Sentoguy - thanks for clarifying your post. I think we both understand the size principle but as I understand your point of view, you view that normal weights used in the gym or lifting fast will automatically jump into type IIB MU recruitment. I disagree with this.
From my point of view, the type I’s are super weak and barely do anything from a weight lifting point of view. The type IIa’s are relatively strong and do a lot of your normal lifting. Type IIb’s are hard to recruit (for beginners and intermediates especially). Regular lifting, like in the 225x10 example will not hit the type IIb’s in the first couple of reps, they will be called into play later.
That is the current understanding of the size principle by the scientific community, not that the type IIb’s kick in early. Chad’s article is entitled “Everything is about to change” because he believes he can prove or theorize that the current, accepted way we train or understand how motor units work is incorrect.
That is fine with me but he is challenging the status quo, not the other way around. I am representing the current way we think about motor unit recruitment as best I can. See quotes below as evidence of this.
I appreciate you mentioning you feel that 100% MU recruitment comes with 85% of the load. I don’t agree with that, I dont think we ever get 100% recruitment, I think most EMG charts (ala Starting Strength) show that quite clearly.
I also disagree that an equal percentage of the muscle is hit by doing 225x2 or 225x10 under basically any circumstances if 225x10 is the 10RM. I know you like bodyweight exercises, think about it this way. Do you get the same benefit holding an iron cross for 5 secs or 30 seconds?
Mel Siff, whom I assume we all respect for his knowledge base, wrote in Supertraining on page 259:
Corresponding adaptation (of the Repetitive Effort Method) is a result of the strong excitation of the neural pathways from the cortex to the muscles and the INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF MOTOR UNITS RECRUITED (he referenced this with 2 studies).
To wrap up, here is an excellent summary of motor units and how they work:
For the muscle, intensity translates to force per contraction and contraction frequency/minute. Motor unit recruitment is regulated by required force. In the unfatigued muscle, a sufficient number of motor units will be recruited to supply the desired force. Initially desired force may be accomplished with little or no involvement of fast motor units.
However, as slow units become fatigued and fail to produce force, fast units will be recruited as the brain attempts to maintain desired force production by recruiting more motor units. CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME FORCE PRODUCTION IN A FATIGUED MUSCLE WILL REQUIRE A GREATER NUMBER OF MOTOR UNITS.
This additional recruitment brings in fast, fatiguable motor units. Consequently, fatigue will be accelerated toward the end of long or severe bouts due to the increased lactate produced by the late recruitment of fast units.
You may interpret the size principle in the fashion that you stated, just be aware that that is not our current understanding of how the size principle works. I think the above two quotes are as clear as you can get.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
I’m sorry you feel that way. If you disagree that Tim’s definition of the Size principle was different from my definition (and CW’s, and the definition excepted by the scientific community), then please elaborate.
Hi Sento,
I don’t necessarily disagree with anything, as my last foray into biology was a pretty rudimentary high school course long ago…
However, the read I got was that, at least if you aren’t going full force, is that with a reasonable weight that some larger motor units would be firing, but that they would fatigue fairly quickly.
I know the teaser article was about full effort (through acceleration) but bear with me. So, in what might be called moderate effort training, additional reps would fatigue some larger motor units so that other larger motor units would have to kick in.
The flip side, using full force reps, is that all or nearly all units are used each rep, and that as some of them fatigue, you are simply unable to create the same amount of force, resulting in slower reps (or eventually no reps).
Am I getting the right message, or do I need to adjust my thinking?[/quote]
Hi vroom,
I think that you’re pretty much thinking along the same lines as classical bodybuilding literature concerning training to failure. The idea is that if you train to failure that this will make sure that you recruited all of your motor units.
The idea is, as you suggested, that as the initial HTMU’s fatigue other HTMU’s must be recruited in order to finish the set.
However, I’m not a big believer in this concept. Here is why:
First, the force demands of the exercise are never increased. The reason why the weight seems heavier during the later reps is due to fatigue of the bigger more powerful motor units that were helping to lift the weight at the beginning of the set. Therefore, there is really no stimulus for the body to recruit bigger motor units.
