PDA

View Full Version : Westside Training.. Effective For Bodybuilding Purposes?



MonStar
07-21-2002, 11:06 PM
I am wondering about this.

I am, as you all know, very into my strength. Especially in the past 6 months or so. Westside Training seems like a pure strength program. But from what I understand strength gains transfer over (generally) into size gains? Is this correct or no?

Would Westside be effective as for bodybuilding at all? (muscle size gain, etc.)

I am also wondering about your personal Westside experiences. It seems very popular here at WBB. What do you guys think of this program? Is it good / bad what?

Opinions?

jeep4414
07-22-2002, 01:07 AM
I dunno, I'm still learning about it. There seems to be quite a few posts on it in other places on this board too, which I am slowly wading through.

First heard about it on Supertraining last year, have incorporated parts of it into my workout over the last year, but still pretty much only hit the different body parts once a week, instead of 2x or 3x, though I may soon try a more formal Westside routine, after reading some good stuff here, and ElPietro's discussion of a routine using similar methods. I'm new here so I have yet to preview the different routines and articles. Pretty cool site.

I am rotating speed days, volume days, and heavy days into chest (bench) and leg (squat) workouts, and doing some light deadlifts (3 plates) during my back workouts, in addition to my "accessory" work. Can't really say that my bench has improved, or that I've gotten any bigger, but my squat still seems to be moving. I had a big jump in it last fall, but that was mostly due to Glucosamine, which I started taking last May '01. I had set 405 as my upper limit after hitting 505 a few years ago because of knee pain, and my reps at 405 were even starting to slip (boredom). The glucosamine kicked in, I started a higher volume growth routine, with some heavy days thrown in, and wham, back into the 500s. WoooHOOOO!!!

I have put on a couple lbs of muscle in the last few months, and also a couple lbs of fat, which I am currently dieting off. I'm in this for the long haul, not really in a hurry, wanting to get stronger, leaner and bigger...concurrently if possible, so I can pretty much stay on cruise control in this area, with occasional fine tuning, and focus on other parts of my life. This approach has served me well since I started weight training in '83, with adjustments from time to time. I'm thinking the Westside routine couldn't hurt, especially if my triceps don't get smaller or weaker :D

Franco
07-22-2002, 05:01 AM
I personally enjoyed it immensely and have incorporated certain movements and aspects in my current routine. I know your worried about fat gain and such like but if you were to give it a shot you could still watch your diet and not gain much if any unwanted fat, look at latty he's been in the 148's for quite a while now and he's becoming stronger and stronger. I actually lost weight during westside and put 80lbs on my dead and 60lbs on my squat in around 9 weeks.

If you were to try westside you would have to make some modifications as much of the bench work (except speed bench ) seems to focus on partial ranges and very little direct chest work is done, so you would need to tinker here. Another aspect you may have noticed is that it can be high volume, this is because none of the accessory movements are taken to failure.

Read Adam's article and Elitefts.com for mor info.

MonStar
07-22-2002, 07:18 AM
Thanks for the replies guys.

Maybe sometime way down the road Ill give it a shot. It seems to be geared 100% to a powerlifter though which I am far from. I dont have any interest at all in powerlifting, bodybuilding is my main interest. Strength is fun but strength and hypertrophy are much more fun in my eyes.

Any other experiences / opinions?

ElPietro
07-22-2002, 07:31 AM
Wouldn't dynamic speed exercises be mainly stressing Type IIb fibres which have the highest propensity to grow? I'm thinking westside is a "good" program for size but not the best. If you eat well I'm sure you could have some great gains in size.

Many of the people on westside are doing it for competition...so all the guys under the super heavyweight level are probably keeping as light as possible and that's why you can see many really strong guys that are lean such as latman...but once they crack the last weight bracket they just start packing on weight like a mofo as it can only help with their lifts.

