Waterbury's Thoughts: 10x10

pat · October 3, 2007, 9:05pm

Shoulder torture part deux:
Again to recap this is to test the theory that you can do declining sets to failure on each phase and after completing the last phase you can actually move back up to a weight you previously failed at with a minimal, if any, pause.

Side Laterals:
Set 1:
17 x 30lbs.
3 x 25 lbs.
4 x 20 lbs.
1 x 25 lbs.

Set 2:
13 x 30 lbs.
4 x 25 lbs.
3 x 20lbs.
2 x 25 lbs.
1 x 30 lbs.

Set 3, Front raises:
6 x 20 lbs.
3 x 25 lbs.

That’s the report for this week. My shoulders are just quivering right now. I was pretty tired today, I just woke up in the middle of the night and couldn’t go back to sleep.
I’ll have more time tomorrow I want engage more in the conversation.

Sentoguy · October 3, 2007, 9:57pm

[quote]conwict wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Basically in a nutshell, that’s two cycle theory.

Curious: where did you get the phrase? I may Google it, I just haven’t heard it refered to as such.

Also, re: your potential problem in the area of HFT, that of “finding it difficult to increase performance significantly” while HFTing–I think that is why Chad is very advocative of using strength programs in between HFT cycles. He wants you to achieve neural activation and then piggyback off that effect using HFT. However, he still says that HFT can give good neural/strength gains. In fact, I’ve noticed personally that the program Perfect 10 seems to result in effortless growth for the specific bodypart more-or-less permanently after you stop doing it. I posit that if you do Perfect 10 for stubborn biceps, you will not need to target them directly for quite a while after.

Re: neural activation between HFT…hence the strength phases of BBNF and such. Also MRT/Singular Workout/etc are great for that type of neural activation.[/quote]

Shoot, all this time I’ve been referring to it as “2 cycle theory” when I meant to say “2 factor theory.” I got the term from one of Kelly Baggett’s articles.

And yes, you could periodize your training. But honestly, if you can find something that allows you to make steady, noticeable gains for an extended period of time, why would you want to over complicate things and start worrying about things like periodization.

Now, if you’re an athlete then, okay I can see why periodizing would be good. But if you’re after maximal muscle gains, then worrying about periodizing is just over complicating the issue IMO.

Good training,

Sentoguy

conwict · October 4, 2007, 2:32am

Really? About periodizing? I’m surprised you’d say that. Sure, stick with what works…but for me using strength programming between hypertrophy is a natural, and fun thing. I’ve made it completely habitual.

If you keep the cals up it isn’t like you gain zero muscle during strength-focus phases.

conwict · October 4, 2007, 3:08am

pat36, maybe once you get down into a lower weight for the reps it gives the HTMU (high threshold motor units) time to recharge better.

Maybe not…but from what I’ve read it is actually possible to use the smaller fibers up without tapping into the bigger fibers so much.

Physiologically it makes sense. If you have to do a low-level repetitive task to temporary failure, keep some of the big guys ready to rev up in case of an emergency.

Try the same experiment again but lift as explosively as possible on every rep and see what happens.

Also it’s worth noting that even if you lift as fast as possible, once the weight gets pretty low you will not be hitting the biggest of the big HTMUs.

Sentoguy · October 4, 2007, 3:48am

[quote]conwict wrote:
Really? About periodizing? I’m surprised you’d say that. Sure, stick with what works…but for me using strength programming between hypertrophy is a natural, and fun thing. I’ve made it completely habitual.

If you keep the cals up it isn’t like you gain zero muscle during strength-focus phases.[/quote]

True, but the program that I’m currently doing allows you to do both. I’ve gained about 5 lbs since starting it (which is only about 3 weeks) and improved on all of my lifts (and not small improvements either) in terms of strength.

Sure, some people might get bored easily, and if that’s the case then by all means periodize. But myself, I have no problem doing something systematically if it is giving me the results I’m after. I just love training in general, and I honestly really like the type of training that I’m currently doing.

pat · October 4, 2007, 12:59pm

[quote]conwict wrote:
pat36, maybe once you get down into a lower weight for the reps it gives the HTMU (high threshold motor units) time to recharge better.

Maybe not…but from what I’ve read it is actually possible to use the smaller fibers up without tapping into the bigger fibers so much.

