Question About Pre-Fatiguing

Training
561

[quote]NikH wrote:

[quote]krillin wrote:

Not sure what you’re misunderstanding here, Sentoguy’s post made perfect sense and at this point I wonder if you are just arguing for argument’s sake.

  1. It is a good analogy, hamstrings are synergists in squatting and are pretty involved, and depending on width of stance, leverage, and depth yes, the quads may be more involved to a degree. Just because it is an antagonist doesn’t mean the muscle can’t be heavily involved in a squat, look up “Lombard’s Paradox.” And why would you single out the glutes as apposed to the hamstrings? Personally I feel the squat more in hamstrings than glutes (due to my glute strength), though that will vary from person to person.

I had the same experience as Sentoguy both with DC training and a John Meadow’s routine. I found that lying or seated leg curls before squat or leg press made me feel quads more, and quads were always trashed the next two days. I have tried both ways in doing hammer or reverse curls before biceps or after, both seem to work well for me.

  1. I didn’t understand him as arguing what you said, but hey, feel free to argue whatever point you want.
    [/quote]

I am not arguing about that. We are talking about X’s logic. I think Meadow and DC training are both good. In this case the person who were doing squats was meant to have weaker glutes, and training prefatiguing them would make him fail earlier and train his quads less properly. (training triceps before benchpress will make your bench weak and chest untrained)[/quote]

What that actually does is fatigue the dominant muscle group sufficiently so that the target muscle can be stressed with less weight - a good thing. A weaker max is only an issue if you’re chasing performance. You wouldn’t want to pre-exhaust in that situation as it’s bringing your fatigue threshold down. If your goal is hypertrophy, targeted stimulation is key, not putting up a PR.

562

people on one side of the discussion are describing a method of tiring out the target muscle with an exercise prior to using another exercise. This could cause growth in the target muscle.

people on the other side of the discussion are describing a method of tiring out the non-target muscles with an exercise prior to using another exercise. This could cause growth in the target muscle.

both are probably correct, and there is no point arguing over semantics about which is called what

563

[quote]NikH wrote:

Are you reading my posts at all?

  1. Hamstring is the antagonist to quad and is alot less involved in squatting than the quad.
    [/quote]

I’m reading your entire post, very carefully and responding to them as articulately as possible. Are you reading my posts? Or, maybe a better question would be, do you really understand what you are writing about?

Yes, the hamstring flex the knee and the quads extend the knee, but the hamstrings are also hip extensors, and you cannot argue that there is hip extension occurring during squatting (well, maybe Sissy squatting, but that’s not what I’m talking about). Squatting is a compound movement (meaning muscles are working to move multiple joints in a coordinated fashion) and since hip extension is one of those joint actions, yes the hamstrings are significantly involved during squatting (especially if going deep or low bar/PL style).

Yes , that would be an accurate example as well, but so is hamstrings.

No, your understanding of biomechanics is flawed here. The brachioradialis crosses the elbow joint and is a synergist in elbow flexion (it is most heavily involved when the wrist is in a pronated position). Reverse curls and Hammer curls both significantly involve both the brachioradialis and brachialis muscles. The biceps also still contribute, but due to the orientation of the wrist they are not in as mechanically advantageous of a position as when the wrists are supinated.

And you say tomato I say tomato. Are you going to argue that your muscles are not fatigued by the end of your sets? No, of course not (and if so, then you’re probably not lifting intensely enough to illicit gains regardless of what lifting techniques you use). But no, it doesn’t necessarily follow the classic pre-fatigue template (as I said in my prior post).

Yes, that’s the template for the classical method, but again, are you arguing that fatigue is not present in the already worked muscles? So, couldn’t it be said that you had “already fatigued” or “fatigued priorly” the muscles before working the desired muscle? If you just want to argue semantics, then fine, I’ll concede that what Prof X, Matty, Jason, and Tate were talking about is not “pre-fatigue”, but that does not necessarily make it any less viable a technique or concept in and of itself. Maybe we can just call it “Xercise order training” (see what I did there?..cause Prof X and Matty both have “X’s” in their names…ok never mind).

Still waiting to hear from people on their thoughts about that research study that SS posted and I quoted a few pages back.

564

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I was always under the impression that pre-exhaustion was designed to increase the intramuscular force produced within a muscle (due to the presence of increased blood flow and metabolites) thereby which the lifter could more easily increase their neuromuscular connection/control of their pecs and over ride their natural neuromuscular tendencies.

