I don’t know. I certainly find it a bit counterintuitive to discount fatigue.
Once again, I’m not suggesting that you discount fatigue, just realize that it has nothing to do with the size principle.
[/quote]
The “size principal”? This is now a fact of science that fatigue has nothing to do with size? Since when? Hell, since when has science even discovered the specific pathways that lead to muscle growth in all instances? I admit I haven’t read every single thing you’ve written in this thread (as you seem to be writing pages of information that I hope are supported by more than what other trainers have written), but we seem to be getting away from what we do know.
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.
[/quote]
This point brilliantly illustrates the actual size principle and essentially debunks Tim’s version of the size principle.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
vroom wrote:
Hi again Sento,
I don’t know. I certainly find it a bit counterintuitive to discount fatigue.
Once again, I’m not suggesting that you discount fatigue, just realize that it has nothing to do with the size principle.
The “size principal”? This is now a fact of science that fatigue has nothing to do with size? Since when? Hell, since when has science even discovered the specific pathways that lead to muscle growth in all instances? I admit I haven’t read every single thing you’ve written in this thread (as you seem to be writing pages of information that I hope are supported by more than what other trainers have written), but we seem to be getting away from what we do know.[/quote]
I’m sure Sentoguy will respond, but what he is talking about is Henneman’s size principle as it relates to motor unit recruitment. And, he is right, fatigue is not related to it.
[quote]caneman wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
vroom wrote:
Hi again Sento,
I don’t know. I certainly find it a bit counterintuitive to discount fatigue.
Once again, I’m not suggesting that you discount fatigue, just realize that it has nothing to do with the size principle.
The “size principal”? This is now a fact of science that fatigue has nothing to do with size? Since when? Hell, since when has science even discovered the specific pathways that lead to muscle growth in all instances? I admit I haven’t read every single thing you’ve written in this thread (as you seem to be writing pages of information that I hope are supported by more than what other trainers have written), but we seem to be getting away from what we do know.
I’m sure Sentoguy will respond, but what he is talking about is Henneman’s size principle as it relates to motor unit recruitment. And, he is right, fatigue is not related to it.[/quote]
Interesting information (and I will go through that more later). However, are we really just discussing theory of motorneuron recruitment or what we are actually seeing in those who train for the most growth possible?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Once again, I’m not suggesting that you discount fatigue, just realize that it has nothing to do with the size principle.[/quote]
It must.
If I lift a weight that requires at least one larger motor unit, then I should be able to fatigue that motor unit.
Are you seriously suggesting that when that one additional motor unit fails that we have to stop lifting? If so, then the body sucks at survival, since it can’t adapt and drive an additional motor unit…
The size principle tells us which unit will be additionally recruited next as the CNS is forced to drive harder to generate the force needed.
No, I’m not. I’m suggesting it is the intent to exert the force required to move it faster… this is not the same as actually being able to move the bar faster.
The intent or effort is what creates the firing pattern, which then causes the force which then will move the bar faster… the bar moving faster is the end result of a voluntary effort.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Again, though, the above statements also supports the notion that your body will be able to recruit “other” motor units to keep lifting when some are fatigued.
I think you are ignoring the notion of voluntary.
I don’t disagree with this, but I disagree with the notion that I can’t force maximal voluntary recruitment of HTMU’s whenever I exert myself appropriately. They may be fatigued, but recruitment is in a fixed pattern, and it is CNS activation based on voluntary intent that determines the pattern.
I’m not arguing against fatigue.
The intent is what drives the recruitment, the fatigue is what drives the amount of force remaining in the HTMU’s recruited.
[quote]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.[/quote]
I am afraid I disagree, if you are suggesting that I can’t increase the number of muscle units being driven. Of course, when enough units are fatigued, it doesn’t matter if you have maximum voluntary recruitment or not, but it won’t move.
The way you argue it implies there is a fixed recruitment for a weight… but I would suggest instead there is a fixed recruitment for an exertion level (CNS based firing pattern).
This is not a good example. If 100 lbs recruited no HTMU’s, but all the other units, then 105 lbs must invoke one or more HTMU’s.
