Zatsiorsky, RE, and HTMUs

[Lorisco]

[quote]Dark_Knight wrote:
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?

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]

Good point, and how does it dump muscle? By using the resources from the HTMU’s that are not being used. There is also fiber conversion, that changes HTMU’s into LTMU’s. Technically, they don’t change to be LTMU’s, they just get modified to support more long term low intensity activities.

So at the end of the race the HTMU’s, not being used, cannot put out much force because their energy supply is not available (used by the LTMU’s).

If you don’t believe this, go run 5 miles and then try a heavy set of squats.

[Dark_Knight1]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So at the end of the race the HTMU’s, not being used, cannot put out much force because their energy supply is not available (used by the LTMU’s). [/quote]

No, because the LTMUs will be powered by different sources than HTMUs. The LTMUs will draw on such energy stores as glycogen, but the IIBs will not, being powered by phosphagens. So their energy supply WILL still be available.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
If you don’t believe this, go run 5 miles and then try a heavy set of squats.
[/quote]

Just because the squats would be more difficult does not mean the power source for the HTMUs is gone. A five mile run will cause a significant build up of metabolites, which would make muscular activity difficult. That’s totally different than depletion of fuel stores.

[Scott_M]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

My point is that many meatheads don’t look past gymlore and that studies do provide more accurate info, most of the time.

[/quote]

And there are people on the flip side, living in books with no real world results, so we can’t all win haha. We agree on more than meets the eye, my thoughts(like you sort of said at the end of your post) are the gym goers that are getting results are on the forefront and scientists are trying to figure out why, so that’s why I prefer to get my information from that side as opposed to the other.

[Sentoguy]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

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.
[/quote]

Huh? When did I ever say that sprinting at the end of a marathon was an optimal way to build muscle? Also, when did I say that this was the best way to activate the HTMU’s? All I said was that “sprinting” at the end of a marathon could activate the HTMU’s, not that this is what I would tell someone to do to build muscle or that it’s the best way to activate the HTMU’s. Once again, there’s a difference between recruitment and optimal performance.

Also, glycogen lasts approximately 4 minutes (also the type 11A’s run on glycogen, the type 11B’s run on ATP that’s already stored in the muscle in the form of phosocreatine, this provides instant energy). But, you aren’t using glycogen as your primary fuel source during a marathon, really the only time you’re doing so is at the very start of the race while your aerobic energy system is warming up, so to speak, if there is a sudden increase in intensity (a hill for example) and possibly if you “sprint” at the end of the race. The rest of the time your body is using it’s aerobic pathways (Krebs cycle) to produce energy. It’s the LTMU’s doing the majority of the work (type 1) during a long duration activity like a marathon, not the HTMU’s.

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.

Well, if you personally want to go on believing that decades of putting programs to the test (and to be honest, I’d consider the actual gyms across the world to be the most effective laboratories as far as reliable information) isn’t as valuable as month long studies done by people who may have never worked out before, on people who may not have ever worked out before and who may not be motivated lifters; well, then go right ahead. I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise.

But myself, I’ll take the advice of guys who have actually built impressive physiques, and who have reproduced this same process on others (in some cases literally hundreds to thousands of them) over some guys in white coats with papers hanging on their office wall that says that they can tell me every step in the cellular respiration process.

Also, remember that the scientific process is:

1. Observe a phenomenon (in this case we’ll use building muscle)
2. Form a hypothesis
3. Create an experiment to test your hypothesis
4. Draw conclusions from the results of your test
5. Repeat

What you seem to be overlooking, is that guys have been doing this in gyms across the world for the better part of a century now. Yet, you somehow are convinced that just because some guy is wearing a white laboratory coat and has a degree saying that he spent $100,000 on graduate school, that his conclusions are somehow more accurate.

Here is the most simple definition of science that I’ve ever heard, and personally my favorite definition:
“Science is observing the world around you.”

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.

