Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum

it really does not matter that much....just don't have slow concentrics.

Is'nt getting the form correct more important as opposed to spending extra time on the repetition?

correct form is important weather your rep takes .3 seconds or 30 seconds.

rep speed can very greatly between different lifts. a heavy deadlift is gonna take longer than a power clean simply by the nature of the movement and the amount of weight used.
someone working speed sets is obviously purposely using faster rep speeds so their tempo will be different as well. a 1rm squat attempt will naturally be a whole lot slower rep speed than someone doing 12 reps of b/w chin-ups etc, etc, etc.

just use a natural rep speed that lets you maintain control of the weight and keep your form but dont slow it down simply for the sake of the "burn" or some other dipshit concept.

"Remember its HOW YOU LIFT not HOW MUCH OR HOW MANY"

that's just plain silly! how much, how many, and how often are just as important as HOW you lift. all need to be addressed for continued progress and avoiding injuries.

__________________

That's why I hate aphorisms like that that attempt to bring things down to reduce things down to a single point of simplicity, Riddick.

It's similar to the "it's 80% nutrition" BS.

Einstein said something like "things should be made as simple as possible but no simpler!" LOL

It is possible to maintain quality while still training for a specific purpose and you said it perfectly.

Correct form has as much to do with the acitivity and it's purpose. Most people when they talk about "form" are looking at it as if you can reduce it to one static idea of perfection.

Good form for a clean is different than good form for a deadlift (despite what some people seem to think).

Good form for jerk would be bad form for a military press.


I forgot to mention above that although contraction or contractibilty coincides with a muscles ability to produce tension contraction means a muscle is shortening and tension developed in a muscle NEED NOT result in shortening.

For the most part STRETCHED muscles develop the most tension and hence have the most pulling power. The shorter a muscle gets the less it's ability to contract.

Generally speaking, the force generating capability is at it's greatest when it's at it's resting length and when that length increases or decrease beyond that the force potential decreases.

However, the elastic component of muscles comes into play so that force generation increase when there is a bit of a stretch. It's somewhere between 120% to 130% of resting length. Beyond that and the muscle would not be able to contract much at all so that any added tension from the stretch wouldn't matter.

Remember, tension is pull. A muscle is not "strongest" at mid-contraction by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply that the torque developed changes as a result of the line of action of force from the center of rotation of the joint.

If you could keep the SAME tension throughout, which you can't, the resultant torque would be freaky.

As it stands the muscles can generate more tension, and thus more pull, at greater lengths but the resultant torque is depedent on the angles and not just the muscle tension.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
or
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you act sanctimonious I will just list out your logical fallacies until you get pissed off and spew blasphemous remarks.

lol, Eric i swear i almost put in how much i dislike the "80% nutrition" thing! but i thought my post was long enough.

I think that poster might be confusing 'muscle strength' with 'strong muscular contractions'. i.e. in some exercises the hardest point of contraction is the mid point but it certainly doesnt follow that that is the area where a muscle is at its strongest. possibly its all that bunk in the mucle mags/books that Weider, Mentzer, Jones, Darden etc etc spout off about 'peak contraction' principals and all that is confusing the issue here, i dunno.

"If you could keep the SAME tension throughout, which you can't, the resultant torque would be freaky."

speaking of Jones, isnt that what he tried to acheive with his off set cam design? constant tension throughout the ROM? not sure how much efficacy it actually has but it sure was a great marketing tool and helped sell a LOT of machines! he had some kooky (and some downright dangerous) 'theories' on training but he sure was market saavy and had great taste in women too, lol.

I'm sure that it's all that stuff, Riddick that causes the confusion. Also, I was thinking that since "resting length" is the mid-point between fully shortened and fully stretched that 'contraction' got worked in there and it became 'mid-contraction'. Lots of possibilities but probably you are closer to the mark because it's usually one thing written by an influential person that carries this stuff into infinity.

Yes, except it was to make big muscles. It doesn't matter if you build a machine when you actually pick up a free weight the everything changes as the angle changes including tension. The force you are putting on a weight is a momentary thing and changes as you lift. Force, after all is a momentary measurement.

First, there is somethig that must be realized. You cannot directly measure the maximum force one muscle is able to generate in a living person. You'd have to take a muscle fiber from them and shock it to make it contract maximally and measure the force it is able to exert. That is how they learned a lot about muscle workings. From that you get the force-velocity curve or relationship (inversely related) and the length-tension relationship which is really like the force length relationship. But that only tells you in an approximate way how muscles work.

Basically the muscles cause the body segments to rotate about the joints. The turning force is called a 'moment' or a torque. I don't understand the math, it factors in the distance from the muscles attachment point to the axes of rotation and the joint angle ad the tension on the muscle, but if you look at it as a simple lever like a bicep curl it's easy to see how things change as the angle changes if you just know a few things.

Only the part of the muscles force that is directed perpendicular to is effective in causing rotation around the joint (axes).

Maybe I can get some diagrams but imagine a bicep curl from the side. The only time that 100% of the muscles force is perpendicular to the bone is when the elbow is at 90 degrees. Think of a line of force moving up from the forearm. Straight up. Now think of the angle of the upper arm. Only when the upper arm is more or less vertical does that force line up perpendiucular to it, right? At every other place that force is at an angle to it. This is the product of all the forces we're talking about, we are not saying that all the force actually is applied in one direction. It's just an illustration.

But seeing that you see why you seem stronger when you are curling at 90 degrees rather than 120 or 70 degrees. This does NOT mean that the muscles are able to exert more force at midcontraction only that more of the force that the muscle exerts is effective in rotation the bone at that point.

Thinking about it another way, imagine that you were actually able to exert less force at the beginning of the contraction, say at a slightly stretched position. Being that the force is less effective at rotation the bone at that angle then if you are actually weaker you'd never be able lift a damned thing!

Given that there are always points and positions at which the most force can be applied and most movments are intentionally started at those points. That, however, does not mean that we do partials only resistance training because there is more to it.

So, you can invent any number of machines but when you pick up a weight you can't change the laws of physics.

Sorry to get into a bunch of lab talk but there is no other way to counter-act this stuff.

I'm pretty sure that my fellow admin at GUS could correct me on a lot of this but he is 'conspicuously' silent