I think as long as you lift at a reasonable speed, you’re fine. Like others said, dont worry about minute details like that if your a beginner. Just work hard, eat clean and the rest will follow.
I don’t know why you won’t ask your father about this. If this girl wants to make you become a Mr Perfect and Mr Right for you enough to become a Bodybuilder/pornstar with Jackie Chan’s fighting skills and Rambo’s toughness and brawn, you must really be looking at a Miss Universe body with a beautiful Mother Theresa soul and a NYmphomaniacs libido along with big brains.
Now let me help you with some facts.
This URL is a very common-sense based one about sex, penis size and all: http://www.sizegenetics.com/penissurvey.html
and also check wikipedia for Human penis size for scientifically-based facts and not yarn.
If you buy this crap about this being a woman’s only forum, read this load of horseshit: Female First Forum - Index page
and check the chick who says she wants a minimum of 8, and prefers 9 inches long and plus. check also this woman’s only poll Adult Mode Preference - Mister Poll
Also read this one for more fun and check the chart
NOW, READ THIS FOR FACTS AND TRUTH:
No woman buys vibrators and dildos over 8 inches…my ex-girlfriend and I are very close, she still hits me up on chat to tease, and she’s had 4 boyfriends already. I ama gentleman so i won’t accept, but she damn well asks a lot for another go at it, and I am a smidge above 6,5 inches and 5,5 girth, that’s 1,15 inches diameter.
Why? Because I know how to fuck a woman. Check this URL for some facts: no woman is going to ever buy in this store a big dildo that she can get inside her body more than 8 inches.
As my ex said, when i asked about what you said, " no woman can really notice a 1-inch difference unless she’s being poked at the cervix, the same a man won’t mind his car is not a Ferrari until he wants to race on the streets, but the problem is, no matter what car he drives, traffic will slow him down so a volkswagen can catch up if you drive it smartly". She said, “it’s why i would think you’d prefer a ferrari over a luxurious limousine-style humvee…it may look impressive, but driving it is really hard to do without getting into fender benders”. Only some women really like big ones, and most focus on orgasms.
Check this URL she gave me http://store.babeland.com/search?q=big+dildos type in the search bar “big dildos” or anything and you won’t see anything that can go into a girl more than 8 inches, 7 inches or 7,5 being the kinds they regard as big and being 6-6,5 inches what they feel as above average.
Size on a dick as the basis for performance is like the same comparison I made about a scale between tension vs time under tension. If you don’t go for one, you go for the other, plus, it’s easier to drive a small porsche that has a cool engine and performance than a big-ass monster truck with mega tires.
Women may say a lot of crap about enjoying a 9+ inch dick or anything over 8 as being in heaven. It’s the same philosophy of getting the most bang for your buck when you try to lift the heaviest load you can for a given number of reps to boost your ego and feel a good pump to do so…in truth, it’s going at it smart and precise what can get you there without relying on sheer size.
It’s quality vs quantity and trust me, that is an axiom that is never beaten. Plus, pumps don’t really work, and unless you save up for surgery, you won’0t be able to actually get an inch bigger overnight.
And who says that can help you at all? For all you know, you’ll lose a 6-inch iron rod and get an 8 inch rubber-flaccid tube.
I agree if you are worried about bar speed you should be experienced enough to not being asking this question…in other words you are not there yet
[quote]grande5 wrote:
What changed my views about speed is a Ronie Coleman workout with DB press. He did it very fast and i wondered why …
Then i read on this site an article that talked about the difference between putting load on the muscle and about the weight …
It is not the same .
I went to the gym and did the bench press fast as ronnie… it felt awsome as i felt my chest will explode and also i felt that i am putting too much load on the muscle and instead of weighting one second or so and hurt my joints.
that is a personal opinion though.
[/quote]
Hi all,
grande5 have you a link for the article of Ronnies site please ???
I have plenty of articles and own observations if you are interested anyone.
I to have been for the faster rep for the last 4 years, before I thought HIT was right, but not anymore, as a slower reps speeds do not produce as much power as a fast rep, as a 2/4 rep speed for one rep only produces 1 third of an horsepower, and a faster rep speed produces 2.2 horsepower, and that is for just one rep, if you would like be to show you the maths its quite simple.
Observation 1,
IF you can bench 500 for a 1RM, you would use 400 for your 2/4, and when lifting at 2/4 you would only be producing [b]400[/b] pounds of strength from your muscles.
As it takes 500.5 pounds to move 500 pounds.
But only 500 pounds to keep it moving.
Basically when I move that 400, and also my 1RM was 500, I would be producing [b] 500[/b] pounds of strength from my muscles, when moving at a very fast rate.
So if some people want to [b]under load[/b] their reps, with using only [b]80%[/b] of their strength, when we use [b]100%[/b] of our force/power/strength, fine by me but the question is [b]why[/b] ??? they want to [b]under load [/b] their reps ??? With a lower force/power/strength output ??? In the slower reps ???
Wayne
[quote]waynelucky wrote:
I to have been for the faster rep for the last 4 years, before I thought HIT was right, but not anymore, as a slower reps speeds do not produce as much power as a fast rep, as a 2/4 rep speed for one rep only produces 1 third of an horsepower, and a faster rep speed produces 2.2 horsepower, and that is for just one rep, if you would like be to show you the maths its quite simple.
