• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Fadi on muscle fibres & more...

i meant if you don't put in the effort to reach 100%.

for Larrys example (for example ;) )
if that 40kg only initially engages 25% of his muscle fibres, and (for example) each fibre can hold for 15 seconds... by 60 seconds, all of the fibres have been engaged and are tired
but at 30 seconds, the first 1/4 are tired, the second 1/4 are engaged and now tired, but half of the fibres have not been engaged?

and the effort for MMA or weightlifter is making the brain turn on as many muscles fibres at once, regardless of the load, to produce as much power as possible (same max force, but shorter time period)?

Thanks, I will read it after work tomorrow.
 
oldcorollas said:
i meant if you don't put in the effort to reach 100%.

for Larrys example (for example ;) )
if that 40kg only initially engages 25% of his muscle fibres, and (for example) each fibre can hold for 15 seconds... by 60 seconds, all of the fibres have been engaged and are tired
but at 30 seconds, the first 1/4 are tired, the second 1/4 are engaged and now tired, but half of the fibres have not been engaged?

and the effort for MMA or weightlifter is making the brain turn on as many muscles fibres at once, regardless of the load, to produce as much power as possible (same max force, but shorter time period)?

Thanks, I will read it after work tomorrow.
Click to expand...

No worries. Please note that the type IIb muscle fibres are not easy to excite and need some coaxing. That's why I believe, (and I think there were some studies done by Kramer) that it takes around 3 sets or so to get the benefit, through the accumulative effort effect if you like. Of course, there are other ways to get the job done, where one can apply extended sets involving some seriously shocking methods, (all wrapped up into one set) that would really get to the core of your muscle fibres. All that would be left for you to do is eat and rest.


Fadi.
 
Lifting a load as fast as possible to explode.off of the ground recruits more fibers which is similar to lifting a load as slow as possible. Both are at opposite ends of a spectrum where lifting the load comfortably would be in the middle and not recruit as many fibers.

That was my point Fadi, since some people would think there may not be as much recruitment. Though I will admit there is always a limit to how fast you can explode and.therefore more fibers are recruited with an increasing load to a degree (another spectrum as the work of Hakkionen (spelling) would attest to.
 
dave said:
Lifting a load as fast as possible to explode.off of the ground recruits more fibers which is similar to lifting a load as slow as possible. Both are at opposite ends of a spectrum where lifting the load comfortably would be in the middle and not recruit as many fibers.

That was my point Fadi, since some people would think there may not be as much recruitment. Though I will admit there is always a limit to how fast you can explode and.therefore more fibers are recruited with an increasing load to a degree (another spectrum as the work of Hakkionen (spelling) would attest to.
Click to expand...

Dave, first off, thank you so much for your informative contribution in my thread, you know I always appreciate it my friend.

Now I've got a copie ad paste for you from Clarence Bass web site which goes something like this (please tell me if that's what you're essentially saying okay). Thank you.

In summarizing orderly motor unit recruitment, Jack Wilmore and David Costill drop the reference to size and say it more directly in the third edition of their highly regarded textbook Physiology of Sports and Exercise: “In low-intensity activity, most muscle force is generated by slow-twitch fibers. As the intensity increases, fast-twitch fibers are recruited, and at the higher intensities, the fast-twitch fibers are activated.”

Strange as it may seem, speed makes no difference. Motor units are recruited in an orderly sequence, slow to fast, no matter what the speed of the movement. Speed of action does, however, affect the amount of force developed. Slow movements generate more force. “The closer you get to zero velocity, the more force can be generated,” say Wilmore and Costill. Slow motion dampens momentum; at zero speed force is maximized.

Physiology of Sport and Exercise W/Web Study Guide-5th Edition - W. Larry Kenney, Jack Wilmore, David Costill - Google Books


Fadi.
 
Last edited:
Fadi said:
There’s so much we don’t understand, and as you can see from the above, some really heavy weight scientist are saying what you have suggested in your post, however by doing so, they are contradicting the very same muscle recruitment principle they believe in, namely the Size Principle. So what I am saying to you here boxing23, is that yes, we get stronger when we train utilising those low reps with a weight that is close to our 1RM, but we don’t understand why it happens.