Surely when that one HTMU is tired the body doesn’t simply give up and suggest you cannot lift 105 lbs.
Not at all. There are certainly other factors at play with repetitive endurance style exercise such as accumulation of byproducts… not to mention the induction of catabolic processes.
Again, endurance activities have lower CNS activation, build up of byproducts and catabolic processes, so I don’t think we can assume that we know much about HTMU recruitment based on eventual muscle development.
There can be a lot of interplay among CNS activation levels, byproducts and catabolism factors.
EDIT: By the way, while debating I’m sure this reads like I think I know what I’m talking about, but I really won’t claim so.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
vroom wrote:
Hi again Sento,
I don’t know. I certainly find it a bit counterintuitive to discount fatigue.
Once again, I’m not suggesting that you discount fatigue, just realize that it has nothing to do with the size principle.
The “size principal”? This is now a fact of science that fatigue has nothing to do with size? Since when? Hell, since when has science even discovered the specific pathways that lead to muscle growth in all instances? I admit I haven’t read every single thing you’ve written in this thread (as you seem to be writing pages of information that I hope are supported by more than what other trainers have written), but we seem to be getting away from what we do know.[/quote]
LOL. Good one X. Of course we’re not talking about muscle size, or the over all size of the individual, or whether or not fatigue has to do with muscle building (at least I’m not). But, of course you are probably making a subtle point that those are exactly what we should be focusing on. Huh?
The information that I am writing is backed by scientific studies along with anecdotal evidence and an understanding of physics. Honestly I had hoped that my initial post would have been enough of an explanation but others asked questions or debated my points and I was therefore force to elaborate.
You are also correct in questioning science’s understanding of the pathways that lead to muscle growth, as we are probably just scratching the surface in terms of our understanding of the body, especially the nervous system. In fact, from what I’ve gathered, the only thing we know for sure is that progressive overload is required for muscular hypertrophy. Beyond that, it’s all speculation and individual preference.
I’ve scanned through this monster of a thread and noticed a few things which were off or needed clarification.
Both Tim and Sentoguy have said that type I fibers are weak compared to type II fibers. However, as I understand it, type I fibers exert a similar amount of pull per unit of area as type II fibers, but their contraction speed is 4-10 times less and they have less potential for hypertrophy. So, under conditions not requiring high contraction speed (traditional weight training), type I fibers are just as important as type II.
2)Chad’s 85% guideline for MU activation is taken from a number of sports science books. I remember Zatsiorsky saying all available MUs were recruited at 80% of maximum maximorum force with rate coding accounting for force percentages between 80-100%. So, 85% just seems like a safe amount to suggest.
We’ve all been discussing the size principle, but I believe that it was tested under isometric conditions only. During the eccentric portion of any movement the type II fibers are recruited preferrentially, making the size principle somewhat purposeless. Also, if maximum MU recruitment was the deciding factor in hypertrophy then plyometric movements would build slabs of size. EMG readings show that during high speed and force ammortization phases muscles exceed 100% of maximum voluntary contraction, yet such activities yield minimal amounts of hypertrophy.
Not directed at any previous post in particular, but to the article itself, I don’t believe bar speed will have any effect on hypertrophy training, at least not directly. The only use I see for high force exercises as they apply to training is to create a potentiating effect prior to either the submaximal or the repeated effort methods. An example would be to perform a set of reactive squats immediately prior to a high rep set of repeated effort squats to serve as a CNS potentiator.
I think that was all I wanted to type, but I’m not sure. If I think of anything else I’ll post back.
I think this graph may help. As you can see motor unit recruitment is dependent on force required, not fatigue. “Walk” can be replaced by lifting with a 100 rm. “Run” can be replaced by lifting with a 30 rm. “Sprint” can be replaced by lifting with a 10 rm and “Jump” can be replaced by lifting with a 1 rm.
Additionally, with this graph, you are assuming that you are lifting as fast as possible for each rep.
You could do 20 sets to absolute failure with a 100 rm but you still would not recruit the FR or the FF fibers.