[/quote]
I’m glad that you have found something that works for you, but when ever you start trying to turn lifting into physiques equations something always gets lost in translation. There are more factors present than simply the amount of horsepower produced (you also need to know the distance to calculate HP).
Take “Power Factor Training” for example. Makes perfect sense on paper, but doesn’t do crap in the actual results department.
Your logic is too simplified in this example. First you must produce more than 400 lbs of force to move 400 lbs (regardless of speed). Second, the point of doing purposely slower reps is to make absolutely certain that the target muscle is doing the work and to completely eliminate momentum (something that can be present in ballistic lifting).
Wait, so are you saying that you only ever do 1RM’s?
Sorry, but either you’re a troll, or you need a little more time under the bar before you start giving others advice.
Hmmm, I’m not so sure about that. Yes, it takes more than 500 lbs of force to lift 500 lbs, but since the pull of gravity is constant you must continue to produce more than 500 lbs of force to continue to lift it (throwing it would be a different story, but I doubt many people would be throwing 500 lbs on the bench). Weight is not the same as mass.
Wayne,
Your profile says that you’ve been training for 35 years and that you weigh between 185-195 lbs. What was your starting weight?
Also, are you a powerlifter? If so then I could understand doing a lot of 1RM’s. But keep in mind that this is a bodybuilding thread.
I want to say something to the little bro about penis size before we move on. I do wonder why your dad didn’t give you this talk, maybe you do not have yours or hate him as much as I hate my old man, but here goes…
I must say something, and this is without me wanting to brag. I am 7 inches and a half, almost 8, and I have been always considered very well endowed by White girls although pretty good, but not especially good by any sister I have been with prior to marrying my wife and mistress. Now, that has not been a guarantee that I have been good in bed.
Some women like their cérvix poked, as Vandal said. Picture this: if you put your dick inside her, and her vagina was a glass, some may like it that you poke the bottom of the glass, hard or soft, some do NOT.
In my experience, only 1 out of every 3 women likes that, and if you mean to do it all the time, at full forcé and contact, I would say 1 out of every 8 or so. Most women like you to play around the edges. That is what you will get when most women are asked that question after getting a taste of several lenghts and styles, 4 out of every 5, and I would say 6 out of every 7 is more likely.
It is like poking your nose, it feels harder when you shove all your finger in, but it is better when you don�??t go deep but really scratch the sides, the walls of the nostrils. It calms the itch down better than just shoving your finger like a dril. Same goes for women.
My 7 and a half have not been a blessing, neither a curse, I have to say that the most humbling experience came from meeting a porn star who said to me, in her most polite but firm manner that most porn stars in the business have had 9 inchers, and a lot of 8 inchers and 7+ and they�??d stick to a 5.5 or 6.5 inch man with a girth of 5 inches or maybe 6 as long as he knows what he�??s doing,
because as they said, it is the style that counts, and this does not mean a guy ahs to become a Yoga master and Kama Sutra expert resorting to all sort of spicy lubes and crazy play ideas or scenes to arouse them and all, he doesn�??t even have to look like a bodybuilder or model,
he just a hs to have what she said, and her friends agreed at our party, the Alpha Male aura that shows he is the top dog of the pack without him having to say it, or show it, so gold watches, luxury cars, 6 feet heights and chiseled profiles with baby blue eyes will not get them excited.
You would be surprised how many women would choose a macho man like Antonio banderas at the movie Zorro if those men can be real ( I get that question askeda lot from my friends in Jersey now that i live in Mexico for company businesses) even if they sport a 6 incher and do not know kama Sutra, since orgasm and sexual/sensual play are heavily anchored in ego conceptions.
Basically, the more they can brag about the man they go to bed with, the more excited they are as their ego is tickled enough to make their g-spot buzz by knowing they are going to bed with a man above all the rest, even if he is shorter in ehight and penis lenght, even if they would like a 9incher more, in the end, is what you do with it and who you are what gets them to orgasm, not your dick size alone.
I have been into BDSM since I was 19�?�i have been in threesomes, FFM orgies, swinger parties, slept around with at least 1000 women since then, and I do feel sorry for spending so much time bragging about size and sleeping around to mark another nothch on my bedpost and sacrificing quality over quantity, but I thank God my wife and Mistress found me and turned me in the right direction.
Now, unless you got a penis under 6-6,5 inches, as 25% of the world men have, you are not small, you are average and average on the good side, top level, so do not feel bad because you do not belong to the 20% who sport a 6,5-7incher or the select 10% with 7,5-8inches and the 5% who can brag about going above 8-8,5 inches.
I�??d say only 2% of the males in this world have a 9 incher. That does no teman they are betetr than the other 98%.
Shit, i am almost 8 and I know that after all I have done, and learned, I am still surpassed by 6-inch altinos here who do not need to know kamasutra and medical facts to make a woman scream more than if they had a 10 inch vibrator with a hot lube shoved into them while getting them horny as hell. Ever wondered why their women are so good in ebd but don�??t seem to want go come into ours no matter our size?
