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.
Good training,
Sentoguy[/quote]
You’re right Sentoguy (allow me to compliment you on both your intellegence AND your ability to write!)
But my addition to what you wrote above is that if these guys DID read the many training articles and took them to heart, they’d read things such as “only lift using a 4-0-3-1 tempo” prescription or “if you train THAT WAY, you will certainly be overtrained in a week” or “you don’t NEED to lift heavy, you need to use higher reps and less sets and train full-body three times per week, everything else in counter-productive”.
In all cases, I’ll be willing to bet thier progress would slow down or halt or even regress.
There’s a whole lot more guys working out that DO read these things and change thier entire training philosophy month to month than there are guys who read it yet continue using the methods that got them results in the first place.
For all of those trying to sound extra smart, why are all of those dummies making so much more progress?
Shouldn’t THAT be the main question?[/quote]
I’ve been fortunate enough to go from solo training to training with two guys that outweigh me by about 70lbs. One of them is 53 and still competes in BB comps at around 6’2 245lbs. They let me train with them because they like the extra 45 seconds (they call me the “gap” man).
I’ve made more progress with them than ever before, and it’s mostly because I keep my little intellectual, internet researching mouth closed and pay attention to how they go about their business.
Is it about the weight? Not really, moderate, something that you can control - but only with intense effort and focus. The kind of weight that makes you grind it out - not one big “blow your load” rep, not twenty “I might as well be jogging” reps. Leave your ego at the door and do it right.
Designed programs? Nope. Just pick the muscle group for that day and hit it from 3 or 4 angles - especially the angles you didn’t do last time. Sets vary - super/giant sets - whatever it takes…just don’t lose the blood flow.
Consistency? You bet your ass. And if you don’t bring the effort, they know it and will call you out. Miss a day for anything less than death and you hear about it for weeks.
Diet? Unless you’re getting ready for a show, just eat…a lot. But don’t be an idiot.
I’m not sure if they’ve ever even turned on a computer. They are big. They once were not.
This isn’t related directly to this latest Waterbury article, but I have a hard time with the whole idea of anything being “discovered” that will render EVERYTHING successful weight trainees have been doing for decades obsolete.
It’s been working after all and quite well in those with the right mindset.
As the fast twitch fibers tire towards the end of the set, there are less of them available to exert the force, therefore less force is being produced against the bar and it is harder to move.
My theory is that people with a lower percentage of fast twitch fibers will get more of a benefit out of this type of training (stopping short of failure) than people with a higher percentage of fast twitch fibers.
Hence the reason top bodybuilders (who are considered to have a very high percentage of fast twitch fibers) will get better gains than the general gym goer when training to failure.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This isn’t related directly to this latest Waterbury article, but I have a hard time with the whole idea of anything being “discovered” that will render EVERYTHING successful weight trainees have been doing for decades obsolete.
It’s been working after all and quite well in those with the right mindset.[/quote]
Hey, didn’t you write “I’m staying out of this for now” or something similar a page or two ago?
(totally kidding!)
I feel the EXACT same way that you do.
If “Everything Is About To Change” then we may as well throw away all our gym equipment right now.
wtf? since when do muscles operate at 100% efficiency
You cannot use this simplistic equation very reliably in this situation.
To move a mass at a given acceleration you need a specific force - but for the muscle to generate that force it has to do a varying amount of work
it is not the same moving 10kg at speed of 20 as it is moving 20kg at speed of 10
Because the efficiency at which your fibers can contract at different speeds is not the same
Or to put it another way, imagine smashing a door down with a sledgehammer or a small mallet. You cannot move the small mallet fast enough to create the same force - to exert the same force upon it - as you can a sledgehammer.
Or to put it another way (which is often used as an example) - a shotputter and a javellin thrower, very similar movments etc… but completely different and specific adaptions in their muscles to generate the same level of force, but at different speeds and upon different masses, and not completely transferrable.
Obviously if training for a specific athletic purpose your training should match that. But we are talking about some theory of excellent hypertrophy, with no need for any particular gains in athletics, so weare open to any number of approaches.