If there wasn’t enough force during the first rep and the rep speed isn’t increased on later reps (which in most cases it decreases as the set progresses, not increases), then there is no more force during the later reps that would cause the body to recruit bigger MU’s.
If the body recruited more large MU’s as the set went on (which I haven’t seen any scientific literature to support), then every rep of the set would be the same difficulty, or even get easier if it was recruiting larger more powerful MU’s than were originally called into play at the onset of the exercise. And then, all of the sudden you would just not be able to lift the weight.
But, this is not what happens. As the set progresses the largest MU’s that were called upon to meet the force requirements of the exercise are fatigued first (this is due to the type 11B fiber physiology), which makes lifting the weight more difficult. Then slightly smaller less powerful MU’s fatigue, and so on until eventually there are no more MU’s powerful enough to lift the weight, and you reach “failure”.
There are however, still plenty of MU’s that have not fatigued. If you were to say decrease the resistance you’d find that you could keep going. This is precisely the reason why you are able to perform drop sets. Keep in mind that we are talking about peripheral nervous system fatigue, not central nervous system fatigue.
Or, it could be said that “failure” simply means that all of the MU’s that were originally called upon to perform the task that were capable of lifting the weight have fatigued. This does not mean that the body itself has reached failure, or even the muscles themselves. The muscular system is capable of continuing effort for a very long period of time, it just isn’t capable of continuing a very high intensity effort for very long.
Because if the load/or speed of movement is sufficient to call into play the largest MU’s/Muscle fibers, then the effort cannot be continued for any considerable length of time. The load example might seem obvious, after all I doubt that anyone is arguing that you can lift a really heavy weight (for you) a lot of times consecutively.
The speed of movement (velocity) example is probably even more important to this discussion however. I say this because, if your body really did recruit more motor units as the set went on, then there would be no decline in the velocity of the bar on any rep of the set. You simply would all of the sudden not be able to move it. However, once again this is not the case. As your biggest most powerful MU’s fatigue the bar speed decreases, due to the fact that the smaller MU’s are capable of producing less speed/force.
Now, once again I think that there are benefits to approaching or even reaching “failure” (which include hormonal and mental benefits). I do not however personally believe that an increased recruitment of number of MU’s/Muscle Fibers is one of those benefits.
[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
Sentoguy - thanks for clarifying your post. I think we both understand the size principle but as I understand your point of view, you view that normal weights used in the gym or lifting fast will automatically jump into type IIB MU recruitment. I disagree with this.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what you disagree with, your perception is wrong. This data was already established nearly 50 years ago. All the fibers are recruited at the onset of the fastest rep, if they weren’t, the fastest rep would be the last.
Cut it out already, your initial posts have been quoted and it’s clear that you didn’t understand it correctly. Why the hell do you think the author himself took the effort to repost Sentoguy’s post TWICE?! Who else do you need to verify it before you get out of denial and admit it already? Sorry, but this has gone too ridiculous.
I have been training as a powerlifter for the past 2 1/2 years. My overall goals is to be a beast. At no point would I gain make any gains if I under trained (low reps, low sets).
There are time when I might do low set with a higher amount of weight, but for building muscle, and muscle conditioning, I have always preferred high reps, and increased sets for that. My low reps, and low sets however consist of hevey weight to the point that I feel I have maxed out the muscle. Tim, I liked the post! I don’t see how you could train any other way.
[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
Sentoguy - thanks for clarifying your post. I think we both understand the size principle but as I understand your point of view, you view that normal weights used in the gym or lifting fast will automatically jump into type IIB MU recruitment. I disagree with this.
[/quote]
Well, first you’re welcome. I’m glad that I was able to clafity what I was trying to get across. Thank you for understanding and not getting defensive.
I actually am not sure what you mean by “normal lifting”, but I do believe that lifting fast will increase force requirements and thus force (no pun intended) your body to recruit it’s largest most powerful MU’s/Muscle Fibers (the type 11B muscle fibers, FF MU’s).