Savage, my father is dead. It’s why i don’t ask him about it.
I started friday trying to do what it was said about lifting a laod as many times as I could. I checked a website about the classic 8 x 8 and I saw something strange: you must do 8 x 8 2 times a week, using a tempo cadence of 3 seconds to lower, pause for 1 at the bottom and lift at 2 seconds tempo, or anything that gets 4 seconds in the eccentric added to the pause at the bottom if you are doing one. Only do 1 exercise per bodypart iof doing it this way, the classic way.
But if the tempo changes from 402 to 201, then they said to do 2 exercises, and if the tempo was 10X or so, do 4 exercises. All the time keeping it at 8x8 2 times a week.
I think I must have understood it wrong, I did dips today, and I did 20 reps per set and felt good, but it felt great to put ona backpack full of old files and stuff we had to dump and do dips at the office gym and I loved 8 x 8 going heavy. in dips and pushups, but since it was too much, I then did the other two exercises as flyes and crossovers doing 10 reps by 8 sets as well, but felt good…I did good then even if I feel i could have gone heavier on the flyes and crossovers and kept it at 8 x 8 ?
Hi Sentoguy
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
waynelucky wrote:
I to have been for the faster rep for the last 4 years, before I thought HIT was right, but not anymore, as a slower reps speeds do not produce as much power as a fast rep, as a 2/4 rep speed for one rep only produces 1 third of an horsepower, and a faster rep speed produces 2.2 horsepower, and that is for just one rep, if you would like be to show you the maths its quite simple.
I’m glad that you have found something that works for you, but when ever you start trying to turn lifting into physiques equations something always gets lost in translation. There are more factors present than simply the amount of horsepower produced (you also need to know the distance to calculate HP).
Take “Power Factor Training” for example. Makes perfect sense on paper, but doesn’t do crap in the actual results department.[/quote]
Same with HIT sounds great, but its only good for beginners, and maybe the odd cycle.
Maybe your right about turning things into equations, and little things getting lose, but I really enjoy this, as then you can see how much power you are generating, and its a way of converting the HIT guys, but thats very hard, as they dont like it when they are proved wrong.
I have converted it to horsepower as most people can relate to this better.
The power out-put of one super slow rep 10/5, one slow rep 2/4, and one fast rep at .5/.5.
At 200 pounds for moving it 1.85 meters.
The fast rep .5/.5,
SO 1 SECOND DIVIDED BY 1650 = 1650 Joules. DIVIDED BY 746 = 2.2 HORSEPOWER.
The slow rep 2/4,
SO 6 SECONDS DIVIDED BY 1650 = 275 Joules. DIVIDED BY 746 = roughly 1 third of one HORSEPOWER.
The super slow rep 10/5,
SO 15 SECONDS DIVIDED BY 1650 = 110 Joules. DIVIDED BY 746 = roughly 1 seventh of one HORSEPOWER.
ONE OF THE FASTER REPS .5/.5 PRODUCES roughly 800% MORE POWER, HORSEPOWER THAN THE SLOWER REP 2/4, and roughly 1500% more power then the SUPER SLOW REP, QUITE INTERESTING I THINK.
746 Joules to 1 horsepower.
This is a fantastic site all, and it’s not that difficult, actually its quite fun.
http://protraineronline.com/past/Jul-Aug07/article8.cfm
http://protraineronline.com/past/Nov-Dec07/article7.cfm
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Observation 1,
IF you can bench 500 for a 1RM, you would use 400 for your 2/4, and when lifting at 2/4 you would only be producing [b]400[/b] pounds of strength from your muscles.
Your logic is too simplified in this example. First you must produce more than 400 lbs of force to move 400 lbs (regardless of speed). Second, the point of doing purposely slower reps is to make absolutely certain that the target muscle is doing the work and to completely eliminate momentum (something that can be present in ballistic lifting).[/quote]
There is not momentum in the faster reps until the end when you stop pushing, when you release the energy that your muscles have just made, just imagine a one pound weigh in your palm of you hand, now start turning you whole body around and put your hand out in front of you, and start going a little faster, you will find the pound weight staying in your hand, and the faster you turn the harder the pound stays in your hand, now suddenly stop, the pound weight goes out of your hand, thats now the stored energy, or in other words momentum, that is basic physics in action.
As Sir Isaac Newton, says below; an increase in the upward acceleration will increase and not offload the force exerted on the lifter.
Albert Einstein,
Take a bathroom scale into an elevator, stand on the scales, and see when it registers the greatest weight ??? When the elevator is at full stop, or is moving upwards or is moving downwards. You will note that offloading takes place when the elevator accelerates downwards and that enhanced loading takes place as you begin to accelerate upwards.
Sir Isaac Newton,
Newton’s 2nd Law,
An increase in the upward acceleration will increase and not offload the force exerted on the lifter. The only way to offload a muscle is to accelerate downwards with the load, not to slow it down while going upwards. The only way to totally eliminate production of momentum is to do isometric training. Mind you, load or force does not change with speed of repetition, but with only with acceleration, no matter what speed you are moving at.