Woah, when did I ever say that I accept the scientific studies done on medications? To be perfectly frank the prescription drug industry is among the most corrupt industries this world contains. Almost all studies done on prescription drugs are sponsored by the same companies that make the medications. Hell no I don’t believe the results of those studies.

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!

Once again, Fuck prescription drugs, and screw physicians who prescribe them (seeing as how physicians get paid to do so). I do not take any medications, and to be perfectly honest, don’t ever plan to. I know of several natural remedies to health problems that I see people taking prescription medications for and suffering for doing so (high cholesterol for example, anyone who is considering taking Lipitore for this might want to think again).

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.

Once again, feel free to continue believing that if you wish.

Well, I don’t believe in changing any program that still gives results. But once the results stop, changes need to be made.

Well, I’m not arguing with that.

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.

I’m not arguing that the CNS is an integral part of training (regardless of the goal), but saying that it’s the “key factor” isn’t necessarily accurate. There are several “key” factors that all must be present, none is more important than the others.

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.

Some of it does have to do with your CNS, but it’s not solely due to CNS fatigue (or at least isn’t always). Once again I realize that the CNS is an important and integral part of training, but it seems like everyone is convinced that it’s the only thing to pay attention to, or the only limiting factor. It’s not.

There are numerous systems involved in the process of building muscle. The body works as an integral unit, no system is necessarily more important than the others, without any of them the organism dies (without intervention). Sure, nervous system fatigue is most likely a factor in plateaus, but to think that it’s the only factor is really oversimplifying things.

So this is why having a fresh CNS is the most important factor in continuous progress.

Once again, be careful about labeling any one factor as being the “most” important.

Good training,

Sentoguy

[undeadlift]

[quote]Dark_Knight wrote:
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]

IIAs are definitely strong, but they’re not as strong as IIBs, have more endurance, are slightly oxidative, and are easier to recruit. They’re also known as intermediate muscle fibres.

By light enough, I mean if the external load is light enough to be lifted even if all IIBs are exhausted.

[undeadlift]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So at the end of the race the HTMU’s, not being used, cannot put out much force because their energy supply is not available (used by the LTMU’s). [/quote]

LTMUs don’t draw on glycogen. They’re aerobic, so they get it from oxygen. The HTMUs get energy from glycogen as a secondary energy source, but once the creatine phosphate runs out (in about 10 seconds), their power output decreases a lot.

Whenever you stop recruiting your HTMUs, you replenish their energy source. In that regard, you can recruit yout HTMUs at the home stretch of a marathon, given that your CNS isn’t tired from all the running and metabolites don’t interfere with HTMU recruitment.

[Dark_Knight1]

You will use glycogen during a marathon.

[Lorisco]

[quote]scottiscool wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

My point is that many meatheads don’t look past gymlore and that studies do provide more accurate info, most of the time.

And there are people on the flip side, living in books with no real world results, so we can’t all win haha. We agree on more than meets the eye, my thoughts(like you sort of said at the end of your post) are the gym goers that are getting results are on the forefront and scientists are trying to figure out why, so that’s why I prefer to get my information from that side as opposed to the other. [/quote]

That makes sense. Just make sure that they guys you are asking actually why they are getting results. Many have not a clue.

[Lorisco]

[quote]undeadlift wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So at the end of the race the HTMU’s, not being used, cannot put out much force because their energy supply is not available (used by the LTMU’s).

LTMUs don’t draw on glycogen. They’re aerobic, so they get it from oxygen. The HTMUs get energy from glycogen as a secondary energy source, but once the creatine phosphate runs out (in about 10 seconds), their power output decreases a lot.

Whenever you stop recruiting your HTMUs, you replenish their energy source. In that regard, you can recruit yout HTMUs at the home stretch of a marathon, given that your CNS isn’t tired from all the running and metabolites don’t interfere with HTMU recruitment.[/quote]

You don’t understand aerobic metabolism.

