Honestly, there is a secret to growth

[Mike Arnold]

There is no point is trying to rebut something that someone is steadfast in their beliefs.

I've followed Scott for years and what he has said has worked great for me, so I am firm in my belief, and you are firm in yours. What I say won't change your mind and what you say won't change mine. COULD my mind change, yes it very well can, but right now, I of the mindset I am.

What you say has it merits and what Scott says has its merits. If you have a method that works, run with it.

Fair enough.

 

[Mike Arnold]

So for the sake of argument. Lets take this to the limit. You got a guy benching. He all but drops the bar to just short of his chest and then presses it back up? This is proven to be best for muscle growth?

Mike, wouldn't decelerating the weight and changing the direction of travel as fast as possible lead to injuries? When I look back, every injury I have had was from doing big weight and fast reps. This mite work on rats but I'm hard pressed to think it's going to last in the real world. What happened to time under tension? Is that out the window and I missed it?

CG

Oh, believe me, I am well aware that when taken to the extremes, it could lead to injuries and said so more than once, which is why I also said I would never recommend that approach.

More so, the only thing that has thus far been "proven" is that faster negatives lead to greater muscle damage. Because this damage is a significant part of the growth stimulus (not all of it) we recieve when training, it is an "asummption", albeit a logical one, that this increased muscular stress leads to greater potential growth.

I would really be curious to know how many people here have gotten better real-world results by actually doing all their negatives very slowly--say 5 seconds. When we get down to something like 2 seconds, that can actually be kind of fast, especially for certain movements. In my experinece, I have NEVER come across anyone who has claimed to have gotten better results from consistently using a 5 second (or thereabouts) negatives on all their reps, although LOTS of people have blown up and achieved massive develoment with explosive reps in non-stop fashion. Just on observation which appears to fit with the recent research.

By the way, this research wasn't peformed on rats, but in people. Regardless, the principle remains the same in terms of how it affects muscle function.

I also said that there are other factors involved in the growth process, such as time under tension. Perhaps you didn't read all I posted (it was a lot, so I don't fault you for it), but I did address all the things you just mentioned and when it coms to safety, came to the same conclusion. I would never recommend doing super-fast negatives. Still, assuming the reps are being done with a measur of control that allows for a reasonable degree of safety (you can never be 100% safe), then I most definitely blieve rapid, more explosive reps are superior for growth compared to doing all reps with a 5 second negative. This belief is actually nothing new, but was proposed decades ago...and many people agree.

The slow negative thing never really panned out in real-life. I would like to know how many people here really does all of their resp with a second 5 negatuve? Anyone? If slow negatives are superior for growth, then why isn't everyone doing all their negatuves very slowly on every movment? After all, we have LOTS of guys that do their reps exlosively in non-stop fashion (for the most part). I just find it odd that so few people actually do their negatives that slowly. If it works so well, why is barely anyone doing it? I reckon it is because people, whether they have a scientific explanation for it or not, suspect it doesn't work better, so they don't do it.

Basically, my entire point was that faster negatives provide greater muscle damage, which should translate into greater rgrowth potential, being that this damage is the primary stimulis for growth. I am not and never have recommend people perform their negatives extremely quuickly--simply because of the increased riks of injury, which I stated earlier...and besides, I don't think it lends itself well to some movements, such as barbell curls, where there is no tension at the botom of the movement, but on movements like bench or shoulder presses, it is another story.

 

[Mike Arnold]

So you are aware Mike.

Dr. Scott Stevenson (homonunculus) has a Masters and a PhD in exercise physiology and holds a ACSM/NSCA certificate. Did I mention a PhD....

I, personally follow his advise on a multitude of things involving this sport.

