[quote]pat36 wrote:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.00903.x
[/quote]
Link doesn’t work
I was on the bodybuilding.com forums and was amused when someone expressed his thoughts on failure training, so I thought I’d share it:
“Stopping a set before you reach failure makes about as much sense as stopping sex before you orgasm.”
I always have sex till failure, or do a set till orgasm, or something like that.
You guys are using big words I don’t understand. I’m pretty sure most of my motor units are saying WTF when I lift a weight they’ve never seen before and then force it past failure with rest pause drop sets statics etc. That’s as scientific as I’m willing to get at this point.
[quote]scottiscool wrote:
I always have sex till failure, or do a set till orgasm, or something like that.
[/quote]
Really? Personally I always have sex until success. 
[quote]
You guys are using big words I don’t understand. I’m pretty sure most of my motor units are saying WTF when I lift a weight they’ve never seen before and then force it past failure with rest pause drop sets statics etc. That’s as scientific as I’m willing to get at this point. [/quote]
And in most cases that’s probably as scientific as the vast majority of people need to get. All this talk about MU recruitment theories is fun and interesting, but what really matters is that we do the necessary work in the gym, in the kitchen and rest enough.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Honestly, I don’t think that is what is happening. I don’t think enough time passes with the split second weight changes to flush out waste material. I could be wrong but I don’t think so. What I actually think is happening is that no matter what load you use there are MU’s that are not incorporated and hence when you change load you utilize those and the ones you were using begin to recuperate even during the set. I realized that what I am saying kind of goes against the experts who most assuredly know more about recruitment than I do, but I think there may be something to it. If I am wrong I can live with that, but I just don’t see MU recruitment so linearly. I think some are still at rest depending on load/speed.
This is just a hypothesis from my own experience, feel free to call me out on it and tell me I am wrong and why. Just keep it civil will ya? 
[/quote]
Muscle tension is so high when you lift weights that blood vessels are too constricted for enough circulation to flow. Even a split second of lack of tension would be enough to bring some (not all) circulation, which could mean the difference.
However, if you insist, why don’t you try imagining the weight getting heavier after you reach failure? If your hypothesis is true, that should work as well. You can also try dropping the weight and grabbing it again as if you would if you picked another weight. If your hypothesis is true, you wouldn’t be able to lift it.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
- With LTMU’s , the twitch force of the motor unit stays the same or increases with fatigue.[/quote]
This actually makes sense because LTMUs are aerobic in nature and it takes time before enough oxygen gets pumped into them.
[quote]undeadlift wrote:
pat36 wrote:
However, if you insist, why don’t you try imagining the weight getting heavier after you reach failure? [/quote]That won’t work for me. I just not wired that way [quote]If your hypothesis is true, that should work as well. You can also try dropping the weight and grabbing it again as if you would if you picked another weight. If your hypothesis is true, you wouldn’t be able to lift it.[/quote] Now, that is an interesting idea, I am glad I thought of it! Seriously, I’ll try that, probably next week. I am currently on a much needed hiatus not to mention I am sick as a fucking dog. The hiatus was intentional apart from the sickness, it just came at the same time. Nevertheless, I’ll try that, and report what I did and how I did it.
[quote]cormac wrote:
Buy the book![/quote]
What he said, its not light reading though.
[quote]Dark_Knight wrote:
pat36 wrote:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.00903.x
Link doesn’t work
[/quote]
Hmmm…worked for me. I’ll paste the abstract…Hang on let me find it…There it is:
"1. In 67 single motor units, the mechanical properties, the recruitment and derecruitment
thresholds, and the discharge rates were recorded concurrently in the first dorsal interosseus
(FDI) of human subjects during intermittent fatiguing contractions. The task consisted of
isometric ramp-and-hold contractions performed at 50 % of the maximal voluntary contraction
(MVC). The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of fatigue on the behaviour of
motor units with a wide range of activation thresholds.
2. For low-threshold (< 25 % MVC) motor units, the mean twitch force increased with fatigue and
the recruitment threshold either did not change or increased. In contrast, the twitch force and
the activation threshold decreased for the high-threshold (> 25 % MVC) units. The observation
that in low-threshold motor units a quick stretch of the muscle at the end of the test reset the
unit force and recruitment threshold to the prefatigue value suggests a significant role for
fatigue-related changes in muscle stiffness but not twitch potentiation or motor unit
synchronization.