Physiologically it makes sense. If you have to do a low-level repetitive task to temporary failure, keep some of the big guys ready to rev up in case of an emergency.

Try the same experiment again but lift as explosively as possible on every rep and see what happens.

Also it’s worth noting that even if you lift as fast as possible, once the weight gets pretty low you will not be hitting the biggest of the big HTMUs.[/quote]

That is what is confounding about the experience. Research tell us that this should ne be possible. That as a set continues more and more motor units are being utilized and not release but just fatigued. Now I agree with you it seems that motor units are being left out during a set depending on the force utilized. I really actually wonder if 100% MU recruitment is possible. Or are we just utilizing the MU’s apprrpriate for the task leaving or MU’s in the tank.

conwict · October 5, 2007, 6:54pm

You are leaving some in the tank. If you were really recruiting them all AND using them, you wouldn’t be able to lift your arm after the set!

What research do you have that says you can fatigue them 100%?

It doesn’t seem terribly important to me (from a physiology standpoint) that you can pyramid like that…but it is an interesting demonstration if nothing else, and a thought exercise.

My point is that I just don’t see where anyone SAYS that shouldn’t be possible. It seems improbable at first, but after thinking about it, I can’t see why that wouldn’t be the case.

conwict · October 5, 2007, 6:55pm

But now you can go write a HIT article…“The Real Secret to HIT Success”…Secret Drop Sets!!!

conwict · October 5, 2007, 6:57pm

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
conwict wrote:
Really? About periodizing? I’m surprised you’d say that. Sure, stick with what works…but for me using strength programming between hypertrophy is a natural, and fun thing. I’ve made it completely habitual.

If you keep the cals up it isn’t like you gain zero muscle during strength-focus phases.

True, but the program that I’m currently doing allows you to do both. I’ve gained about 5 lbs since starting it (which is only about 3 weeks) and improved on all of my lifts (and not small improvements either) in terms of strength.

Sure, some people might get bored easily, and if that’s the case then by all means periodize. But myself, I have no problem doing something systematically if it is giving me the results I’m after. I just love training in general, and I honestly really like the type of training that I’m currently doing.[/quote]

Sure, I get you. And I have actually been thinking recently that I could stand to do training phases longer. I just kind of automatically change after 3-5 weeks. I should probably at least experiment with 8 week phases, and perhaps some minor changes WITHIN the program to extend its effectiveness.

I won’t argue with results anyhow. What are you doing that’s working so well?

Almost definitely one of the reasons I train for shorter spurts (then deload or take time off completely) is because I feel more focused. I push myself to the point of burnout, then back off, and generally get great gains in the off time…the two-factor theory or whatever you called it, apparently.

Sentoguy · October 5, 2007, 10:08pm

[quote]conwict wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
conwict wrote:
Really? About periodizing? I’m surprised you’d say that. Sure, stick with what works…but for me using strength programming between hypertrophy is a natural, and fun thing. I’ve made it completely habitual.

If you keep the cals up it isn’t like you gain zero muscle during strength-focus phases.

True, but the program that I’m currently doing allows you to do both. I’ve gained about 5 lbs since starting it (which is only about 3 weeks) and improved on all of my lifts (and not small improvements either) in terms of strength.

Sure, some people might get bored easily, and if that’s the case then by all means periodize. But myself, I have no problem doing something systematically if it is giving me the results I’m after. I just love training in general, and I honestly really like the type of training that I’m currently doing.

Sure, I get you. And I have actually been thinking recently that I could stand to do training phases longer. I just kind of automatically change after 3-5 weeks. I should probably at least experiment with 8 week phases, and perhaps some minor changes WITHIN the program to extend its effectiveness.

I won’t argue with results anyhow. What are you doing that’s working so well?

Almost definitely one of the reasons I train for shorter spurts (then deload or take time off completely) is because I feel more focused. I push myself to the point of burnout, then back off, and generally get great gains in the off time…the two-factor theory or whatever you called it, apparently.[/quote]

Oh, I still take deloading/off periods after so many weeks (not a set number, just, as you said, when I’m starting to feel burn out). That’s not what I would consider periodizing though.

As far as dual factor theory, yes, it does utilize de-loading/back off periods, but that’s not the primary concept behind it.

The difference between one factor theory and dual factor theory in a nutshell is their approach towards the overload, rest and supercompensation process.