Something interesting from all of this though, is the fact that for muscle hypertrophy to occur, 100% or near 100% effort is required, and not so much how much weight you’ve got on the bar. Based on that, I can draw a conclusion that the reason weightlifters are not fundamentally as big as bodybuilders, lies in the application of their effort, which as I’ve said before is not at 100%, except perhaps when one attempts a 1RM. Again, that takes me to another field, and that is the field of volume vs. reps that hover around 3 most of the time, as is the case in weightlifting. To me this proves that effort is the controlling factor in muscle recruitment, and that there is something else going on when one dips below the 5 reps mark and focuses on weights that are close to his 1RM, but not quite there. That’s why I said, one sport is nervous system orientated, and the other is muscular system orientated. To compare the two would be to compare apples with oranges.


Fadi.
Click to expand...

Thank you Fadi. Also thanks for the reference i got a lot from it! Sorry to be a pain but my understanding from your article and the studies shown is that training to failure (100% max effort) is best for muscle hypertrophy no matter what rep range? (so find a rep range that suits you and work till failure?)
 
boxing23 said:
Thank you Fadi. Also thanks for the reference i got a lot from it! Sorry to be a pain but my understanding from your article and the studies shown is that training to failure (100% max effort) is best for muscle hypertrophy no matter what rep range? (so find a rep range that suits you and work till failure?)
Click to expand...
Yes Sir, but it doesn't have to be every single set though (unless you're only doing one extended set of course), and it can be near rather than at failure. So again, no need to get bogged down with the notion of: "oh, I've got to suffer and spit blood on every set to get somewhere" type of an attitude. Furthermore and very importantly, consistency in training is paramount. We all know of the one who goes into the gym for few weeks, kills it, then you don't see him for a month!

You're doing well Boxer, all power to you mate.


Fadi.
 
Thanks Fadi, I am always looking to learn and improve my knowledge and it makes it a hell of a lot easier when someone explains it to you in a way that you can understand it. Thanks for all you help Fadi.
 
It sounds like it's all in the head if that makes any sense. Rather than stopping when you can't lift your arms any more it's ok to stop when you know you've given your all (100% effort) and I think that's right because going to absolute failure will surely only lead to inury.
 
Work the muscle/s to momentary muscular fatigue is a practice that is As old as dirt.

It's uncomfortable, hurts like hell and to an onlooker appears frightening to watch.
When I supervise people I train, I let them continue until form starts to breaks down.
It's different for everyone, intensity is subjective, results are tangible.
If we think about the squat it's quite possible to work to fatigue on this exercise if we have a safe squat rack with the pins set at the right height, most don't do it.

I'd like to pose this, I've never seen a man biuld muscle on a low intensity program.

Giving 100% to me is the best I can do on the day, the way I gauge this is to work to MMF. This is until I cannot move the weight, but my form does not deteriorate, that is key.

And one main reason I'd like to think that I'm able to lift to this day.
 
Last edited:
Fadi said:
Dave, first off, thank you so much for your informative contribution in my thread, you know I always appreciate it my friend.

Now I've got a copie ad paste for you from Clarence Bass web site which goes something like this (please tell me if that's what you're essentially saying okay). Thank you.

In summarizing orderly motor unit recruitment, Jack Wilmore and David Costill drop the reference to size and say it more directly in the third edition of their highly regarded textbook Physiology of Sports and Exercise: “In low-intensity activity, most muscle force is generated by slow-twitch fibers. As the intensity increases, fast-twitch fibers are recruited, and at the higher intensities, the fast-twitch fibers are activated.”

Strange as it may seem, speed makes no difference. Motor units are recruited in an orderly sequence, slow to fast, no matter what the speed of the movement. Speed of action does, however, affect the amount of force developed. Slow movements generate more force. “The closer you get to zero velocity, the more force can be generated,” say Wilmore and Costill. Slow motion dampens momentum; at zero speed force is maximized.

Physiology of Sport and Exercise W/Web Study Guide-5th Edition - W. Larry Kenney, Jack Wilmore, David Costill - Google Books
Click to expand...