3. Although the central drive intensified during the fatigue test, as indicated by an increase in
surface electromyogram (EMG), the discharge rate of the motor units during the hold phase of
each contraction decreased progressively over the course of the task for motor units that were
recruited at the beginning of the test, especially the low-threshold units. In contrast, the
discharge rates of newly activated units first increased and then decreased.
4. Such divergent behaviour of low- and high-threshold motor units could not be individually
controlled by the central drive to the motoneurone pool. Rather, the different behaviours must
be the consequence of variable contributions from motoneurone adaptation and afferent
feedback from the muscle during the fatiguing contraction.
What the hell? It worked for me today. Yesterday I got an error screen, saying the application was not found.
???
Thanks for pasting the abstract though.
Just read this from Staley, which discusses similar methods to Waterbury.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459418
I keep flipping back and forth. Go to failure, or stop when speed slows?
One problem I currently have with stopping when speed slows is that that would probably mean that, while the HTMUs are fatigued, the LTMUs are not. I guess you can remedy that by simply doing both: say use the 25 method, then do a few sets to failure.
But further, even if absolute speed of movement slows, so what? It’s been consistently shown that intent of movement is what counts, so as long as you’re attempting to accelerate, it would seem then that you’d be stimulating more fibers by going to failure.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Well, it means that my statement is true because on the last couple reps of a set to failure you are most certainly attempting to produce maximal force against the bar. If attempting to produce maximal force causes your body to recruit your HTMU’s, then they are also recruited during these reps.
Now, does that necessarily mean that they are going to produce maximal levels of force? No, especially if you have applied maximal force to every rep (explosive lifting) up to this point. But, what really limits their ability to generate high levels of force is not simply duration of time. What limits them is their fuel supply.
[/quote]
So if you are running a marathon and on the last mile of the 26 miles you push as hard as you can, to go as fast as you can, you are recruiting your HTMU’s?
I hope you can see by this example that the intent to recruit HTMU’s is not effective if none are available or up to the task. When you burn out all the HTMU’s prior to the end of a set and then try as hard as you can at the end, you are not recruiting many, if any HTMU’s. Why? Because they are all still recovering.
Yes, that’s correct. That is what I meant by dropping out; not being able to produce much force but still receiving innervations from the nerve.
This is not correct. Studies using Creatine demonstrate increases force producing but not endurance. So creatine does not help you use the HTMU’s longer.
What is the difference between the gym and a controlled study?
The main difference is that in a study they try and control all the valuables to reduce or prevent individual variation from affecting the outcome. So a study will control, for lifting age, steroid use, genetic differences, diet differences, etc. All these things are removed or “controlled” so that the outcome can be more closely linked to the research protocol; meaning you can draw stronger conclusions as to the specific protocol you are studying.
In the gym you never know for sure why anything occurs. Guys get big, most guys not. What is the difference? Training? Diet? Genetics? You never know. So you have the majority of guys following what a few big guys say, but no one knows for sure why they are big and most guys who follow their example do not come close.
So I would say that following what has been testing in a controlled environment is probably a better place to start than the other way around. At least from the lab you know what you are getting.
Remember, studies are about finding what works for “most” people, not what works for a few genetically gifted or drug-enhanced guys.
See above. Also. I never advocate a stand-alone program. Programs only work as long as they work. Then it’s time for a change.
THERE IS NO SINGLE PROGRAM THAT WILL CONTINUE GIVING RESULTS FOREVER! Adaptation to increases in load only work for a certain amount of time. Then, your CNS starts to get overloaded and does not allow you to continue to use your HTMU’s at the same intensity. The result is no more growth. So you change the stimulus to recover your CNS (This is why HIT stops working after a while - CNS fatigue)
So I believe the MRT will work great until is stops working, then on to something else.
PS - I’ve been training for 15 years.
Say Waterbury’s position is correct and the IIBs do drop out. What about the IIAs then? They have more gas in them, so they must keep going.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So if you are running a marathon and on the last mile of the 26 miles you push as hard as you can, to go as fast as you can, you are recruiting your HTMU’s?