In other words, because some people are natural “triceps and shoulders dominant pressers” (meaning better neuromuscular connections/control of those muscles) and have poor neuromuscular connections to their pecs and so isolating the pecs before moving onto the compound allows you to “get in touch” with your pecs so you can better stimulate them during the compound.
[/quote]

While this may indeed be true, especially considering that most people use their arms everyday long before ever going to the gym and trying to recruit those muscles they’ve never consciously employed (pecs, back etc), the example of multiple links in a chain, and the overall strength of the chain being determined by the weakest one still stands.

I can understand some people trying to measure MMC (however the hell you might do that, I’m sure questionnaires and 1-10 scales are realistically accurate -lol), but the bottom line will never really be about MMC, it will be about hypertrophy.

In this line of thinking, it will always come down to the degree a muscle is stressed. Whether you feel it or not.

S
[/quote]

Thanks for the reply Stu.

Fair point about the weakest link analogy, but does it really apply?

For instance, I know that you have stated that you grew mostly triceps and shoulders from barbell benching and that it wasn’t until switching to other chest exercises (and employing things like pre-fatigue) that your chest started to grow. But does that mean that your triceps and shoulders were really the weak links or that your chest was. Think about it, why would your body choose to recruit it’s weaker muscle groups primarily first rather than relying on it’s stronger ones?

Or, could this mean that your triceps and shoulders were actually your strongest muscles and your chest was actually your weakest link, hence your body recruited your triceps and shoulders while benching. However, by switching your focus to improving your neuromuscular coordination with your pecs by performing things like pre-fatiguing and focusing on squeezing the target muscles against the resistance rather than chasing numbers, you were able to bring the chest up.

Pretty sure CT has explained this line of thinking in regards to pre-fatiguing in the past.

And in regards to the measuring of MMC, the reasearchers placed electrodes on the test subjects’s bodies (very similar to what Bret Contreras has done lately), so there was no subjectivity about it. Seriously, read through the article; I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on it after doing so.

565

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Still waiting to hear from people on their thoughts about that research study that SS posted and I quoted a few pages back.[/quote]

One thing I see about that study that I question is the measurement of motor unit recruitment. I think that’s what they were actually measuring, not MMC. Anyway, the study showed that after pre-fatigue, recruitment went down. Not surprising, but isn’t one of the reasons you pre-fatigue is to try and bypass the units that fire first so you can access the units that are last to fire before the synergistic muscles fail?

566

[quote]NikH wrote:

[quote]krillin wrote:

Not sure what you’re misunderstanding here, Sentoguy’s post made perfect sense and at this point I wonder if you are just arguing for argument’s sake.

  1. It is a good analogy, hamstrings are synergists in squatting and are pretty involved, and depending on width of stance, leverage, and depth yes, the quads may be more involved to a degree. Just because it is an antagonist doesn’t mean the muscle can’t be heavily involved in a squat, look up “Lombard’s Paradox.” And why would you single out the glutes as apposed to the hamstrings? Personally I feel the squat more in hamstrings than glutes (due to my glute strength), though that will vary from person to person.

I had the same experience as Sentoguy both with DC training and a John Meadow’s routine. I found that lying or seated leg curls before squat or leg press made me feel quads more, and quads were always trashed the next two days. I have tried both ways in doing hammer or reverse curls before biceps or after, both seem to work well for me.

  1. I didn’t understand him as arguing what you said, but hey, feel free to argue whatever point you want.
    [/quote]

I am not arguing about that. We are talking about X’s logic. I think Meadow and DC training are both good. In this case the person who were doing squats was meant to have weaker glutes, and training prefatiguing them would make him fail earlier and train his quads less properly. (training triceps before benchpress will make your bench weak and chest untrained)[/quote]

Sigh. How is this “X’s logic” when the objectives are clear and people have long understood this and have applied it in different ways? Its basically limiting involvement of assisting muscle groups so that they don’t take over the movement. There are a lot of ways to do this other than the method you are arguing against. Why do you think people use straps and pull through their elbows when targeting back to limit arm involvement?

567

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]NikH wrote:

[quote]krillin wrote:

Not sure what you’re misunderstanding here, Sentoguy’s post made perfect sense and at this point I wonder if you are just arguing for argument’s sake.