I can’t help feeling the best approach is going to be, contstantly changing your approach to challenge adaption, rather than System X based on some new fangled theory.
Nevertheless anything that helps solve the paradox of wanting to A) maximise stress of fibers and B) maximise rate of recovery of fibers - that is fine by me.
[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
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.
[/quote]
The sensation of being hard? Are you serious? Once again if that were true then my 100 rep set would still stimulate maximal HTMU recruitment. Try doing a 100RM set sometime, and tell me that the last rep doesn’t have the “sensation of being hard”. The “sensation” as you suggest is due to fatigue and metabolite build-up, not increased MU recruitment.
You can’t separate the two. Intramuscular force isn’t the “sensation of being hard” it’s the amount of force that the muscle fibers are generating. Whether that force is less than, equal to, or greater than the external force is what determines whether the contraction is eccentric, isometric, or concentric.
You’re trying to look at this stuff in a vacuum, but it doesn’t happen that way.
[quote]
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]
Fair enough, I’ll state several real world examples, why continue to quote science texts (intangible sources), when I can quote actual real world examples.
If the size principle took fatigue into account, which I assume to mean the perceived difficulty of contraction due to fatigue and metabolite build-up, and if MU’s were really recruited based on the “sensation of (the contraction) being hard”, then why do countless bodybuilders out there suggest that you keep your reps to 12 at the maximum? Why not 15RM, or 20RM, or 100RM? What is it about a 12 RM or lower that makes those sets superior for building muscle?
Wait for it…wait for it…wait for it…it’s load/force. Guess what, you’re going to have the “sensation” of high amounts of exertion anytime you approach momentary muscular failure (whether it’s a 5RM or 1000RM), but clearly bodybuilders have discovered ages ago that this perception of exertion was not a good gauge of whether you were hitting the biggest strongest MU’s/muscle fibers.
They realized a long time ago that you had to expose your muscle to high amounts of force, high enough to produce an overload effect, and thus hypertrophy.
Failure is over rated. Failure is not a good predictor of MU recruitment, load/force is.
Why do I say this? Here’s why. In keeping with Prof X’s sobering post regarding the need to take real world examples into account, name for me one bodybuilder (or really big muscular guy) who trains to failure on every set. I’d bet you could do it.
Now, name one bodybuilder who doesn’t. I’d bet that you could already do that (and if you can’t then I will, Ronnie Coleman, yup that’s right the man who is currently tied for the most Mr. O wins in history, and could possibly become the all time leader, never trains to failure).
Ok, now name for me one really big bodybuilder who trains with high loads/force (heavy weights). Easy right? Ok, now name for me one really big bodybuilder who trains with low loads/force (light weights).
Oh wait, there aren’t any. How come? Because load/force is an essential component of building maximal muscle, which correlates to working the largest MU’s/muscle fibers (since they have the greatest potential for growth and these individuals are the pinnacle of human growth potential).
See we can cite examples of individuals who do and don’t take their sets to failure. Therefore, training to failure can be ruled out as a predictor for building muscle (muscle fiber/MU recruitment). However, since every single bodybuilder or heavily muscle person out there utilizes high amounts of force/load, we must admit that high amounts of force/load is an accurate predictor for building muscle (muscle fiber/MU recruitment).
You can interpret words any way you want. It’s a lot harder to argue with concrete examples. Sprinters have larger legs than long distance runners. Both have the sensation of the exercise being hard (at least at some point in the event), both use the same muscles, but the sprinter’s muscles experience much more force during the exercise, thus the sprinter’s legs are larger. I can keep on citing examples, and have already cited serveral.
How about you give me one example of someone who held light barbells in isometric positions for long periods (after all, you suggest that this results in extremely high amounts of intramuscular force, which you suggest is what governs MU recruitment) and has huge muscles. Just one.
You’re right Sentoguy (allow me to compliment you on both your intellegence AND your ability to write!)