During one factor theory you overload the muscle (as in one workout), then rest, eat, and allow your body to supercompensate (by building muscle) then and only then you repeat the process.

During dual factor theory you stress the muscle, then stress it again (before recovery and supercompensation have occurred), then stress it again, and again, and again until either a certain period of time has passed (probably the less effective method) or you are well on your way to an overtrained state (joint pains, depression, problems sleeping, etc…). Then, you take time completely off from training, eat like a starving coyote and hopefully your body responds by supercompensating (building muscle).

Now one other thing you may have noticed is that with one factor theory I used the term “overload the muscle”, while with dual factor theory I used the term “stress the muscle”. The reason why I used different terms is this.

During one factor theory every time that you hit the gym it should be your goal to lift more weight, or the same weight more times (basically to beat your last performance). This is possible because you’ve given the muscle the time and nutrients to recover and become stronger.

With dual factor theory on the other hand, you’re never giving the muscle sufficient time to recover and become stronger, so (if you’re really pushing it in the gym during the first workout) there is no way that you’re going to be able to over (increase the) load that you place on your muscles. Now, the further that you continue this process the weaker you will actually become (I believe Poliquin mentioned an average 20% decrease in performance was standard for his “super accumulation” program).

Of course, when you do finally give your body the rest and nutrients it needs it will supercompensate. But, is it really going to give you that superior (or even superior at all) gains in comparison to one factor theory? Well, that’s the million dollar question now isn’t it.

Personally I say no, it won’t. Here’s my reasoning why.

So far, one of the only concrete pieces of information that we know in terms of building muscle, is that the muscle must be exposed to greater and greater demands (loads). And, not only must it be exposed to greater demands, but those demands must be in the form of greater resistance.

What I mean by that is, running a marathon places a great deal of demand on the muscles, as well as several other systems of the body. However, you seldom (if ever) see “big” marathon runners. So, clearly even though their sport/form of exercise places great amounts of demand on their muscles, it hasn’t resulted in large muscles.

With dual factor theory, even though you might argue that by training that frequently you are placing greater and greater demands on the body, those demands are not in the form of increasingly heavy resistance. Honestly I’d say that with dual factor theory the majority of the demands are placed on the nervous system and recovery systems, not the muscles themselves.

So, this may in fact result in some muscle growth, but the majority of the supercompensation is most likely to occur to the neuromuscular and recovery systems. Certainly not a bad thing, and probably great for athletes for whom performance is number one priority. But for someone who’s really looking to build maximal muscle mass, probably not optimal.

Also, even though during the next dual factor cycle you will be using heavier weights than you had used in the previous cycle, which will therefore lead to mass gains, it will have taken you much longer, used up a heck of a lot more energy, and quite possibly pissed off everyone around you in the process.

With one factor theory, because you are allowing for recovery and supercompensation to occur, you’re continually able to increase the load (and continue that progression for a much longer period of time), thus leading to superior gains in both strength and mass in a shorter period of time.

Or at least that’s how I see it.

As far as what I’m currently doing, right now I’m experimenting with DoggCrapp training. So far I love it. Quick, concise, allows me to know I accomplished something every single workout, and most of all effective. If you’re interested there is a thread on this forum about it, and you can also find out a lot more about it at www.intensemuscle.com

But, if you are interested, I’d suggest reading up as much as you can about it before posting questions either on the forum here, or especially on the IM forum. I will also warn you that it’s probably not for everyone. I’ve personally been through some hellacious training in the past, so DC training isn’t a problem for me. If you on the other hand can’t push yourself to the absolute limit, then you might want to find a different program.

Good training,

Sentoguy

conwict · October 6, 2007, 6:47pm

I’ve read a bit about it, Sentoguy. Good to know it’s working for you. I’ll look for that thread here, though I am personally pretty happy with what’s working for me, as well. Never hurts to read more.

Anyway I see what you mean about different training for different goals, etc, but the way I look at it is this–admittedly I am influenced by Waterbury here.

HFT has been the best muscle building method I’ve utilized, personally; I said muscle building, as in, it works and makes the lagging body part(s) grow freakishly well.

It doesn’t really do much for me strength-wise, though, even though I am training in lower rep-ranges in each session.