  1. It is a good analogy, hamstrings are synergists in squatting and are pretty involved, and depending on width of stance, leverage, and depth yes, the quads may be more involved to a degree. Just because it is an antagonist doesn’t mean the muscle can’t be heavily involved in a squat, look up “Lombard’s Paradox.” And why would you single out the glutes as apposed to the hamstrings? Personally I feel the squat more in hamstrings than glutes (due to my glute strength), though that will vary from person to person.

I had the same experience as Sentoguy both with DC training and a John Meadow’s routine. I found that lying or seated leg curls before squat or leg press made me feel quads more, and quads were always trashed the next two days. I have tried both ways in doing hammer or reverse curls before biceps or after, both seem to work well for me.

  1. I didn’t understand him as arguing what you said, but hey, feel free to argue whatever point you want.
    [/quote]

I am not arguing about that. We are talking about X’s logic. I think Meadow and DC training are both good. In this case the person who were doing squats was meant to have weaker glutes, and training prefatiguing them would make him fail earlier and train his quads less properly. (training triceps before benchpress will make your bench weak and chest untrained)[/quote]

What that actually does is fatigue the dominant muscle group sufficiently so that the target muscle can be stressed with less weight - a good thing. A weaker max is only an issue if you’re chasing performance. You wouldn’t want to pre-exhaust in that situation as it’s bringing your fatigue threshold down. If your goal is hypertrophy, targeted stimulation is key, not putting up a PR.

[/quote]

This. Right. Here

Thanks Roy for articulating what I couldnt explain better.

568

Sentoguy and many others are really now turning this into a very informative thread. Thanks

Now I am not saying Im right, as I have a shit ton to learn and whatever the greats have used for eons obviously works, and there are many others on this site that look a shit ton better than me, but this is what I still dont quite understand.

If I pre-fatigue my chest being a tri and delt dominate presser would it not be atural for my tris and delts dominate the movement even more since my chest is already pre-fatigued.

Would it not be beneficial to pre-fatigue my tris and delts so there assistance in the movement would be hindered so my pecs get the brunt of the movement? As roybot stated in this instance who cares about the weight moved

569

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Wow. Several people have explained this to you. [/quote]

lol…

570

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Sentoguy and many others are really now turning this into a very informative thread. Thanks

Now I am not saying Im right, as I have a shit ton to learn and whatever the greats have used for eons obviously works, and there are many others on this site that look a shit ton better than me, but this is what I still dont quite understand.

If I pre-fatigue my chest being a tri and delt dominate presser would it not be atural for my tris and delts dominate the movement even more since my chest is already pre-fatigued.

Would it not be beneficial to pre-fatigue my tris and delts so there assistance in the movement would be hindered so my pecs get the brunt of the movement? As roybot stated in this instance who cares about the weight moved[/quote]

Matty, I think maybe we are discussing two somewhat different scenarios.

The method you are talking about seems to stem from having muscles that take over a movement, leaving the “target” muscle behind.

The method others are talking about seems to be from a “how do I get the most hypertrophy of a specific muscle” standpoint.

These are different methods, but I’m not sure I see them being interchangable.

571

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Sentoguy and many others are really now turning this into a very informative thread. Thanks

Now I am not saying Im right, as I have a shit ton to learn and whatever the greats have used for eons obviously works, and there are many others on this site that look a shit ton better than me, but this is what I still dont quite understand.

If I pre-fatigue my chest being a tri and delt dominate presser would it not be atural for my tris and delts dominate the movement even more since my chest is already pre-fatigued.

Would it not be beneficial to pre-fatigue my tris and delts so there assistance in the movement would be hindered so my pecs get the brunt of the movement? As roybot stated in this instance who cares about the weight moved[/quote]

I posted about this about 10 pages ago.

I think the theory of pre fatiguing your delts and tris before chest so that your chest takes over the movement only works if pre fatiguing fixes the mechanics of the lift. I think pre exhausting the tris and delts before chest is more likely to result in the lifter not fixing the mechanics of the lift, still push with their tris and delts and just fail sooner, thus achieving less chest stimulation.

572

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Sentoguy and many others are really now turning this into a very informative thread. Thanks

Now I am not saying Im right, as I have a shit ton to learn and whatever the greats have used for eons obviously works, and there are many others on this site that look a shit ton better than me, but this is what I still dont quite understand.

If I pre-fatigue my chest being a tri and delt dominate presser would it not be atural for my tris and delts dominate the movement even more since my chest is already pre-fatigued.

Would it not be beneficial to pre-fatigue my tris and delts so there assistance in the movement would be hindered so my pecs get the brunt of the movement? As roybot stated in this instance who cares about the weight moved[/quote]

I posted about this about 10 pages ago.