But my addition to what you wrote above is that if these guys DID read the many training articles and took them to heart, they’d read things such as “only lift using a 4-0-3-1 tempo” prescription or “if you train THAT WAY, you will certainly be overtrained in a week” or “you don’t NEED to lift heavy, you need to use higher reps and less sets and train full-body three times per week, everything else in counter-productive”.
In all cases, I’ll be willing to bet thier progress would slow down or halt or even
regress.
[/quote]
You have a point there derek. But, I’d also be willing to bet that a lot of those big guys have enough experience under their belts to be able to read through articles and determine which points to take and which points to leave. If something went completely against what they have been doing, which gave them great results, my suspicion would be that they would just brush it aside.
True, but I doubt that the majority of those guys who change their workout every month are also big strong guys. The really accomplished ones are most likely the ones who have found out what worked well for them and stuck to it.
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?
[/quote]
I never said it was the most productive, I said it recruited the maximal MU’s (assuming that the force requirements were great enough).
Why do more than one rep? Because muscle size isn’t simply a result of MU recruitment. Yes, you need to recruit the largest MU’s as they have the greatest potential for growth. But, unless that 1 rep was enough to elicit overload, then it won’t help in building muscle. You still need to take in to consideration volume and overload (work done in a given time).
I agree with you in essence. But, if the size principle (MU recruitment) was really dependent on training to failure (perceived difficulty), then we could use any rep scheme and still hit the HTMU’s. You yourself in this paragraph admit that force is the factor that causes your body to recruit the largest MU’s, not failure or perceived exertion.
The reason why you generally need to perform multiple sets per exercise is that you need to produce an overload. One set will seldom do this. However, if you had an individual who only ever trained using one set, then as long as he was experiencing overload and was getting in enough volume (which would be extremely difficult, and quite possibly impossible) he would experience some hypertrophy.
Now, in this case he probably wouldn’t be using enough load/force to recruit his largest MU’s and thus would not build optimal amounts of muscle. But still, it’s the load/force that determines MU recruitment, not going to failure or fatigue.
With that line of thinking, why not just keep yourself in a perpetual state of fatigue. Don’t sleep enough, only rest for 10 seconds between sets, do hundreds of sets per workout for each muscle group, spend 8 hours straight in the gym.
You suggest that if we took a longer rest that we could recruit more HTMU’s (so basically you’re admitting to the fact that the HTMU’s are fatigued), but then say that working out in a fatigued state recruits more HTMU’s. Sorry, but that’s a contradiction.
Wow, where in this entire thread has anyone suggested that you can hit every available portion of a muscle using only one joint action (exercise)? First, there are different heads to different muscles. For instance the deltoids. The anterior head’s primary action is shoulder flexion, while the posterior head’s primary action is horizontal shoulder extension.
You can’t do both of those joint actions at the same time. Therefore you need different exercises to allow different portions of the muscle to be worked.
However, this has nothing to do with the MU recruitment in the individual heads of the muscle. Certainly, muscles can only contract and different muscle fibers have different lines of pull, so different joint actions are required to target different portions of a muscle (muscle fibers). But, this is a completely different topic than the one we’ve been discussing.
No matter how many sets of front dumbbell raises you did to failure, you’d still never work your posterior delts. Nor did I ever suggest that using heavy loads/fast contractions would allow you to do so either.
Your logic seems to be all over the place on this topic.
Soreness is not an accurate indicator of progress or how successful your workout was. If you are sick (which also means that you’ll be fatigued, and have less energy for lifting)when you go into the gym and bust your ass and do tonnes of muscle damage and can’t get out of the bed the next morning, but your workout numbers absolutely sucked you’re still most likely not going to get huge gains in muscle or strength as a result.
I could have someone beat the crap out of me and incur huge amounts of muscle damage and be sore as a MoFo for days following, but guess what I’m not going to get huge muscles as a result.
If muscle damage was directly linked to muscle hypertrophy then trauma victims and those recovering from surgery would experience the highest rates of hypertrophy of anyone. They would grow faster than anyone in the gym. This isn’t the case though.
