• All new members please introduce your self here and welcome to the board:
    http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
spc
Riptropin Store banner
Generation X Bodybuilding Forum
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Mysupps Store Banner
IP Gear Store Banner
Anabolic Hormones Store Banner
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
LandmarkChem Email Banner
Medtech Store Banner
Bruce Labs Store banner
qtropin
Professional Muscle Store open now
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
sunrise
ESPECIL-2
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store

Magoo's and Lat's Training theories are right again!

Mr_Magoo

Active member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
1,828
Lats, u c one of the recent studies in which faster eccentrics like u and i advocate was more effective then the slower ones?
 

raybravo

New member
Registered
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
338

LATS

Moderator / FOUNDING Member / NPC Judge
Staff member
Moderator
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
7,195
yeah, i saw it :D i then ripped it out of the magazine and rolled around on it laughing my ass off (just kiddin') :D hey, we can gloat every once in a while cant we??
 

homonunculus

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
1,595
Guys...

Note that these were maximal isokinetic eccentric contractions. The dynamometer forced at negative at the given speed of contraction. This would be like having a spotter do sets of forced negatives (only) with you.

The only factor that differeed between the groups was the speed.

BUT, just speeding up your negatives using a non-maximal weight will not simulate what was done in this experiment. You would have to do negatives with a maximal weight and have a spotter lift it up for you each time. (Or have the spotter force a negative while you pushed against him maximally, and then the spotter would lift the weight back up for you.) THis could be done with a concentration curl (unilateral), but might be a bit tougher with squats. 8^)

THe other things about this study is that the SLOW training group showed aboslutgely NO training adaptation (muscle histochem or performance). After 10 weeks of training, something should have changed.

As was noted in the referenced thread - this is a very rare study in that it showed increases in type IIB fiber percentage. (This does make physiological sense, though, given the nature of the training stimulus.)

-Randy
 

Mr_Magoo

Active member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
1,828
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 .
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.
 

LATS

Moderator / FOUNDING Member / NPC Judge
Staff member
Moderator
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
7,195
exactly magoo..we have to look at the fact that if you can lift a weight for 5 reps and knowing that the neg part of the rep is not being tax (again, eccentric strength is estimated at 30-50 percent greater that concentric) lowering the weight for ,lets say, 5 seconds is doing nothing but promoting fatigue that effects the weaker portion (the concentric) . obviously if we can get 5 pers on the concentric than the negative is not having any "trouble" at all. in other words no real fiber disruption.. so why exploit it??.. doing so will negatively affect the concentric..in other words, you just shot your self in the foot as far as overload for hypertrophy. as stated, as long as the weight is controlled and tension is still focused on the muscle then that is all that is needed.. about two seconds for the negative in my opinion... one day we will find out that magoo and i were separated at birth...spooky huh??:D
 
Last edited:

xcelbeyond

The "Elder" Mod
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
7,227
LATS said:
... one day we will find out that magoo and i were separated at birth...spooky huh??:D
:confused: :( :eek: :D :D

xcel
 

homonunculus

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
1,595
Gentlemen...

Some thing for you to ponder:

MAGOO said: "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."

The strength of the muscle (strength is a function of the intrinsic force producing ability of the muscle tissue AND the nervous system's ability to activate that muscle - not the same as maximal tension, which could be elicited with electrical stimulation, for instance). During maximal eccentric contractios, voluntary strength is only about 120% (at most) of ISOMETRIC strength. If you compare 2 velocities of contraction (eccentrice vs. conc. at the same speed), you could find the eccentric force is 3 x greater than concentric. Simply, it depends on the speeds you compare, so the 30-50% rule varied dependin on movement speed(s). Do a search on the force-velocity curve of skeletal muscle and you'll see this.

If by stress and strain, you mean the amount of force the ACTIVE muscle mass is producing, it is much higher during eccentric contractions (that are controlled - not just dropping thw eight). EMG and MRI studies demonstrate that muscle activation (even comparing maximal contriactions) is less during eccentric contractions. This means that less muscle is producing more foce The specific tensio (F/ CSA) of skeletal muscle is much greater during eccentric contractions. Basically: you use less muscle to lower the weight, but the force / unit area is much greater.