I also agree, your type 1 fibers do have extremely low force production potential. They do get called upon however during every weight lifting workout that you do. So, while they are not responsible for a large percentage of the force that you generate during lifting, they do contribute some.
And yes, your type 11A fibers do contribute a lot more to force produced during lifting than type 1.
However, those three categories of fibers are in fact much too simple. I’ve seen some scientific literature to suggest that there are more like seven different types of muscle fibers, ranging everywhere from the type 11B to the type 1 (really large powerful and quick to fatigue, to really small weak and extremely slow to fatigue).
I still disagree with you that the later reps of a 225x10 set of bench will recruit the type 11B fibers if the first couple reps did not (once again assuming that speed of repetition is not increased towards the end of the set).
Once again, the size principle is determined by force requirements not fatigue. The last few reps of a 225x10 set do not require more force than the first few (even though, due to fatigue, it may seem like they do).
According to what source? I’ve got a degree in exercise science and had to take quite a few classes that dealt with exercise physiology. The size principle is nothing new and the definition that I stated is the accepted definition.
Once again the size principle is based on force requirements. There are basically two ways to increase force (assuming that we keep the leverages, and exercise form the same). Once is to increase the mass we are trying to move (load). The other is to increase the velocity that we are trying to move that mass at (force).
In physics force is expressed as F=Ma (or force equals mass times acceleration). Weight, is a function of this formula. Weight is simply mass times the constant pull of gravity. That’s why things weigh different amounts on the moon than they do on earth, the pull of gravity is not as strong.
Therefore, if you want to increase the force that is required to lift the same mass, you need to lift it faster. The increased speed of trying to overcome gravity increases the force.
The increased force required to move the mass (weight) fast forces your body to recruit larger more powerful MU’s (type 11b fibers).
Well, let me clarify that statement, because I think we actually agree on this. What I meant was that of all of the MU’s that you can voluntarily recruit under normal conditions (not life or death situations), you recruit all of them if you use a sufficient load (CW suggests that it’s 85% or greater of 1RM, which although I personally haven’t read the literature that he is basing this number on, it seems like a reasonable number from what I’ve learned).
There are of course still MU’s that your body will never let you recruit unless your life or the life of someone you love is in immediate danger (like if they’re trapped under a car). This is how people perform superhuman feats of strength. Of course, as a result they often times do huge amounts of damage to the muscles themselves (including tearing the muscle). But in this case your body is more concerned with your immediate survival than with the weeks of recovery it will need to endure afterwards.
Well, once again, the amount of MU recruitment is determined by the size principle. I still stand by my original response to that question. As for the iron cross, once again can you hold the position for 30 seconds in both cases? If so, then obviously you would get more benefits from holding it longer. If not, then you might get the same amount (depending on max hold time). Although I assume you mean the former.
But, also understand that:
an iron cross is a static/isometric exercise, therefore speed of contraction has nothing to do with the exercise. During a dynamic exercise like bench presses it does.
due to the fact that it’s an isometric exercise, the same amount of MU recruitment occurs during both holds.
There are benefits that go beyond simply the number of MU’s recruited. Meaning that you may get more benefits from holding it longer, but those benefits have nothing to do with more MU recruitment.
Well, honestly, I have a lot of respect for Mel Siff. But, I disagree with him here. I also disagree with your quote from stephens/musfacts.
From “Applied Exercise & Sport Physiology”:
“Smaller Motor units and those composed of slow twitch, oxidative fibers in particular have the lowest thresholds for voluntary activation and are therefore selectively involved in low intensity contractions. When recruitment is involved, increasingly forceful contractions are achieved by the recruitment of progressively larger motor units, including those with fast twitch glycolytic fibers. This is called the SIZE PRINCIPLE.”
Notice how this makes no mention of fatigue. It states that more motor units are recruited when more forceful contractions are necessary. It also states that fast twitch glycolytic (type 11b) fibers are called into play.
