dogg's training and negatives

[doug1]

i have a question about dogg's training which i started about a week and a half ago. he makes a real big deal about strength right? well i have to use less weight than normal due to the extra slow negative, my muscles get fatigue and have had to decrease the weight to stay in the proper rep range. i have had soreness and all that good stuff, but i want to know since i don't have a training partner would i be better off using max weight and doing a "regular" speed negative, you know controlled but not so slow...? has anyone made this modification?

 

[raybravo]

well , what happens is , yeah initially u get frustrated by the lack of weight being used , but the strength(and size) increases are so good in the subsequent weeks that u defenitely feel evrything was worth .

 

[Crowler]

i have a question about dogg's training which i started about a week and a half ago. he makes a real big deal about strength right? well i have to use less weight than normal due to the extra slow negative, my muscles get fatigue and have had to decrease the weight to stay in the proper rep range. i have had soreness and all that good stuff, but i want to know since i don't have a training partner would i be better off using max weight and doing a "regular" speed negative, you know controlled but not so slow...? has anyone made this modification?

You say you have to use less weight than normal.

Bro when you slow down the speed of the rep, we all have to do that including Dogg.

Not having a partner doesn't change anything either as far as what I have read.

 

[bigheinz]

Yes it is normal. When you train with lower speed the only way to do it is with less weight to make the reps under control in 6 to 10 seconds in bouth movements, the positive and the negative. Remember to stop 2 seconds in the total contraction point to be sore to stimulate all the muscle fibers.

For example i was training with 1320 pounds in the leg press with HIT system and now i am training with 440 pounds with Super Slow system 10 x10 seconds around 2 minutes for a set; it is extremely painful but you can be sure all fibers are working and having a lot of stimulation.

Any way you have to train to the realy muscle failure, it is the only way to stimulate musclle growth.

And remember .........Train hard, brief , infrequent, and safe.....

There is no space for the littles !!!!!!
Bigheinz

 

[Mr_Magoo]

bigheinz, please read some of Lats posts called a little story for ya 1,2, and 3, they are well worth it, also please reade more by Brian Haycock, what u dont realize is that although u poses a good understanding of HIT by mentzer both u and Mentzer ar emissing out on some science about weight training, this aint a knock but some of ur posts truly are missing some validity to them outside of Mentzers philosophical talks, hey i love HIT to mostly bc i love training hard but i know it aint always the end all be all

 

[LATS]

i agree... i do like hit but, for me it is all about recuperation. i recover poorly. always have even when assisted by gear. the problem i have with hit and mentzer in general is the lack of knowledge regarding physiology. mentzer could make a basic argument and have a reason why it should work but, he lacked any real knowledge of human phys. what i mean is that he could never really back up his theory...so they have stayed just that ...theories. many use hit with great success. it is a viable training method. but, again mentzer never had any real science behind what he reasoned. we now know so much more about muscular hypertrophy. and much of it is in complete disagreement with mentzer. with mentzer , everything was about intensity. pick up any mag and they have the word intensity everywhere. but, intensity is only part of a greater whole. it is only part of the equation. with mentzer it was the whole picture. but, hey, it sold many courses. but, i do respect bigheintz and all that he has accomplished. he is a devote student of hit and is trully a massive guy. i am only saying that hit and the science of muscular hypertrophy are at odds many times. as magoo said. haycocxk has many interesting points regarding hypertrophy. all backed by pure human phys. interesting to say the least. remember what bill pearl one time said regarding going to failure "i was the biggest bodybuilder in my day. i never went to failure. would going to failure made me a better bodybuilder? i do not care to find out"

 

[Mr_Magoo]

and ive always believed and lat's buddy backed me up that negatives done in a normal workout that arent done with supra maximal weights are somewhat useless as studies with positive results all used supra maximal weights, and ur so much stronger on the negative then the positive so why overly exploit an area that will take away energy and the amount of reps u can do with the positive which is the hardest part of the exercise?

i do believe in a controlled negative though for safety reasons

 

[doug1]

and ive always believed and lat's buddy backed me up that negatives done in a normal workout that arent done with supra maximal weights are somewhat useless as studies with positive results all used supra maximal weights, and ur so much stronger on the negative then the positive so why overly exploit an area that will take away energy and the amount of reps u can do with the positive which is the hardest part of the exercise?

i do believe in a controlled negative though for safety reasons

this is what i thought and i believe scott abel has the same thinking. you answered my question precisley, thanks magoo

 

[LATS]

100% agree. why would one want to exploit the negative phase of a rep when you can do x amount of positive reps??? it will obviously be too light to tax the negative. plus, trying to exploit the negative in that way will lead to a decreased performance in the positive. all studies done to show the negative as the most productive were performed with supra max weights to tax the negative. somehow, we bodybuilders have twisted it to believe that that applies to the average workout when performing predominately positive reps. the only thing that prolonging the negaitive will accomplish is the time under tension. but, even now , we are finding studies that now show that tut is not what it is all made up to be. by the way. my buddy was the one that performed the study that was featured in the last issue of muscular development which showed the best negative time to perform. in the study, anything over 2 seconds was considered a waste and hampered performance. in other words, just a controlled negative is plenty.