I think the theory of pre fatiguing your delts and tris before chest so that your chest takes over the movement only works if pre fatiguing fixes the mechanics of the lift. I think pre exhausting the tris and delts before chest is more likely to result in the lifter not fixing the mechanics of the lift, still push with their tris and delts and just fail sooner, thus achieving less chest stimulation.\

Edit - at this point is seems to be individual which actually happens. [/quote]

This is exactly what happends. And anyone who has tried this technique or ever trained his triceps with benchpress and tricep extension will know this.

X will always be a weightlifter, never a bodybuilder.

@sento, it’s a prefatiguing a muscle is a technique like dropsets its not about fatiguement in general.

573

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Still waiting to hear from people on their thoughts about that research study that SS posted and I quoted a few pages back.[/quote]

One thing I see about that study that I question is the measurement of motor unit recruitment. I think that’s what they were actually measuring, not MMC. Anyway, the study showed that after pre-fatigue, recruitment went down. Not surprising, but isn’t one of the reasons you pre-fatigue is to try and bypass the units that fire first so you can access the units that are last to fire before the synergistic muscles fail?
[/quote]

Well, if they were measuring MU recruitment, then you would still expect the number to go up (from the studies I’ve read on the subject fatigued lower MU recruitment thresholds thereby allowing one to eventually recruit all available MU’s; basically the concept behind training to "failure with a moderate/sub maximal load).

I know that when Contreras has done similar experiments and articles he is always referring to % of MMC (both peak and mean values), so I assumed that’s what they were measuring as well, but you might be right and I might be wrong.

Good question though, thanks for the reply.

574

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Still waiting to hear from people on their thoughts about that research study that SS posted and I quoted a few pages back.[/quote]

One thing I see about that study that I question is the measurement of motor unit recruitment. I think that’s what they were actually measuring, not MMC. Anyway, the study showed that after pre-fatigue, recruitment went down. Not surprising, but isn’t one of the reasons you pre-fatigue is to try and bypass the units that fire first so you can access the units that are last to fire before the synergistic muscles fail?
[/quote]

Well, if they were measuring MU recruitment, then you would still expect the number to go up (from the studies I’ve read on the subject fatigued lower MU recruitment thresholds thereby allowing one to eventually recruit all available MU’s; basically the concept behind training to "failure with a moderate/sub maximal load).

I know that when Contreras has done similar experiments and articles he is always referring to % of MMC (both peak and mean values), so I assumed that’s what they were measuring as well, but you might be right and I might be wrong.

Good question though, thanks for the reply.[/quote]

Just to clarify, what are you using the acronym, MMC, to stand for? I’m using it as mind-muscle connection. Not really sure how you would measure something like that is why I’m asking.

575

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Sentoguy and many others are really now turning this into a very informative thread. Thanks

Now I am not saying Im right, as I have a shit ton to learn and whatever the greats have used for eons obviously works, and there are many others on this site that look a shit ton better than me, but this is what I still dont quite understand.

If I pre-fatigue my chest being a tri and delt dominate presser would it not be atural for my tris and delts dominate the movement even more since my chest is already pre-fatigued.

Would it not be beneficial to pre-fatigue my tris and delts so there assistance in the movement would be hindered so my pecs get the brunt of the movement? As roybot stated in this instance who cares about the weight moved[/quote]

Thanks.

Actually I think the weight moved has a significant role to play.

For instance, let’s say you do a set of cable flyes to failure, your chest is pumped full of blood and because of this your mind muscle connection is strong. You then immediately grab a pair of relatively light DB’s and lay down on a flat bench are really start squeezing your pecs (which you now can easily feel/recruit) against the weight. You feel your chest primarily working due to the better mind muscle connection and using light enough weights to allow you to use your pecs to move them.

Next, let’s say you perform the same set of cable flyes to failure, but this time you load up the bar with as much weight as possible and rep it out to failure. Now, due to the chest being tired it is unable to contribute as much assistance to the movement and your triceps and shoulders are forced to take up the slack; so you feel the exercise primarily in your triceps and shoulders.

What do you guys think?

576

[quote]cueball wrote:
[/quote]
Yeah, sorry, just realized I got MMC and MVC (maximal voluntary contraction) mixed up in my head. I believe they are measuring MVC, not MMC (which I agree would be tough to quantify).

My bad.

