Why Train Reps?

Bigger Stronger Leaner Powerlifting & Strength Sports
1

I’m guessing there are some previous threads on reps, if this is old hat please just ignore me or link me to it.
Haven’t had luck using search function.
My understanding of triple extensions movements is that their function is to train explosivity, ie. speed.
If this is not the case square me away, I implore you.
If the above is the case, then what is the utility of doing anything more than singles?

There is inherently no such thing as training endurance in fast twitch fibers, wouldn’t you just be training your slow twitch fibers to recruit when you call on your body to explode, and if that is the case,(that seems like a bad thing yes?), why would doing reps be beneficial?
I know this is likely a point of some contention, and that my question sounds loaded, like I’ve already made up my mind, but I really am curious for opinions, I submit that many people know far more than me about training, and I am looking to be set straight.
Thanks

2

Doubles and triples are often used to work on technique. It is advantageous to be able to maintain proper position as fatigue sets in on the 2nd and 3rd rep.

3

[quote]ape288 wrote:
Doubles and triples are often used to work on technique. It is advantageous to be able to maintain proper position as fatigue sets in on the 2nd and 3rd rep.[/quote]
What kind of percentages are recommended for that 2 and 3 rep technique work?

4

I’ve never read any set in stone percentages myself, but I would just start with something comfortable. You should be able to triple something in the neighborhood of 70% with relative ease and solid technique on all the reps. Start around there, get comfortable with doing more than a single rep (which is deceptively difficult with Olift variations, imo), and add weight as you become proficient.

There is no telling how high of a % of 1rm that you as an individual will eventually be able to double or triple. You just have to keep practicing it and see where you end up.

5

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:

[quote]ape288 wrote:
Doubles and triples are often used to work on technique. It is advantageous to be able to maintain proper position as fatigue sets in on the 2nd and 3rd rep.[/quote]
What kind of percentages are recommended for that 2 and 3 rep technique work?
[/quote]

look up prilepin’s table–it gives a good rep range for given percentages.

as far as endurance with fast-twitch fibers. think more about the rest interval, not the number of reps (it’s about training your body to recover quickly, not do more reps at a time). most low rep exercises fair better with 2 minutes or more, but if you are looking to improve power-endurance–setting a timer to beep somewhere around a minute interval and completing 1-5 reps every beep would be a way to maintain weight while stressing work capacity.

6

[quote]l-bomb10 wrote:

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:

[quote]ape288 wrote:
Doubles and triples are often used to work on technique. It is advantageous to be able to maintain proper position as fatigue sets in on the 2nd and 3rd rep.[/quote]
What kind of percentages are recommended for that 2 and 3 rep technique work?
[/quote]

look up prilepin’s table–it gives a good rep range for given percentages.

as far as endurance with fast-twitch fibers. think more about the rest interval, not the number of reps (it’s about training your body to recover quickly, not do more reps at a time). most low rep exercises fair better with 2 minutes or more, but if you are looking to improve power-endurance–setting a timer to beep somewhere around a minute interval and completing 1-5 reps every beep would be a way to maintain weight while stressing work capacity. [/quote]

This is the reason for my question, you may think I’m splitting hairs, but the way I’ve learned it there is no power-endurance component.
I train for strength endurance component every time I lift, by doing the power lifts or pulls timed for 50-100 reps by decreasing my rest intervals and set numbers to try to crush myself.
But, my understanding is that power has a speed component and therefore isn’t wisely trained with rep ranges designed to elicit an endurance response.
Unless you’re training your forms endurance,( as the gentleman kindly informed me), which would be useful for competition where you need to have enough in the tank for 3 very high level/weight reps.
I’m not planning on competing I’m just trying learn how to best program the olympic lifts for athleticism.
Right now I do singles, which I like, when I’ve attempted more reps I’ve not had good effects.
Based on the second posters comments I may look at adding in a little more volume in the 2-3 rep range if I get to the point where I feel my form is tight and could use reinforcing.
I think you’re right about the modality you mentioned stressing work capacity,(I don’t use long rest intervals), but the spirit of my question is that I’m not convinced the triple extension movements, lend themselves to this kind of endeavor, though it seems quite popular.
Thanks for the replies

7

Like ape said, I like them for technical work. If something isn’t going right, I like getting that immediate mental and physical feedback from changing something from rep to rep, be it keeping the bar tighter or extending more or whatever it may be. Also, when I do doubles or triples, they’re almost like cluster reps; generally I’ll finish the rep, drop the bar, pull the plates tight, maybe adjust the bar a tad, probably take a step back and stand up straight for a second or two and take a deep breath before approaching the bar again.