The bottom line is training to failure will NOT get you further up the graph. The only variable that can increase motor unit recruitment is force(f=ma). And since we’ve already assumed acceleration to be constant (as fast as possible), than the weight on the bar is the only variable that can increase motor unit recruitment.
The even bigger bottom line is training to failure is not necessary for progress and therefore growth.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
vroom wrote:
Hi again Sento,
I don’t know. I certainly find it a bit counterintuitive to discount fatigue.
Once again, I’m not suggesting that you discount fatigue, just realize that it has nothing to do with the size principle.
The “size principal”? This is now a fact of science that fatigue has nothing to do with size? Since when? Hell, since when has science even discovered the specific pathways that lead to muscle growth in all instances? I admit I haven’t read every single thing you’ve written in this thread (as you seem to be writing pages of information that I hope are supported by more than what other trainers have written), but we seem to be getting away from what we do know.
LOL. Good one X. Of course we’re not talking about muscle size, or the over all size of the individual, or whether or not fatigue has to do with muscle building (at least I’m not). But, of course you are probably making a subtle point that those are exactly what we should be focusing on. Huh?
The information that I am writing is backed by scientific studies along with anecdotal evidence and an understanding of physics. Honestly I had hoped that my initial post would have been enough of an explanation but others asked questions or debated my points and I was therefore force to elaborate.
You are also correct in questioning science’s understanding of the pathways that lead to muscle growth, as we are probably just scratching the surface in terms of our understanding of the body, especially the nervous system. In fact, from what I’ve gathered, the only thing we know for sure is that progressive overload is required for muscular hypertrophy. Beyond that, it’s all speculation and individual preference.
Good training,
Sentoguy[/quote]
THANK YOU for coming back to reality.
I like discussing this shit like the next guy and will be looking into Elwood Henneman more after this, but I get the feeling that there are actually those who can’t tell the difference between THEORY and real world results.
While that doesn’t seem to be you, from the responses in that other thread, there are SEVERAL people like that here are so caught up in trying to show off how much theory they know that the fact that their muscles are only making minor improvements completely skips their perception.
That is, if they haven’t already rationalized that their lack of growth is “real world results” for their “real life” and that everyone else growing a whole lot either doesn’t live in the real world or is simply some being from another planet and race far removed from what they can ever achieve.
In fact, if we question those who claim they have seen “great results” from following every word from an author, we never get any proof of these “great results”.
I honestly want to know very simply, who the fuck has gotten HUGE from training that way. If that can’t be answered, then why does it mean much of anything?
The even bigger bottom line is training to failure is not necessary for progress and therefore growth.[/quote]
Lifting weights isn’t even necessary for all forms of muscle growth. Are some of you aware that we still don’t know what causes a muscle to grow to its potential specifically? You don’t jump from “theory” to making hard and fast rules about what is or is not necessary for growth when we are discussing building the most size in a muscle group.
If I lift a weight that requires at least one larger motor unit, then I should be able to fatigue that motor unit.
Are you seriously suggesting that when that one additional motor unit fails that we have to stop lifting? If so, then the body sucks at survival, since it can’t adapt and drive an additional motor unit…
The size principle tells us which unit will be additionally recruited next as the CNS is forced to drive harder to generate the force needed.
[/quote]
Once again, the size principle itself states nothing about fatigue. I understand what you are getting at and that is that as the set progresses, even though the mass of the bar does not increase, your effort to move it does. In other words, you are trying to exert more force on the bar.
Well, honestly I think our points are being lost in semantics. I agree that your intent to exert more force on the bar is important. But, let me ask you this, don’t you think that the bar will still move faster if you try to move it faster? Even if that difference in speed is minimal? Therefore, won’t the force of moving the bar also increase?
Yes, it will. I never meant to suggest that it couldn’t and if that’s what you felt that I meant, then I apologize for my lack of clarity. All I was trying to say was that the force requirements of the exercise determined the MU recruitment pattern.
Not at all. I never mentioned involuntary action.
You know that’s an interesting statement vroom. In theory I’d like to agree with you, yet I can’t help but think that there are details about the situation that we would need to take into consideration.