Only on light weights below 50% of your 1RM, and very fast reps would you feel any kind of offloading when repping, and to be honest I do not really notice this, do you ??? As I use from about 65 to 90% of my 1RM, I am more concentrated at moving the weight in a fast controlled manner, which does not break terminal velocity.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
So if some people want to [b]under load[/b] their reps, with using only [b]80%[/b] of their strength, when we use [b]100%[/b] of our force/power/strength, fine by me but the question is [b]why[/b] ??? they want to [b]under load [/b] their reps ??? With a lower force/power/strength output ??? In the slower reps ???
Wayne
Wait, so are you saying that you only ever do 1RM’s?
Sorry, but either you’re a troll, or you need a little more time under the bar before you start giving others advice.[/quote]
No I dont do 1RM at all it was just to show that a person repping slow does not use their full power/force/strength/effort/intensity.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
waynelucky wrote:
As it takes 500.5 pounds to move 500 pounds.
But only 500 pounds to keep it moving.
Hmmm, I’m not so sure about that. Yes, it takes more than 500 lbs of force to lift 500 lbs, but since the pull of gravity is constant you must continue to produce more than 500 lbs of force to continue to lift it (throwing it would be a different story, but I doubt many people would be throwing 500 lbs on the bench). Weight is not the same as mass.[/quote]
It could be any weight, but if you stood on a force plate, you would find it takes 500.1 pound to move the 500 pounds, but only 500 pounds to keep it moving, just look it up on the net.
Wayne
Hi Wayne,
[quote]waynelucky wrote:
Hi Sentoguy
Sentoguy wrote:
waynelucky wrote:
I to have been for the faster rep for the last 4 years, before I thought HIT was right, but not anymore, as a slower reps speeds do not produce as much power as a fast rep, as a 2/4 rep speed for one rep only produces 1 third of an horsepower, and a faster rep speed produces 2.2 horsepower, and that is for just one rep, if you would like be to show you the maths its quite simple.
I’m glad that you have found something that works for you, but when ever you start trying to turn lifting into physiques equations something always gets lost in translation. There are more factors present than simply the amount of horsepower produced (you also need to know the distance to calculate HP).
Take “Power Factor Training” for example. Makes perfect sense on paper, but doesn’t do crap in the actual results department.
Same with HIT sounds great, but its only good for beginners, and maybe the odd cycle.
Maybe your right about turning things into equations, and little things getting lose, but I really enjoy this, as then you can see how much power you are generating, and its a way of converting the HIT guys, but thats very hard, as they dont like it when they are proved wrong.
I have converted it to horsepower as most people can relate to this better.
The power out-put of one super slow rep 10/5, one slow rep 2/4, and one fast rep at .5/.5.
[/quote]
Well, first I wouldn’t consider myself a “HIT” guy (in the classic sense), though I am a fan of low volume, high intensity training. But, it’s not really fair to say that you’re proving HIT wrong simply because there is less force production during their reps. HIT has been proven effective. Just take a look at Casey Viator, Mike Mentzer, Dorian Yates, Sergio Oliva (though Sergio isn’t the best example since he didn’t train HIT for the majority of his careet). Those men are all living proof that Arthur Jones’ principles (HIT) work.
Like I said before, power production is just one of many factors that influence hypertrophy.
Yes, indeed interesting. Though things such as time under tension, the stretch shortening cycle (the elastic properties of the connective tissues), fatigue, etc… play a role in building muscle. So it’s not as simple as just demonstrating which rep produces more force.
Thanks for the links, I’ll have to check them out when I get a chance.
Yes, you’re right. I was talking about using “body english”, bouncing the weight, etc… as ways to gain momentum, which are much more prevalent in fast reps than they are in slow controlled rep tempos.
Completely agree. Though, the presence of momentum (or the possibility of it) is why bands are often used for “speed” work.
Oh, ok cool. I see what you are saying then. The thing is, depending on how they perform the set fatigue will mandate that to perform the last rep, they will have to be exerting maximal force on the bar to accomplish their final rep (and the bar will be moving fairly slowly, similar to a true 1RM).
Are you talking about straight up, or along the ground though? If you’re talking about rolling the weight, then yeah, it will take less force to keep it moving. But, if the physics that you quoted earlier is true, then you still need to exert more than 500 lbs to keep lifting it, otherwise you’re saying that you do gain momentum during a lift.
An object at rest will tend to stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force. And an object in motion will tend to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force. But since the pull of gravity is constant, it will always require more force to move the weight (or keep it moving) than the force being exerted on it by gravity (500 lbs equals the mass of the bar times the constant pull of gravity, approximately 227.27 kg times 2.2). So it will always require more than 500 lbs of force to lift the weight, or keep it moving. If the force exerted on the bar was 500 lbs, the bar would not move up or down (an isometric rep).
Or at least that’s my understanding.
That was WAY more equations I’ve ever seen someone do with lifting. If you add 100 lbs to your overhead presses over a years time for the same reps(let’s say 10) with the same(good) form are they going to be bigger? Can’t we keep things simple like that?
My friend ScrawnySavant, I am sorry, I guess I need to take it all on me, I am sorry for saying that about your father, didn’t mean any harm but what is written is written and we cannot change it, so I apologize for any inconvenience.