All of this only takes a few seconds, but that’s a helluva lot longer than the instantaneous transition between reps most guys do in bench or curls or whatever. It’s also part of my emphasis on each rep being the same, and that starts with the way you approach the bar. Taking that step back and then coming back to the bar allows me to do that.

8

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:
This is the reason for my question, you may think I’m splitting hairs, but the way I’ve learned it there is no power-endurance component.[/quote]

No power-endurance component? What if you have 2 lifters of equal technical proficiency who can both snatch 100kg for a max. Lifter A can snatch 85kg for a triple, Lifter B, however, can only double it and fails to pull the bar high enough to get under the 3rd rep. Does Lifter A not have greater power-endurance?

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:
But, my understanding is that power has a speed component and therefore isn’t wisely trained with rep ranges designed to elicit an endurance response.[/quote]

Most people would not consider 3 reps to be a rep range designed to elicit an endurance response.

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:
the spirit of my question is that I’m not convinced the triple extension movements, lend themselves to this kind of endeavor, though it seems quite popular.
Thanks for the replies[/quote]

As I said, someone who is training for Olympic weightlifting would probably consider triples to be a way to hone their technique; a method of accruing quality volume. Not all Olifters do doubles and triples, some may do singles exclusively, but those that do, do not necessarily consider these multi-rep sets to be the primary driver of their strength gains. Of course, as you become more advanced, and your technique presumably becomes sharper/more ingrained, the higher % of 1rm you should be able to double or triple, which can actually be a great driver of strength.

All that said, if you don’t care about technique, and are only using Olift variations as a way to increase power, then I don’t really see why you couldn’t simply use singles exclusively. Unless of course you simply wanted to do doubles or triples for fun.

9

[quote]ape288 wrote:

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:
This is the reason for my question, you may think I’m splitting hairs, but the way I’ve learned it there is no power-endurance component.[/quote]

No power-endurance component? What if you have 2 lifters of equal technical proficiency who can both snatch 100kg for a max. Lifter A can snatch 85kg for a triple, Lifter B, however, can only double it and fails to pull the bar high enough to get under the 3rd rep. Does Lifter A not have greater power-endurance?

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:
But, my understanding is that power has a speed component and therefore isn’t wisely trained with rep ranges designed to elicit an endurance response.[/quote]

Most people would not consider 3 reps to be a rep range designed to elicit an endurance response.

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:
the spirit of my question is that I’m not convinced the triple extension movements, lend themselves to this kind of endeavor, though it seems quite popular.
Thanks for the replies[/quote]

As I said, someone who is training for Olympic weightlifting would probably consider triples to be a way to hone their technique; a method of accruing quality volume. Not all Olifters do doubles and triples, some may do singles exclusively, but those that do, do not necessarily consider these multi-rep sets to be the primary driver of their strength gains. Of course, as you become more advanced, and your technique presumably becomes sharper/more ingrained, the higher % of 1rm you should be able to double or triple, which can actually be a great driver of strength.

All that said, if you don’t care about technique, and are only using Olift variations as a way to increase power, then I don’t really see why you couldn’t simply use singles exclusively. Unless of course you simply wanted to do doubles or triples for fun.[/quote]

I completely care about technique, I think for my desires technique is more important than anything else. More important than weight, reps, or even speed, (though they seem to be related), that’s one of the main reasons I like singles, I can visualize and concentrate on each rep individually and not just rip.
I’m still not convinced about power endurance.
I believe in anaerobic endurance and aerobic endurance.
In your example, my understanding, which is perhaps flawed, is that the lifter that won had greater anaerobic endurance, not power endurance.
Meaning his fast twitch muscle were able to replentish faster, also I don’t believe the example can exist. Lifter’s in low rep ranges with truly equivalent proficiencies in 1 RM and technique will likely be measurably identical in their anaerobic endurance, it’s much more likely their 1 RM’s or technique is skewed, especially with regard to a movement where speed is a paramount factor, such as is the case with the triple extensions.
Power has a speed component.
It is a measurement of work done/time.
You can not train speed endurance, I don’t think it exists. Speed/power is provided at the inherent detriment of endurance and vise versa, I’m allowed to posit that much, yes?
Thanks so much for all the stimulating discussion

10

Also, (ape) I completely concur about 3 reps not being designed to train endurance, I wasn’t responding to your comments, when I mentioned rep ranges for endurance, sorry if it sounded like that, I ment to be commenting and asking about high rep Oly lifts as are prescribed by so many now a days.