Now, while your logic about supercomp, recovery, etc, makes sense, I’ve actually found it to be somewhat the opposite (personally speaking)…I gain muscle best by training it while it’s still very sore. I find this is another way of upping the stress on the muscle, and it compensates very well within and after the training cycle.

My theory is that frequency literally does trump all other methods (progressive overload, increased volume-within-a-session) when it comes to strictly-speaking hypertrophy.

Now, the obvious conclusion is that eventually, training within that system, you’re gonna run out of strength-to-muscle ratio and need to up it a different way, like a neuromuscular-focus program, or just a traditional hypertrophy program with heavy weights and more recovery.

Anyway that’s how it’s been for me. And I can def see the benefit of a true dual-cycle program (or supercompensation, whatever you want to call it) occasionally, but I doubt it’s the optimal way to train all the time.

pat · October 8, 2007, 7:44pm

[quote]conwict wrote:
You are leaving some in the tank. If you were really recruiting them all AND using them, you wouldn’t be able to lift your arm after the set!
[/quote]
Well that seems obvious, but that isn’t what has been theorized. Basically, the two schools of thought, pushing to muscular failure or explosive lifting at a high intensity should both recruit and exhaust, breifly, all your motor units/ muscle fibers.

Research was the wrong term, I meant theories. For instance, the theory behind failure training is that once you have reached failure, you have fatigued all your MU’s so that the resistance is over come. But that theory means that drop sets to failure at each phase shouldn’t be possible and the Wave loading technique that Ihave been experimenting with damn sure shouldn’t possible. But it’s more than possible, it’s actual.

[quote]
It doesn’t seem terribly important to me (from a physiology standpoint) that you can pyramid like that…but it is an interesting demonstration if nothing else, and a thought exercise.

My point is that I just don’t see where anyone SAYS that shouldn’t be possible. It seems improbable at first, but after thinking about it, I can’t see why that wouldn’t be the case.[/quote]

I think it’s important because, unless I am just a genetic anomaly (which is possible), it could show that MU recruitment isn’t a percentage of total, but only that specific MU’s are recruited to overcome a specific resistance at a certain speed, and if the speed or load changes, those MU’s become idol as different ones take over.So the only way to get 100% MU recruitment would be to lift heavy and fast and lighter and slower over a longer period of time all at the same time.

Obviously, this is impossible. But it seems to indicate that you can recruit high threshold MU’s and low threshold MU’s over the course of the set by changing the load, but no one load is going to give you 100% MU recruitment. According to that Zatsiorsky fellow and Waterbury, this shouldn’t be the case, but it does seem to be the case.

conwict · October 8, 2007, 11:05pm

pat36,

Way to think about the matter!

One of the problem I see trying to “make logical” this chain of events you refer to is that the phrasing of our science and such is very imperfect, practically metaphorical.

In other words, does 100% recruitment necessarily equal 100% fatigue?

I suspect that Waterbury is saying you facilitate greater recruitment of all fibers lifting a heavy load as fast as possible, but absolute-100%-recruitment seems a very iffy thing really.

Of course, Waterbury is obviously saying hyperbolically optimal stimulation is promoted with multiple fast sets (a different bar speed on each one, no doubt, but as fast as possible), and not failure in a traditional sense.

This makes sense really…if you lift 3x12 to failure and 50lb on each rep, you’ve got 1800lb total for the exercise. Now, if you do 6x6x50lb, same deal, but more force production. So it’s theoretically the same poundage, higher quality workout.

Anyway you know that, so as far as “explaining” what your body is doing…I can’t come up with a reason, but the best rationalization I can get is that once you get to a certain point of “failure” the fatigued fibers shut off and recharge and you can then eke out a few more.

It could also be more of a hormonal thing, like you are tapping into some adrenaline after a certain point of fatigue.

Set 1 to failure body says ok
set 2 to failure dropping load body says ok
set 3 drop load ok
set 4 drop load, body says whoa this must be for real, some sort of emergency situation using the lateral deltoid. What the heck have I gotten myself into?
set 5 (up load again) body says if you must, I can, since no one would do a quintuple drop-set except in an emergency, but you’re gonna be really sore in the morning. adrenaline/cortisol surge

We are kind of making a mistake in looking at it as a strictly mechanical problem. Of course the body works mechanically, but the chemicals and neurochemicals etc etc are much more complicated than just a plain old machine, so we may be working with a lot more variables here than we realize.