Let’s say for instance that we have an individual who gets a knee replacement in his right (dominant) leg and is told not to perform any heavy resistance training that involves that knee joint (by the way I’m also aware that some schools of physical therapy prescribe exercise almost immediately following surgery, let’s just say for the sake of this example that this is not one of those cases).
However, during the time period when he is letting that knee recover, he still performs heavy resistance training for his healthy knee/leg.
When his operated on knee finally heals, which do you think will be bigger, his right leg which experience huge amounts of muscle damage (once again, let’s assume that he didn’t have minimally invasive surgery and thus had maximal muscle damage), or his left leg, which experienced much less muscle damage, but much higher levels of resistance (force/load)?
Personally, my bet would be on the left leg.
But you aren’t using common sense. Once again, training to failure or in a fatigued state does not necessarily mean that you’ll recruit more MU’s. You are in a fatigued state when running a marathon, but I’d be willing to bet you aren’t gonna build big muscles from doing that.
Using heavy loads on the other hand does mean that you’ll recruit more MU’s. You’ve even admitted to this (quite possibly unintentionally) in this post. There is no instance that you can give me where load/force is not a factor in MU recruitment. I have already given you several where fatigue/failure is not a factor in MU recruitment.
My understanding is that the muscle fibers fatigue as the set progresses, and that this is why the last reps are the hardest.
Incidentally, I’m not sure how much different this is than what CW has always been saying. He always has suggested stopping several reps short of failure. For instance, instead of prescribing 3x8 at 8RM, he might prescribe 4x6 at the 8RM, with shorter rest intervals to accumulate fatigue.
If we apply his latest article, we might come up with a prescription of 6x4 at 8RM, but with even shorter rest intervals. Thus, we maintain the same total work and density, but we increase the power output, which presumably means that we’re working the fast-twitch fibers more. This seems to be a straight-forward application of the oft-repeated (by CW and others like him) “train for performance, not pain.”
wtf? since when do muscles operate at 100% efficiency
You cannot use this simplistic equation very reliably in this situation.
[/quote]
While I agree with you Magarhe I used the equation because it’s simple and illustrates the fact that acceleration plays a part in force.
Certainly there are different leverages, number of available cross bridge attachments (muscle length), limb lengths, etc… that affect the amount of force that a muscle must generate at different points during a concentric muscle contraction. But, because those factors are always the same (in the individual) regardless of load, rep speed or fatigue, then can be effectively factored out of the equation.
The weight (load/force) of the bar however is a much simpler method of determining required levels of force. In fact short of an EMG there is no way of determining the force generated within the muscle other than simply to look at the work it performs externally.
If we can figure out the mass of the resistance (kg) and then multiply it by gravity (approx. 2.2) we can figure out the force required to lift it (weight). If the muscles are capable of moving the bar, then we know for certain that they must be producing at least slightly more force than the weight of the bar.
If the bar is attempted to be accelerated (lifted explosively), then due to inertia the force required to move that weight quickly will increase. Thus, the muscles must also increase the force they’re producing.
Well, first the 20kg weight will have greater inertia due to greater mass, thus requiring more force to move, while the 10kg weight will have less inertia, thus requiring less force to move.
Interesting point. Although I think that you should really define what you mean by “efficiency”.
Also, your examples of the hammers and javelin/shotput still illustrate that the greater load generates greater forces. And that the load is a determinant of MU recruitment.
I have been suggesting for some time now that it’s the force requirements that govern the recruitment of HTMU’s. Your example (especially of the shotputter) seems to illustrate this point once again.
[quote]derek wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
This isn’t related directly to this latest Waterbury article, but I have a hard time with the whole idea of anything being “discovered” that will render EVERYTHING successful weight trainees have been doing for decades obsolete.
It’s been working after all and quite well in those with the right mindset.
Hey, didn’t you write “I’m staying out of this for now” or something similar a page or two ago?
(totally kidding!)
I feel the EXACT same way that you do.
If “Everything Is About To Change” then we may as well throw away all our gym equipment right now.[/quote]
Yeah, ya caught me. He’s not saying that though. He also did say that the next installment will put callouses on the hands of his hypothesis so to speak, meaning he’s going to enunciate how this would workout under the weights.