11

You have a flawed understanding of the strength-endurance continuum. Under no circumstances will three reps constitute endurance work. Sets of three take a longer period of time than sets of one, but they do not train endurance.

You are correct in saying that fast twitch fibres will respond best to anaerobic work. However, three reps is still very much anaerobic.

12

[quote]1llusion wrote:
You have a flawed understanding of the strength-endurance continuum. Under no circumstances will three reps constitute endurance work. Sets of three take a longer period of time than sets of one, but they do not train endurance.

You are correct in saying that fast twitch fibres will respond best to anaerobic work. However, three reps is still very much anaerobic.
[/quote]

If you’re talking to me, I think I just said that. And I stated I wasn’t talking about 3 reps I’m talking about lots of reps for time, like when pendlay has his guys and gals do 30 reps for time, etc. I really don’t know what I said that got construed like I thought 3 reps was an endurance set.

13

[quote]1llusion wrote:
You have a flawed understanding of the strength-endurance continuum. Under no circumstances will three reps constitute endurance work. Sets of three take a longer period of time than sets of one, but they do not train endurance.

You are correct in saying that fast twitch fibres will respond best to anaerobic work. However, three reps is still very much anaerobic.
[/quote]

My understanding is that you do have an, (although perhaps very small), aerobic fiber recruitment on every rep, the less of one the better, that is my contention.
Is it your view that Usain Bolt, for instance or Rezazadeh, uses no type I muscle fibers over 100m or over a C&J, because I think that is false. I believe they use way way less, especially as a percentage of the total than I would, but some are recruited.
My point is that when you do 10 reps, one of the reasons you get progressively less and less able to perform the task is a greater and greater reliance on the slower twitch fiber types.
What I’m saying is why train that to happen with a greater efficiency, isn’t that the opposite of the goal, which would be less slower twitch fiber recruitment?

14

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:

[quote]1llusion wrote:
You have a flawed understanding of the strength-endurance continuum. Under no circumstances will three reps constitute endurance work. Sets of three take a longer period of time than sets of one, but they do not train endurance.

You are correct in saying that fast twitch fibres will respond best to anaerobic work. However, three reps is still very much anaerobic.
[/quote]

My understanding is that you do have an, (although perhaps very small), aerobic fiber recruitment on every rep, the less of one the better, that is my contention.
Is it your view that Usain Bolt, for instance or Rezazadeh, uses no type I muscle fibers over 100m or over a C&J, because I think that is false. I believe they use way way less, especially as a percentage of the total than I would, but some are recruited.
My point is that when you do 10 reps, one of the reasons you get progressively less and less able to perform the task is a greater and greater reliance on the slower twitch fiber types.
What I’m saying is why train that to happen with a greater efficiency, isn’t that the opposite of the goal, which would be less slower twitch fiber recruitment? [/quote]

The slow twitch muscle fibers always get recruited. If you recruited fast twitch fibers, it’s because you “used” all the slow ones. If you recruited explosive fibers, it’s because you’ve recruited the slow and fast ones. Just a technicality.

In oly lifting, you recruit all your fibers, not just the explosive ones.

Example, think of a squat. If your doing lots and lots of reps, you probably just need your slow twitch fibers. Now, if you get closer to your 1RM you’ll need to start using the fast ones, and if you do 1RM, even those two won’t be enough to perform the task, so you also recruit the explosive ones. Powerlifters do use the explosive fibers, the difference is that they train them to do something different from what weightlifters do.

15

[quote]robert35588 wrote:

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:

[quote]1llusion wrote:
You have a flawed understanding of the strength-endurance continuum. Under no circumstances will three reps constitute endurance work. Sets of three take a longer period of time than sets of one, but they do not train endurance.

You are correct in saying that fast twitch fibres will respond best to anaerobic work. However, three reps is still very much anaerobic.
[/quote]

My understanding is that you do have an, (although perhaps very small), aerobic fiber recruitment on every rep, the less of one the better, that is my contention.
Is it your view that Usain Bolt, for instance or Rezazadeh, uses no type I muscle fibers over 100m or over a C&J, because I think that is false. I believe they use way way less, especially as a percentage of the total than I would, but some are recruited.
My point is that when you do 10 reps, one of the reasons you get progressively less and less able to perform the task is a greater and greater reliance on the slower twitch fiber types.
What I’m saying is why train that to happen with a greater efficiency, isn’t that the opposite of the goal, which would be less slower twitch fiber recruitment? [/quote]

The slow twitch muscle fibers always get recruited. If you recruited fast twitch fibers, it’s because you “used” all the slow ones. If you recruited explosive fibers, it’s because you’ve recruited the slow and fast ones. Just a technicality.