I am glad to know you do ok with the enw training, and if trying to max out on reps with a load is what gets you going, do it, as long as you lower with control, it doesn’t matter if it barely reaches the 1-second timeframe parameter. Just be safe and eat well.
The 8 x 8 program can be modified as you use it, and I’d say I would probably reduce it a little, but try to make it a little bit more HSS100 like this: do first 6 sets of 6 reps, heavy as hell, then do another exercise in 8 x 8, then do 3-4 rest-pasue sets or drop sets, then move to 2-3 sets of max reps of isolation exercises and finish with a 100-reps “set” of an especific exercise, very light, that you feel gets you the final stimuli needed.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Hi Wayne,
waynelucky wrote:
Hi Sentoguy
Sentoguy wrote:
waynelucky wrote:
I to have been for the faster rep for the last 4 years, before I thought HIT was right, but not anymore, as a slower reps speeds do not produce as much power as a fast rep, as a 2/4 rep speed for one rep only produces 1 third of an horsepower, and a faster rep speed produces 2.2 horsepower, and that is for just one rep, if you would like be to show you the maths its quite simple.
I’m glad that you have found something that works for you, but when ever you start trying to turn lifting into physiques equations something always gets lost in translation. There are more factors present than simply the amount of horsepower produced (you also need to know the distance to calculate HP).
Take “Power Factor Training” for example. Makes perfect sense on paper, but doesn’t do crap in the actual results department.
Same with HIT sounds great, but its only good for beginners, and maybe the odd cycle.
Maybe your right about turning things into equations, and little things getting lose, but I really enjoy this, as then you can see how much power you are generating, and its a way of converting the HIT guys, but thats very hard, as they dont like it when they are proved wrong.
I have converted it to horsepower as most people can relate to this better.
The power out-put of one super slow rep 10/5, one slow rep 2/4, and one fast rep at .5/.5.
Well, first I wouldn’t consider myself a “HIT” guy (in the classic sense), though I am a fan of low volume, high intensity training. But, it’s not really fair to say that you’re proving HIT wrong simply because there is less force production during their reps. HIT has been proven effective. Just take a look at Casey Viator, Mike Mentzer, Dorian Yates, Sergio Oliva (though Sergio isn’t the best example since he didn’t train HIT for the majority of his careet). Those men are all living proof that Arthur Jones’ principles (HIT) work.
Like I said before, power production is just one of many factors that influence hypertrophy.[/quote]
I did do HIT for years, but like you still consider myself a lower volume, high intensity training person.
Hmm, without the faster reps and higher production, what I found is you hit sticking points far to fast, and then each time you visited the gym you just get one or three reps more, and progress is so slow, and you see this all the time on the HIT forum.
Take the other day, I was doing John Casler Direct Compensation Training, 30/15/10, and on the second set of 15, I could have got 18 reps, but now I just get the desired reps and terminate the set, and have FULL progress for six to fourteen months, on rep 15 I decided to try it very slow, I could not at all get it up, then reversed direction and tried again using a faster rep, it went up.
These people, Casey Viator, Mike Mentzer, Dorian Yates, Sergio Olivia build their bodies with other training, and did not do HIT, Just look at Dorian Yates videos, fast reps three to five sets of one exercise.
Yep it�??s just one of the factors, but what are the others ???
Here is one more;
If your doing 1 rep with 400Ibs = 60 seconds, will move =400Ibs
If your doing 10 reps at 2/4 with 400Ibs = 60 seconds, will move 400x10=4000Ibs
You would fail in the faster reps at about 45 seconds.
You would do 22.5 reps at 1/1 with 400Ibs = 45 seconds, will move 400x10=9000Ibs
You would do 45 reps at .5/.5 with 400Ibs = 45 seconds, will move 400x10=18000Ibs
There is a big difference in the accumulated poundage moved, one more bit of compelling bits of evidence and proof in the snowball effects of the faster reps.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
waynelucky wrote:
At 200 pounds for moving it 1.85 meters.
The fast rep .5/.5,
SO 1 SECOND DIVIDED BY 1650 = 1650 Joules. DIVIDED BY 746 = 2.2 HORSEPOWER.
The slow rep 2/4,
SO 6 SECONDS DIVIDED BY 1650 = 275 Joules. DIVIDED BY 746 = roughly 1 third of one HORSEPOWER.
The super slow rep 10/5,
SO 15 SECONDS DIVIDED BY 1650 = 110 Joules. DIVIDED BY 746 = roughly 1 seventh of one HORSEPOWER.
ONE OF THE FASTER REPS .5/.5 PRODUCES roughly 800% MORE POWER, HORSEPOWER THAN THE SLOWER REP 2/4, and roughly 1500% more power then the SUPER SLOW REP, QUITE INTERESTING I THINK.
746 Joules to 1 horsepower.
Yes, indeed interesting. Though things such as time under tension, the stretch shortening cycle (the elastic properties of the connective tissues), fatigue, etc… play a role in building muscle. So it’s not as simple as just demonstrating which rep produces more force.[/quote]
A very clever man once told me,
Some mistakenly think that just having a muscle under tension is relevant, when the relevant aspect is the “amount” of tension a muscle is under, when where, and for how long.