Westside is all about putting up big numbers...bodybuilding is more concerned with what you eat in my opinion. Diet has been my demon ever since I started, I don't think there is anything you can do to have a great physique without at least eating semi-intelligently.

MonStar
07-22-2002, 07:45 AM
Nice post EP. I agree man that Westside is more or less about geared towards powerlifting, not bodybuilding. I was just wondering - any other experiences?

Paul Stagg
07-22-2002, 07:56 AM
I would not use Westside if my goal was only to improve my physique.

You can certainly learn from how it is set up and take some things from it (like the importance of GPP and conditioning, and how to increase your work capacity).

teen1216
07-22-2002, 09:57 AM
I think it would help with your strength a good bit, as well as some extra size, but since you said you're focused on bodybuilding, I think I would focus on a routine more centered around mass.

Accipiter
07-22-2002, 11:23 AM
well I think size and strength go hand in hand, but there would be better routines for a strictly size gain program. Also, where's Nejar, he should be all over this

ElPietro
07-22-2002, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Accipiter
well I think size and strength go hand in hand

So how would you explain someone like latty who lifts significantly more weight than you, and at a significantly smaller size and weight?

Accipiter
07-22-2002, 11:33 AM
he's huge for his height.

Accipiter
07-22-2002, 11:34 AM
also, if you're shorter, you have a smaller range of motion. I'm not knocking his lifts at all. I'm gonna have to bust my ass if I ever wanna get where he is.

ElPietro
07-22-2002, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Accipiter
he's huge for his height.

I wouldn't say that at all. He's like 150lbs, can't remember the height but I think he'd be the first to admit that he's pretty skinny.

Accipiter
07-22-2002, 11:38 AM
he's only 150? Well how tall is he? 5 4? 5 6?

Paul Stagg
07-22-2002, 12:45 PM
Size nad strenght do go hand in hand, but not across individuals.

Also, an increase in muscle size requires an increase in strength. An increase in strength doesn't require an increase in muscle size, and may not actually cause one.

Blood&Iron
07-22-2002, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by ElPietro
Wouldn't dynamic speed exercises be mainly stressing Type IIb fibres which have the highest propensity to grow
Lifting speed does not affect recruitment. It is dependent on force requirements. If you lift with 85% or so of your 1RM--which will typically mean lifting in the 5-8 rep range--you'll recruit all the muscle fibers you're gonna recruit from the first rep.

ElPietro
07-22-2002, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Blood&Iron

Lifting speed does not affect recruitment. It is dependent on force requirements. If you lift with 85% or so of your 1RM--which will typically mean lifting in the 5-8 rep range--you'll recruit all the muscle fibers you're gonna recruit from the first rep.

Does it not require more force to lift at a fast rate? Otherwise it would seem that the dynamic sets that westside prescribes would be useless at the 50-60% range. We'd be able to lift any weight we could at any speed if it didn't require us to exert more force. Also, I wouldn't consider explosive movements oxidative, although I could be wrong about that, so the optimal muscle fibre type for glucolytic movement is type II fibres and more specifically type IIb.

I'm not sure where you are getting 85% of 1RM with 5-8 reps as that is not how traditional westside dynamic speed sets are performed.

Blood&Iron
07-22-2002, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by ElPietro


Does it not require more force to lift at a fast rate? Otherwise it would seem that the dynamic sets that westside prescribes would be useless at the 50-60% range. We'd be able to lift any weight we could at any speed if it didn't require us to exert more force. Also, I wouldn't consider explosive movements oxidative, although I could be wrong about that, so the optimal muscle fibre type for glucolytic movement is type II fibres and more specifically type IIb.

While I botched things up a bit, what I was saying originally is that it is physiologically impossible to preferentially recruit fast-twitch muscle fiber with explosive movements. That's all. I'm too lazy and lack the knowledge to get into a full blown discussion of muscle physiology. I tried working out some of the physics, but I realized I can't remember much other than Fnet = ma - mg. Anyways, lifting fast DOES require more force, but it still doesn't affect recruitment. You'll have to find somebody more knowledgeable than me to explain it.