The muscles do not start using glucose and 02 until AFTER the available muscle stored glycogen is used up. Once the glycogen is gone the body starts conversing fat to glucose to power the type I fibers. If you have ever done any long aerobic activity this process is quite notable. For the fist 15 minutes or so the aerobic activity seems difficult because it is using stored glycogen, but once the body starts using glucose it starts to feel noticeably easier.

Lastly, metabolites from aerobic metabolism do not interfere with muscle contractility. For an activity to even be aerobic in nature it must stay under the lactate threshold most of the time. And activity under the lactate threshold does NOT build up metabolites.

[Lorisco]

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Also, glycogen lasts approximately 4 minutes (also the type 11A’s run on glycogen, the type 11B’s run on ATP that’s already stored in the muscle in the form of phosocreatine, this provides instant energy). But, you aren’t using glycogen as your primary fuel source during a marathon, really the only time you’re doing so is at the very start of the race while your aerobic energy system is warming up, so to speak, if there is a sudden increase in intensity (a hill for example) and possibly if you “sprint” at the end of the race. The rest of the time your body is using it’s aerobic pathways (Krebs cycle) to produce energy. It’s the LTMU’s doing the majority of the work (type 1) during a long duration activity like a marathon, not the HTMU’s.
[/quote]

I agree with most of this accept that stored glycogen lasts longer than 4 minutes during aerobic activity that is below the lactate threshold. And, I believe that stored phosocreatine can be pulled out of the muscle for use as fuel (converted to glucose) during prolonged aerobic activity.

Well, if you personally want to go on believing that decades of putting programs to the test (and to be honest, I’d consider the actual gyms across the world to be the most effective laboratories as far as reliable information) isn’t as valuable as month long studies done by people who may have never worked out before, on people who may not have ever worked out before and who may not be motivated lifters; well, then go right ahead. I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise.

Don’t get me wrong, if there is no controlled scientific data on something real-world empirical data is great. In fact, it has been used since the Greeks developed the scientific model. All I’m saying is that you need to be careful who you ask. Some big guys are clueless as to how they got big.

Woah, when did I ever say that I accept the scientific studies done on medications? To be perfectly frank the prescription drug industry is among the most corrupt industries this world contains. Almost all studies done on prescription drugs are sponsored by the same companies that make the medications. Hell no I don’t believe the results of those studies.

Good to see you are consistent in your dislike for science.

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.

Once again, feel free to continue believing that if you wish.

Well, lets just say that you would not be downing that creatine shake after your lifting session if it wasn’t for controlled scientific studies.

There are numerous systems involved in the process of building muscle. The body works as an integral unit, no system is necessarily more important than the others, without any of them the organism dies (without intervention). Sure, nervous system fatigue is most likely a factor in plateaus, but to think that it’s the only factor is really oversimplifying things.

Chris S just did an article on exactly what I’ve been saying in terms of the requirement for program variation to maintain progress, go check it out.

[Dark_Knight1]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The muscles do not start using glucose and 02 until AFTER the available muscle stored glycogen is used up. Once the glycogen is gone the body starts conversing fat to glucose to power the type I fibers.
[/quote]

I read somewhere that the infamous “wall” that marathoners hit occurs because that is when they have used up muscle glycogen. Can anyone vouch for the veracity of that?

[undeadlift]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
undeadlift wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So at the end of the race the HTMU’s, not being used, cannot put out much force because their energy supply is not available (used by the LTMU’s).

LTMUs don’t draw on glycogen. They’re aerobic, so they get it from oxygen. The HTMUs get energy from glycogen as a secondary energy source, but once the creatine phosphate runs out (in about 10 seconds), their power output decreases a lot.

Whenever you stop recruiting your HTMUs, you replenish their energy source. In that regard, you can recruit yout HTMUs at the home stretch of a marathon, given that your CNS isn’t tired from all the running and metabolites don’t interfere with HTMU recruitment.

You don’t understand aerobic metabolism.