I don’t claim to be an expert, just speculating, but ultimately I think your experiment is useful in that it proves exceptions to these “rules” and highlights the body’s beautiful complexity.

Now, what you really need to do to is test this out on different exercises-- If you want to get some good personal data that is.

Lorisco · October 9, 2007, 11:11pm

[quote]Scottish Warrior wrote:
Quote from Chad Waterbury’s book:

"The problem with applying the Volume Method to the goal of maximum hypertrophy is that you’ll find people claiming every conceivable system worksï¿½?? low volume, high volume, and everything in between. Some trainees merely perform one set to failure for any given exercise. If that set is 12 reps, then their set-rep volume for that exercise is 12. At the other extreme you find guys who’ll try to do 10 sets of 10 reps of a single exercise.

As any second grader could tell you, 10 times 10 works out to a set-rep total of 100.
In the first case, one all-out set of 12 reps, you’re using between two-thirds and three-fourths of your 1RM. Let’s split the difference and say you’re using 70 percent of your one-rep max. You can certainly build muscles at that intensity, but in my experience you need a lot more than 12 reps to do it.

In the second case, the most you’ll be able to use for 100 reps is about 60 percent of your 1 RM. Put another way, you’re not using 40 percent of your 1 RM, which means you’re not using your body’s biggest and highest-threshold muscle fibers. You’re working the hell out of your smaller fibers, and while they have some growth potential, it’s nothing like the growth you’ll get when you throw the big boys into the mix."

It’s the part about German Volume Training that interests me the most. He claims that because you are not working the larger fibers you are not achieving maximum hypertrophy with a 10X10 at 60% of 1RM. I have a ton or respect for Chad’s writing and work but this does not make sense to me. Will the larger fibers not fire as the smaller ones tire?

I have personally witnessed many (including myself) experience incredible hypotrophy using GVT protocols when it was first introduced by coach Poliquin several years back.

Thought /Comments?
[/quote]

I believe the current scientific thinking and literature would disagree with CW. Most experts state that any reasonable load (around 50% 1RM I think) will cause all fibers to fire, even the fast twitch fibers. So stating that the 10X10 doesn’t fire the type II fibers would be inaccurate.

However, that doesn’t mean that the adaptation to the 10X10 would increase strength. There are basically three types of adaptation; neural, metabolic, and fiber growth. The 10X10 will cause mostly metabolic (muscle cell components) growth. So basically, your muscle will adapt to high volume training by growing the cellular components necessary to maintain high-volume training.

So as other posters have stated, it’s not bad, it is just another variation to use in the constant quest to force the body to continue to adapt in the form of bigger and stronger muscles.

conwict · October 10, 2007, 1:36am

Lorisco, I think it isn’t a question of whether they “ARE” firing, but of the intensity at which they’re firing.

I can find some of his sources for this later.

pat · October 10, 2007, 2:28pm

[quote]conwict wrote:
Lorisco, I think it isn’t a question of whether they “ARE” firing, but of the intensity at which they’re firing.

I can find some of his sources for this later.[/quote]

I’d like to see some sources or research on this matter too. My intuition is telling me, what is known or thought is incomplete based on my own experiences. It seems to me that you cannot get 100% muscle fiber recruitment running at 100% capacity. It just doesn’t seem possible.

If it were possible, then going to failure at that capacity should be complete (momentary) muscle failure, not load specific muscle failure.

Here how I think it works, at least for the moment. Selecting a load for maximal stress either for intensity or endurance will recruit perhaps 70 to 80% of available motor units. Of those recruited about 15 - 20% of those are firing at 100% capacity while others are firing at a less capacity depending on their relation, i.e. “kind” of MU’s they are, to those being recruited 100%.

As the MU’s being recruited expire the load shifts more to the next most closely related MU’s. Since these MU’s are not suited ideally to the job, you begin to see form break down. Also since these surrounding MU’s were being used from the beginning, they will fail sooner.

Now if you shift the load, either going heavier or lighter you will be able to continue the set, but since the majority of the MU’s you are recruiting we recruited for the initial load they will expire quicker even though you have recruited some fresh ones. I am thinking of MU recruitment as a bell curve whose peak will move between high threshold and low threshold MU’s depending on load and speed.