For instance, lets say that you wanted to flex your bicep (with your elbow at a 90 degree angle) as hard as possible against no resistance. Could you do it? Would it be possible to actually recruit your biggest strongest HTMU’s?
It would depend on the strength of your tricep in this case wouldn’t it? Because if your bicep was stronger than your tricep you would not be able to keep your arm at 90 degrees. Your body might compensate for this by inhibiting your strongest HTMU’s in your bicep.
Which makes me wonder if you wouldn’t still need an external resistance great enough to allow for the largest HTMU’s to recruit.
But, honestly I’m just thinking out loud. What do you think?
Well, good I’m glad we agree on that. LOL.
Once again, I’m not debating that. Although I still hesitate to agree that it’s the only governing factor.
Of course not. I was simply saying that the exercise you mentioned had anywhere from a maximal load to a nonexistent load (since the load was governed by your opposing muscle groups). In other words, you are voluntarily controlling the amount of load you are placing on your bicep. When you contract extremely hard, you must place an equal amount of load on that muscle with the opposing muscle group. If you didn’t you’d tear something.
I also completely agree with your second sentence.
Yes, I can see how what I am saying might be interpreted like that. What I am saying is that force demands determine recruitment.
Ok, well I understand your point about exertion levels and can’t say that I disagree. But, have you also considered that the exertion level might have something to do with the force requirements of the task?
Not necessarily. 105 might not be enough of a load either. Although I understand your point.
Well this was probably a bit of an extreme example, and honestly I think we’re trying to be a bit too specific in our examples. I understand your point, but I guess I didn’t make mine as clear as I wanted to.
My point was that you can lift a lighter load more times than a heavier one. Why? Because the smaller less fatigue resistant fibers that are capable of meeting the force requirements of the smaller load can last longer. My use of 100 and 300 lbs was to exaggerate the difference, in hope to illustrate my point more clearly. I guess it didn’t really work huh? LOL.
In other words, let’s say that we have a MU capable of lifting 105 lbs (and according to the size principle all other smaller MU’s, which are also more fatigue resistant, will also be recruited).
Now, eventually this MU will reach momentary muscular failure (earlier than the smaller MU’s which have also been recruited). If the body recruited the next larger MU, then all of the sudden the reps would be easier than the first couple. Remember that the first MU to fatigue is also the largest one. All smaller MU’s have better fatigue resistance.
As the larger MU’s fatigued and even larger MU’s were recruited, the reps would once again get easier (or at the very least stay the same difficulty), there would also not be a decline in rep velocity.
Remember that the larger the MU’s the shorter their time to fatigue, but the more powerful they are. The smaller the MU’s the longer they take to fatigue and the less powerful they are.
Wait, so you are saying that voluntary exertion is not the mechanism that’s responsible for MU recruitment then. Because, if it was, then regardless of other factors, it would still govern MU recruitment.
Hmmm…so you’re saying that CNS activation is not a determinant of MU recruitment? Thus, that once again your theory of voluntary exertion (CNS firing patterns) is not what determines whether HTMU’s are brought into play?
I’m not debating this, but it seems like you are suggesting in one statement that CNS firing patterns are the #1 determinant factor governing MU recruitment. And then in the next suggesting that metabolic factors can change this? Please elaborate.
My explanation of the size principle was that force was the determining factor when it came to MU recruitment. Force explains why a sprinter has big legs, force explains why powerlifters and strongmen are big people, the lack of high amounts of force explains why long distance runners don’t have appreciable amounts of muscle, the lack of force explains why people who lift light weights don’t have big muscles.
Force, seems to be a heck of a lot more accurate gauge of MU recruitment than voluntary (or perceived) exertion. Not that that has nothing to do with MU recruitment or building muscle of course.
LOL. No problem. You actually raise some intelligent arguments and questions. Keep up the good work.
[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
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.
[/quote]
So, are you suggesting that external force has nothing to do with intramuscular force? The amount of intramuscular force that I experience is determined by the external force. If I lift a high percentage of my 1RM, then that heavy external force means that I must create a greater intramuscular force if I wish to over come that resistance and lift the weight. Right?