Measuring time under tension is a waste of time in this area. The reason the TUT’s cannot be compared is because of the maximum amount of tension and work during the set.
TUT is only valuable to know if you know the Tn (tension) and how it relates to the tension stimulus needed to produce a result. The equation is “TIME” under “TENSION”. Each of these need quantification in order to be result producing.
Simply calculating TUT and proclaiming it is adequate stimulus is not only “haphazard”, but of no meaningful use.
While tension during faster reps does vary slightly due to positive and negative acceleration, the MMT (Maximum Muscle Tensions) MMMT (Momentary Maximum Muscle Tension) are the transition from negative to positive, and they greater, and the “average” tension for each rep, is at least the same. This will depend on the exercise, and the amount of weight used. I am not
talking about Olympic lifting here.
Speed is a function of how much force you create against an external load. In most cases (to build strength and hypertrophy) you would want to use a High Intensity (High Effort) against a load that gave you the sufficient reps.
Volitionally slowed (Lower Effort) reps will not offer the same degree of stimulus AT ALL.
Yes I do a last burn/pump set with the stretch shortening cycle in mind, I do say 10/12 reps of dead stop at the top and bottom.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
waynelucky wrote:
This is a fantastic site all, and it’s not that difficult, actually its quite fun.
Thanks for the links, I’ll have to check them out when I get a chance.
Sentoguy wrote:
Observation 1,
IF you can bench 500 for a 1RM, you would use 400 for your 2/4, and when lifting at 2/4 you would only be producing [b]400[/b] pounds of strength from your muscles.
Your logic is too simplified in this example. First you must produce more than 400 lbs of force to move 400 lbs (regardless of speed). Second, the point of doing purposely slower reps is to make absolutely certain that the target muscle is doing the work and to completely eliminate momentum (something that can be present in ballistic lifting).
There is not momentum in the faster reps until the end when you stop pushing, when you release the energy that your muscles have just made, just imagine a one pound weigh in your palm of you hand, now start turning you whole body around and put your hand out in front of you, and start going a little faster, you will find the pound weight staying in your hand, and the faster you turn the harder the pound stays in your hand, now suddenly stop, the pound weight goes out of your hand, thats now the stored energy, or in other words momentum, that is basic physics in action.
Yes, you’re right. I was talking about using “body english”, bouncing the weight, etc… as ways to gain momentum, which are much more prevalent in fast reps than they are in slow controlled rep tempos.
Only on light weights below 50% of your 1RM, and very fast reps would you feel any kind of offloading when repping, and to be honest I do not really notice this, do you ??? As I use from about 65 to 90% of my 1RM, I am more concentrated at moving the weight in a fast controlled manner, which does not break terminal velocity.
Completely agree. Though, the presence of momentum (or the possibility of it) is why bands are often used for “speed” work.
Sentoguy wrote:
So if some people want to [b]under load[/b] their reps, with using only [b]80%[/b] of their strength, when we use [b]100%[/b] of our force/power/strength, fine by me but the question is [b]why[/b] ??? they want to [b]under load [/b] their reps ??? With a lower force/power/strength output ??? In the slower reps ???
Wayne
Wait, so are you saying that you only ever do 1RM’s?
Sorry, but either you’re a troll, or you need a little more time under the bar before you start giving others advice.
No I dont do 1RM at all it was just to show that a person repping slow does not use their full power/force/strength/effort/intensity.
Oh, ok cool. I see what you are saying then. The thing is, depending on how they perform the set fatigue will mandate that to perform the last rep, they will have to be exerting maximal force on the bar to accomplish their final rep (and the bar will be moving fairly slowly, similar to a true 1RM).[/quote]
Sentoguy yep you and me seem to see eye to eye.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
waynelucky wrote:
As it takes 500.5 pounds to move 500 pounds.
But only 500 pounds to keep it moving.
Hmmm, I’m not so sure about that. Yes, it takes more than 500 lbs of force to lift 500 lbs, but since the pull of gravity is constant you must continue to produce more than 500 lbs of force to continue to lift it (throwing it would be a different story, but I doubt many people would be throwing 500 lbs on the bench). Weight is not the same as mass.
It could be any weight, but if you stood on a force plate, you would find it takes 500.1 pound to move the 500 pounds, but only 500 pounds to keep it moving, just look it up on the net.
Wayne
Are you talking about straight up, or along the ground though? If you’re talking about rolling the weight, then yeah, it will take less force to keep it moving. But, if the physics that you quoted earlier is true, then you still need to exert more than 500 lbs to keep lifting it, otherwise you’re saying that you do gain momentum during a lift.
An object at rest will tend to stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force. And an object in motion will tend to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force. But since the pull of gravity is constant, it will always require more force to move the weight (or keep it moving) than the force being exerted on it by gravity (500 lbs equals the mass of the bar times the constant pull of gravity, approximately 227.27 kg times 2.2). So it will always require more than 500 lbs of force to lift the weight, or keep it moving. If the force exerted on the bar was 500 lbs, the bar would not move up or down (an isometric rep).
