Why Aren't The Last Reps Easiest?

Training Bodybuilding
141

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
Sento - I never said that force wasn’t a factor in MU recruitment, I just said it wasn’t the only factor and that fatigue was an important factor.
[/quote]

Okay, well then we agree that force is a crucial factor. Can we agree that it is the most important factor?

Second, I’m going to attempt to restate my understanding of how MU’s are recruited in a simple a way as possible. You will recruit all of your available voluntary MU’s when one of the following occurs:

  1. You lift a sufficient load (mass). Anything greater than 80-85% (depending on which study you read).

  2. You attempt to lift a sufficient load with maximal force/velocity.

Both of the examples above will require the individual to at least attempt to produce maximal force.

Fatigue, as I’ve been stating all along, is irrelevant. Whether it’s the first rep or the last rep of a set, whether the set is taken to failure or not, isn’t important. What’s important is that you do one of the above.

Now, really think about what I’ve said for a moment. Can you honestly say that on the last rep of a set to failure that you are not trying to move a weight with maximal force/velocity?

Vroom actually brought up a great point in our discussion, which is that the intent to recruit all MU’s was crucial. Meaning that you need to attempt to produce maximal force if you want your body to recruit your biggest HTMU’s.

Now, of course as I pointed out, you also need a sufficient resistance. But, this still means that force (both intended and external) is still the deciding factor of whether or not your largest HTMU’s are recruited, not fatigue. As I stated, fatigue is irrelevant.

You also still seem to have a misunderstanding of fiber physiology and recruitment too. You still seem to be holding to the notion that your smaller weaker MU’s/muscle fibers fatigue before the larger ones. The bigger, more powerful the motor unit the quicker it will fatigue. The smaller, less powerful the MU the slower it will fatigue.

Therefore the MU’s which are recruited first (during each and every physical movement), which according to the size principle are also the smallest, least powerful. Will have ridiculously higher fatigue resistance than the last MU’s which are recruited (during each and every physical movement).

You also seem to be under the impression that the size principle occurs over the course of a set. It does not. It happens during each individual repetition.

[quote]
Here is a question for you that I would like your take on. You mentioned isometrics earlier. Let’s say I do a challenging isometric contraction for 20-30 seconds. For example, I hold 135 lbs in the mid point of a barbell curl for 20-30 seconds with no movement before I fail.

Using your version of the size principle, explain what you see happening in the muscle regarding motor unit recruitment, given that the external force is constant (since there is no movement) and that we know that the type II muscle fibers can’t contract for 20-30 seconds straight. If it matters say this person’s 1RM in the curl is 160 or so. Thanks for your thoughts.
Tim[/quote]

Well, first 135 lbs is above 80% of 160, thus all available MU’s will be recruited to lift the weight up to the midpoint. However, once the weight stops at the midpoint the force requirements of the exercise decrease.

What I mean is that at the beginning of the exercise the weight has inertia which you must overcome (a body at rest tends to stay at rest unless otherwise acted on by an outside force). However, once it stops, you no longer need to overcome this inertia, thus less force must be produced.

At this point, your body will disengage all unnecessary MU’s (meaning the largest, most powerful, yet least fatigue resistant). The remaining MU’s will slowly fatigue (from largest, most powerful, least fatigue resistant to smallest, least powerful, most fatigue resistant) until insufficient force can be produced and the weight will begin to fall.

Whether or not that lasts 20-30 seconds, who knows. I honestly think that a 30 second hold might be a bit much, but once again, who knows. It’s really not important to the discussion.

Good training,

Sentoguy

142

[quote]Majin wrote:
SHOW ME ONE STUDY TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.
[/quote]

The Repetitive Effort Method is close enough to using heavy weight to count. You don’t have to use 20 reps, you just take any weight (6RM, 10RM, whatever and go until failure or close to it) and Siff cited 2 studies that said it recruits more motor units.