 

[homonunculus]

Eccentric contractions

FROM LATS:

>100% agree. why would one want to exploit the negative phase of a rep when
> you can do x amount of positive reps??? it will obviously be too light to tax
> the negative. plus, trying to exploit the negative in that way will lead to a
> decreased performance in the positive. all studies done to show the negative
> as the most productive were performed with supra max weights to tax the
> negative.

LATS, take a look at Hather et al., 1991 and O'Hagan et al., 1995

>somehow, we bodybuilders have twisted it to believe that that
> applies to the average workout when performing predominately positive reps.
> the only thing that prolonging the negaitive will accomplish is the time under
> tension.

The specific tension in the fibers activated (Force / unit cross sectional area) is greater during eccentrics. Also fatigue is minimal during eccentric contractions (you can likely do at least 10 negatives (when fresh) with your 1RM). ON the other hand, you are activating less muscle during eccentric contractions, BUT, the fibers activated are more likely to be high threshold (type II) that might not be called into play until the last few concentric contractios of a set.


>but, even now , we are finding studies that now show that tut is not
> what it is all made up to be.

Could you post the ones you are referring to. (Personally, I'm not a big believer in the TUT idea. Whats wrong with the concept of volume in the context of intensity?...)

> by the way. my buddy was the one that performed
> the study that was featured in the last issue of muscular development which
> showed the best negative time to perform. in the study, anything over 2
> seconds was considered a waste and hampered performance.

Could you post the reference?... Mucho Gracias!..

> in other words, just
> a controlled negative is plenty.

AGREED!!!!

-Randy

 

[LATS]

hey homonunculus, hows life? the study that i was referring to in regards to the negative and the two second lowering is in this study. (med. sci. sports, 33: 196-200, 2001) to give a overview to those who do not feel like looking it up they state that doing negatives fairly quickly with a increased load activated more muscle fiber than using the less weight and doing the negative more slowly. they used mri imaging. the study was performed at the university of southern california. a similar study was performed at a unversity in georgia with the same results. when i find it i will pm ya.
i unfortunately could not pull up the reference study(s) that you had written down. i will try again later at home. can you give me an idea of what the study revealed?
as for the tut study. i know it was in the strength cond. journal. i used to get it when a buddy of mine was studying exercise phys. he would toss them to me. i will e mail him tonight for the info. the study basically looks at olympic lifters and quad mass. the study showed the lifters performing multiple sets of 1- 5 reps , done in fairly explosive fashion produced hypertrophy similar to lighter loads for longer tut. btw none of the work sets lasted more than 10 seconds. their conclusion was, if memory serves, that the higher the tension the lower tut was needed. in other words, tension and load made up for the "lack" of tut. "whats wrong the concept of volume in the context of intensity?"... EXACTLY.
i tyhink the problem lies in the fact that we know negatives produce results. but, it has been taken a bit far. if a person is doing a 10 second concentric and then following it up with a ten second negative...well it is being taken too far. wheres the load? where is the tension? if one can do a ten second positive, i sure as heck guarantee that he is not taxing the fibers on the negative much. i do agree with what you have written in regards to the higher threshold fibers being more activated in the negative. i am just saying that the negative could be faster if the load was higher and still get the fibers we discussed. like we said..CONTROLLED. LOL unfortunately, doing PURE negatives with supra max weights will produce great gains in size and stregth but, now find two of your closest buddies who are willing to help you get it to the top...well they will not be your close friends for long. it just is not very realistic. lol i will try to get you those other studies in regards to tut tonight. stay safe

 

[doug1]

unfortunately, doing PURE negatives with supra max weights will produce great gains in size and stregth but, now find two of your closest buddies who are willing to help you get it to the top...well they will not be your close friends for long. it just is not very realistic. lol i will try to get you those other studies in regards to tut tonight. stay safe [/B]

this is the problem, having two training partners to always be there, unrealistic. what i have decided to do is on excercises that i can cheat the positive portion and really exploit max weight for the negative portion i will. we all know the stuff you can really cheat, barbell curls, cable pulldowns for back work, chins(stand on a bench), even flyes, make the positive part basically a press then let the weight down slow as a flye movement. some stuff we can't cheat, barbell bench presses, squats. leg press you can use your arms and press on your knees. that will be my plan for a while.
thanks guys for all the input, really appreciate it, and i don't want to take away from all the time and energy that dogg has put in to help the bodybuilders that take the time to read his posts.