More force means more fibers are activated at once which is directly related to speed in both a slow and fast manner (both increase force but fast will never get to maximum like slow does). Motor unit recruitment is force dependant and therefore everything follows the size principle but synchronization and co-ordination of fibers is increased in fast lifts.

Is that how you understand it Fadi? I don't know why kraemer would go against it without proof when there are already plausible explanations.
 
Last edited:
AndyMitchell said:
Work the muscle/s to momentary muscular fatigue is a practice that is As old as dirt.

It's uncomfortable, hurts like hell and to an onlooker appears frightening to watch.
When I supervise people I train, I let them continue until form starts to breaks down.
It's different for everyone, intensity is subjective, results are tangible.
If we think about the squat it's quite possible to work to fatigue on this exercise if we have a safe squat rack with the pins set at the right height, most don't do it.

I'd like to pose this, I've never seen a man biuld muscle on a low intensity program.

Giving 100% to me is the best I can do on the day, the way I gauge this is to work to MMF. This is until I cannot move the weight, but my form does not deteriorate, that is key.

And one main reason I'd like to think that I'm able to lift to this day.
Click to expand...

This.

Though depending on your goals I would sometimes not take someone to fatigue when pure strength is the goal. Say I squat for strength and use accessory exercises to go to failure (such as more squats or leg press etc etc). But for maximal and safe muscle growth that is how I would do it.
 
dave said:
More force means more fibers are activated at once which is directly related to speed in both a slow and fast manner (both increase force but fast will never get to maximum like slow does). Motor unit recruitment is force dependant and therefore everything follows the size principle but synchronization and co-ordination of fibers is increased in fast lifts.

Is that how you understand it Fadi? I don't know why kraemer would go against it without proof when there are already plausible explanations.
Click to expand...
I think we're on the same page Dave, thank you.


Fadi.
 
dave said:
Though depending on your goals I would sometimes not take someone to fatigue when pure strength is the goal.
Click to expand...
I fully agree on that Dave as I know from experience when I was weightlifting, that fatigue was not a playing factor during training... what with rest times far exceeding those required for muscle hypertrophy, in addition to other factors of course!


Fadi.
 
Fadi, what do you think on drop/strip sets, supersets and other techniques similar to that?
 
buddy said:
Fadi, what do you think on drop/strip sets, supersets and other techniques similar to that?
Click to expand...

LOVE'EM!

My favourite (depending on what I'm doing) is a combination of shocking methods all combined into the one extended set. I'm speaking of ascending/rest-pausing/descending/rest-pausing. One word: PAIN! An incredible pump with deep fibre stimulation and full muscle fibre recruitment. What more can one ask for. This IS heaven on earth buddy, YUM!


Fadi.
 
Last edited:
dave said:
This.

Though depending on your goals I would sometimes not take someone to fatigue when pure strength is the goal. Say I squat for strength and use accessory exercises to go to failure (such as more squats or leg press etc etc). But for maximal and safe muscle growth that is how I would do it.
Click to expand...

I'm not following Dave, can you define "pure strength" for me please
 
AndyMitchell said:
I'm not following Dave, can you define "pure strength" for me please
Click to expand...

If I wanted the biggest bench I would not always be training to failure as that would set me up for slower progression. By pure strength I mean pure numbers driven lifts or absolute strength.
 
I didn't read the second or 3rd page out of laziness, so forgive me if this has already been asked, but Fadi, since we're talking effort, what say you on emphasising squeezing the target muscles while lifting?
 
RyanF said:
I didn't read the second or 3rd page out of laziness, so forgive me if this has already been asked, but Fadi, since we're talking effort, what say you on emphasising squeezing the target muscles while lifting?
Click to expand...
Ryan, please take a look at reply #35 above. Whatever intensity/shocking method you feel works for you, by making that set/those final reps more conducive, then apply it. Feeling the muscle by squeezing it is not a method I apply in my training, that does not make it any less beneficial for you though. I like to apply different methods; one of them would be flooding the muscle with as much blood as possible over time. By "over time", I mean the cumulative effect that occurs by either volume training or one to two sets that are extended, as I mentioned in reply #35.

PS: Irrespective of what method you favour and use, you should always eat and rest accordingly, or you will go backwards.


Fadi.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top