[quote]Majin wrote:
You’re misreading your own graph. Now I just think you’re lying. The gray bar is bigger in the LAST reps, not the first. It’s bigger because it’s closer to 100%, unless you really don’t know how to read graphs.

[/quote]

Come on, buddy, learn to read. The gray bar represents the amount of motor units currently in use. The orange bar is the amount of motor units that have been fatigued through the set. Both bars put together represent the total amount of motor units stimulated during the set. It is extremely clear that the gray bar is smaller (shorter) on the last rep than the first, this explains why the last reps are the hardest and the most beneficial.

You guys acknowledge that we don’t hit all of our MU’s but seem to think this is some magical number that is always the same, like 15% of your muscle is simply unusable. Walrus’s post is very good. You must work and strive with heavy weight to force yourself to learn how to recruit the untapped MU’s, that is exactly what happens when going from beginner to advanced. Not training intensely or stopping a set as soon as it gets challenging will not recruit as many MU’s as possible, which is not good for size.

143

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
What I mean is that at the beginning of the exercise the weight has inertia which you must overcome (a body at rest tends to stay at rest unless otherwise acted on by an outside force). However, once it stops, you no longer need to overcome this inertia, thus less force must be produced.

At this point, your body will disengage all unnecessary MU’s (meaning the largest, most powerful, yet least fatigue resistant). The remaining MU’s will slowly fatigue (from largest, most powerful, least fatigue resistant to smallest, least powerful, most fatigue resistant) until insufficient force can be produced and the weight will begin to fall.

Sentoguy[/quote]

Given that force must be equal for the isometric contraction to involve no movement, how is it possible for the MU’s to fatigue (thus generating less force) and yet the bar remain in the same position? According to your theory as soon as even a few motor units fatigue (which would be in a few seconds) the bar should begin to drop.

144

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
However, I don’t necessarily agree that this occurs in the fashion that you stated. But, once again. I don’t feel that fatigue has much to do with MU recruitment.
[/quote]

I don’t give a shit about your feelings Sentoguy.

If you can prove the repetition method does not work, then I might consider dropping it from my current training. If you can’t prove that it doesn’t work, then why should anyone stop using it?

145

Here is a quote and a link to slide show that describes how muscles work and how motor units contract. It provides quite clear answers to the questions being discussed here (actually the slide show is pretty good in general I think). The page of the link has a chart that shows the involvement of the motor units (all types) as the time period progresses

Quote: The recruitment of motor units to maintain a constant force (load of 175 lbs) as motor units begin to fatigue. Fatigue will only occur if the force is large enough to require some of the type II motor units to be initially active. As the motor units fatigue, more are recruited until 100% of the (available) type IIb motor units are active, after which the muscle has fatigued and the activity can longer be performed.

Link to specific page of that quote

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004issc/thursday/bhatti.ppt#28

Link to beginning of the lecture:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004issc/thursday/bhatti.ppt#1

146

[quote]W@LRUS!1 wrote:
A novice lifter uses 40% (because his CNS is not very efficient) of his fast twitch fibers during the first three reps of a squat, these first three reps are easy.

Those fast twitch fibers fatigue but he keeps attempting more reps. His body throws another 30% (previously unused) fast twitch fibers at the job and those fatigue during the next three reps, these three reps are more difficult.[/quote]

This the same mistake. THERE ARE NO EASY REPS in this example and neither are any novice lifters. A heavy weight is lifted as fast as possible.

147

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
The gray bar represents the amount of motor units currently in use. The orange bar is the amount of motor units that have been fatigued through the set. Both bars put together represent the total amount of motor units stimulated during the set.[/quote]

Yes, I apologize. What I meant was that more total units got used up at the end. And as I noted later, the graph is correct if it’s a typical set. But again, it does not apply to our example because of the speed. We need a breakdown, not just a total units used and fatigued.The graph you posted groups the strong and large MUs with the weakest!

So I made a graph with such an example.
So in my chart if the lifter would stop after rep 7, he would be able to exhaust his faster MU’s without overtaxing himself and wasting strength on the predominantly small MUs.