 

[Mr_Magoo]

this is the problem, having two training partners to always be there, unrealistic. what i have decided to do is on excercises that i can cheat the positive portion and really exploit max weight for the negative portion i will. we all know the stuff you can really cheat, barbell curls, cable pulldowns for back work, chins(stand on a bench), even flyes, make the positive part basically a press then let the weight down slow as a flye movement. some stuff we can't cheat, barbell bench presses, squats. leg press you can use your arms and press on your knees. that will be my plan for a while.
thanks guys for all the input, really appreciate it, and i don't want to take away from all the time and energy that dogg has put in to help the bodybuilders that take the time to read his posts.

yes if one were to do negatives i think this is the way to do them, u can think up a lot of combos with this

 

[Crowler]

this is the problem, having two training partners to always be there, unrealistic. what i have decided to do is on excercises that i can cheat the positive portion and really exploit max weight for the negative portion i will. we all know the stuff you can really cheat, barbell curls, cable pulldowns for back work, chins(stand on a bench), even flyes, make the positive part basically a press then let the weight down slow as a flye movement. some stuff we can't cheat, barbell bench presses, squats. leg press you can use your arms and press on your knees. that will be my plan for a while.
thanks guys for all the input, really appreciate it, and i don't want to take away from all the time and energy that dogg has put in to help the bodybuilders that take the time to read his posts.

You seem interested in negatives without a training partner.

Legs would be pretty easy. Leg presses, just use both legs to push up and use one to lower. Same on leg extesion, calf raises, leg curls.

Same for DB curls, DB tricep extensions and so on. Not perfect solution but an idea.

 

[raybravo]

normally , as a rule , i take like 4-5 secs per rep , positive 1 sec or so , 3-4 secs on the way down , been this way for years now so i dont reall have to count ..its automatic and ive added decent muscle with this ..so i'm sure controlled negative with a decent amount of time to do it works ...

 

[homonunculus]

LATS!

Hey LATS,

Sorry for taking so long - busy week here.
--------------

hey homonunculus, hows life? the study that i was referring to in regards to the negative and the two second lowering is in this study. (med. sci. sports, 33: 196-200, 2001) to give a overview to those who do not feel like looking it up they state that doing negatives fairly quickly with a increased load activated more muscle fiber than using the less weight and doing the negative more slowly. they used mri imaging. the study was performed at the university of southern california. a similar study was performed at a unversity in georgia with the same results. when i find it i will pm ya.
-----------
Found the study (Kulig et al.) and have it here at home, actually. Looks like they used the SAME load for the different conditions, but the # of reps. different. (They compared 1 up , 1 down vs. 1 up, 5 down) There was no effect of the different protocols in activation of the two elbow flexors (b. brachii and brachialis), so the overall activation (both muscles pooled together did not differ. The neat part was that slow protocol preferentially hit the brachialis vs. the biceps. Interestingly, the O-Hagan ref. I think I cited before (see below) found that doing the eccentric during a training program increased brachialis but not biceps size!

BTW, who is your friend? He/ She is lucky to work with Frank Shellock - when it comes to MRI, he's da Man!

------
i unfortunately could not pull up the reference study(s) that you had written down. i will try again later at home. can you give me an idea of what the study revealed?