In oly lifting, you recruit all your fibers, not just the explosive ones.

Example, think of a squat. If your doing lots and lots of reps, you probably just need your slow twitch fibers. Now, if you get closer to your 1RM you’ll need to start using the fast ones, and if you do 1RM, even those two won’t be enough to perform the task, so you also recruit the explosive ones. Powerlifters do use the explosive fibers, the difference is that they train them to do something different from what weightlifters do.
[/quote]

Awesome, thanks for the post.
Not a technicality at all, exactly on point.
Can you recruit the explosive fibers with sub-maximal loads, perhaps through velocity?

16

I’m not an expert in the subject, but in the snatch and clean and jerk i’d say definitely with sub-maximal weights.
Sprints use the explosive fibers too…

17

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:

[quote]robert35588 wrote:

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:

[quote]1llusion wrote:
You have a flawed understanding of the strength-endurance continuum. Under no circumstances will three reps constitute endurance work. Sets of three take a longer period of time than sets of one, but they do not train endurance.

You are correct in saying that fast twitch fibres will respond best to anaerobic work. However, three reps is still very much anaerobic.
[/quote]

My understanding is that you do have an, (although perhaps very small), aerobic fiber recruitment on every rep, the less of one the better, that is my contention.
Is it your view that Usain Bolt, for instance or Rezazadeh, uses no type I muscle fibers over 100m or over a C&J, because I think that is false. I believe they use way way less, especially as a percentage of the total than I would, but some are recruited.
My point is that when you do 10 reps, one of the reasons you get progressively less and less able to perform the task is a greater and greater reliance on the slower twitch fiber types.
What I’m saying is why train that to happen with a greater efficiency, isn’t that the opposite of the goal, which would be less slower twitch fiber recruitment? [/quote]

The slow twitch muscle fibers always get recruited. If you recruited fast twitch fibers, it’s because you “used” all the slow ones. If you recruited explosive fibers, it’s because you’ve recruited the slow and fast ones. Just a technicality.

In oly lifting, you recruit all your fibers, not just the explosive ones.

Example, think of a squat. If your doing lots and lots of reps, you probably just need your slow twitch fibers. Now, if you get closer to your 1RM you’ll need to start using the fast ones, and if you do 1RM, even those two won’t be enough to perform the task, so you also recruit the explosive ones. Powerlifters do use the explosive fibers, the difference is that they train them to do something different from what weightlifters do.
[/quote]

Awesome, thanks for the post.
Not a technicality at all, exactly on point.
Can you recruit the explosive fibers with sub-maximal loads, perhaps through velocity?
[/quote]

There seems to be a significant amount of physiological misunderstanding in this thread w.r.t. Muscle fiber recuitment and the strength continuum, but i will say this part is more or less correct–you can train fast twitch fibers and power output through maximizing the velocity component. There is a cut off, as always,
but definitely yes.

There are, however, no such things as “explosive fibers”. Just explosive movement or power. There are only fast twitch fibers and slow twitch fibers, physiologically speaking. There are two “varieties” of fast twitch fibers–fast twitch and fast-fatigue resistant.

18

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:

[quote]robert35588 wrote:

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:

[quote]1llusion wrote:
You have a flawed understanding of the strength-endurance continuum. Under no circumstances will three reps constitute endurance work. Sets of three take a longer period of time than sets of one, but they do not train endurance.

You are correct in saying that fast twitch fibres will respond best to anaerobic work. However, three reps is still very much anaerobic.
[/quote]

My understanding is that you do have an, (although perhaps very small), aerobic fiber recruitment on every rep, the less of one the better, that is my contention.
Is it your view that Usain Bolt, for instance or Rezazadeh, uses no type I muscle fibers over 100m or over a C&J, because I think that is false. I believe they use way way less, especially as a percentage of the total than I would, but some are recruited.
My point is that when you do 10 reps, one of the reasons you get progressively less and less able to perform the task is a greater and greater reliance on the slower twitch fiber types.
What I’m saying is why train that to happen with a greater efficiency, isn’t that the opposite of the goal, which would be less slower twitch fiber recruitment? [/quote]

The slow twitch muscle fibers always get recruited. If you recruited fast twitch fibers, it’s because you “used” all the slow ones. If you recruited explosive fibers, it’s because you’ve recruited the slow and fast ones. Just a technicality.