I hope you can see by this example that the intent to recruit HTMU’s is not effective if none are available or up to the task. When you burn out all the HTMU’s prior to the end of a set and then try as hard as you can at the end, you are not recruiting many, if any HTMU’s. Why? Because they are all still recovering.
[/quote]
Actually I would say that if you try to sprint during the last stretch of a marathon that it’s possible to recruit your HTMU’s. You see this happen all the time actually. The guys are running along at a steady pace and then towards the finish line, those with enough gas left in the tank turn on the “speed” (I put that in quotations because at this point the word speed is relative). How do they increase the speed if their HTMU’s can’t be recruited?
I’d also disagree, about your comment about not recruiting many if any HTMU’s at the end of a set. You’re still recruiting them (even if you’ve “burt them out” by this point), it’s just that they’ve run out of fuel and aren’t going to be able to produce much force.
Once again there’s a difference between recruitment and optimal performance.
Glad we agree on that.
Actually you’re wrong. Creatine does prolong type 11B fiber fatigue, there have been quite a few studies that conclude this. And since we’re on the topic of CW’s MRT program, CW himself has already admitted and agreed with me that this is the case.
There are numerous differences. Probably the most problematic has to do with the size of the study group. Most studies that I’ve seen involve what 20 people. So, what is that like less than 1% of some states in the U.S. , let along the population of the entire earth.
Second, you simply cannot control for several of the most important factors determining progress (genetics, effort, consistency, etc…). What I mean is that most studies are short term (while building muscle is long term), cannot possibly control for genetic variations in individuals, and really cannot control for effort. You just can’t determine those things to begin with, and some you can’t ever really determine (like effort, some guys can be giving you every indication that they’re working hard, but in actuality holding back).
That’s a very overgeneralized statement, and to be honest, yes you most certainly can know for sure why the guys who get big do so, while the others do not. This really isn’t as mysterious a topic as some would have you believe.
I’d disagree that the guys who actually follow the big guys example don’t see progress due to it. It’s more so that the guys who don’t get results just don’t really do what the big guys do/did. Sure, there are genetic anomalies who can get huge just from looking at weights (but it’s pretty easy to figure out why they got big) and those who no matter how correctly they go about things never reach “big” status (though they still do improve greatly from their starting point), but once again that is basically a matter of genetics.
Once again, most studies don’t study a large enough cross section of the population to make determinations of what works for “most” people. Secondly I’m not suggesting that we completely ignore studies, studies can be helpful. But, paying attention to studies while ignoring real world results is a foolish plan of action IMO.
Also, you need to realize that studies aren’t free. And usually the ones financially backing the study have some stake in the outcome. Sure, some studies are more reputable than others, but one can basically find studies to support just about any point of view.
Did you know that there are numerous studies out there that basically conclude that steroids have no benefit for building muscle? Yet, how many people do you think are actually stupid enough to believe those conclusions.
Well, first you’re right, no program will continue giving results “forever”, everyone has genetic limitations and though few of us ever actually reach that potential it does exist. I will say however that a well designed program will continue giving results for quite a long stretch of time. Sure, one might have to change exercises every now and then or take back off weeks, but there are most certainly guys out there who have been doing basically the same workout (in terms of sets/reps/frequency/etc…) for years and continue to see gains.
All this talk of changing programs every so many months/weeks/or whatever arbitray number that someone wants to throw out there is just a marketing ploy IMO (unless perhaps we’re talking about performance training in which case I can see the argument for periodization).
Also, I think that’s great that you’ve been training for 15 years.
Good training,
Sentoguy
[quote]Dark_Knight wrote:
Say Waterbury’s position is correct and the IIBs do drop out. What about the IIAs then? They have more gas in them, so they must keep going.[/quote]
They will if the load is light enough. Even if it is, once the IIBs drop out, the load will move slower.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Actually I would say that if you try to sprint during the last stretch of a marathon that it’s possible to recruit your HTMU’s. You see this happen all the time actually. The guys are running along at a steady pace and then towards the finish line, those with enough gas left in the tank turn on the “speed” (I put that in quotations because at this point the word speed is relative). How do they increase the speed if their HTMU’s can’t be recruited?