I'm not sure where you are getting 85% of 1RM with 5-8 reps as that is not how traditional westside dynamic speed sets are performed.
What I wrote had nothing to do with Westside, other than with regard to issues of recruitment. Using 85% of one's 1RM will typically allow one to get 5-8 reps. And using that much weight, means all the muscle fibers will be recruited from the get-go.

ElPietro
07-22-2002, 01:59 PM
I would love if someone could explain it as well then. It's just that to say that all fibres are recruited on an explosive lift, then it would seem that slow and fast twitch fibres would have similar properties. Yet we know that slow twitch fibres are oxidative in nature...and (this is the part I don't know) I'm not sure if they would respond to such a high load in a short period of time. The only reason I have for stating this is cause and effect. If I train with heavy weight then my fast twitch fibres will grow whilst slow twitch will be stay relatively small. I know we have genetically predetermined ratios of fast and slow twitch fibres but we can impact what ratio of overall mass each is.

Ok I'm not sure if I just rambled in the extreme there but I'll leave it. Basically, if you are lifting this way and your endurance is reduced but strength is increased would you not say you are preferentially recruiting Type II fibres?

Blood&Iron
07-22-2002, 02:20 PM
These two posts should explain some of this(The first is probably where I got the reasoning I used in my first post):

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=recruitment+group:misc.fitness.weights&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3C7BD8B6.C88E328C%40onr.com&rnum=3

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=recruitment+group:misc.fitness.weights&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=38C350AE.FF072C83%40onr.com&rnum=9

A more thorough search of MFW could probably answer all your questions, as could Bryan Haycock over at www.hypertrophy-specific.com

ElPietro
07-22-2002, 02:40 PM
"So first you recruit/optimally fatigue/damage/stimulate your IIb's with the 3X6-8. So they are toast and stimulated to grow. Now you drop back and do 2-3X10-12 to recruit/optimally fatigue/damage/stimulate you IIa's."

This is in Lyle's closing statement...which seems to me a bit contradictory to what he originally stated. That lifting in the 85% 1RM range for 5-8 reps will recruit 100% of all fibre types. In the final statement he speaks of different weight and rep ranges to optimally recruit different fibre types. Perhaps I missed something or I'm just not understanding some point he made. Maybe I'll do some further reading later. Although, knowing what rep ranges give me certain results is probably sufficient enough.

Blood&Iron
07-22-2002, 03:17 PM
Looks like I was partially wrong. Think this answers your question.


Originally posted by Bryan Haycock to the HST forums
There is very LITTLE difference between 1RM and 5RM. The level of recruitment is practically equal. The only difference is how many times the weight moves.

Please understand that ALL slow motor units are activated at relatively low force output. Fast fibers begin to act fully at only 30-50% of your 1RM. Motor units are all utilized but they are not recruited all at once (rate coding etc). This doesn't happen all at once until the load goes up, or motor units begin to fail (fatigue). When a muscle begins to shake it is because recruitment patterns are beginning to synchronize in an effort to accommodate fatigue.

Fatigue of muscle fibers cause LESS microtrauma, not more. If the fibers are not forcefully contracting they are not going to be stimulated to grow.

The load and speed of movement determines what fibers are "worked". Worked is not a good term. "Recruited" is more accurate. 4-6 reps on bench using "10 pounds" moving slowly will likely NOT recruit your fast fibers. Push that same 10 pounds as fast as you can and you will recruit nearly all of your fast twitch fibers.

4-6 reps on bench using "300 lbs" will likely recruit ALL your fast twitch fibers. No matter what the speed. The weight usualy moves slowly because it is heavy, not because your fibers aren't contracting as quickly as they can. Fibers have no control over how fast the contract. They are either 100% ON or 100% OFF, there is no dimmer switch.