In oly lifting, you recruit all your fibers, not just the explosive ones.

Example, think of a squat. If your doing lots and lots of reps, you probably just need your slow twitch fibers. Now, if you get closer to your 1RM you’ll need to start using the fast ones, and if you do 1RM, even those two won’t be enough to perform the task, so you also recruit the explosive ones. Powerlifters do use the explosive fibers, the difference is that they train them to do something different from what weightlifters do.
[/quote]

Awesome, thanks for the post.
Not a technicality at all, exactly on point.
Can you recruit the explosive fibers with sub-maximal loads, perhaps through velocity?
[/quote]

There seems to be a significant amount of physiological misunderstanding in this thread w.r.t. Muscle fiber recuitment and the strength continuum, but i will say this part is more or less correct–you can train fast twitch fibers and power output through maximizing the velocity component. There is a cut off, as always,
but definitely yes.

There are, however, no such things as “explosive fibers”. Just explosive movement or power. There are only fast twitch fibers and slow twitch fibers, physiologically speaking. There are two “varieties” of fast twitch fibers–fast twitch and fast-fatigue resistant.
[/quote]

Yes there are explosive fibers:

  • Slow twitch fibers, ST: not a good contraction power, but has a great resistance towards fatigue

-Fast twitch fibers, FT IIa: great conditions for hypertrophy, in charge of doing intermediate efforts. They show sarcoplasmatic hypertrophy because of the tasks they do, which makes them have big amounts of glycogen. (You call them fatigue resistant, yes?)

-Explosive fibers, FT IIb: responsible of violent and short efforts, they use ATP reserves and fosfocreatine. These are also fast twitch

There’s great confusion in relation to these, people tend to think the fast twitch fibers are the responsible ones in quick, violent movements but it’s not like that, the name “fast twitch” is misleading.

The literature has different names for the explosive fibers, but the important thing is…NOT ALL FAST TWITCH FIBERS CAN ACCOMPLISH THOSE POWERFUL EFFORTS, ONLY the FT IIb.

Sorry for the bad english!

19

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:

[quote]robert35588 wrote:

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:

[quote]1llusion wrote:
You have a flawed understanding of the strength-endurance continuum. Under no circumstances will three reps constitute endurance work. Sets of three take a longer period of time than sets of one, but they do not train endurance.

You are correct in saying that fast twitch fibres will respond best to anaerobic work. However, three reps is still very much anaerobic.
[/quote]

My understanding is that you do have an, (although perhaps very small), aerobic fiber recruitment on every rep, the less of one the better, that is my contention.
Is it your view that Usain Bolt, for instance or Rezazadeh, uses no type I muscle fibers over 100m or over a C&J, because I think that is false. I believe they use way way less, especially as a percentage of the total than I would, but some are recruited.
My point is that when you do 10 reps, one of the reasons you get progressively less and less able to perform the task is a greater and greater reliance on the slower twitch fiber types.
What I’m saying is why train that to happen with a greater efficiency, isn’t that the opposite of the goal, which would be less slower twitch fiber recruitment? [/quote]

The slow twitch muscle fibers always get recruited. If you recruited fast twitch fibers, it’s because you “used” all the slow ones. If you recruited explosive fibers, it’s because you’ve recruited the slow and fast ones. Just a technicality.

In oly lifting, you recruit all your fibers, not just the explosive ones.

Example, think of a squat. If your doing lots and lots of reps, you probably just need your slow twitch fibers. Now, if you get closer to your 1RM you’ll need to start using the fast ones, and if you do 1RM, even those two won’t be enough to perform the task, so you also recruit the explosive ones. Powerlifters do use the explosive fibers, the difference is that they train them to do something different from what weightlifters do.
[/quote]

Awesome, thanks for the post.
Not a technicality at all, exactly on point.
Can you recruit the explosive fibers with sub-maximal loads, perhaps through velocity?
[/quote]

There seems to be a significant amount of physiological misunderstanding in this thread w.r.t. Muscle fiber recuitment and the strength continuum, but i will say this part is more or less correct–you can train fast twitch fibers and power output through maximizing the velocity component. There is a cut off, as always,
but definitely yes.