[/quote]
Then, using your real-world anecdotal evidence that you value so much, why are marathon runners so skinny with little muscle mass if they can and do frequently activate the HTMU’ during their training?
How long do you think glycogen stores in the muscles last? How quick can ATP be converted from stored glycogen verses stored fat?
The key is activating the HTMU’ with optimal force, which cannot and does not occur at the end of an endurance race because the glycogen stores have long been used up. So they are activated, but not even close to their force potential because they do not have the energy supply.
Yes, I looked at some more recent studies that do appear to confirm this.
This actually proves my point. If it is so difficult to control the variables in a controlled environment, like a study, how can you possibly control any in the gym? You can’t
So this is why it is so inaccurate to draw any conclusion about anything in a non-controlled environment, because you never really know what the caused the outcome. Way too many variables to draw any intelligent conclusions.
It always amazes me how folklore or gymlore gets accepted at face value and information that actually has a lot of thought and scientific rationale behind it is passed over. I guess it’s because most do not understand the scientific process and what they don’t understand they have a hard time accepting.
As for studies, it’s amazing to me that people such as yourself accept this kind of scientific studies when it comes to medications, but not when it comes to building muscle.
Your physician orders some medication for you that was tested using controlled studies just like the ones we are talking about, and you probably pop the pills down without a second thought. But when it comes to studies that may refute what your buddies say in the gym and “the studies do not have big enough control groups”, “they are biased”, etc.
Science is good for medicine but not for training? Amazing!
While it is true that you cannot control for everything, and that is why there are conflicting studies, most studies are light years ahead of just listening to what guys say in the gym.
Well, I don’t believe in changing any program that still gives results. But once the results stop, changes need to be made.
Also, performance training is not much difference than training for hypertrophy in that the key factor is the CNS. You cannot develop skill or get big without the CNS allowing it. AND, the variation that is required to properly training the CNS for sports is also a factor for hypertrophy. If you don’t allow for controlled detraining or significant variation in training methodology, you will not progress continually.
Understand, that when you hit a plateau in strength/size it is not related to your energy system or muscle fibers, it is related to your CNS no longer allowing for that same level of HTMU activation. And if you cannot activate your HTMU to the level required to cause adaptation in the muscle fiber, you will not be able to progress.
So this is why having a fresh CNS is the most important factor in continuous progress.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So this is why it is so inaccurate to draw any conclusion about anything in a non-controlled environment, because you never really know what the caused the outcome. Way too many variables to draw any intelligent conclusions.
It always amazes me how folklore or gymlore gets accepted at face value and information that actually has a lot of thought and scientific rationale behind it is passed over. I guess it’s because most do not understand the scientific process and what they don’t understand they have a hard time accepting.
.
[/quote]
I just wanted to speak on this briefly, it doesn’t have anything to do with Zatsiorsky RE or HTMUs so if that bothers you just skip it over haha.
Problem number 1 for me. I have yet to see a study done on 200 lb bodybuilders who want to be 250 lb bodybuilders doing everything in their power training and eating wise to get humungous. Many studies are done on college students(my age) but they were likely kids who did the study soley based on extra credit money lab experienc etc. This might make them my peers and to most applicable to how I should train, but in my mind they are testing donkeys when I’m a racehorse.
Problem 2. HMB(and others this is just a recognizable answer, we can put myostatin blockers in here as well) was supposed to be the second coming of supplements based on studies but when 10,000+ bodybuilders took it maybe 1% at best got anything out of it. This happens with training principles, diet, AAS, pretty much every facet of the game where things flop in the real world.
I’m willing to accept gymlore(as you put it) at face value and not studies because that’s where it counts to me. If someone says do so and so and it works and I grow bigger, maybe I’ll figure out why it did(maybe validated by science maybe not) but in the end the results are all that matter. It took the scientific community a long time to admit steroids worked while bodybuilders knew this for years. It’s going to take equally as long(if ever) for them to admit that there are possible health benefits. Many that are doing it themselves know, and don’t care if there is a peer reviewed meta analysis to back it. There is absolutely no study that shows why my training and diet works works, but there is plenty of gymlore and a scoreboard of bodybuilders that most couldn’t dream of matching.