A pretty big advantage, I think. Now if he wants to trash the muscle further he can do more sets until his speed drops on rep 3 and it would be much more effective and the person would have lifted much more total weight.

148

[quote]Majin wrote:
This the same mistake. THERE ARE NO EASY REPS in this example and neither are any novice lifters. A heavy weight is lifted as fast as possible.[/quote]

All reps should be lifted with as much speed as possible (although that speed will inevitably decrease towards the end of the set). But, the words EASY and HEAVY are relative words. The first three reps are relatively easy compared to the last couple of reps in an eight rep set.

The only mistake here is that you don’t seem to be able to comprehend what the purpose of the Repetition Method.

149

[quote]W@LRUS!1 wrote:
The only mistake here is that you don’t seem to be able to comprehend what the purpose of the Repetition Method.[/quote]

This not about total units and does not contradict the repetition method.

150

[quote]Majin wrote:
So I made a graph with such an example.
So in my chart if the lifter would stop after rep 7, he would be able to exhaust his faster MU’s without overtaxing himself and wasting strength on the predominantly small MUs.
[/quote]

If the lifter in your chart stopped after rep 7 he would not have tapped into the remaining fast twitch fibers.

The purpose behind using the Repetition Method IS to overtax as many fast twitch muscle fibers as possible.

[quote]
A pretty big advantage, I think. Now if he wants to trash the muscle further he can do more sets until his speed drops on rep 3 and it would be much more effective and the person would have lifted much more total weight.[/quote]

A big disadvantage? Ridiculous!

Look, the Dynamic Effort method (DE), the Maximal Effort method (ME), and Repetition Effort method (RE) are all training tools that have stood the test of time in the weight room.

No one is espousing only using the RE (ok, well maybe Darden does, the HIT guys are unique in that respect).

They all work, they’ve all been proven to work, and anyone training for size and strength would be better off employing all three methods in their training to reap optimal benefits.

But for some reason, one author here has decided to make it his mission in life to end the use of the Repetition Effort method.

I wonder what Zatsiorsky and Siff would have to say about this nonsense. Both of them thought incorporating the RE method in training was a good idea. I guess all the genius’s here on the forums must know something these two brilliant men are unaware of (yes I know Siff is dead, I have no idea about Zatsiorsky).

No one has to use AAS for the RE method to be an effective training tool, no one has to be a genetic freak of nature for the RE method to be an effective training tool.

If the RE method doesn’t work for you, then don’t use it. But this whole stupid trend of bending over backward trying to disprove the effectiveness of an already proven training tool is beyond dumb.

All of you doofs can start your own Anti-RE Jedi Nation. You can all go around telling everyone who will listen that the only people the RE method works for are genetic mutants using gratuitous amounts of AAS. You can be one giant club just like the HIT morons.

And just like the HIT jedi, everyone outside of your select group of narrow minded devotees will be laughing at you as they reap the benefits of using the RE method.

151

[quote]Majin wrote:
W@LRUS!1 wrote:
The only mistake here is that you don’t seem to be able to comprehend what the purpose of the Repetition Method.

This not about total units and does not contradict the repetition method.[/quote]

This whole nonsense is about getting people to abandon the Repetition Effort method. Stopping a set as soon as your reps slow down is the Dynamic Effort method. The RE method calls for going to (damn close to) failure in a set.

Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

152

[quote]W@LRUS!1 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
However, I don’t necessarily agree that this occurs in the fashion that you stated. But, once again. I don’t feel that fatigue has much to do with MU recruitment.

I don’t give a shit about your feelings Sentoguy.

If you can prove the repetition method does not work, then I might consider dropping it from my current training. If you can’t prove that it doesn’t work, then why should anyone stop using it?[/quote]

Please cite one single post in this whole thread where I said that the repetition method does not work. I’ve stated all along that I believe that going to failure certainly has it’s benefits.

There are also countless athletes/bodybuilders who have used it with great success. To say that it doesn’t work would be ridiculous.