Or at least that’s my understanding.[/quote]
Yep that�??s what I thought before, but I popped into a physics site and they said to move 500 pounds you need 500.5 and to keep it moving you only need 500 pound, weird but seems true, you could double check it if you join a physics forum.
Wayne
Yep that�??s what I thought before, but I popped into a physics site and they said to move 500 pounds you need 500.5 and to keep it moving you only need 500 pound, weird but seems true, you could double check it if you join a physics forum.
Wayne
This is because the initial charge is harder as you must fight the effect of gravity creating inertial force, but once the laod is movd, it’s own madd creates a kinetic energy that assists the force lifting it, similar to the difference between static and dynamic friction coefficients: If I am to move a plate along the surface of a table, the coefficient to make it move from 0 meters per second to 1 meter per second is higher than to keep it moving. The same applies to the weights.
Now, if I were to advise somethign about tempo, my take on it is that a set has got to be productive, so i am all for the idea of getting as many reps out of a load as possible. Lift by getting the muscles contracted as hard as you can, thus lifting fast, but without using momentum or explosiveness and acceleration, easy trick if you maitain the speed a little controlled, put on some brakes to make sure tension remains at it’s highest and lwoer resisting the weight enough to keep the tension, but using as little energy you can to save it up for more reps.
I can lift 300 pounds 2 times or 4 times, depending if I use a 2010 or a 1010 tempo, because the extra second of energy spent and stress received in the 2 seconds lowering of a 2-rep set with the same 300 pounds is the same that would let me lift the same 300 pounds at a 1-second eccentric for 4 reps. And it would get me stronger.
My advise is to do the 1-10 rep set.
Start with a heavy load that is your 1RM and do 1 rep, then rack the laod, drop off some weight and get 2 reps, then do it again. Each drop shouldn’t take more than 10 seconds, and you will get to do 10 reps at the end, so you’ll do this as a rest-pause set, getting 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10 reps so that’s 50 reps per set.
The tempo should tell you the laod to use. Your 1RM load is the one that lets you accelerate the weight and give the outmost power to the lifting, and you’ll also try to milk the lowering to get all you can from it, but as soon as you start dropping off weight, since the drops are tight, 10% or so, not less than 5% and not more than 15%, and the rest period so small, you will then shorten the eccentric to save up strenght to complete more reps.
trick is, you won’t do this for more than 1 exercise. You can train like this 2 times a week, and I would admit that if you do get good, then you will be able to do 2 exercises per muscle group a session, both in this manner, but I’d advise more to pair this with a 100-rep-set on an isolation exercise.
if that is a pick of yourself you have more to worry about then bar speed…
Hi there quadmaster,
[quote]quadmaster_fly wrote:
Yep that�??s what I thought before, but I popped into a physics site and they said to move 500 pounds you need 500.5 and to keep it moving you only need 500 pound, weird but seems true, you could double check it if you join a physics forum.
Wayne
This is because the initial charge is harder as you must fight the effect of gravity creating inertial force, but once the laod is movd, it’s own madd creates a kinetic energy that assists the force lifting it, similar to the difference between static and dynamic friction coefficients: If I am to move a plate along the surface of a table, the coefficient to make it move from 0 meters per second to 1 meter per second is higher than to keep it moving. The same applies to the weights.[/quote]
Thx
[quote]quadmaster_fly wrote:
Now, if I were to advise somethign about tempo, my take on it is that a set has got to be productive, so i am all for the idea of getting as many reps out of a load as possible. Lift by getting the muscles contracted as hard as you can, thus lifting fast, but without using momentum or explosiveness and acceleration, easy trick if you maitain the speed a little controlled, put on some brakes to make sure tension remains at it’s highest and lwoer resisting the weight enough to keep the tension, but using as little energy you can to save it up for more reps.[/quote]
I lift as fast as I can now, as it produces the post power output.
[quote]quadmaster_fly wrote:
I can lift 300 pounds 2 times or 4 times, depending if I use a 2010 or a 1010 tempo, because the extra second of energy spent and stress received in the 2 seconds lowering of a 2-rep set with the same 300 pounds is the same that would let me lift the same 300 pounds at a 1-second eccentric for 4 reps. And it would get me stronger.[/quote]
Not understand your tempo, as I if I lift and lower for 1 second each way I put 1/1.
[quote]quadmaster_fly wrote:
My advise is to do the 1-10 rep set.
Start with a heavy load that is your 1RM and do 1 rep, then rack the laod, drop off some weight and get 2 reps, then do it again. Each drop shouldn’t take more than 10 seconds, and you will get to do 10 reps at the end, so you’ll do this as a rest-pause set, getting 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10 reps so that’s 50 reps per set.
The tempo should tell you the laod to use. Your 1RM load is the one that lets you accelerate the weight and give the outmost power to the lifting, and you’ll also try to milk the lowering to get all you can from it, but as soon as you start dropping off weight, since the drops are tight, 10% or so, not less than 5% and not more than 15%, and the rest period so small, you will then shorten the eccentric to save up strenght to complete more reps.
trick is, you won’t do this for more than 1 exercise. You can train like this 2 times a week, and I would admit that if you do get good, then you will be able to do 2 exercises per muscle group a session, both in this manner, but I’d advise more to pair this with a 100-rep-set on an isolation exercise.[/quote]
Like this idea, is it more for size or strength ???