Yes, he is a super smart guy and I like him, so I just want to get one thing straight--this is not a argument between him and me, nor was it any kind of attack on his beliefs. I simply put up a post based on recent research, which makes sense and which I agree with (as do other with PHd's)...and then someone else posted a link to his article. If anything, the disagremeent lies between him and the recent research/beliefs of other doctors. I just happen to belive differently than Scot on this particular topic, and from what I have seen of Scott, I am sure he doesn't have a problem with that.

So, this was never a thing between me and scott--because I could see sonemone turning in into that. I might not agree that very slow negatives are superior or growth compard to explosive, non-stop reps, but this doesn't mean I don't recognize the intelligence and value of his contributions. By the way, I wasn't aware that sctoot was homonoclus.

 

[Mike Arnold]

i do not have the time to read through the articles fully, but i skimmed them and got the gist of it.

MA is stating something that makes sense (a more forceful detachment of myosin and actin creating more damage). Here ALSO lies a problem. You can argue all youd like to "use your head and be cautious", but how accurate can you possibly be with calculating a proper weight and speed. Lets look at a few things.....

1. Speed of eccentric. Who is to gauge the actual speed of the eccentric and where eccentric speed basically disengages the muscle. You cannot really generalize nor state "as fast as you can while under control and still keeping the muscle engaged". How is someone to actually define this? Too slow and you are not "forcefully lowering the weight" and too fast and you disengage the muscle. You cannot possibly define the sweet spot and "use your head and feel for it" just doesnt seem to cut it as a generalized answer.

2. This leads to this issue. Injury. Again...you cannot define a "safe weight to use". What you have to realize is that EVEN IF YOU WERE PERFECT WITH LOWERING THE WEIGHT it will pick up speed and you will need to reverse the inertia, adding weight to what you are already handling. Muscles are weakest in the fully stretched state and you want to ADD weight to this position in a violent manner? If you were to lower the weight you are using to make this an actual safe activity then you would be using much less than what is needed to overload the concentric part of the motion. Sacrifice concentric contractile force for the more important aggressive negative you say?

2b. In relation to injury you must also consider the increased stress on tendons, ligaments and muscles due to inertia. Picture this. I give you a string. You hold it apart nice and taught at arms length. You can ALMOST break it apart but not quite. What do you do? Well you move your hands closer and then snap it apart. Right? That is because the momentum increases the force on the string. This is what happens when you allow weight to pick up momentum then try to reverse the inertia.

3. Muscles tendons and ligaments have a certain amount of elasticity to them. Take your Achilles tendon. We have ALL done calf raises and we have all done "bouncing reps". You can move a hell of a lot more weight right? This is because your achilles tendon has a tramendous amount of potential energy it can store. Its ability to rebound and cause an elastic effect is tramendous. I would actually dare to say you could move DOUBLE the weight on a calf raise bounce than you could if the weight was controlled and squeezed up with all your might. Same thing could potentally happen here. You are reducing fibril contraction in exchange for tendon/muscle rebound effect.


My opinion of this is that MA's method makes absolute sense in that it can cause more damage. However, i feel that it is incredibly difficult to gauge and harness what an exact "fast negative" speed is, rendering this rather difficult or inefficient. It also, as stated in 2* above, would be a tradeoff for the concentric contraction in order to make this safer. Should you not go that route the risk of injury drastically increases. Lastly the rebound effect of tendons and muscles negate some of the fibril contraction. If anyone wants to jump on the newest idea be my guest, i will continue to grow and progress in the most effective and SAFE manner i can manage.

Good post and thanks. I realize you didn't have the time to read everything, but I stated clearly that doing a faster negative does increase the risk of injury and for that reason, I would never recommend anyone takes this form of training to extremes.

Also, although it may be impossible to know exactly what a "safe" speed is, we could say that about training in general, regrdless of rep speed. Training is always a risk. Many guys get injured who train with slower rep speeds, while many guys who train explosively don't. However, most of us, through our own personal experiences, have a general idea of when something "feels" safe or not...and we use this feelings to guide us through all of our training--we al do.