Fair enough. The pebble in my shoe is that unless we eventually see a bunch of guys displaying some “everything has changed” results then it hasn’t. I like Chad. His world training view is usually not mine, but I still like the guy. However my eyes instinctively roll when I hear anybody, not just him, make statements espousing the primitive and inferior nature of what huge numbers of people have been successful at.
That also doesn’t mean I won’t cheerfully declare myself in error if he turns out to be right. I have simply been unimpressed with the success rate of those attempting to revolutionize the how with usually premature lab conclusions concerning the why.
I think that the name of Waterbury’s article has a lot to do with his promotion of a new theory of muscle growth. That is, the ‘traditional’ view basically says that breaking down the muscle fibers, followed by rest and food, is the way to grow.
In constrast, Waterbury and others take a more CNS-focused view on muscle growth, in which movement patterns are emphasized over muscles, and performance over pain. Such techniques are usually more common in strength-training than in bodybuilding per se, but the use of accumulated fatigue through repeated sub-maximal sets has proven an effective means of hypertrophy for many.
Personally, I believe the following:
The science on muscle growth is not settled.
Because it isn’t settled, reasoning from first principles is not guaranteed to be accurate.
Most really big guys subscribe to the ‘shut up and lift’ school of thought (i.e. break down your muscles once or twice a week, eat, and recover).
A lot of coaches and trainers are starting to promote some ideas similar to Waterbury. HST, EDT, 5x5, etc. come to mind.
The proof’s in the pudding. I’ll wait to see the results before casting judgment.
In the end, I’m just really uncomfortable with the approach of reasoning from first principles. I much prefer an inductive observational approach. So I’ll wait and see. If he’s right, and he comes up with the results to back it up, everything just might change afterall. Even if it’s only a little bit more efficient, people will eventually pick up on it, conventional wisdom will change, anda new synthesis will emerge.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
derek wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
This isn’t related directly to this latest Waterbury article, but I have a hard time with the whole idea of anything being “discovered” that will render EVERYTHING successful weight trainees have been doing for decades obsolete.
It’s been working after all and quite well in those with the right mindset.
Hey, didn’t you write “I’m staying out of this for now” or something similar a page or two ago?
(totally kidding!)
I feel the EXACT same way that you do.
If “Everything Is About To Change” then we may as well throw away all our gym equipment right now.
Yeah, ya caught me. He’s not saying that though. He also did say that the next installment will put callouses on the hands of his hypothesis so to speak, meaning he’s going to enunciate how this would workout under the weights.
Fair enough. The pebble in my shoe is that unless we eventually see a bunch of guys displaying some “everything has changed” results then it hasn’t. I like Chad. His world training view is usually not mine, but I still like the guy. However my eyes instinctively roll when I hear anybody, not just him, make statements espousing the primitive and inferior nature of what huge numbers of people have been successful at.
That also doesn’t mean I won’t cheerfully declare myself in error if he turns out to be right. I have simply been unimpressed with the success rate of those attempting to revolutionize the how with usually premature lab conclusions concerning the why.
[quote]RJ24 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
RJ, by weak I meant capable of producing relatively small amounts of force. Yes, this is due to their twitch (contraction) rate. Hence the term “slow twitch”.
However, I wouldn’t necessarily agree that under conditions not requiring high contraction speed they are as important as type 11 fibers.
Type 1 (SO, slow twitch, endurance) fibers have quite a low force production capability. They are great for long duration very low force required activities (such as typing, walking, etc…). They are incapable of producing enough force to be able to lift relatively heavy weights (such as resistance training).
Also, there are two different types (actually more, but we’ll keep it to two for simplicity’s sake) of type 11 (fast twitch) fibers. Type 11B (FG) have the highest force production capabilities (and contraction/twitch rate), but are extremely quick to fatigue (relatively). Type 11A (FOG) have greater force capabilities than type 1, but but lesser force capabilities than type 11b. They also have lesser resistance to fatigue than type 1, but greater than type 11b. Basically, the type 11a fibers are the intermediate fibers.
