[quote]chintokata wrote:
<<< 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. >>>[/quote]
This may be a very key component among possible others that haven’t even been discovered yet.
[quote]W@LRUS!1 wrote:
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.
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?[/quote]
You’re an idiot if you think growth or strength can only be achieved with Dynamic, Rep or Max methods. These ‘methods’ are just SOME of the ways that work for particular purposes but they are not set in stone.
I’ve experienced the best gains in my life without training to failure and so have many others. There are people who’s training doesn’t qualify as any strict ‘method’ and who look and perform as if they’ve been trained by a mad muscle alchemist.
To think that there are can be no other ways of effectively combining stimuli and time is ridiculous.
[quote]Majin wrote:
You’re an idiot if you think growth or strength can only be achieved with Dynamic, Rep or Max methods. These ‘methods’ are just SOME of the ways that work for particular purposes but they are not set in stone.[/quote]
Silly Majin…
Aren’t you the one attempting to limit the number of training methods people should use? You seem hell bent on eliminating the RE method.
I’m all for people expanding the number of tools available into their training programs.
[quote]W@LRUS!1 wrote:
Aren’t you the one attempting to limit the number of training methods people should use?[/quote]
Oh, I don’t know, maybe you can point to where exactly I said that? I know I can point to where you classify everything with three methods as per the conjugate template.
Thanks to Sento and Majin for their posts. I totally agree that attempting to lift fast recruits more motor units than lifting slow or normal in the beginning, but I still feel that as a set progresses if you stop too early you leave untapped MU’s including the high threshold ones. I have done many speed days, etc and they certainly have their benefits but size does not seem to be one of them, it is more for technique and power and practice.
Enjoyed the debate, I think we can put it to rest now (at least until part II comes out, my guess is CW will clarify his thoughts more and clear some things up). Take it easy,
Tim
It’s good sport Tim.
I totally agree that stopping short leaves many units un-exhausted, and perhaps even some fast ones. I just think it could be a neat trick. Although I never went according to speed I had great strength and muscle gains by stopping pretty early. We’ll see if people have guessed what he’s preaching.
[quote]W@LRUS!1 wrote:
Majin wrote:
You’re an idiot if you think growth or strength can only be achieved with Dynamic, Rep or Max methods. These ‘methods’ are just SOME of the ways that work for particular purposes but they are not set in stone.
Silly Majin…
Aren’t you the one attempting to limit the number of training methods people should use? You seem hell bent on eliminating the RE method.
I’m all for people expanding the number of tools available into their training programs.[/quote]
Not taking the RE to failure and “eliminating the RE” are completely different things.
Whats being talked about here is a way to improve on the RE, not eliminate it.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Not taking the RE to failure and “eliminating the RE” are completely different things.
Whats being talked about here is a way to improve on the RE, not eliminate it.
[/quote]
The purpose of the RE method IS to go to (damn near) failure. It’s the very definition of the method. If you stop a set before this point has been reached then it’s no longer the RE method.
Stopping a set when your speed starts to drop is the idea behind the Dynamic Effort method.
[quote]W@LRUS!1 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Not taking the RE to failure and “eliminating the RE” are completely different things.
Whats being talked about here is a way to improve on the RE, not eliminate it.
The purpose of the RE method IS to go to (damn near) failure. It’s the very definition of the method. If you stop a set before this point has been reached then it’s no longer the RE method.
Stopping a set when your speed starts to drop is the idea behind the Dynamic Effort method.[/quote]
Hm, good point.
But the DE, taken to its logical end, would be the idea of throwing something once, as far/high as you could.
The ME, taken to its logical end, would be lifting your 1RM once.
The RE’s logical end would be one set to failure.
So maybe the new idea is borrowing from the DE and the RE? I dunno.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Hm, good point.
But the DE, taken to its logical end, would be the idea of throwing something once, as far/high as you could.
The ME, taken to its logical end, would be lifting your 1RM once.
The RE’s logical end would be one set to failure.
So maybe the new idea is borrowing from the DE and the RE? I dunno.[/quote]
Perhaps…
But the only thing we know for sure is ‘Everything Is About to Change’! 