The muscles do not start using glucose and 02 until AFTER the available muscle stored glycogen is used up. Once the glycogen is gone the body starts conversing fat to glucose to power the type I fibers. If you have ever done any long aerobic activity this process is quite notable. For the fist 15 minutes or so the aerobic activity seems difficult because it is using stored glycogen, but once the body starts using glucose it starts to feel noticeably easier.

Lastly, metabolites from aerobic metabolism do not interfere with muscle contractility. For an activity to even be aerobic in nature it must stay under the lactate threshold most of the time. And activity under the lactate threshold does NOT build up metabolites.[/quote]

15 minutes? I thought it only took 2 minutes. In either case, after that, aerobic metabolism takes over and glycogen stores can be replenished.

OK, I might be wrong about metabolites, but there’s still the CNS.

[Sentoguy]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

I agree with most of this accept that stored glycogen lasts longer than 4 minutes during aerobic activity that is below the lactate threshold. And, I believe that stored phosocreatine can be pulled out of the muscle for use as fuel (converted to glucose) during prolonged aerobic activity.
[/quote]

Ok, I can agree with that, but you’re not using primarily glycogen as a fuel source during a long duration low intensity activity. Sure, you do use some at the beginning and possibly if you go above the anaerobic threshold. But once your body regains a state of homeostasis and the aerobic energy system has had time to warm up (and you once again become aerobic) then your body primarily uses stored body fat as it’s fuel source (and yes it does convert it to glucose since glucose is really the only fuel that your cells can use for energy).

Honestly though, I think we both pretty much know what we’re talking about as far as this phenomenon, so there’s really not much worth in continuing to split hairs.

Don’t get me wrong, if there is no controlled scientific data on something real-world empirical data is great. In fact, it has been used since the Greeks developed the scientific model. All I’m saying is that you need to be careful who you ask. Some big guys are clueless as to how they got big.

True. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that controlled scientific data is worthless, it’s just that until the data obtained from those studies actually produce real world results in a substantial cross section of the population (which admittedly does take a while), then they’re interesting, but just theory. The fact that there are so many conflicting studies out there is an indication of how little science has really proven as far as building muscle.

And why are they performing the studies in the first place? In regards to muscle, it’s usually because a certain method (that has been experimented with and proven effective by lifters world wide) interests the researchers and they seek to figure out how it works. So, like you and Scott said earlier, science usually just tells us what we already know to be true. Those in the field/trenches are always ahead of the scientific community IMO.

Good to see you are consistent in your dislike for science.

I like science just fine, I just don’t like restricting what constitutes science. Like I said, I’d consider trainers (and trainees for that matter) to be scientists and I’d consider the playing field/gym to be laboratories.

I do dislike the prescription drug industry though.

Well, lets just say that you would not be downing that creatine shake after your lifting session if it wasn’t for controlled scientific studies.

Well, I don’t actually take creatine, but I get your point. Once again, I’m not disregarding science, I’m just skeptical of theories that have no real world proof of their efficacy.

Chris S just did an article on exactly what I’ve been saying in terms of the requirement for program variation to maintain progress, go check it out.

Yeah, I saw the article (didn’t get a chance to read it yet though). Also, I’m not saying that it’s not possible to progress via program variation, but I’m still not convinced that it’s necessary. I respect Chris S and his opinions, but I could site other trainers who strongly disagree with him and have had equal (if not better) success in training bodybuilders.

If you feel that changing programs is the way to go for you, then more power to you. I’m not trying to convince you to stop doing what you’ve found works for your body. The only objection I have is when people start trying to push what they’ve found works for them on others, or worse yet when they try to convince others that their way is the only way.

Good training,

Sentoguy

[Lorisco]

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

I agree with most of this accept that stored glycogen lasts longer than 4 minutes during aerobic activity that is below the lactate threshold. And, I believe that stored phosocreatine can be pulled out of the muscle for use as fuel (converted to glucose) during prolonged aerobic activity.