Obviously, guys like Branch Warren and Johnnie Jackson must feel safe training the way they do, or else they wouldn't do it...and guess what? Despite training with very fast negatives, I don't recall eitherof them being injured directly as a resulrt of training, but I can name many guys who trained with much slower negatives who have repeatedly suffered debilatating injuries during training (ex. Dorin yates).

So, that particular argument is kind of null and void, as we all make a determination as to what "safe" is whenever we pick up a weight. We have clearly seen in the real-world that both forms of training can cause injuries or not, so it really is impossible to say that this form of training isn't practical, as many people have clearly shown that it is possible to use this style of training, while remaining injurt free. In fact, people do it every day, as few people lower their weights with 5 second negatuves. Most guys use a rep speed somewhere in between the two extremes, but there is still considerable variance, with tons of guys at all ends of the range.

Still, I will say that VERY few guys consistently perform all their negatives svery slowly...because like I said previously, they must believe, even if at a subconcious level, that slow ngatives aren't as effective, so they don't do it. Otherwise, they would.

 

[Mike Arnold]

I will second and support this statement/idea and confidently state if Scott decides to come here and absolutely....decisively.....and completely destroy ANY of us on this board in MOST topics (ESPECIALLY THIS ONE) he will and could do so without much of a problem, myself included.......

Id respectfully state my points and possibly debate if i believed in it, but id never ever attempt to destroy anything he presented or his person (and certainly not attack his research presented, as he probably only chose not to extend what he wrote and present it and im confident he would support it beyond what most of us could comprehend)....thats asking to be publicly humiliated lol

Of course, neither of us could argue our points to the level of Scott on this subject, as he went to school for this stuff. Still, this was never a me vs. Scott thing. It was simply me expressing my beliefs based on recent research and the beliefs of other doctors/researchers. So, if anything, it is Scott vs. reserach/other doctors.

Therefore, there would be no point in me agrguing with Scott, as I would not be able to counter his arguments once he got to deep, but this doesn't belittle the validity of my argument. It only means I stand on the other side of the canyon on this subject, with my beliefs derived coming from both personal experience, as well as the recent research and explanations of other researchers/doctors.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Animal studies I've read with fast eccentric have been done with added load for the eccentric. A rat or frog has no clue what is expected so you need to force the eccentric to get the desired results. So sure the method Phil stated will build muscle. No secret there, but the secret lies in how long one can do this type of training. In the lab, if a tendon ruptures, just grab another frog. In the real world, if you double the eccentric time, its close to double the weight. A fast eccentric with the same weight is just dropping the weight and removing time under tension.

You must have missed the point about increased velocity causing more forceful myosin-actin dettachments and greater muscle damage.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Why does that mean follow wihtout other thoughts? Those are cool but certainly doesn't mean smart beyond belief. There are many with those credentials that aren't smart there are mnay that are. (No hate on H just don't like following credentials. Doesn't prove a thing)

Exactly. Obviously, Scott is super smart about this stuff, but just because Scott is smarter than me in this area it doesn't mean I am wrong. It smply means that Scott diagrees with the recent research/conclusions of other doctors.

The primary reason I agree with the research is because I had already come to my conclusions through real-world experience. Like I said, I wrote a short article/post on this subjectof rep speed last year, using the same logic of increased velocity causing greater stress. It was my rasoning for why explosive, non-stop reps appeared to provide superior results...and then when I saw the recent studies/explanations, it further confimed my belief.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Observe in bold...I quoted the wrong quote. Easy deduction, nevertheless. I was making Mike aware that Scott is accredited with a PhD.

I do agree, with some with a higher education aren't necessarily the most brilliant.