From “Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning” (the NSCA text)
“The activation of motor units is also influenced by a concept called the Size Principle, which can be based on the observed relationship between motor-unit twitch force and recruitment threshold. Specifically, motor units are recruited in order according to their recruitment thresholds and firing rates, which results in a continuum of voluntary force in the agonist muscle.”
“Typically, to get to a high-threshold motor unit, all of the motor units below it are sequentially recruited: thus, with heavy resistance training all muscle fibers get bigger, because for the most part they are all recruited to produce more and more force with heavier weights. In addition, motor units high in the recruitment order are used primarily for high speed or power production. Maximal force production requires not only the recruitment of ALL MOTOR UNITS, including the high-threshold motor units, but also the recruitment of these motor units at a high enough firing rate to produce maximal force.”
Notice that this once again states that the motor units are recruited from smallest to largest based on the force required. It says nothing about fatigue or number of reps. Also notice that it states that maximal contractions (load) recruit all motor units including the HTMU’s (type 11b fibers).
However, (WARNING: rhetorical question ahead) why is it that the biggest guys, and I mean every single one of them, in the gyms I’ve trained in could’t give too shits about such details?
This point had been brought up many times by many members (Professor X many times himself) but it gets passed over every time a new twist on training comes up. That new twist get debated endlessly yet those bad-asses at gyms all across the world keep getting bigger and stronger.
First, I wouldn’t necessarily say that big guys don’t give two shits about this stuff. It’s just that a lot of this stuff is common knowledge to them.
Think about it, do you know any really big guys who lift little guy weights? I personally don’t. Most of them lift some heavy ass weights. So, they’re obviously already aware that you need to lift heavy weights if you want big muscles.
Also, do you see a lot of big guys making a point to lift those heavy weights extra slowly? Or even keeping track of their rep tempo at all? Most I know just try to lift the weight, which usually ends up meaning that they are either moving the weight quickly, or that they are at least trying. So, big guys generally already know that super slow concentric tempos aren’t great for building big muscles.
The only practice really in question (or at least that CW brought into question in his recent article) is whether or not going to failure is beneficial for building big muscles. And it really seems to depend on the individual from what I’ve both seen and heard. Big Ronnie never goes to failure. The HIT guys (such as Yates and Mentzer) swear by it. In the end all that matters is what gets results for the individual.
Good training,
Sentoguy[/quote]
I agree with this, it makes sense, and is simple, just left heavy weight, and just focus on getting the number of reps you’re after, end of story. I personally like training to failure, it works for and I like high intensity low volume stuff. Whatever. Jesus.
Most people I see in the gym dont break a sweat. You might see a grimace now and then. Seems more like a social club, and this is the for the young, 20-somethings. If that is the prevailing attitude among the crowd reading these articles, then I can see this being good news for them.
[quote]Scotacus wrote:
Most people I see in the gym dont break a sweat. You might see a grimace now and then. Seems more like a social club, and this is the for the young, 20-somethings. If that is the prevailing attitude among the crowd reading these articles, then I can see this being good news for them.[/quote]
[quote]Scotacus wrote:
Most people I see in the gym dont break a sweat. You might see a grimace now and then. Seems more like a social club, and this is the for the young, 20-somethings. If that is the prevailing attitude among the crowd reading these articles, then I can see this being good news for them.[/quote]
They think so, until they get the punchline which is that this method will have you do a lot more work rather than less. Nothing is free, why don’t people understand that you gotta give some to get some? Bleh…
Seriously, that isnt hyperbole. I was noticing that today, and was trying to think of the last time anyone caught my attention by the intensity of their efforts. Honestly, the only ones are those that are 40-something over-weight women.
The guys are oh-so-polite, like it isnt cool to struggle, to go all out, to bust your ass. I get looks sometimes, I assume its because of the puddles of sweat I leave at stations. It would be GREAT to see someone else excert more than me, just for motivation.