I do this now, you might like to try, its NOT my program, but it has given me an advanced trainer of 47 6 to 14 moths of full progress, not sticking points at all, all reps were got each and every time, and when they were I terminated the set. Worked each body part once every 5 to 7 days all depends on your age, it must be on a split. The forth set will not be needed at first, but if you want to do it for a burn/pump set fine, adding only one to two pounds per week, but hey in 9 months you will add 36 pounds to your curl, and 76 pounds if you add 2 pounds, long steady progress is always best of all.
Hypertrophy,
Set 1, 30 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 2, add 25% 15 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 3 add 15% 10 reps, set 4, 10 to 15 reps, you drop down weight to your first or second sets weights, and do a full stop at the top and bottom to take advantage of Good recognition of the role of stretch in sarcolemma (cell membrane of a muscle fiber or muscle cell. The membrane is designed to receive and conduct stimuli.) Disruption.
Strength,
Set 1, 20 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 2, add 25% 15 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 3 add 15% 10 reps, set 4, which is 5 to 10 reps, drop down weight to your second sets weights, and do a full stop at the top and bottom to take advantage of Good recognition of the role of stretch in sarcolemma (cell membrane of a muscle fiber or muscle cell. The membrane is designed to receive and conduct stimuli.) Disruption.
Wayne
Hypertrophy,
Set 1, 30 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 2, add 25% 15 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 3 add 15% 10 reps, set 4, 10 to 15 reps, you drop down weight to your first or second sets weights, and do a full stop at the top and bottom to take advantage of Good recognition of the role of stretch in sarcolemma (cell membrane of a muscle fiber or muscle cell.
The membrane is designed to receive and conduct stimuli.) Disruption.
I have seen this program before, but the way you posted it is confusiong…allow me to clarify…the rest periods are always going to be 5 minutes, yes? the first set allows me to add weight, so do the second, but slightly less (25% on the first and 15% on the second…
¿and you do not add any weight for the fourth set?) and you basically do 4 sets or segments and then…how many times you do this 30+15+15+10-15 ? it’s the opposite of mine. The 1-10 program is for strenght and size, but I’d say it’s a 2:1 ratio, 2 parts strenght and 1 size, but it is a fast-track program to get you big…
some say that if you lift the heavier loads, from the 1-rep to the 5-rep segments with a slow eccentric and speed it up for the 6-10 rep sets, you get bigger than if you stuck to a slow tempo or a fast tempo on all segments…
Now, your program is going from high to low and heavy reps, but it’s a relative “heavy” as you are under the cummulative effect of exhaustion and tired, so it’s more like 2 parts size and 1 part strenght/power endurance. I do like it a lot…I’d pair it with the 100 rep set as Thib says on his HSS100 to get more size gains and speed up recovery following a soft verion of Waterbury’s “100 Reps to Bigger Muscles”.
However, please clarify your method…it would be nice…also, for the ones that do count tempo…what tempos would be best suited for people who uses it to grow?
I will go nuts here, but isn’t resting 1-2 minutes, adding weight and moving from 15-rep sets to 6-rep sets or such something that has been around so long as walking upright?
Now…I would prefer to go with the 1-to-10 method with a twist: instead of lifting as heavy as possible on the first reps, from your single to your set of 5, try to lift as fast as possible,m with maximal force output, and to resist the laod as much as possible…odds are that you must try to simply make the eccentric for the first sets of 1 to the set of 5 reps, last 4 seconds to 2 and then after you hit the 6-rep set, just go wild and don’t count tempo, if you barely get 1 second of eccentric TUT is fine, as long as you max out. That will grow your muscles
Shit, stop confusing the little brother, ok?
Listen bro, Scrawny…get to youtube and check out the “24-Hour Ghetto Workout” and you’ll see how it’s done. My advise has never been to watch videos donde by pro’s, they are like when boxers make movies, it’s very technical, beautiful…and unreal as shit. Just plain all show no go.
Now…don’t worry if your eccentric takes barely 1 second, less than that or just half a second, shit, don’t worry if the whole rep takes 1 second, just make sure the tension is high and you give your best.
The sport is called weightLIFTING, not weightLOWERING. Tempo only works if you are lifting medium-light or barely close to heavy shit. Nobody who lifts a big-ass laod can actually count tempo.
Try this: go to the dipping bars, or bench press, pick up a load where you can squeeze some good reps, you said heavy works sometimes, well, take anything 6-8 reps then, try to always keep yourself in that zone, and start lifting, rest as litle as possible…odds are by the 8th set you’ll get only 3-4 reps per set, and you rest almost 2 minutes between sets when you didn’t need much rest between them over 30 seconds or 1 minute. That’s when you should stop and move to a very high-rep exercise, 2 or 3 maximal rep sets of an exercise, compound, light weights, so each set is above 15 reps, and then move to a 100-rep set. That will get you big.
Now, I still recall your penis doubts, odds are, your girl and you must be getting it off since you don’t write so much…everything cool? let us help