Ok, I can agree with that, but you’re not using primarily glycogen as a fuel source during a long duration low intensity activity. Sure, you do use some at the beginning and possibly if you go above the anaerobic threshold. But once your body regains a state of homeostasis and the aerobic energy system has had time to warm up (and you once again become aerobic) then your body primarily uses stored body fat as it’s fuel source (and yes it does convert it to glucose since glucose is really the only fuel that your cells can use for energy).

Honestly though, I think we both pretty much know what we’re talking about as far as this phenomenon, so there’s really not much worth in continuing to split hairs.
[/quote]

I agree. I think we have worm this topic out.

True. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that controlled scientific data is worthless, it’s just that until the data obtained from those studies actually produce real world results in a substantial cross section of the population (which admittedly does take a while), then they’re interesting, but just theory. The fact that there are so many conflicting studies out there is an indication of how little science has really proven as far as building muscle.

I would argue that there is just as much conflicting ideas in the gym as there are in scientific studies. Again, that is why we see guys doing some really crazy stuff in the gym.

I like science just fine, I just don’t like restricting what constitutes science. Like I said, I’d consider trainers (and trainees for that matter) to be scientists and I’d consider the playing field/gym to be laboratories.

I do dislike the prescription drug industry though.

I actually dislike the pharmaceutical industry as well.

And what really burns me is that the FDA has the balls to comes out and state how dangerous food supplements are and that they (FDA) should also regulate them. But the fact is that thousands of people (I think I read approx. 100,000/yr) die from properly FDA regulated, prescribed, and administered medication. And how many people die each year from unregulated food supplements? Less than 50 the last time I checked. So the FDA is a safety joke and the drug companies are not helping things either.

[quote]
Chris S just did an article on exactly what I’ve been saying in terms of the requirement for program variation to maintain progress, go check it out.

Yeah, I saw the article (didn’t get a chance to read it yet though). Also, I’m not saying that it’s not possible to progress via program variation, but I’m still not convinced that it’s necessary. I respect Chris S and his opinions, but I could site other trainers who strongly disagree with him and have had equal (if not better) success in training bodybuilders.

If you feel that changing programs is the way to go for you, then more power to you. I’m not trying to convince you to stop doing what you’ve found works for your body. The only objection I have is when people start trying to push what they’ve found works for them on others, or worse yet when they try to convince others that their way is the only way.

Good training,

Sentoguy[/quote]

I think the idea is to change between effective programs, not just any crazy thing. I don’t think Chris is advocating changing programs to something you know doesn’t work for you (i.e. kettle bells).

[Lorisco]

[quote]undeadlift wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
undeadlift wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So at the end of the race the HTMU’s, not being used, cannot put out much force because their energy supply is not available (used by the LTMU’s).

LTMUs don’t draw on glycogen. They’re aerobic, so they get it from oxygen. The HTMUs get energy from glycogen as a secondary energy source, but once the creatine phosphate runs out (in about 10 seconds), their power output decreases a lot.

Whenever you stop recruiting your HTMUs, you replenish their energy source. In that regard, you can recruit yout HTMUs at the home stretch of a marathon, given that your CNS isn’t tired from all the running and metabolites don’t interfere with HTMU recruitment.

You don’t understand aerobic metabolism.

The muscles do not start using glucose and 02 until AFTER the available muscle stored glycogen is used up. Once the glycogen is gone the body starts conversing fat to glucose to power the type I fibers. If you have ever done any long aerobic activity this process is quite notable. For the fist 15 minutes or so the aerobic activity seems difficult because it is using stored glycogen, but once the body starts using glucose it starts to feel noticeably easier.

Lastly, metabolites from aerobic metabolism do not interfere with muscle contractility. For an activity to even be aerobic in nature it must stay under the lactate threshold most of the time. And activity under the lactate threshold does NOT build up metabolites.

15 minutes? I thought it only took 2 minutes. In either case, after that, aerobic metabolism takes over and glycogen stores can be replenished.

