this is exactly what lats and i recomend, we dont believe in dropping the weight, but we believe that it is useless to overly exploit the negative part of the repetition because people always say the eccentric strength of the muscle is 30-50 percent greater then the concentric strenght of the muscle, therefore, given a normal weight that ones does for repetitions, which phase will ur muscles have more stress and strain? the concentric, overly exploiting the negative to me just takes away strength and energy for when u have to do the hardest part of the repetition, the concentric.raybravo said:http://forum.avantlabs.com/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=5009
thats a thread on this topic , good thread . but i dont think u can speed up the eccentric beyond a point , the best way would be to just have it controlled , over doing it would just get one injured .
very true and agree with what u say, and people should notice this and hopefully realize that when we count to ourselves, we really neva count properly, to me the fastest u can really do a true controlled negative is a legit 2 sec lowering which is more like a 3-5 count that many use . what i just said applie smore to heavy loads, when one does explosive work like speed benches, speed squats or plyometrics then a legit 1 sec seems right to me for loweringDOGGCRAPP said:Reading...... and agreeing with all parties. I believe in control. Control the eccentric phase. Complete control of the descent. I dont believe in a stopwatch in doing that but in my theories I had to put some sort of guage on there as people were freaking out about the negative portion. I noticed that people were so amped up with their one main work set (with my methods) that their 4 second negatives were a quick count 1,2,3,4 and came out to more likely a true 1.5 seconds--lol. So I started telling people that I trained locally that i want you to count with a 5-8 second negative phase. Well that 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 turned into a 3-5 second negative pretty damn quick because they were so psyched up and breathing so quickly and heavily on their main sets.
Thats great--as long as someone is in that 2-5 second true range im happy with that. The problem is --it backfired on me when people online started having their buddies counting out the seconds on the negatives or standing there with a stopwatch. So its damned if you do damned if you dont. Your pulse is racing so quick and your breathing is rapid that if magoo and lats tell people to do a 2 second negative I bet you any money those people will be dropping the weight like an anchor. On an incline press the "one" will be at the top with straight arms and the "two" will be as it bounces off the chest and back upward--thats not much of a controlled eccentric phase. So I agree with all three of you Homonucleus magoo and lats but theres a huge difference in a true 3 seconds and a percieved 3 seconds.
Id add a little more but my fiance is tugging me at the ear to go to the movies--seeya
im not sayin concentric contractions are the most important for growth, nor am i sayin negatives are, i really believe both are needed and together work very well, my belief is like lat's in a controlled negative (2 sec or so), and an explosive positive.
I would say that the negatives are most important for growth. Both is better, I think (based on the research I've read), but given one or the other, I'll take the eccentrics only. Luckily, I don't have to make this choice.
i am well aware that in negatives there is more tension on the ACTIVE muscle fibers, but less are being recruited, this would lead to greater hypertrophy in the fibers where the tension is applied during the negative but what about those fibers in which there is no tension during the negative?....
Indeed. That's why taking a set to negative failure (ala a DOGGCRAPP-style hold) can be very effective (but a great way to overtrain).
There is some research (this phenomenon is difficult to study, especially in himans) showing that eccentric movements will elicit a reversal of Henneman's size principle (e.g., see Nardone et al.), such that type II's are recruited (technically they are fibers of the higher threshold units) before (or at lower forces) during negatives than if the same fibers are monitored during concentric contractions. There is also some evidence (EMG's in olympic lifters and motor unit measurements in cats shaking their paws) that very quick, ballistic kind of movements can also cause this kind of reversal. My guess is that the increase in type IIB fiber percentage was due in part to their preferential recruitment during the training (duh!), which may have been greater at a faster ecc. speed. (FYI, there is data demonstrating faster contractile properties in human hand muscle after a balistic type training program, so this study is not out in left field COMPLETELY)
to me it is 8 great reps vs. 5 good reps
I aggree with your example completely. But, in the case of this study
--they compared reps that probably took just over 1/2 second with those lasting 3-4 seconds!!! This study is not very relavant in that sense to a discussion of 3 seconds vs. 8 second. In fact, I would say this study suggests that a 3 second eccentric is too slow (not really saying this though b/c the study has so many other differences to what is done in the gym.)
--I don't put a whole lot of stock in a study where one of the experiemental training groups (one that actully spend 6 times longer training d/t the slower speed) than the other exp. group. 10 weeks and no training effect?... Huh?...
--Where is the muscle fiber data?... This is what we really want.
-- Their trainees performed no concentric contractions.
--Contractions were maximal, which is not the case during everyday lifting unless you employ forced negatives.
My point is that this study is nifty - and sets up some interesting research down the road - but it is only one study and one that has poor external validity (applicability) to real world bodybuilding.
I must make note that I have not read the entire study. I have read too many studies where the abstract was not representative of the data presented in the paper. I'll try to ge a hold of it and report back if I do.
Magoo, I'm with ya, man. I train just as you describe, for the reasons you describe. I just don't think this study is a good way to justify it.
again , contractions also lead of arachnoic acid from intramuscular fat,also cox-2 , thus leading to increased prostaglandin synthesis . so another advantage of getting more contractions out of a set .Mr_Magoo said:also... muscle contractions equate to greater androgen receptors and glut 4 receptors going to the outside of the cell, and if u have a protein/carb shake while u workout more active recovery from passive glucose and AA uptake by the muscle which occurs from contractions