The literature is clear that eccentric contractsion are more traumatizing than concentric ones (probably for the above reason.) (See Kuipers et al., Clarkson et al., etc.)

LATS wrote: "exactly magoo..we have to look at the fact that if you can lift a weight for 5 reps and knowing that the neg part of the rep is not being tax (again, eccentric strength is estimated at 30-50 percent greater that concentric) lowering the weight for ,lets say, 5 seconds is doing nothing but promoting fatigue that effects the weaker portion (the concentric) . obviously if we can get 5 pers on the concentric than the negative is not having any "trouble" at all. in other words no real fiber disruption.. so why exploit it??.. doing so will negatively affect the concentric..in other words, you just shot your self in the foot as far as overload for hypertrophy."

The energy cost of lowering a weight is < 20% of the energy cost of liftin it. (See Dudley et al.) STudies have been done (and I have done this and seen it done) where you can do maximal exxcentric contractions for 1 minute (e.g. 30 reps of ecc knee extensions) with < 10% fatigue. (See Tesch et al.)

Eccentric contractions, even maximal ones are not very energetically taxing whatsoever. HOwver, since more force is produced, the load on the active fibers is greater during eccentric contractions and the disruption is GREATER (see above).

Also note that the abstract makes no mention of muscle fiber size. (I haven't read the study, but it is very unusual that only fiber type would be reported.) The subjects also performed no concentric contractions, which you are suggesting are the most important for muscle growth. The studies comparing concentric-only, eccentric-only, and coupled concentric-eccentric contractions (isokinetic or otherwise), clearly demonstrate (as a whole) that the eccentric contraction is the most important for inducing muscle growth. (See Dudley, Hather, Komi, Staron, etc.)

Note also that the FAST group was performing eccentric elbow flexion at 3.14 rad /s or 180?/s - this meant that their negatives took less than 1 second. I would think that this might be a tad fast (e.g. for a squat!). I'm also not suggesting that 5 second negatives are the way to go either. I aggree that a safe ~2-3s negative (depedning on the exercise) is good rule of thumb.

I'd be interested to see what DOGGCRAPP has to say on this...

-Randy

P.S. Sorry if I'm a little fired up - rough week.
 

Mr_Magoo

Active member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
1,828
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 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?.... thats where the positive portion of the rep comes in... this is why i believe in a controlled negative ( the reasons u and the studies state), and if you do negatives my way ur not wasting energy on an excessive negative that doesnt do much IMO, and u get the benefits of more positive reps, now I know u state the energy expenditure as not that great but it it still there....

now if one does incline bench with 5 reps using a 5 sec neg. and explosive positive, to me they just got the benefits of the positive because the research points to fast eccentrics as better

suppose someone did the same weight but used a 1-2 sec negative and explosive positive , i believe theyll get 8 reps or so, all on which they would get the benefits of a fast negative, explosive positive , plus the myotatic reflex from the stretch-shortening cycle. so here IMO u just got 8 reps where benefits of the eccentric and concentric are taken into play plus the myotatic reflex which incridibly slow negatives inhibit.

to me it is 8 great reps vs. 5 good reps

keep this post flowing, I like it, and ur helping me expand on my theories more and im learning too
 

Mr_Magoo

Active member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
1,828
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

dont take my posts the wrong way, im not bashing negatives as there are very good reasons for them, i just dont believe in the over-exploitation of them in regards to rep speed

i believe used in a manner similar to the hst way they have lots of benefits but negatives in hst are 2-4 seconds
 

DOGGCRAPP

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2003
Messages
4,432
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
 
Last edited:

Mr_Magoo

Active member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
1,828
DOGGCRAPP 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
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 lowering
 

homonunculus

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
1,595
Thanks, Magoo.

---
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)
------
<snip>
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.