Type 11b fibers are also the last to be recruited (in terms of force requirements) and if they are recruited, then all smaller fibers are also recruited (type 11a, and type 1). They are responsible for high force activities (high percentages of 1RM and mederate weight, but high velocity lifting).
If however, you lift a moderate load with moderate speed (which basically equals moderate force requirements), then your body won’t feel the need to recruit your type 11b fibers. Since the type 11a fibers are capable to carrying out the task. Therefore the type 11a fibers are actually the fibers most responsible for force production while lifting moderate loads at moderate speeds (or even slow speeds), not the type 1 fibers.
Think about it, will you reach failure with a weight faster or slower if you attempt to perform the lifting with a slow rep speed (super slow is even more drastic). Why? Or, even possibly more importantly, can you lift as much weight extremely slowly as you can fast? Why?
One reason is because the lack of force that you are requiring your muscles to produce means that you won’t recruit your largest most powerful muscle fibers/MU’s (type 11b/FF). Therefore, the fibers that are recruited will have less force potential and as a result, not be able to handle the weight as easily (or for as long).
This might seem like a contradiction to the largest fibers being the quickest to fatigue, but it’s not. It also demonstrates once again that failure is simply the failure of the largest MU’s that were required to perform the task to continue producing enough force to overcome the resistance.
I’ll be honest, though there are apparently some sharp minds at work on this, I have a sense that my training will change VERY little, if at all, after the dust settles. And my weights will keep going up. Just a hunch at this point though.
However, I can see it can be a major headache for those whose role it is to train the masses. But when you are just trying to train yourself then it seems to get much clearer and simpler: find out how to keep moving the bar in ways that are productive and interesting for you.
[quote]Scotacus wrote:
I’ll be honest, though there are apparently some sharp minds at work on this, I have a sense that my training will change VERY little, if at all, after the dust settles. And my weights will keep going up. Just a hunch at this point though.
However, I can see it can be a major headache for those whose role it is to train the masses. But when you are just trying to train yourself then it seems to get much clearer and simpler: find out how to keep moving the bar in ways that are productive and interesting for you. [/quote]
Socrates,
If you have found out what works well for you and has been giving you results then I applaud you. Keep up the good work.
I personally am not trying to tell anyone here how to train. If someone wants to train to failure and has found that doing so gives them good results, then more power to them.
As I’ve stated several times before, my OP was simply an attempt to define the size principle and how it is believed to relate to MU recruitment. So far I feel that I’ve managed to illustrate that force (weight) is the one factor in MU recruitment that cannot be ruled out.
I have also illustrated that failure occurs in many situations where it doesn’t affect MU recruitment. Therefor, failure/fatigue cannot be considered to govern MU recruitment. Once again, not saying that it doesn’t have it’s benefits though.
The sneakiest curve ball in this whole game is that we all only get to go around once with a limited number of years to experiment with. No matter how much spectacular progress somebody makes there’s always the question of “yeah, but he never tried X” leaving us with the uncertainty of wondering what could’ve been because nobody can effectively try everything in one lifetime.
By the same token even a method or group of methods that produce well for a fairly high number of individuals leave us equally puzzled because there’s always a significant number somewhere who have done as well or maybe even better in at least some cases on a steady diet of the opposite, as opposites go in the iron world.
Who doesn’t know of somebody who has you scratchin yer head goin “how the hell does he do it with that cockamamie training of his?”.
Forgive my presumptuousness, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for ANYBODY to make that state of affairs go away anytime soon. If there exists at all a set of universal truisms around which most of humanity can build an optimal training philosophy, that little voice inside is whispering to me that we ain’t close to finding it yet.
If I’m wrong then I am. Wouldn’t be the first time, but the cynic in me isn’t going to be easily convinced.
[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
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.[/quote]
In the studies they are not trying to lift a heavy weight as fast as possible. Because of that, the normal ascending pyramid of fiber recruitment is accelerated. Seems like that is your initial misunderstanding with Sentoguy.