OK, I might be wrong about metabolites, but there’s still the CNS.[/quote]

No. Aerobic activity under the lactate threshold does not use up muscle glycogen like high intensity activity that requires use of type II fibers. So low intensity aerobics take about 10-15 minutes to use up muscle glycogen.

Glycogen stores do not get replaced during long term low intensity aerobic activity. Once you convert to aerobic metabolism in about 15 minutes you start using stored fat for fuel. Fat is converted into glucose and used directly by the muscles. It doesn’t get stored. It comes out of storage as fat and is used right away.

[undeadlift]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
No. Aerobic activity under the lactate threshold does not use up muscle glycogen like high intensity activity that requires use of type II fibers. So low intensity aerobics take about 10-15 minutes to use up muscle glycogen.

Glycogen stores do not get replaced during long term low intensity aerobic activity. Once you convert to aerobic metabolism in about 15 minutes you start using stored fat for fuel. Fat is converted into glucose and used directly by the muscles. It doesn’t get stored. It comes out of storage as fat and is used right away.[/quote]

If this were true, marathon runners wouldn’t be able to speed up at the home stretch of a marathon. You still have the ATP-CP system to consider.

[Magarhe]

This argument NEVER ENDS.

Here is an idea:

4 weeks: stop when the speed drops significantly.
4 weeks: continue doing sets even as the speed drops significantly.

That approach of cycling what you are doing is far more effective than ANY attempt at making a single, cookie-cutter approach based on one theory. Why? Because the single most important theory, more important than any size theory or other speculation, is that the body will adapt but only for so long, and then it will stop adapting to whatever you are doing. Because our bodies are cheap bastards.

The most important thing is change.

Any attempt to come up with a single “best” approach is total bollocks.

Unless that approach is designed around the fact that change is the most important thing to have in a system.

Hello Westside. The entire thing is based around the fact that you cannot keep doing the same thing again and again, and you should focus on your weak points - find and identify what your weakness is.

Weakness is not just that your arms are too small. It could be your arms are not fast enough, don’t have endurance, don’t have anerobic endurance, don’t recover fast enough when the type IIs burn out etc…

If you stop when slowing down then you are not going to build the stamina of the fast twitchers. How about instead of stopping, take a 15 second rest between reps. That will build your recover systems.

You should not neglect anything. You should try to identify your weak points and focus on them. Your weak points could be something so subtle. Note weak points could also be described as “the aspect of your fitness that will most rapidly respond to training effect, as it lags behind its potential, with minimal overtraining effect (because it is already so undertrained), giving you the most rapid gains possible AT THE TIME, until it is not longer your weak point.”

People are so caught up in trying to prove X approach is best they are forgetting that most imporant thing. So what if the IIs get tired - you gotta train them to NOT get tired and to recover, faster. Just recruiting them isn’t enough.

[Dark_Knight1]

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Note weak points could also be described as “the aspect of your fitness that will most rapidly respond to training effect, as it lags behind its potential, with minimal overtraining effect (because it is already so undertrained), giving you the most rapid gains possible AT THE TIME, until it is not longer your weak point.”
[/quote]

Where are you quoting from?

[Sentoguy]

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
This argument NEVER ENDS.

Here is an idea:

4 weeks: stop when the speed drops significantly.
4 weeks: continue doing sets even as the speed drops significantly.

That approach of cycling what you are doing is far more effective than ANY attempt at making a single, cookie-cutter approach based on one theory. Why? Because the single most important theory, more important than any size theory or other speculation, is that the body will adapt but only for so long, and then it will stop adapting to whatever you are doing. Because our bodies are cheap bastards.

The most important thing is change.

Any attempt to come up with a single “best” approach is total bollocks.

Unless that approach is designed around the fact that change is the most important thing to have in a system.

Hello Westside. The entire thing is based around the fact that you cannot keep doing the same thing again and again, and you should focus on your weak points - find and identify what your weakness is.