Muscle tissue does not distinguish between rep ranges. There is not a special number of contractions that "triggers" a hypertrophic response. The only thing that triggers hypertrophy is sarcolemma distortion and subsequent microtrauma and to a lesser extent, metabolic activity. These pathways of mechanotransduction have been mapped and are not in question. Yes, there are always more details to be ironed out, but the pathways are now established that go from mechanical load to muscle cell growth.

In order to adhere to the principles of training induced muscle hypertrophy we must have progressive load. Progressive load sufficient to cause hypertrophy will limit the number of times the muscle can successfully contract against the resistance. There are several old studies that narrowed it down to a range of perhaps 20 reps (if the muscle is deconditioned) all the way up to 120% of your 1RM. So, depending on how conditioned the muscle is, you can use any rep range between 20 reps and negatives.

While using HST, your reps decrease simply because the load is increasing. Itís that simple. There is no magic number, though others might have you believe there is.

PowerManDL
07-22-2002, 05:36 PM
To add a few points:

Haycock's point about the "recruitment" of fibers vs. the "training" of fibers is correct. A fiber can be recruited, but isn't considered "trained" until its been fatigued (Zatsiorsky); this is why slow-twitch fibers don't grow from heavy movements. Yes, they're recruited, but they aren't exposed to enough stimulus to grow.

Originally posted by El Pietro:
Does it not require more force to lift at a fast rate? Otherwise it would seem that the dynamic sets that westside prescribes would be useless at the 50-60% range. We'd be able to lift any weight we could at any speed if it didn't require us to exert more force. Also, I wouldn't consider explosive movements oxidative, although I could be wrong about that, so the optimal muscle fibre type for glucolytic movement is type II fibres and more specifically type IIb.

B&I is right-- lifting speed doesn't affect fiber recruitment. Force, or actually tension developed in the muscle, does. Faster movements generate more tension, as do heavier ones.

The 50-65% 1RM loading recommendations come from research performed by AS Prilepin. Prilepin's research showed that, at loads in that range, the optimal number of reps was 2-4, and the optimal range of total repetitions was 18-24 (I think, I'm recalling this from memory).

The entire purpose of that, or any explosive-strength/power training technique, is to improve the neural effects: rate coding as mentioned, firing frequency, etc. The intended effects are *not* muscular; however, it should be noted that using compensatory-acceleration training at 70-80% can develop hypertrophy and power.

I'm not sure where you are getting 85% of 1RM with 5-8 reps as that is not how traditional westside dynamic speed sets are performed.

That would be an example of training performed to emphasize muscular hypertrophy, which is the other half of the strength equaiton (not to you LP, to the others :)). Just to note, I've seen "speed" training done with many kinds of protocols, not just Westside's dynamic style. This includes 70-80% loadings for 3x5, 30% loading for 12x3, 95% for a single followed immediately by 50% for a triple, etc etc etc.

The term "explosive-strength" encompasses a LOT of different qualities (rate of force development, "power," etc), and depending on the sport and circumstance, these can be developed in a lot of different ways.

Chris Rodgers
07-22-2002, 07:38 PM
LMAO@ "huge for his height"

I knew I could count on LP to jump in on that one, lol. :D

I'm with Paul on this one. If my main goal was to enhance my physique(bodybuilding), I would not choose Westside.


PS- Westsiiiiiiiiiddddeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!

Chris Rodgers
07-22-2002, 07:39 PM
Btw.....5'7" 148ish. Skinny fooker.

nightop
07-22-2002, 07:44 PM
I'm just starting WSB PLing routine and love it... I'm reading SuperTraining right now and according to Siff (paraphrased) hypertrophy (muscle growth in size) can and commonly is induced by the heavy weight low rep work found in powerlifting, despite the comon thought that reps under 6 cause little or no hypertrophy. Also, strength is very very dependent on the neurological control of the muscles... meaning as you strength train your CNS becomes better at fiber recruitment and causes more effecient contractions.... which is why ppl can get stronger despite weight loss.