I didn't know who Scott was at first--I only knew him by his screen name...and I always liked the guy. Of course, I never meant any offense to Scott. Just have different thoughts on the matter.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Well, I'll just toss this out here:

Here I think is the passage in question:

"In particular, attempting to apply research suggesting that maximal isokinetic eccentric training at faster speeds (41) promotes greater muscle growth to a free weight training scenario lacks external validity from a scientific standpoint. Doing so would likely result in eccentric unloading (due to the momentum when attempting to rapidly lower a barbell or dumbbell) or increased injury potential if a spotter were to apply downward force during high-speed eccentric contractions."

Isokinetic training involved maximal efforts at a pre-determined speed. In other works, the machine to which the trainees limb is attached will move at whatever speed (angular velocity) the machine is programmed for. You can do MAXIMAL eccentric efforts at -10 ˚ / second or -300˚ / second.

With free weights, living the same load, if you were to exert MAXIMAL effort during an eccentric - using a load you can and have been lifting and lowering during a set - the weight just goes back up. There is no maximal eccentric here.

I explain this in the 2nd sentence above in a different away: You try to move the eccentric a higher speeds and you'll likely be unloading the muscle. Drop at heavy weight on yourself or try to pull it downward and you're gonna have less loading on the muscles that contract eccentrically in lowering (and concentrically in lifting) the load.

(Hopefully, and TP4U gets at this, the idea increased injury risk with high speed eccentric that are loaded - to mimic an isokinetic scenario - is pretty clear.)


So, for those who understand this (the citation #41 refers to one such isokinetic study), the point about external validity is simply that the mode of training in an isokinetic training is categorically different than that of free weight training.

You can't study bananas and assume your results apply to all fruits.

---------

So, that ought to explain that paragraph. This is not to invalidate any study using an isokinetic device. The work GREAT for loading. I used one to train folks for my dissertation study. (The loading you can create with an isokinetic device, using e-stim to override neural inhibition during eccentrics is phenomenal.)

I don't think anyone's saying this, but I'm also not suggesting that someone use a super slow negative approach as a mainstay of his / her training to produce growth.

-----------

Summary: Isokinetic ≠ Free weight.

-S

Aesome post---and thanks for the detailed explanation. Looks like we misunderstood exactly what you were trying to say.

 

[Cerberus777]

You must have missed the point about increased velocity causing more forceful myosin-actin dettachments and greater muscle damage.

No didn't miss it, but coming from an animal behavior back ground. Knowing how to get animals to do something isnt through explaining it. If the animal is convinced to resist a force, than the eccentric will be forced, thus increasing the load. You dont tell a frog to lower a barbell fast or slow.

 

[Press]

like we always say its good to switch things up. if you get bored with one way or you hit a plateau switch it up. you cant really knock something until you try. yes fast negative sounds like it could be dangerous if not done correctly and what i mean by that is do them as fast as can safely be done. if your not getting the results then move on. ive never tried it but ill give it a go on monday. ill use lighter weight higher reps and a lil common sense (i dont have much) until i get the feel for it. id luv to give Phil's way also but i dont have a training partner, but where i can i will. all im saying is give it a try before you put it down or say it wont work. just my 2 cents.

 

[Mike Arnold]

No didn't miss it, but coming from an animal behavior back ground. Knowing how to get animals to do something isnt through explaining it. If the animal is convinced to resist a force, than the eccentric will be forced, thus increasing the load. You dont tell a frog to lower a barbell fast or slow.

I wasn't responding to the part of your post where you referenced animal experiments. My previous reponse was based solely on the following comment, which was stated at the end of your previous post.

"A fast eccentric with the same weight is just dropping the weight and removing time under tension".

In making that comment, the assumed implication is that doing a faster negative will "decrease" stress on the muscle by reducing time under tension, but that is incorrect, which is why I said..."You must have missed the point about increased velocity causing more forceful myosin-actin dettachments and greater muscle damage".

A faster negative increases stress on the muscle--not the other way around. By doing faster reps, total time under tension may be reduced, as you mentioned, but time under tension is only one aspect of the training affect which has a potential infleuence on muscle growth and besides, time under tension, in and of itself, is not a predictor of muscle growth. If it were, then we could just pick up a 10 pound dumbbell and do 30 reps of 10 seconds each. Total time under tension would be 5 minutes, but it wouldn't mean shit.

