Chad,
TC’s new article hits a point of interest/contention that I’d like your input on. TC states that one should avoid using the SSC “technique” for mass purposes.
Now this makes me wonder…as it seems that I read by Dr. Fred Hatfield that concentric accleration is really what matters for type IIB stimulation. Of course you’ve made many statements to the same effect. Hatfield is a big proponent of CAT, and I see that you and Staley are also. What is the biggest difference between SSC and CAT?
Also, Poliquin still stands by TUT as a significant marker in training. He uses a biochemical explanation about cellular reactions etc… as part of his rationale. Now we know that volume can be attained in a superior way by employing the inverse of standard BB protocols such as 3x10 becoming 10x3 etc… The only angle he would seem to have is this cellular aspect. Thoughts? TUT is otherwise a seemingly pretty weak marker.
Also, Poliquin still stands by TUT as a significant marker in training. He uses a biochemical explanation about cellular reactions etc… as part of his rationale. Now we know that volume can be attained in a superior way by employing the inverse of standard BB protocols such as 3x10 becoming 10x3 etc… The only angle he would seem to have is this cellular aspect. Thoughts? TUT is otherwise a seemingly pretty weak marker. [/quote]
I agree DH. Also, practically speaking, how many people actually perform activities outside of weight-training that require a muscle to be under tension for 50-75 seconds? Most of your olympic powerlifters only rep 2-4 times per set for a total TUT of about 9-13 seconds.
Of course, what do I know? I’m merely a guy living deep in the Maine woods with no basket to direct my discs. A beam of light may direct me to one someday, but until then, I’ll stick to training!
True Dat BookemD!
Without a basket, what is a disc but simply an improvised dinner plate with a spill guard. Your pain is noted and appreciated. Now please allow Mr. Waterbury his time/opportunity to respond to said academic dilemma above. Bueller…Bueller…Bueller.
Best,
DH
[quote]BookemD wrote:
Disc Hoss wrote:
Also, Poliquin still stands by TUT as a significant marker in training. He uses a biochemical explanation about cellular reactions etc… as part of his rationale. Now we know that volume can be attained in a superior way by employing the inverse of standard BB protocols such as 3x10 becoming 10x3 etc… The only angle he would seem to have is this cellular aspect. Thoughts? TUT is otherwise a seemingly pretty weak marker.
I agree DH. Also, practically speaking, how many people actually perform activities outside of weight-training that require a muscle to be under tension for 50-75 seconds? Most of your olympic powerlifters only rep 2-4 times per set for a total TUT of about 9-13 seconds.
Of course, what do I know? I’m merely a guy living deep in the Maine woods with no basket to direct my discs. A beam of light may direct me to one someday, but until then, I’ll stick to training![/quote]