Weakness is not just that your arms are too small. It could be your arms are not fast enough, don’t have endurance, don’t have anerobic endurance, don’t recover fast enough when the type IIs burn out etc…

If you stop when slowing down then you are not going to build the stamina of the fast twitchers. How about instead of stopping, take a 15 second rest between reps. That will build your recover systems.

You should not neglect anything. You should try to identify your weak points and focus on them. Your weak points could be something so subtle. Note weak points could also be described as “the aspect of your fitness that will most rapidly respond to training effect, as it lags behind its potential, with minimal overtraining effect (because it is already so undertrained), giving you the most rapid gains possible AT THE TIME, until it is not longer your weak point.”

People are so caught up in trying to prove X approach is best they are forgetting that most imporant thing. So what if the IIs get tired - you gotta train them to NOT get tired and to recover, faster. Just recruiting them isn’t enough. [/quote]

Good post Mag. Though, I’d like to clarify the point about our bodies “will stop adapting” after a certain period of time. I see this point get used all the time, yet it seems like it has been misinterpreted.

First, as long as there is consistent overload then the body must continue adapting. Yes, our bodies are extremely efficient and will only do what we ask of them. But, if the demands that I put on my body are always greater than what it’s used to, the body must continue to make adaptations to deal with this.

So, in other words, as long as I continue to expose my body to progressively greater loads, or progressively greater volume, or progressively denser periods of work (the second two have their points of diminishing returns, while I don’t really feel that the first does, which is why that is what I tend to focus on) then, provided that I supply it with the nutrition to recover and super-compensate from these workouts, the body will continue to adapt.

You don’t NEED to continue changing things up (as far as actual program design) to continue seeing progress. Sure, it can work, I’m not arguing against that. But it’s not necessary to continue seeing change.

Now, let’s say that I go from a powerlifting program to a middle distance running program. There is a huge change in both demands and stimulus between these two things and therefore I am probably going to notice a big change/difference from doing the middle distance program. But, is that change going to make me a better powerlifter? No, probably not.

Likewise, if I find a program that my body responds well to, that helps me gain size and strength, is primarily designed for bodybuilding, and my primary goal is to be a bodybuilder, then sure if I switch to a gymnastics program I’m probably going to notice a substantial difference/change. But, is that change/difference really going to speed me on my way to becoming the best bodybuilder that I can be? No, probably not.

We need to realize that yes, big change means big adaptations. But, certain adaptations will be beneficial to our desired goals, while others will be detrimental. That’s why bodybuilders don’t train like swimmers, and marathoners don’t train like powerlifters, and gymnasts don’t train like cyclists, etc…etc…etc… What we want is to find a program that works best for our body at producing the adaptations that are beneficial for our chosen goal. Once we find that, then in my opinion it’d be silly to switch to a different program.

After all, aren’t we all after results? I know I am. I also know that the simpler I can make something the more likely I’ll stick to it, and the easier it’ll be to get the people I train to stick to it as well. In fact, it seems to me from just a quick glance around that it’s the people who stick to the basics (heavy weight, lots of food, lots of rest) and find what exercises work best for them that tend to make the most progress in bodybuilding. The guys who try to turn it into quantum physics seldom have world class physiques (not saying there aren’t some, just that they’re the minority).

Good training,

Sentoguy

[Lorisco]

[quote]undeadlift wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
No. Aerobic activity under the lactate threshold does not use up muscle glycogen like high intensity activity that requires use of type II fibers. So low intensity aerobics take about 10-15 minutes to use up muscle glycogen.

Glycogen stores do not get replaced during long term low intensity aerobic activity. Once you convert to aerobic metabolism in about 15 minutes you start using stored fat for fuel. Fat is converted into glucose and used directly by the muscles. It doesn’t get stored. It comes out of storage as fat and is used right away.

If this were true, marathon runners wouldn’t be able to speed up at the home stretch of a marathon. You still have the ATP-CP system to consider.[/quote]

Learn what “lactate thresholds” means and we can then talk further.