Time under tension is only relevant when the primary stimulis is adequate for initiating a growth response. In addition, anything we do which reduces the primary growth stimulis, whether it be time under tension or anything else, ends up working against us rather than for us. In other words, reducing the primary growth stimulis simply for the sake of increasing time under tension does not translate into a greater growth response.

For example, let's say you perform 10 reps on the bench press to failure using a normal rep speed, but at your next workout you use this same weight and use a 10 second rep speed on both the positive and negative portion of the rep. Obviously, the later workout would result in significantly greater time under tension, but also a signifiantly reduced growth response. Part of the reason for this, aside from the explanation I provided in my original post, is because the muscle was required to do less work over a longer period of time.

The amount of work a muscle performs over a given period of time has a direct effect on a set's ablity to stimulate growth. We should never sacrifice the primary stimulis just for the sake of time under tension. If that's the case, then how do we implement the time under tension principle? Slowing down rep speed is not the answer, as we have seen above. Rather, we do so by maintaining continuous tension, which naturally translates into increased time under tension.

 

[Mike Arnold]

like we always say its good to switch things up. if you get bored with one way or you hit a plateau switch it up. you cant really knock something until you try. yes fast negative sounds like it could be dangerous if not done correctly and what i mean by that is do them as fast as can safely be done. if your not getting the results then move on. ive never tried it but ill give it a go on monday. ill use lighter weight higher reps and a lil common sense (i dont have much) until i get the feel for it. id luv to give Phil's way also but i dont have a training partner, but where i can i will. all im saying is give it a try before you put it down or say it wont work. just my 2 cents.

Remember, if the weight is not heavy enough to provide an optimal growth stimulis, then results will be diminished. 10 reps is generally heavy enough to cause an optimal growth response, but without the same risk of injury that lower reps carry.

Watch videos of Branch and Johnnie training to get an idea of how this "can" be done. However, I will warn you that if you have never trained this way before and you jump right into it, you are more likley to hurt yourself compared to someone whose body has already adapted to this form of training.

 

[homonunculus]

I've always wondered how they slip through. Just like I've met attending where I know more and I am not anything special. Or attendants who can't communicate. A profession based on communication and they can't do it :/

Anyways titles should not confer respect. You've earned respect IMO the correct way. Truly smart application and understanding of the things you study. The phd helps

Thanks, man. I appreciate the compliment.

Aesome post---and thanks for the detailed explanation. Looks like we misunderstood exactly what you were trying to say.

Thanks to you, too, Mike.

(This is a great topic... I'll try to get in on this thread more ASAP - busy weekend and next few days.)

-S

 

[Cerberus777]

I wasn't responding to the part of your post where you referenced animal experiments. My previous reponse was based solely on the following comment, which was stated at the end of your previous post.

"A fast eccentric with the same weight is just dropping the weight and removing time under tension".

In making that comment, the assumed implication is that doing a faster negative will "decrease" stress on the muscle by reducing time under tension, but that is incorrect, which is why I said..."You must have missed the point about increased velocity causing more forceful myosin-actin dettachments and greater muscle damage".

A faster negative increases stress on the muscle--not the other way around. By doing faster reps, total time under tension may be reduced, as you mentioned, but time under tension is only one aspect of the training affect which has a potential infleuence on muscle growth and besides, time under tension, in and of itself, is not a predictor of muscle growth. If it were, then we could just pick up a 10 pound dumbbell and do 30 reps of 10 seconds each. Total time under tension would be 5 minutes, but it wouldn't mean shit.

Time under tension is only relevant when the primary stimulis is adequate for initiating a growth response. In addition, anything we do which reduces the primary growth stimulis, whether it be time under tension or anything else, ends up working against us rather than for us. In other words, reducing the primary growth stimulis simply for the sake of increasing time under tension does not translate into a greater growth response.