HEre's the Hather et al. ref - probably the strongest in favor of the necessity of the eccentric contraction for increasing muscle (fiber) size.:
1. Hather, B. M., P. A. Tesch, P. Buchanan, and G. A. Dudley. Influence of eccentric actions on skeletal muscle adaptations to resistance training. Acta Physiol Scand 143: 177-185, 1991.
Three different training regimens were performed to study the influence of eccentric muscle actions on skeletal muscle adaptive responses to heavy resistance exercise. Middle-aged males performed the leg press and leg extension exercises two days each week. The resistance was selected to induce failure within six to twelve repetitions of each set. Group CON/ECC (n = 8) performed coupled concentric and eccentric actions while group CON (n = 8) used concentric actions only. They did four or five sets of each exercise. Group CON/CON (n = 10) performed twice as many sets with only concentric actions. Eight subjects did not train and served as controls. Tissue samples were obtained from m. vastus lateralis using the biopsy technique before and after 19 weeks of training, and after four weeks of detraining. Histochemical analyses were performed to assess fibre type composition, fibre area and capillarization. Training increased (P less than 0.05) Type IIA and decreased (P less than 0.05) Type IIB fibre percentage. Only group CON/ECC increased Type I area (14%, P less than 0.05). Type II area increased (P less than 0.05) 32 and 27%, respectively, in groups CON/ECC and CON/CON, but not in group CON. Mean fibre area increased (P less than 0.05) 25 and 20% in groups CON/ECC and CON/CON, respectively. Capillaries per fibre increased (P less than 0.05) equally for Type I and Type II fibres.Capillaries per fibre area for both fibre types, however,increased (P less than 0.05) only in groups CON and CON/CON. The changes in fibre type composition and capillary frequency were manifest after detraining.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Biomedical and Environmental Laboratories Bionetics Corporation Kennedy Space Center FL

----------
as for the tut study. i know it was in the strength cond. journal. i used to get it when a buddy of mine was studying exercise phys. he would toss them to me. i will e mail him tonight for the info. the study basically looks at olympic lifters and quad mass. the study showed the lifters performing multiple sets of 1- 5 reps , done in fairly explosive fashion produced hypertrophy similar to lighter loads for longer tut. btw none of the work sets lasted more than 10 seconds. their conclusion was, if memory serves, that the higher the tension the lower tut was needed. in other words, tension and load made up for the "lack" of tut. "whats wrong the concept of volume in the context of intensity?"... EXACTLY.
-----
Would be cool if you could find that ref. SOunds like it was a x-sectional study, though(?)...
----------
i tyhink the problem lies in the fact that we know negatives produce results. but, it has been taken a bit far. if a person is doing a 10 second concentric and then following it up with a ten second negative...well it is being taken too far. wheres the load? where is the tension? if one can do a ten second positive, i sure as heck guarantee that he is not taxing the fibers on the negative much. i do agree with what you have written in regards to the higher threshold fibers being more activated in the negative. i am just saying that the negative could be faster if the load was higher and still get the fibers we discussed. like we said..CONTROLLED. LOL unfortunately, doing PURE negatives with supra max weights will produce great gains in size and stregth but, now find two of your closest buddies who are willing to help you get it to the top...well they will not be your close friends for long. it just is not very realistic. lol i will try to get you those other studies in regards to tut tonight. stay safe

--------

Cool, Thanks, man. Here's another you might be interested in. THis one might interest you, too. I think this equipment (I looked, but couldn't find it in the artible) is like the LIfe Fitness Computerized equipment:

1. Brandenburg, J. P., and D. Docherty. The effects of accentuated eccentric loading on strength, muscle hypertrophy, and neural adaptations in trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 16: 25-32., 2002.
The purpose of this study was to compare the strength and neuromuscular adaptations for dynamic constant external resistance (DCER) training and dynamic accentuated external resistance (DAER) training (resistance training employing an accentuated load during eccentric actions). Male subjects active in resistance training were assigned to either a DCER training group (n = 10) or a DAER training group (n = 8) for 9 weeks. Subjects in the DCER group performed 4 sets of 10 repetitions with a load of 75% concentric 1 repetition maximum (RM). Subjects in the DAER group performed 3 sets of 10 repetitions with a concentric load of 75% of 1RM and an eccentric load of approximately 120% of concentric 1RM. Three measures reflecting adaptation of elbow flexors and extensors were recorded pretraining and posttraining: concentric 1RM, muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), and specific tension. Strength was assessed at midtraining periods. No significant changes in muscle CSA were observed in either group. Both training groups experienced significant increases in concentric 1RM and specific tension of both the elbow flexors and extensors, but compared with DCER training, DAER training produced significantly greater increases in concentric 1RM of the elbow extensors. These results suggest that, for some exercises, DAER training may be more effective than DCER training in developing strength within a 9-week training phase. However, for trained subjects, neither protocol is effective in eliciting muscle hypertrophy.

Ref's for ya:

1. O'Hagan, F. T., D. G. Sale, J. D. MacDougall, and S. H. Garner. Comparative effectiveness of accommodating and weight resistance training modes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27: 1210-9., 1995.

Hather, B. M., P. A. Tesch, P. Buchanan, and G. A. Dudley. Influence of eccentric actions on skeletal muscle adaptations to resistance training. Acta Physiol Scand 143: 177-185, 1991.

-Randy

 

[LATS]

thanks for the refs. i will find that study on tut tonight and pm ya. my bud is supposed to call me today so i will bug him for the info...