Here’s a quote from PFT re:
Further scientific research conducted by S. Grllner & M. Udo indicates that while parallel increases in load and muscle fiber recruitment occur, this process happens only up to certain point. They perceive that threshold to be at 50% of a muscles maximum voluntary contractile ability. In fact, their research indicates that 90% of all available muscle fibers in a targeted muscle group have been activated w/ a load that is roughly 50% of a muscles one rep maximum.
Power Factor Training: A Scientific Approach to Building Lean Muscle Mass - Peter Sisco, John Little - Google Books
Once again, I must correct someone…I said I am going to attempt a partial (1/4 rep) Deadlift of 495lbs x 36 reps in 1:00…3 inch reps NOT one. I think that’s pretty damn good! Andy Bolton level…of course not.
Ok, i try to give my opinion, sorry my english…
Well, the problem is not speaking about mathematical approach, i think it may be better to introduce a more objective approach (i mean something that is the same for all people).
One of the most discussed topic in BB was high or low frequences; people wondering if was more useful 8 reps or 3 reps, also how many sets, in growing muscles. At the end we could solve this with a running sport idea: the alactic or analactic work out.
Analactic work out is when your body is working in condition of oxigen privation and he needs to produce piruvic acid that than trasform into lactic acid. Analactic work out will pass when you are using high frequences, it is like a marathone, a longer exercise will produce easily lactic acid.
Lactic work out is more used to have with low frecuences and strenght.
So, not all people reach analactic’s condition with the same sets or reps, this is the question of why some schedules with only numbers are often unuseful.
To not be to long, my conclusion is: we could have some like a mathematical approach speaking not about reps or sets, but analactic’s and lactic’s work.
To find out what are lactic’s frecuences for you, you should try yourself using a normal load(75%) and pushing since you can, when your muscles can’t go on means you have produced enough lactic acid, this is your frecuence for lactic wo.
[quote]75mgTren wrote:
Here’s a quote from PFT re:
Further scientific research conducted by S. Grllner & M. Udo indicates that while parallel increases in load and muscle fiber recruitment occur, this process happens only up to certain point. They perceive that threshold to be at 50% of a muscles maximum voluntary contractile ability. In fact, their research indicates that 90% of all available muscle fibers in a targeted muscle group have been activated w/ a load that is roughly 50% of a muscles one rep maximum.
[/quote]
Yes, I read that part of the book. My question was not in regards to what Sisco/Little quoted/stated, but rather to the accuracy of what they were quoting. The PFT book was copyrighted in 1997, that’s 10 years ago.
Waterbury has stated that according to his research into the matter (which is more current) that you need to actually lift 85% of 1RM in order to recruit all the voluntary muscle fibers/motor units.
Sure, at 50% of 1RM it might be feasible to believe that 90 % of voluntary MU would be recruited. However, that 10% that is not being recruited also has the higher potential for growth/strength.
Perhaps PFT counters this by advising that you perform the reps as fast as possible (keeping in line with the fact that the largest most powerful muscle fibers are also recruited in explosive/fast movements) in order to minimize time. Whether or not Little and Sisco realized this phenomenon and just never mentioned it’s importance, or just got lucky and happened to inadvertently fix that problem is impossible to say for sure. But, it’s interesting that it does happen to fall in line with what others are saying in the field today.
Good training,
Sentoguy
The first thing that comes to my mind is the legitimacy or scientific soundness/accuracy of these new studies. M. Udo’s work is used in JAMA and other medical journals/clinical studies. I’m not saying Sisco’s work is perfect or w/out fault.
All I’m saying is to date (besides SCT which is impractical for the garage lifter) PFT is the most scientifically sound system of strength training. Its most basic priniciple (lbs per minute / time) is a centuries old physics principle of measuring an engine’s output. Since human movement is in an arc ( pattern measuring distance gets needlessly complicated. PFT is NOT perfect.
Everyones’ physiology is different. In fact Sisco states that the PFT formula is a somewhat relative value. IWO, the level of size/strength I develop at a 25,000lbs/min PF might be beyond or behind the level You reach at a 25,000lbs/min PF for various factors which only serve to complicate a precise measurement of performance.
As I stated earlier, PFT is just scientifically sound enough to work and just simple enough for anyone to be able to correctly interpret & use it effectively.
So called “gurus” w/ bullshit “secret training methods” are worthless.
ooooookkkkkkkk…
So, what you are saying is that the research that CW, as a Neuro-Physiologist, has done is questionable? That’s your explanation?
Look, if PFT has worked for you then that’s great. And honestly, I wasn’t trying to say that I think the concept behind the method is crap. I was just citing some possible flaws in the details.
Yes, I get the concept behind pounds per minute and think that it does make some sense. Basically that’s the formula for horsepower minus the distance component. And honestly I can understand wanting to view the body as an engine. However, don’t you think that with a better understanding of how that engine works, we can develop better ways to improve it’s performance?
I was simply pointing out a few details in the book that I question, I was not trying to drag Little or Sisco’s name through the mud. Don’t you think that if we could improve upon PFT with all the knowledge/experience that we’ve gained over the past 10 years when the book was written that we should?
Good training,
Sentoguy
No as I said I don’t consider PFT to be perfect. I do consider the best organized system of training I’ve used so far.