For example, let's say you perform 10 reps on the bench press to failure using a normal rep speed, but at your next workout you use this same weight and use a 10 second rep speed on both the positive and negative portion of the rep. Obviously, the later workout would result in significantly greater time under tension, but also a signifiantly reduced growth response. Part of the reason for this, aside from the explanation I provided in my original post, is because the muscle was required to do less work over a longer period of time.

The amount of work a muscle performs over a given period of time has a direct effect on a set's ablity to stimulate growth. We should never sacrifice the primary stimulis just for the sake of time under tension. If that's the case, then how do we implement the time under tension principle? Slowing down rep speed is not the answer, as we have seen above. Rather, we do so by maintaining continuous tension, which naturally translates into increased time under tension.

First, since everyone likes to split hairs. Are you saying calling rapid eccentric the normal controlled eccentric that you see most guys who lift heavy with good form use? Lets call this 1:2 positive/negative, even though it is changes through out the set. The eccentric is slower in the beginning but as reps increase the eccentric time increases but everything still is controlled?

Also in my opinion what is best will always change, slow negatives and TUT has its place, these will become "Best" in a trainee that wasn't utilized them. Isolated studies dont reflect real world athletes.

I mentioned the animal studies since the dont reflect well on athletic performance due to the fact that animals are typically motivated by fear, and forced into the movements. Granted if we worked out with a gun to our heads every time....imagine the intensity we could generate

 

[ryanbCXG]

I wasn't responding to the part of your post where you referenced animal experiments. My previous reponse was based solely on the following comment, which was stated at the end of your previous post.

"A fast eccentric with the same weight is just dropping the weight and removing time under tension".

In making that comment, the assumed implication is that doing a faster negative will "decrease" stress on the muscle by reducing time under tension, but that is incorrect, which is why I said..."You must have missed the point about increased velocity causing more forceful myosin-actin dettachments and greater muscle damage".

A faster negative increases stress on the muscle--not the other way around. By doing faster reps, total time under tension may be reduced, as you mentioned, but time under tension is only one aspect of the training affect which has a potential infleuence on muscle growth and besides, time under tension, in and of itself, is not a predictor of muscle growth. If it were, then we could just pick up a 10 pound dumbbell and do 30 reps of 10 seconds each. Total time under tension would be 5 minutes, but it wouldn't mean shit.

Time under tension is only relevant when the primary stimulis is adequate for initiating a growth response. In addition, anything we do which reduces the primary growth stimulis, whether it be time under tension or anything else, ends up working against us rather than for us. In other words, reducing the primary growth stimulis simply for the sake of increasing time under tension does not translate into a greater growth response.

For example, let's say you perform 10 reps on the bench press to failure using a normal rep speed, but at your next workout you use this same weight and use a 10 second rep speed on both the positive and negative portion of the rep. Obviously, the later workout would result in significantly greater time under tension, but also a signifiantly reduced growth response. Part of the reason for this, aside from the explanation I provided in my original post, is because the muscle was required to do less work over a longer period of time.

The amount of work a muscle performs over a given period of time has a direct effect on a set's ablity to stimulate growth. We should never sacrifice the primary stimulis just for the sake of time under tension. If that's the case, then how do we implement the time under tension principle? Slowing down rep speed is not the answer, as we have seen above. Rather, we do so by maintaining continuous tension, which naturally translates into increased time under tension.

Not that is all they do but Olympic lifters have some very well developed traps and upper back and most of that seems to come from the Olympic lifts. Which are pretty much all concentric and literally dropping the eccentric. They don't seem to be hurting in that case. Again I know they do some assistance but the bulk of their workouts is basically eccentric less pure explosive lifting.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Not that is all they do but Olympic lifters have some very well developed traps and upper back and most of that seems to come from the Olympic lifts. Which are pretty much all concentric and literally dropping the eccentric. They don't seem to be hurting in that case. Again I know they do some assistance but the bulk of their workouts is basically eccentric less pure explosive lifting.