-Randy
 

Mr_Magoo

Active member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
1,828
my other reason for not being a fan of overly exploited negative rep speeds is not really scientific but more of human error.

negatives are not really a science in time the way many use them. to me i like to lower the heaviest load i can as quickly but with as much control as i can and that is like a legitimate two second count. i find if i always do my negatives like this that all my rep speeds on the eccentric are as close to the same as i can get whereas with a higher tut on the negative the last few reps are always falling faster because of fatigue and u count faster.

if i always do my reps as fast as i can with as much control as i can all my negatives are as close to the same speed compared to if i did a higher rep count- this is far from scientific and based more on us and our human error factor we bring to everything
 

Mr_Magoo

Active member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
1,828
Re: Thanks, Magoo.

homonunculus said:
---
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)
------
<snip>
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.

-Randy


oh, im well aware that this wasnt the best study to show my beliefs, it was more to give a holla out to Lat's as our training views are so similar, and also to spark debate like we had and to make others more knowledgable
 

Mr_Magoo

Active member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
1,828
one more point which i believe the abstract stated and is also one of my beliefs in not doing veryyyyyyyyyyyyy long negatives is that in a legitimate 6 sec negative, i find myself and others doing more isometric reps where we stop the weight, lower a bit, stop it again and so on where to me it should be continous
 

raybravo

New member
Registered
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
338
i think what counts in the end is " load lifted in a given amount of time " , done with control , this is what counts . i remember charles staley saying the same thing when asked , he says "if u can do 40 reps in 40 secs , that would be the best way , ofcourse , since thats not possible , do as many as possible in a controlled way " .
what do u come out with in the end ? just go back to old school normal lifting without giving too much attention to time for the concentric eccentric blah blah , just let things be controlled . thats the way ive been understanding things , but then again maybe i'm wrong .
 

LATS

Moderator / FOUNDING Member / NPC Judge
Staff member
Moderator
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
7,195
i think everyone is on the same page. basically , i train in the 5 to 7 rep range most of the time..being that the weight is heavy (for me at least) there is no way i could bring myself to lower the weight in a "speed" type fashion. i am very controlled. alot of the reason is because i have a tendency to get muscle strains pretty easily... the problem with most studies about negatives is that they center on supra max weights. most of the studies only consider the negative portion being trained.. of course, if i had my way in a perfect world i would train in negative style but, it is not going to happen. the thing that magoo and i have always said is that eccentric portion should not be ignored but, lets not get carried away doing 5 second negatives. if you can do that in a 8 reps set then i would say the frickin' weight is too light lol. i remember attending a seminar with jeff and cory everson many a year ago.. this was during the nautilus hype of the 80's. jeff had cory doing a demonstration of a exercise and one of the people in the audience asked jeff "hey, why doesnt she do a slower negative? arthur jones has stated many times that is the best way to stimulate growth..??" at this point everson (jeff) took a deep breathe and said "look. why would i have her waste time slowing down a negative to 5 or 10 seconds (he was being sarcastic) when she can get 10 to 12 reps?? wouldnt that be a big waste of time? if the weight is light enough for her to get 10 to 12 postive reps, do you honestly think slowing it down would have much if any effect on the eccentric portion?" at this point jeff went on to talk about this exercise and again the guy interrupted and ask basically the same question.. jeff said "well not all of us have two or three guys at our beck and call to have them lift the weight into position for us s o that we can lower it..basically jones is taking studies that are about the negative exclusively and transfering the data to a normal rep consisting of both negatives and positives" he then pause. shook his head and said "very flawed" and went on with the seminar.. now we can diss jeff all we want but, he was a olympic lifter, a ranked powerlifter and a competive bodybuilder..along with training the ms olympia ,his wife. i found him to be very articulate and came to the same conclusion as i did before i went to the seminar.
we can site all the studies in the world but, most all will be "wrong" come about two months from now when another study is done at another place. lol but, twice i have seen a study about the benefits of lowering the weight in a two second cadence..i am not saying the study may or may not have flaws, all i am saying is i have not seen one to dispute it...YET. lol just a nice , very controlled negative..IS THAT SO WRONG sniff??
as for you randy..dont make me call your mom and tell her nasty stuff about you..hell, i am even considering making up some shit!!.. :D
 

raybravo

New member
Registered
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
338
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
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 .
 

Forum statistics

Total page views
503,934,566
Threads
123,777
Messages
2,366,200
Members
155,273
Latest member
JoeyDHB
Top