I am simply discussing the size principle. There are numerous other factors that we need to take into consideration if speaking about the effect that lifting has on actual muscle growth.

I also never stated that there would be less MU’s fatigued if one goes to failure (especially if maximal force is attempted on each and every rep). The fatigue of motor units is a different topic from the recruitment of motor units (not that the two are mutually exclusive, but they are also not co-dependent).

I also never stated that one would fatigue a large number of their MU’s using only one rep. I agree that if one wants to fatigue as many MU’s as possible, then going to failure is superior. Well, actually something like triple drop sets would probably be the most beneficial method possible in that case.

And once again, my OP wasn’t about what I felt was the most beneficial method out there for building muscle (I honestly don’t think that there is a universally best method), it was purely concerning the size principle.

Please don’t put words in my mouth or take what I am saying out of context. If you want to discuss the total picture, then that’s a different topic.

Good training,

Sentoguy

153

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Stuff that I mostly agree with…[/quote]

Then I suspect I’ll be seeing you champion the use of the RE method as a proven training tool?

You’ll straighten out every goof-ball yammering about ending a set as soon as you slow down (unless they are purposefully using the Dynamic Effort method)?

You will correct every numb-nut that claims anyone making gains while utilizing the RE method is an AAS using genetic freak?

Excellent!

154

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
Here is a quote and a link to slide show that describes how muscles work and how motor units contract. It provides quite clear answers to the questions being discussed here (actually the slide show is pretty good in general I think). The page of the link has a chart that shows the involvement of the motor units (all types) as the time period progresses

Quote: The recruitment of motor units to maintain a constant force (load of 175 lbs) as motor units begin to fatigue. Fatigue will only occur if the force is large enough to require some of the type II motor units to be initially active. As the motor units fatigue, more are recruited until 100% of the (available) type IIb motor units are active, after which the muscle has fatigued and the activity can longer be performed.

Link to specific page of that quote

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004issc/thursday/bhatti.ppt#28

Link to beginning of the lecture:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004issc/thursday/bhatti.ppt#1[/quote]

Tim, can you honestly tell me that the lifter is not attempting to produce maximal force during those last couple reps (meaning that they are trying to move the bar with maximal force/velocity)?

Have you read my most previous response? In it I stated that the attempt to produce maximal force on a sufficient load is what causes maximal MU recruitment. Fatigue and maximal MU recruitment are not mutually exclusive, but maximal MU recruitment is also not dependent upon fatigue.

Honestly having thought through it more and more I’ve realized that the repetition method probably does recruit maximal MU’s (provided one uses a sufficient load), but only because the lifter absolutely must attempt to produce maximal force during the last couple reps if they want to reach failure.

Therefore, our definitions were also not mutually exclusive as I had previously suggested. Although, I once again believe that they got lost in the semantics that we were using (and honestly I hadn’t yet put my finger on the specific trigger for maximal MU recruitment).

Now, I realize that I have previously stated in this thread that this was not the case. So, I am manning up and admitting that I hadn’t really thought through what was occurring during the last couple reps of a failure set. This discussion however, has made me do so and I realize that my thinking was wrong on that matter.

So, I can admit that my thinking concerning going to failure was flawed. My definition during the OP however still holds true. As does the definition that I most recently posted.

What I am saying is that it is the intent (thanks vroom) to produce maximal force (using a sufficient load) that causes maximal MU recruitment. The repetition method as I understand it works like this:

the load is low enough and submaximal velocities are used during the first couple reps, thus not requiring the body to recruit it’s largest most powerful MU’s. However, as these MU’s begin to fatigue (and I still hold that it’s the largest one’s that fatigue first) the load begins to become increasingly more difficult to lift. Thus, the lifter must make a conscious effort to lift the weight using more force.

This continues until the number of MU’s fatigued forces the lifter to attempt to use maximal force to lift the bar. This intent to produce maximal force is what actually causes maximal MU recruitment. Once the remaining HTMU’s are fatigued he reaches failure.