There isn't any really debate as to which part of the contraction stimulates greater growth. It is the eccentric portion, without doubt. Studies have proven this repeatedly for decades.

At this point, the debate was centered around the "speed" of the eccentric contraction and its impact on growth.

With that said, I am glad you brought up Olympic lifters, as they are the best real-world example of the inferiority of concentric only training for developing muscle size. When examining the size to strength ratio of Olympic lifters in comparison to BB'rs, or even other strength athletes (powerlifters, strong men, etc), it is readily evident that their size to strength ratio is heavily imbalanced in favor of the later.

Even the super,'heavy weights, who routinely hoist 500+ lb barbells into the air, typically have far smaller traps your typical pro BB'r, most of whom use much less weight than olympic lifters im similar movements. These Olympicmlifters are basically upright rowing 500+ lbs in order to bring the weight to their chest, yet their traps are nowhere near as developed as a BB'r like Dorian Yates.

Olympic lifting has men who weigh less than 150 lbs lifting 350+ lbs. These men don't look even remotely large or well developed. Same with the girls. Some of thpse girls look very similar to regular women--not a huge difference in many cases--yet they often lift 300+ lbs over their head.

When evaluating their size-strength ratio it is certainly grossly imbalanced in favor of strength.

 

[dragonfire101]

There isn't any really debate as to which part of the contraction stimulates greater growth. It is the eccentric portion, without doubt. Studies have proven this repeatedly for decades.

At this point, the debate was centered around the "speed" of the eccentric contraction and its impact on growth.

With that said, I am glad you brought up Olympic lifters, as they are the best real-world example of the inferiority of concentric only training for developing muscle size. When examining the size to strength ratio of Olympic lifters in comparison to BB'rs, or even other strength athletes (powerlifters, strong men, etc), it is readily evident that their size to strength ratio is heavily imbalanced in favor of the later.

Even the super,'heavy weights, who routinely hoist 500+ lb barbells into the air, typically have far smaller traps your typical pro BB'r, most of whom use much less weight than olympic lifters im similar movements. These Olympicmlifters are basically upright rowing 500+ lbs in order to bring the weight to their chest, yet their traps are nowhere near as developed as a BB'r like Dorian Yates.

Olympic lifting has men who weigh less than 150 lbs lifting 350+ lbs. These men don't look even remotely large or well developed. Same with the girls. Some of thpse girls look very similar to regular women--not a huge difference in many cases--yet they often lift 300+ lbs over their head.

When evaluating their size-strength ratio it is certainly grossly imbalanced in favor of strength.

Well I guess speed strength training is example of this maybe? Such as benching with chains your getting more weight and resistance on the concentric and not on the eccentric at all really?

 

[Press]

Remember, if the weight is not heavy enough to provide an optimal growth stimulis, then results will be diminished. 10 reps is generally heavy enough to cause an optimal growth response, but without the same risk of injury that lower reps carry.

Watch videos of Branch and Johnnie training to get an idea of how this "can" be done. However, I will warn you that if you have never trained this way before and you jump right into it, you are more likley to hurt yourself compared to someone whose body has already adapted to this form of training.

thanx, will do. ill prolly just add one set of this style to each exercise at first just to get a feel for it and only do it on exercises i feel comfortable with. always gotta keep safety in mind as well.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Well I guess speed strength training is example of this maybe? Such as benching with chains your getting more weight and resistance on the concentric and not on the eccentric at all really?

You're talking about regular chain/band training, in which resistance, although to varying degrees, remains on the bar throughout the entire rep, right? If so, then there would be even resistance during both the positive and negative phase of the movement.

Normal band/chain does not remove negative resistance. It only changes the amount of resistance encountered throughout the range of motion.