Now, if I wish to lift that weight quickly, the force requirements are even greater, thus meaning that my intramuscular force must also be greater. Right?
So, my suggestion that external force is the determining stimulus for MU recruitment is still correct. Right? Even if you try to say that we are talking about intramuscular force, that force is still the result of the external force placed on the muscle.
First, muscular force does not get higher as the set continues, that would create movement. The force stays the same as the resistance (the exercise is isometric in nature).
Second, if the barbell is light enough that it is capable of being held for long periods of time, then it does not recruit the HTMU’s. It only fatigues the smaller less fatigue resistant MU’s.
Hmmm…well, then your interpretation of those words and that graph are different from all of my college professors, and my, and CW’s interpretation of those words.
Once again, intramuscular force is what they are talking about, yes. But, intramuscular force is determined by external resistance. Seriously, give me one good example where you are contracting maximally (voluntarily), and not contracting against a resistance, where HTMU’s are recruited. In other words where there are high amounts of intramuscular force, but no external force present. Just one.
The problem is that you can’t. If you try to suggest an isometric contraction, then you are wrong. You are either contracting against an immovable external object, or an opposing muscle group.
Against a barbell? Clearly not. Against gravity? Once again clearly not.
Try this, try contracting maximally against an external resistance, any thing will do, a dumbell, barbell, resistance band, anything.
What happens? Well, either
a) if the weight was of a very small percentage of 1RM you lifted the weight extremely quickly (which by the way increased the force required to move it, and intramuscular force as well).
b) the weight was a high percentage of your 1RM and you moved it and while you were pulling as hard (and fast) as you could, the actual weight speed was relatively slow. Or,
c) the weight was equal to or greater than you could lift and there was therefore no movement created (assuming that you are starting from the bottom up, if you start from the top, then clearly you could also experience an eccentric muscle action).
Well, those are basically what happens when you maximally contract your muscles (against an external resistance). And, according to the size principle if you are maximally contracting your muscles (recruiting the largest HTMU’s/type 11b fibers), then all smaller MU’s must also be recruited.
Therefore, all parts of your muscle fibers are involved in this one repetition. Further reps, while beneficial for Lactic acid build up/hormonal stimulus, mental and psychological benefits, etc… will not mean that you end up working more of the muscle.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
But, my point is that a lot of the bigger guys in my gym - and it is a so-called ‘hardcore’ gym, filled with semi-pro and rec. rugby players - do not work out as hard as I do, yet make more progress.[/quote]
Perception. I know for a fact that most people who see me come in the gym and then leave 30-35min later think I don’t train very hard. They see me train one body part, do 3-4 exercises and then get up and leave. I don’t grunt real loud so the only attention I attract is with the number of plates I am using which seems to impress a few.
However, I am sweating by the end and the amount of weight I am using negates the need for tons of sets and tons of reps. yes, I may have only done 3-4 exercises but they were all for chest alone and the weight I was using is 2-3 times as much as that used by the guy asking me as I leave, “you’re done already?!”.
It isn’t about if they were work very hard TO YOU. If their muscles are growing way faster than your own, then obviously they worked hard enough FOR THEM.
Perceived intensity is not the same as “maximal intensity”. I have trained in a few times with someone who was on a machine I wanted to use. I have also noticed that if I can persuade that person to use more weight and then cheer them on as they press it, suddenly the weight they thought they could lift as a max goes up 50lbs or more. How could that be if they were already “training hard”? I guarantee if you asked them, they would have said they train harder than a whole lot of people.
Those perceptions of intensity are why you can’t make hard and fast rules about what promotes growth the best for all people. Anyone who thinks like that severely underestimates the human mind and how much of an effect it has on potential and progress.
Not one of the theories I’ve seen discussed has even approached considering why total focus in the gym will lead one person to make more progress than the guy who can’t achieve the same focus. Not one has dealt with perceived mental limitations which will halt any further progress until overcome.