If you think Im exaggerating, Im the only one Ive noticed that carries a towel in the weight room. And it is generally soaked by the end, as is the rest of me. No one else needs a towel. That tells you something. WTF??
[quote]Scotacus wrote:
If you think Im exaggerating, Im the only one Ive noticed that carries a towel in the weight room. And it is generally soaked by the end, as is the rest of me. No one else needs a towel. That tells you something. WTF??[/quote]
That means you go to some screwed up gyms or that you live in a city with that type of culture. I am about to go lift now and I know there are other guys in there working hard right now. But then, these guys aren’t beginners or the type who change routines based on what article came out this week. That may also be why they actually have a lot of muscle mass, two of which compete in NPC.
I just want to know who got really big from approaching training the way many of these fan-boys seem to. How many have gotten to the point where anyone would say, “I want to look like that one day” or better yet, “Damn!”? If the number is really small (or nonexistent), why is this overlooked?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
From “Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning” (the NSCA text)
“The activation of motor units is also influenced by a concept called the Size Principle, which can be based on the observed relationship between motor-unit twitch force and recruitment threshold. Specifically, motor units are recruited in order according to their recruitment thresholds and firing rates, which results in a continuum of voluntary force in the agonist muscle.”
“Typically, to get to a high-threshold motor unit, all of the motor units below it are sequentially recruited: thus, with heavy resistance training all muscle fibers get bigger, because for the most part they are all recruited to produce more and more force with heavier weights. In addition, motor units high in the recruitment order are used primarily for high speed or power production. Maximal force production requires not only the recruitment of ALL MOTOR UNITS, including the high-threshold motor units, but also the recruitment of these motor units at a high enough firing rate to produce maximal force.”
Notice that this once again states that the motor units are recruited from smallest to largest based on the force required. It says nothing about fatigue or number of reps. Also notice that it states that maximal contractions (load) recruit all motor units including the HTMU’s (type 11b fibers).
[/quote]
Hi again Sento,
I don’t know. I certainly find it a bit counterintuitive to discount fatigue.
For example, why not simply try to move reps 9 and 10 faster, in order to recruit fresh new previously unused motor units by previous slow reps?
Then, according to the interpretation you are discussing, ALL the units would fire instead of just those required to move the weight for the first 8 reps.
After all, the force required is somewhat based on intent to move the weight fast, right?
That doesn’t seem plausible to me.
It also implies that when muscles get fatigued, that your body “knows” the force needed and won’t let you “override” that amount to tap into remaining fresh motor units… unless you add more weight/acceleration.
What I see in there that supports my viewpoint is the phrase “continuum of voluntary force”. This means that I can voluntarily exert additional force when I decide to… which implies recruitment of motor units to do so.
For example, start a rep slow, then attempt to add acceleration partway through the move. It’s voluntary, we just have to will the work and the units will fire to support it to the best of their abilities/limitations.
Or… place your hands together and try to do a bicep pose. You can resist the movement of one hand with another, and you can increase the force more, voluntarily, up to the limit of your voluntary control.
More exertion, more force, more muscle units… voluntarily, or by intent.
So, in traditional exercise, as you tire and fatigue muscle units, why can’t you then “try harder” and get more recruitment?
I don’t imagine that muscle units are so huge that the last ones to fire are massively stronger than the units just below them in the chain. I don’t see any need to assume one would “get stronger” or that work would “get easier” if two stronger motor units were to replace three fatigued motor units.
Your CNS would still have to work to drive/activate the weaker units (due to sequential recruitment), but they wouldn’t be producing much if any force.
Anyway, I know by now I’m just repeating the traditional view, but my take on Chad’s teaser article is that working traditionally is inefficient compared to working maximally.
A lot of energy and CNS effort are used on slow twitch muscles or fatigued faster twitch muscles… when it could instead by applied to non-fatigued fast twitch units.
Anyway, I do agree that there is going to be a place for CNS training or failure training, in terms of voluntary exertion and CNS drive within a fatigued state.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Anyway, I do agree that there is going to be a place for CNS training or failure training, in terms of voluntary exertion and CNS drive within a fatigued state.[/quote]
I don’t know. I certainly find it a bit counterintuitive to discount fatigue.