Hopefully that didn’t sound argumentative, but that’s one meathead(as some of us were so nicely called in another thread haha) opinion on the subject of anecdotal evidence in this context.
PS I hate most medicines and would rather talk to people that take them and hear their thoughts then what my doctor tells me should happen.
[quote]undeadlift wrote:
Dark_Knight wrote:
Say Waterbury’s position is correct and the IIBs do drop out. What about the IIAs then? They have more gas in them, so they must keep going.
They will if the load is light enough. Even if it is, once the IIBs drop out, the load will move slower.[/quote]
What do you mean “light enough?”
The IIAs are themselves HTMUs. The difference between the IIAs and IIBs is not strength, but speed of activation. I don’t get what you mean by the “light enough” comment. The IIAs are strong as shit.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Actually I would say that if you try to sprint during the last stretch of a marathon that it’s possible to recruit your HTMU’s. You see this happen all the time actually. The guys are running along at a steady pace and then towards the finish line, those with enough gas left in the tank turn on the “speed” (I put that in quotations because at this point the word speed is relative). How do they increase the speed if their HTMU’s can’t be recruited?
Then, using your real-world anecdotal evidence that you value so much, why are marathon runners so skinny with little muscle mass if they can and do frequently activate the HTMU’ during their training?
[/quote]
That’s easy. They’re using the LTMUs throughout the marathon, then only use the HTMUs during the short times they sprint. He wasn’t saying they use the HTMUs throughout. It wouldn’t be possible to run 26 miles with HTMUs - the LTMUs do the job, meaning the HTMUs are not recruited and are therefore not fatigued.
Further, it’s not called the “shrinking man’s exercise” for nothing. If you run for a long time, your body dumps muscle, period.
[quote]scottiscool wrote:
I just wanted to speak on this briefly, it doesn’t have anything to do with Zatsiorsky RE or HTMUs so if that bothers you just skip it over haha.
Problem number 1 for me. I have yet to see a study done on 200 lb bodybuilders who want to be 250 lb bodybuilders doing everything in their power training and eating wise to get humungous. Many studies are done on college students(my age) but they were likely kids who did the study soley based on extra credit money lab experienc etc. This might make them my peers and to most applicable to how I should train, but in my mind they are testing donkeys when I’m a racehorse.
Problem 2. HMB(and others this is just a recognizable answer, we can put myostatin blockers in here as well) was supposed to be the second coming of supplements based on studies but when 10,000+ bodybuilders took it maybe 1% at best got anything out of it. This happens with training principles, diet, AAS, pretty much every facet of the game where things flop in the real world.
I’m willing to accept gymlore(as you put it) at face value and not studies because that’s where it counts to me. If someone says do so and so and it works and I grow bigger, maybe I’ll figure out why it did(maybe validated by science maybe not) but in the end the results are all that matter. It took the scientific community a long time to admit steroids worked while bodybuilders knew this for years. It’s going to take equally as long(if ever) for them to admit that there are possible health benefits. Many that are doing it themselves know, and don’t care if there is a peer reviewed meta analysis to back it. There is absolutely no study that shows why my training and diet works works, but there is plenty of gymlore and a scoreboard of bodybuilders that most couldn’t dream of matching.
Hopefully that didn’t sound argumentative, but that’s one meathead(as some of us were so nicely called in another thread haha) opinion on the subject of anecdotal evidence in this context.
PS I hate most medicines and would rather talk to people that take them and hear their thoughts then what my doctor tells me should happen. [/quote]
My point is that many meatheads don’t look past gymlore and that studies do provide more accurate info, most of the time. I have no problem with anecdotal information, empirical data collected in real life is very valuable.
Due to a number of factors, science is often slow to study what we want them to, so we ask the big guys in the gym. And that’s fine. It’s just that when science does get around to studying something that might help your training it would be a good idea to listen and try it just like you would if someone told you in the gym.
And the fact is that most of the dorks in the gym doing stupid things are doing so because someone else told them to. And I know we have all seen these guys in the gym. So the amount of good info being passed in the gym is also limited and may not work for everyone, just the same as studies.
In the end, I think science will just help refine what we already know (those who have been training for a while). But that little refinement may make a big difference.