/quote]
Thanks 5.0!
I haven’t read all of the posts since my last one, so this may have been said already…
I see what you mean in terms of slower seeming somehow tougher, in the same way that static holds can have you shaking like a madman. I suppose slow concentrics probably do something for hypertrophy but is perhaps not so great for developing power… like JJ said everything has it’s place!
I like the DC approach, concentric = as fast as possible, eccentic = controlled.
yes controlled eccentric and fast concentric is the best one IMHO .
also sometimes one might use isometric hold.
[quote]5.0 wrote:
Dave_ wrote:
5.0 wrote:
If I can do 20 pull-ups at a dead hang, slow with proper form, my body is going to benefit multitudes more from that, rather than cranking out 20 pull-ups as fast as I can.
But what’s harder, pulling from a deadhang slowly or pulling from a deadhang as fast as you can?
I’d say the latter. Lifting the same weight faster is obviously more taxing, as it requires more power (force/time).
I think the reason “fast” pullups are considered easier is because most people don’t drop to a deadhang in a effort to do them quicker, and they don’t control the eccentric.
Dave_, your physique looks awesome! Very impressive.
Brown nosing aside, I would argue that I could do more pull-ups quickly than I could slowly. I can do, let’s say 20 when doing them quickly, and only 15 when doing them slowly. That to me means I am taxing the muscle that much more when performing the exercise slowly.[/quote]
5.0 - why can you do more when you perform them faster?
Because you are recruiting more muscle fibres!!!
Bodybuilding isnt about making a lift easy, which is why it is benefical to sometimes lift slowly - to make THE LIFT HARDER. It doesnt mean you are fatiguing the muscle faster, it means you are recruiting less fibres thus the weight feels heavier and less reps can be performed, but slowly, as each bundle fatigues the larger and larger fibres are used till total momentary muscular failure of ALL fibres… but many of the largest wont be used as the pain is too great. If you lift explosively you are more likely to fatigue the fast twitch fibres first…
Can you see…? I am not saying slow reps are bad or worse, i am just trying to explain the physiology behind WHY slow reps are harder. Because there is actually less muscle doing the same amount of work. This is extremely fatiguing, you are right, but to different fibres than explosive lifts. Slow reps are more fatiguing to the slow twich fibres… which have less room for growth… but still do.
JJ
Of course it is easier to do them faster (pace), overall, because you can use a stretch reflex out of the bottom, just as in almost any other lift
ALSO JJ i could not disagree more about being able to do the same amount of reps with more weight if you try to contract as fast as possible. 1) you simply tire out the type 2 muscle fibers faster 2) the NS will tire out more quickly, which can often be a limiting factor 3) the ability to recruit type2 fibers is dependent on them responding with a full contraction, and after only a few number of reps they will be very fatigues and the extra weight added will not be able to be lifted.
Note how Waterbury almost never uses such high reps while lifting AFAP, because the amount of weight youd have to use would be so little as to give minimal gains
Waterbury actually does it in a way i totally disagree with, i do not rate his work in the slightest.
We know that to fatigue all/most the fibres, you need to go to failure.
We ALSO know that you recruit the II’s when you contract as fast as possible… so if you want to get a growth response, then surely you would contract as fast as possible AND go to failure>?!
Waterbury is under the idea that as soon as he slows, the fibres are fatigued - true, BUT how many fibres? Hardly any as the lift could easily do a few more reps, often 2-5 more reps. Who stops 2 reps before failure? Skinny bastards.
You seen CW’s body? Not impressive IMO.
His idea is ok in that he is recruiting the fibres, but he isnt doing the kind of work needed to fatigue as much of a muscle as possible.
Your idea is the same, while the first few reps would fatigue, OF course you could complete more reps, i am on about a small % of 1RM here added to the pullups, not 90%1RM…
If he does 20 reps slow and steady, then he could do 20 reps with 10lbs strapped fast and powerful… you must agree?
JJ 
I’m beginning to see the light here. I understand what Dave_ and JJ are explaining, in terms of muscle use, fatigue, and growth.
Obviously, my thinking is stuck in the '70’s, when my father passed on his very limited knowledge to me about lifting. He was in the era of 3X10, slow and steady. Granted, my thinking isn’t that antiquated, but certainly needs some tweaking. Thanks for the breakdown.
Good -
It isnt to say that slow and steady is wrong. IMO CW’s method of fast is wrong…
IMO, as long as you go to failure - proper failure, ALL the muscle fibres have been exhausted… but that must be CMMF (is that the anagram? Concentric Momentary Muscular Failure?) due to the law of the size principle - all i do to ‘make sure’ is perform the concentric fast, powerful (even though it moves slow due to tle large weight), and a controlled - but not slow - eccentric, i focus on a contraction and try to reduce the stretch reflex.
Then I go to total failure on most sets, if not - I go to 1 rep off… this is actually making me feel like i dont push myself hard enough, so i am in the process of manning it up a little… drop sets and rest/pause and isometrics and the like…
You are a bodybuilder arent you 5.0? Rather than a PL?
JJ
I’ve never really thought about that, really. But I’m more concerned with how I look versus strength, though, if that answers the question.
It seems that I work against myself. The more I learn, even now, the more I understand that what I do is counterproductive. Shoot, it was only several years ago that I learned my diet was all wrong. And I’m 40 this year! A little embarrassing, I must say.
If its working though - who cares?!
Very true.
Why the change (back) in name and join/post info?
Its a new account… i made it a while back - it has the name i want though, so i decided to use it.
This is what i am named on the other boards, so i am going for consistency…!
forgot about that post count. Damnit, it took me all of a couple of months to get that many…!
B
I’m sure you know you can change names on the original account. Didn’t you go from Joe Brook to Joe Joseph to JJ, all under the same account? Why not just change that one to Brook? Of course, you’d have to remove that name off the new one…
No that that matter at all towards this thread.
Lol! I could have in hindsight… I thought it would be a pain in the arse - but when you put it like that… damn.
Why are you called 5.0?