[/quote]
Once again, I’m not suggesting that you discount fatigue, just realize that it has nothing to do with the size principle.
Well, that’s one of the reason why I mentioned in my example “if rep speed isn’t increased on later reps”. Yes, if you are moving the weight faster on reps 9 and 10, then the force likewise increases and you recruit larger MU’s.
However, let me ask you, why would you perform 8 reps at submaximal speeds, only to perform 2 reps at maximal speed? Kind of doesn’t make sense does it? I’d think you’d either reverse that order/ratio, or at least try to lift all 10 reps with maximum speed.
But this is still not in contradiction to the definition of the Size Principle that I quoted/discussed. You are still acknowledging that it is the speed of the bar that is causing an increase in MU’s, not the fatigue or number of reps.
Yes and no. The force required is a simple function of mass you are trying to move times the velocity at which it moves. However, it is true that the intent to move the weight faster will cause your body to at least attempt to recruit it’s largest MU’s. Whether or not the MU’s are capable of performing the task (i.e. whether they are fatigued or not and whether or not you actually produce more force) is another matter.
Once again, the force required to perform the task is not subjective. It is simply a matter of the mass times the velocity of the bar. If the bar is moved faster, as per your pervious example, then the force required to move it is greater. If the bar moves slower than the force required to move it is less. It’s really simply physics.
Once again, according to the Size Principle, your body recruits motor units from smallest to largest, and only to the point where sufficient force can be produced to lift/move the object. If the force necessary to perform the exercise changes during the set, then obviously so does the recruitment pattern.
Therefore, most likely you don’t have any “fresh” HTMU’s waiting to be recruited at the end of the set (unless perhaps you are lifting a weight that does not require you to tap into your HTMU’s, any of them, at the onset of the set, and you perform the last few reps explosively).
Continuum of voluntary force means that voluntary force follows a continuum. From low amounts of force to high amounts of force. That’s pretty much it. Once again, you are right and wrong about the ability to exert additional force when you decide to.
If you are fresh, meaning that your HTMU’s are not fatigued, then you can exert maximal force (whether it’s lifting a maximal weight, or lifting a submaximal weight quickly). However, if your HTMU’s are fatigued, then no amount of intent to produce maximal force will actually produce maximal force.
In other words, no matter how hard you try you can’t lift a 5RM 6 times. You can intend to all you want, but you won’t actually lift the weight. This is because the HTMU’s that are capable of moving the weight are fatigued at this point. The same is true of explosive lifting (increased velocity). Once the HTMU’s that allow you to move a submaximal weight quickly are fatigued, no amount of intent will allow you to continue to move it quickly.
Once again, velocity is the governing factor, not fatigue.
Yes and no. The exercise you describe above is an isometric one. Meaning that the force exerted is equal to the resistance (just to clarify, the force exerted during a traditional exercise exceeds the force required, or else the lift fails). Making this a maximal contraction (you are basically trying to lift a maximal load).
The difference between this type of exercise and a traditional barbell or bodyweight exercise (or any dynamic exercise) is that the resistance is fixed. You can exert differing amounts of voluntary force on a barbell as well. However, with a barbell, if you exert less force than the barbell is supplying, the barbell will involuntarily lengthen your muscles (eccentric muscle action). If you choose to exert equal force to the bar as it is applying to you, then it will not move, if you choose to exert more force to the bar than it is applying to you, you will lift it.
However, if the MU’s that the weight caused your body to recruit which are capable of exerting more force than the bar is applying to you are fatigued, you won’t lift it, no matter how hard you try. This is essentially what happens when you reach momentary muscular failure.
Why do you think that you are capable of lifting 100lbs more times than you are capable of moving 300 lbs? The reason is that the 100lbs is a lesser percentage of your maximum strength, and therefore, smaller, more fatigue resistant muscle fibers/MU’s are capable of lifting it. Where as 300lbs requires you to recruit larger, more powerful, and less fatigue resistant fibers to lift.