Reaching your ultimate potential has more to do with those concepts taught to karate students or those who learn meditation than many even realize.
That is why working with people stronger and bigger than you is more help than knowing as many theories as possible. You might know Elwood Henneman’s theories inside and out but what do you know about approaching a weight that is heavy enough to truly scare you yet push past that and move it for the first time simply because you have psyched yourself out to believe you can?
For all of those trying to sound extra smart, why are all of those dummies making so much more progress?
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
But, my point is that a lot of the bigger guys in my gym - and it is a so-called ‘hardcore’ gym, filled with semi-pro and rec. rugby players - do not work out as hard as I do, yet make more progress.[/quote]
Just a quick note on your above remark.
I used to work out much “harder” when I first got started weight lifting.
My programs were moderate in volume and frequency, but since I was also influenced by Mike Mentzer every set was performed to complete concentric failure. Months later when I stopped progressing every set for the next two years was then performed until eccentric failure. That was my standard.
When I looked around I saw guys who were much bigger than me not “working as hard”. I then got frustrated and blamed genetics.
After an endless string of injuries, which I’m sure my training was to blame, I made my comeback to the gym and “half assed it”. In actuality, it wasn’t really half-assing I was just ending my sets a rep or two away from concentric failure. I focused more on progressive overloading , but always short of going balls to the wall, and ended up making more progress training like this then when I was working “harder”.
So, what’s the point of what I just wrote. I’m not sure (lol), but I would say that if your perception of working “hard” in the gym is not getting you the results you want then perhaps you should rethink what is really necessary to make progress.
Thats a tough thing to discuss, how much effort someone is putting in to the exercise… With what Professor X was talking about, alot more has to do with consistency, exercise selection, rest, nutrition and the proper level of effort.
Effort in and of itself is not going to get you anywhere without the other attributes. Not many people come into the gym, work hard the whole workout, then come in and do it again, and again, etc… with some intelligent programming in there, that is the difference.
Sentoguy - admitting that internal muscle force and external muscle force are not the same should make this clear. It should be obvious on basically every hard set that external force decreases as the reps climb, while internal muscle force increases. Internal muscle force is simply the sensation of being hard.
Really we are discussing one simple issue, does the size principle take into account fatigue? I say absolutely it does. My references say it does. You say it does not. Fair enough, but continuing to site something that uses the word force does not help your argument. Find a source that specifically says the size principle is NOT affected by fatigue and then you will at least have some more backing to stand on.
[quote]caneman wrote:
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.
This point brilliantly illustrates the actual size principle and essentially debunks Tim’s version of the size principle.
[/quote]
It is actually the opposite. With Sento’s line of thinking, you are working the most motor units on your first rep when you are going hard/fast. That means the first rep is most productive, so why ever do more than one rep? Or more than one set? Or more than one exercise?
What do we know about training for hypertrophy? The goal of hypertrophy is to recruit as many motor units as possible to force the muscle to grow. We know that most people should use 6-12 reps per set. Why? That is enough weight to hit the majority of the muscle fibers. Less reps may not be enough TUT to recruit the maximal amount, less weight may be too light to force the type IIb to fire (and may cause fiber transitioning with super high reps to type IIa).
We know you should multiple sets per exercise. Why? Each consecutive set is harder than the first one. Being fatigued and working hard recruits more motor units. If this was not true why would you ever do another set when training for size?
We know you should rest for a limited time, 30-120 seconds is common.
Why? Why not a full rest so I can use more force to recruit more motor units? Because training in a fatigued state uses more motor units and forces the ones that are often dormant to kick in.
Why would we do different exercises for the same muscle if we could contract all of the motor units if we push hard? Because different angles emphasize different sections of the muscle, which may be hard to work with one exercise.
Why are we so much sorer when we do a bodybuilding type routine (many exercises, sets, reps, etc) than just one exercise for that muscle? Because we have recruited and damaged a much larger part of the muscle than with just that one exercise.
Everything we know that is common sense in the gym (in this instance) is well backed by science. We know how to recruit as many motor units as possible, train hard in a fatigued state, as Mel Siff states clearly.