Now, let me attempt to explain what happens if maximal force/velocity is attempted from rep number one (which still holds true to my definition of the size principle).

The load is sufficient that the attempt to move it with maximal velocity triggers the recruitment of maximal MU’s from rep #1. As the largest, most powerful MU’s begin to fatigue bar speed begins to slow. MU’s continue to fatigue (from largest to smallest) until eventually, the remaining MU’s are unable to produce enough force to lift the weight.

The same number of MU’s are fatigued utilizing this method as the traditional repetition method. The difference is that due to the lifters attempt to exert maximal force on each and every rep, maximal MU’s were recruited on each and every rep.

Now, which is more effective for building muscle is up for debate. Personally I’d rather recruit maximal MU’s on all 10 reps of a 10RM than just the last 1 or 2. But, to each their own.

Once again I apologize for the misunderstanding and hope that this will finally put this topic to rest.

Good training,

Sentoguy

155

[quote]W@LRUS!1 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Stuff that I mostly agree with…

Then I suspect I’ll be seeing you champion the use of the RE method as a proven training tool?

You’ll straighten out every goof-ball yammering about ending a set as soon as you slow down (unless they are purposefully using the Dynamic Effort method)?

You will correct every numb-nut that claims anyone making gains while utilizing the RE method is an AAS using genetic freak?

Excellent![/quote]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The only litmus test for a training method is whether or not it gets results. Some people like training to failure, others don’t. As long as what you’re doing gets you results, keep doing it.

Good training,

Sentoguy

156

I have a sneaky suspicion that these discussions are not going to cool down any after they publish the 2nd part of Chad’s article.

157

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Now, which is more effective for building muscle is up for debate. Personally I’d rather recruit maximal MU’s on all 10 reps of a 10RM than just the last 1 or 2. But, to each their own.[/quote]

IMO, it would be better to think of the various training methods as tools to use in the pursuit of becoming stronger and more muscular.

It’s a bit silly to say “Which is better for building muscle…the Dynamic Effort method, the Repetition Effort method, or the Maximal Effort method?”.

For optimal strength/size gains it seems like a good idea to use all of them (which Louie Simmons has been espousing for what, two decades now?).

158

this is all making for really good reading. thank you everyone for your opinions/insights/comments/whatever.

sentoguy, props to you for maintaining your composure. really enjoy reading your posts here

159

I might be a little late jumping into this thread, but I recall in one of CT’s articles, CT had a reference from Ztaorisky (spelling?) stating that just because a muscle fiber is recruited, it isn’t necessarily stimulated for growth, and that at least some degree of fatigue within the recruited muscle fiber is needed to stimulate that growth.

CW may very well be correct that when the rep speed begins to slow, all the muscle fibers may be recruited (assuming the person does have enough experience to give the proper effort until that point), but that doesn’t mean said fibers will have been stimulated to grow.

I’ve actually tried a CW program before, and when following his stuff to the letter and reaching failure on the last rep of the last set, I’ve had ok results. I like his stuff for conditioning, although I grow better with more intense training.

160

[quote]W@LRUS!1 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Now, which is more effective for building muscle is up for debate. Personally I’d rather recruit maximal MU’s on all 10 reps of a 10RM than just the last 1 or 2. But, to each their own.

IMO, it would be better to think of the various training methods as tools to use in the pursuit of becoming stronger and more muscular.

It’s a bit silly to say “Which is better for building muscle…the Dynamic Effort method, the Repetition Effort method, or the Maximal Effort method?”.

For optimal strength/size gains it seems like a good idea to use all of them (which Louie Simmons has been espousing for what, two decades now?).[/quote]

I agree with you W@LRUS, however, I don’t really see that using maximal force on every rep isn’t doing the repetition method. I understand the RE method to be designed to fatigue as many MU’s/muscle fibers as possible. This can be achieved either way you do the reps (moderate load/speed, or maximal force).

This may simply be a way to improve on the RE method.

Good training,

Sentoguy