With that line of thinking, then doing 100 rep sets (100RM) would be just as beneficial for building muscles as doing 6RM sets. After all, with that line of thinking, then as long as you reach failure by the end of the set and are “trying harder” then you would recruit all of your MU’s. Are you actually suggesting that? Because essentially what your statement is saying is that perceived exertion and going to failure is as important as load and rep velocity.
If that were true then you would only ever need one set of dumbbells and an olympic bar. And as long as you went to failure and trying hard at the end of every set, you would be recruiting all of your MU’s. Now, I realize that that’s an extreme example and not what you were saying, but I felt that going to that extreme would illustrate the flaw in that line of thinking.
Here’s another example for you. Take a look at the legs of a 100M sprinter and compare them to the legs of a 1600M middle distance runner. I can guarantee you that both athletes are giving it everything they’ve got when they finish the race. Yet, look at the difference between the 100M guys’ legs and the 1600M guys’ legs. The 100M guys’ legs are huge in comparison. Why? With the line of thinking that trying harder recruits all of the HTMU’s, then both are doing so. Yet, the 100M runner’s legs are much bigger. So, clearly this can’t be the reason.
So, what is the reason? It’s velocity. Or basically the speed at which they are moving. The 100M guy is moving as fast as humanly possible, thus recruiting his HTMU’s. The 1600M guy is pacing himself for the majority of the race, and even though he may try to pick up the pace at the end of the race, he is nowhere near his maximal speed, due to muscular fatigue. Basically, his event never requires his body to recruit his HTMU’s (or at best, they are only recruited at the very end of the race).
Likewise, the 100M guy couldn’t sustain his 100M pace for the 1600M duration, and would probably do quite poorly in the event. While, the 1600M guy hasn’t developed his HTMU’s enough to be able to do well at the 100M event.
[quote]
Your CNS would still have to work to drive/activate the weaker units (due to sequential recruitment), but they wouldn’t be producing much if any force.
Anyway, I know by now I’m just repeating the traditional view, but my take on Chad’s teaser article is that working traditionally is inefficient compared to working maximally.
A lot of energy and CNS effort are used on slow twitch muscles or fatigued faster twitch muscles… when it could instead by applied to non-fatigued fast twitch units.
Anyway, I do agree that there is going to be a place for CNS training or failure training, in terms of voluntary exertion and CNS drive within a fatigued state.[/quote]
Sentoguy - Thanks for the post. You have stated your position, I have stated mine, so I am not going to drag this out. I will say that I believe you are seeing the word muscle “force” and using it in a physics sense (F=ma) instead of having it represent the intramuscular force. My last rep on the bench press is slower with the same weight, so I am demonstrating less external force but the intramuscular force is much higher because the overall muscle is working much harder.
Imagine a barbell hold that has no movement, external force is negligible and static but muscular force is high and gets much higher as the set continues.
For that reason both of the sources you cited don’t really support your cause. I teach from the NSCA’s book as my primary textbook so I am very familiar with it, I see those exact words as strongly supporting my argument with the graph on page 145 basically showing that. As you require more (intramuscular) force you recruit more motor units.
Because it is intramuscular force (or motor twitch force as the NSCA book refers to it) that we are really talking about, not external force, fatigue then becomes a very important factor to consider. And the bottom line, which I hope is pretty intuitive to all serious lifters, is that when you train hard while you are fatigued you recruit more motor units and leave less of the muscle untapped.
[quote]Majin wrote:
Cut it out already, your initial posts have been quoted and it’s clear that you didn’t understand it correctly. Why the hell do you think the author himself took the effort to repost Sentoguy’s post TWICE?! Who else do you need to verify it before you get out of denial and admit it already? Sorry, but this has gone too ridiculous.
[/quote]
Did you even read the rest of my post? I am the only one who has included cited references that actually support my position, basically word for word, from incredibly reputable sources. If you wish to discuss more, PM me.