577

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Sentoguy and many others are really now turning this into a very informative thread. Thanks

Now I am not saying Im right, as I have a shit ton to learn and whatever the greats have used for eons obviously works, and there are many others on this site that look a shit ton better than me, but this is what I still dont quite understand.

If I pre-fatigue my chest being a tri and delt dominate presser would it not be atural for my tris and delts dominate the movement even more since my chest is already pre-fatigued.

Would it not be beneficial to pre-fatigue my tris and delts so there assistance in the movement would be hindered so my pecs get the brunt of the movement? As roybot stated in this instance who cares about the weight moved[/quote]

Thanks.

Actually I think the weight moved has a significant role to play.

For instance, let’s say you do a set of cable flyes to failure, your chest is pumped full of blood and because of this your mind muscle connection is strong. You then immediately grab a pair of relatively light DB’s and lay down on a flat bench are really start squeezing your pecs (which you now can easily feel/recruit) against the weight. You feel your chest primarily working due to the better mind muscle connection and using light enough weights to allow you to use your pecs to move them.

Next, let’s say you perform the same set of cable flyes to failure, but this time you load up the bar with as much weight as possible and rep it out to failure. Now, due to the chest being tired it is unable to contribute as much assistance to the movement and your triceps and shoulders are forced to take up the slack; so you feel the exercise primarily in your triceps and shoulders.

What do you guys think?[/quote]

Yes.

578

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
[/quote]
Yeah, sorry, just realized I got MMC and MVC (maximal voluntary contraction) mixed up in my head. I believe they are measuring MVC, not MMC (which I agree would be tough to quantify).

My bad.
[/quote]

Ah, OK. Makes sense.

One thing I noticed when re-reading that study. They were measuring activation, but there was no measure of overall fatigue of that muscle. One of the reasons to pre-exhaust is to make sure that muscle is fully fatigued in the main exercise.

Which one matters more? If you didn’t pre-exhaust, you might have recruited more units, but did you tax it enough to elicit a growth response?

Edit: I think this is where the idea of making sure the target muscle fails before the synergists do. Even though you night get more recruitment to start, you would have to terminate the set before it made enough difference since the assistance muscles are shot.

579

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
[/quote]
Yeah, sorry, just realized I got MMC and MVC (maximal voluntary contraction) mixed up in my head. I believe they are measuring MVC, not MMC (which I agree would be tough to quantify).

My bad.
[/quote]

Ah, OK. Makes sense.

One thing I noticed when re-reading that study. They were measuring activation, but there was no measure of overall fatigue of that muscle. One of the reasons to pre-exhaust is to make sure that muscle is fully fatigued in the main exercise.

Which one matters more? If you didn’t pre-exhaust, you might have recruited more units, but did you tax it enough to elicit a growth response?

Edit: I think this is where the idea of making sure the target muscle fails before the synergists do. Even though you night get more recruitment to start, you would have to terminate the set before it made enough difference since the assistance muscles are shot.[/quote]

Good point. It would have been interesting to see how fatigue played into the study.

Like I said in my reply to Stu, I’m starting to rethink the concept that pre fatiguing is about bringing the desired muscle down to the synergists’ level. Think about it this way:
-let’s say you have a person with huge quads and tiny Hammie’s and glutes, which muscle would you say was their strongest link and which would you say are their weakest links? Now, which muscle do you suppose they feel working most when they squat?

Why would you think it would be any different with bench pressing and pecs, triceps and delts?

Edited: due to damn autocorrect feature on iPhone.

580

I rarely ever login lately, but I want to make a couple of points. I think pre-exhaust in the traditional sense is the way to go and for the most part I disagree with X. That being said, despite disagreeing, it does make some sense in a weird way.

Say a lifter can normally bench 300 for however many reps but wishes to use more chest during the movement. Using the method X and matty have been promoting, pre-exhausting shoulders and or tris, the lifter is forced to use less weight, say 250. This is the weight the chest is still capable of lifting, given the weakened state and therefore less contribution from delts
and tris. Now the lifter works his way back up to 300 over the next weeks/months continuing with weakened delts and tris. If I understand what x and matty are trying to say, a lifter using some chest and a lot of delt/tri initially to bench 300, is now a lifter using mostly chest and some delt/tri to put up the same 300. Theoretical result: increased chest stimulation and growth.

If that is what x and matty are getting at (correct me if I’m wrong, as if that needed to be said lol), then I can see the merit in both methods and will only know how I react after trying both.