It could be way off base, or I could be misunderstanding neural physiology completely, but it seems to make more sense to me then some of the current theories we’ve been discussing in this thread. I’ll take some thought on the matter if anybody cares to offer. I have no proof or time to research it properly; it just seems to make sense.

Lorisco · October 10, 2007, 3:46pm

[quote]conwict wrote:
Lorisco, I think it isn’t a question of whether they “ARE” firing, but of the intensity at which they’re firing.

I can find some of his sources for this later.[/quote]

I’m not sure what you mean? Sounds like you are talking about “rate coding”?

This is my understanding:

At a certain load threshold all fibers are firing. When the load gets heavier the rate at which they fire speeds up, and they are still all firing. This continues as the load increases until the rate code speed limit is reached and that is your max.

With multiple reps the type II B fibers start to drop out leaving the medium type II A fibers (more endurance) moving the load. That is why the load slows at that point, because these endurance fibers do not have the power the type II B fibers do. So that is why CW states to stop the set when your rep speed slows ï¿½?? because you will then be working the more endurance fibers that have less of an ability to get bigger and stronger.

My opinion is that CW is correct about the endurance fibers not getting much stronger, but I disagree with bigger. Endurance fibers can get bigger in terms of intracellular components.

In any case, the “intensity” you are talking about I think is rate coding. If that is not what you are saying, then I don’t follow your logic?

Sentoguy · October 10, 2007, 6:55pm

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
conwict wrote:
Lorisco, I think it isn’t a question of whether they “ARE” firing, but of the intensity at which they’re firing.

I can find some of his sources for this later.

I’m not sure what you mean? Sounds like you are talking about “rate coding”?

This is my understanding:

At a certain load threshold all fibers are firing. When the load gets heavier the rate at which they fire speeds up, and they are still all firing. This continues as the load increases until the rate code speed limit is reached and that is your max.

With multiple reps the type II B fibers start to drop out leaving the medium type II A fibers (more endurance) moving the load. That is why the load slows at that point, because these endurance fibers do not have the power the type II B fibers do. So that is why CW states to stop the set when your rep speed slows ï¿½?? because you will then be working the more endurance fibers that have less of an ability to get bigger and stronger.

My opinion is that CW is correct about the endurance fibers not getting much stronger, but I disagree with bigger. Endurance fibers can get bigger in terms of intracellular components.

In any case, the “intensity” you are talking about I think is rate coding. If that is not what you are saying, then I don’t follow your logic?

[/quote]

See but this was what I was arguing about earlier in the thread. The research that I have seen seems to suggest that, at least if the load remains constant, no fibers ever “drop out” as you (and CW) are suggesting. They only fatigue. There is a difference.

So, the type 11B fibers are still firing when the rep speed slows down, it’s just that because of fatigue factors (insufficient energy sources, metabolic byproducts, etc…) they are capable of producing less force, thus causing a decrease in bar speed. Sure, the intermediate fibers are still working as well, but the type 11B fibers don’t “drop out.”

Now, if you drop the weight (i.e. drop sets) the amount of force required to over come the resistance also lowers, thus allowing you to once again lift the resistance with more ease. This may actually cause the larger fibers to drop out (at least momentarily). However, the accumulation of metabolic byproducts also continues to increase, as well as the depletion of energy stores, and quickly causes fatigue again, as you continue the process repeats.

One possible explanation for Pat’s phenomenon is that when you drop the weight, this sudden drop in “intensity/stress” allows the type 11B fibers to recover (even if just a little). And, quite possibly, if you drop the weight enough the type 11B fibers may never fire. So, when you go back up, there are enough fibers that have somewhat recovered to be able to get one or two reps with the higher weight.

It’s also possible that he is either not truly going to concentric failure, or that he is using additional muscles to perform the reps with the higher weights. We don’t actually have a video of him doing this, nor could we really tell from a video even if we had one. But, personally I’ll take his word that he is doing this all legitimately.

So, it’s probably any of our guesses why or how this phenomenon occurs. I’d really like to hear what some of the more educated individuals on this site would have to say about this (Poliquin, CW, CT, etc…).

Really though as interesting as this theorizing is, if it doesn’t result in, well results, then it’s really not all that useful.

Good training,

Sentoguy

pat · October 11, 2007, 3:05pm

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
conwict wrote:
Lorisco, I think it isn’t a question of whether they “ARE” firing, but of the intensity at which they’re firing.