There are, however, no such things as “explosive fibers”. Just explosive movement or power. There are only fast twitch fibers and slow twitch fibers, physiologically speaking. There are two “varieties” of fast twitch fibers–fast twitch and fast-fatigue resistant.
[/quote]

Sorry for my poor understanding, thanks for the clarifications.
Is there a consensus on how long it takes for, type IIb fibers to fatigue/or conversely to be replenished?
My understanding, again perhaps poor, is that there is not a current consensus on if fiber types can trained to become different fiber types or if you have a genetically fixed amount of each, is that the case?
How are type IIb best trained?
Obviously low rep ranges, and large weights, but is there consensus on how they become stronger or faster, is it fiber hypertrophy, is it cyclin efficiency or is it propensity to be recruited?
Or is it something I’ve been too dumb to contemplate?

20

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:

[quote]robert35588 wrote:

[quote]knotginuwhine wrote:

[quote]1llusion wrote:
You have a flawed understanding of the strength-endurance continuum. Under no circumstances will three reps constitute endurance work. Sets of three take a longer period of time than sets of one, but they do not train endurance.

You are correct in saying that fast twitch fibres will respond best to anaerobic work. However, three reps is still very much anaerobic.
[/quote]

My understanding is that you do have an, (although perhaps very small), aerobic fiber recruitment on every rep, the less of one the better, that is my contention.
Is it your view that Usain Bolt, for instance or Rezazadeh, uses no type I muscle fibers over 100m or over a C&J, because I think that is false. I believe they use way way less, especially as a percentage of the total than I would, but some are recruited.
My point is that when you do 10 reps, one of the reasons you get progressively less and less able to perform the task is a greater and greater reliance on the slower twitch fiber types.
What I’m saying is why train that to happen with a greater efficiency, isn’t that the opposite of the goal, which would be less slower twitch fiber recruitment? [/quote]

The slow twitch muscle fibers always get recruited. If you recruited fast twitch fibers, it’s because you “used” all the slow ones. If you recruited explosive fibers, it’s because you’ve recruited the slow and fast ones. Just a technicality.

In oly lifting, you recruit all your fibers, not just the explosive ones.

Example, think of a squat. If your doing lots and lots of reps, you probably just need your slow twitch fibers. Now, if you get closer to your 1RM you’ll need to start using the fast ones, and if you do 1RM, even those two won’t be enough to perform the task, so you also recruit the explosive ones. Powerlifters do use the explosive fibers, the difference is that they train them to do something different from what weightlifters do.
[/quote]

Awesome, thanks for the post.
Not a technicality at all, exactly on point.
Can you recruit the explosive fibers with sub-maximal loads, perhaps through velocity?
[/quote]

There seems to be a significant amount of physiological misunderstanding in this thread w.r.t. Muscle fiber recuitment and the strength continuum, but i will say this part is more or less correct–you can train fast twitch fibers and power output through maximizing the velocity component. There is a cut off, as always,
but definitely yes.

There are, however, no such things as “explosive fibers”. Just explosive movement or power. There are only fast twitch fibers and slow twitch fibers, physiologically speaking. There are two “varieties” of fast twitch fibers–fast twitch and fast-fatigue resistant.
[/quote]

Sorry for my poor understanding, thanks for the clarifications.
Is there a consensus on how long it takes for, type IIb fibers to fatigue/or conversely to be replenished?
My understanding, again perhaps poor, is that there is not a current consensus on if fiber types can trained to become different fiber types or if you have a genetically fixed amount of each, is that the case?
How are type IIb best trained?
Obviously low rep ranges, and large weights, but is there consensus on how they become stronger or faster, is it fiber hypertrophy, is it cyclin efficiency or is it propensity to be recruited?
Or is it something I’ve been too dumb to contemplate?[/quote]

Type IIb isn’t good for hypertrophy.

Now, how they are best trained? In my opinion, that always depends on how you want to use them.
One thing you need to do for sure is recruit them first BUT that’s not enough. Here’s an example…

Sprinters obviously rely on their IIb fibers. How do they make them good at sprinting? First, they get the neuromuscular activation they require, and then use it for their specific purpose.
Like i said in my first comment, in order to recruit FT IIb fibers, you need to be using entirely your slow twitch ones, and your IIa fibers. (that’s why you always hear people say olympic lifting increments muscular activation, it’s because you are using ALL your fibers). So one thing they do, is do heavy squats that get the neuromuscular activation they need, and inmediately sprint, which trains them for the specific task they’ll be used in competition.

So basically, you do an activity that recruits them (in this case heavy squats) and then you do the specific fast activity in which you want to use them (jumping, sprinting)

However, if oly lifting is your thing, you are actually doing both things at the same time, because by snatching you are getting the muscular activation as well as doing the fast and more specific task.