MonStar
07-23-2002, 09:26 PM
If my goals are 50/50 strength/muscular development - would Westside be a good idea?

I want to focus on both - and it seems very possible with Westside. Or am I wrong?

nightop
07-24-2002, 12:25 AM
I would say yes go with westside... the average guy that starts training westside gains 20 pounds in the first year according to the site... (naturally some ppl who are already very close to their absolute max natural potential will not gain that much). You can taylor westside for your needs as well.. as long as you dont break any principles.

For instance, I'm doin the 9 week basic training program and have added some bicep and calve work which would otherwise have been left out...

Songsangnim
07-24-2002, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Blood&Iron
Looks like I was partially wrong. Think this answers your question.


This is why I train 6*6. Sound familar EP?

ElPietro
07-24-2002, 06:47 AM
6 reps is fine, 6 sets i think is a poor choice and kinda pointless in that rep range.

Your strength gains will not be optimized and you will more than likely be limited by your CNS from having any fast gains. Of course this is all dependant on your goals...but I cannot think of a single good reason 6*6 is remotely equal to half of the other methods out there.

nightop
07-24-2002, 04:54 PM
here is a pretty neat program written up to yeild a Westside BB routine>

BodyBuilding: 4 Day Split

Day 1 AM:
Lower Body Core Exercise: Work up to a 5 rep maximum of a Maximum Effort Movement
Lower-Body Assistance: All Sets and Reps are Variable
1. RDL
2. Lunges
3. Leg Extensions
4. Lying Leg Curls
5. Calf Raise
Medicine Ball Ab Work

Day 1 PM:
Back Work:
1. Rotate Different forms of Row for a 5RM
2. Lat Pull Downs: Variable Sets and Reps
3. External Pulls: Variable Sets and Reps

Biceps: Variable Movements, Sets & Reps
Reverse Hypers: 5x8 (If you do not have one of these, perform Pull-Thruís)

Day 2 AM:
Upper Body Core Exercise: Work up to a 5 rep maximum of a Maximum Effort Movement
Chest Assistance: All Sets and Reps are Variable
4. Dips
5. Chain Push-ups
Triceps: All Sets and Reps are Variable
6. JM Press
7. DB Tricep Extension
Day 2 PM:
Shoulder Work:
1. Military Press: Up to a 5 RM
2. Lateral Raise: Sets and Reps are Variable
3. Clean Shrugs: Sets and Reps are Variable

Ab Work: Sets and Reps are Variable

Day 3AM:
Dynamic Box Squats: 50% of 1RM for 8-12sets of 2 reps
Superset: All Sets and Reps are Variable
4. Glute Ham Raise
5. Reverse Leg Extensions (Seated Hamstring Curls)
Superset: All Sets and Reps are Variable
6. Single Leg Squats
7. Step-ups
Calf Raise: 6-8 sets with variable reps
Ab Work: All Sets and Reps are Variable

Day 3 PM:
Back Work:
8. Pull-ups: All Sets and Reps are Variable
9. Cable Rows: All Sets and Reps are Variable
10. Clean High Pulls: 4 sets of 5 reps

Biceps: Variable Movements, Sets & Reps
Arched Back Good Mornings: 3x10

Day 4 AM:
Dynamic Bench Press: 8-10 sets of 3 reps with 50% of your 1RM
Chest Assistance: All Sets and Reps are Variable
1. Superset: DB Incline Press with Pullovers
2. Superset: Illegal Wide BP with Chest Flyes
Triceps work: All Sets and Reps are Variable
3. Close Grip BP
4. Superset: Triceps Extensions with Pressdowns

Day 4 PM:
Shoulder Work:
1. Snatch Shrugs to a 1RM
2. Front, Rear, Side Laterals for 3 sets of 15 Reps
b. Ab Work: All Sets and Reps are Variable

Songsangnim
07-25-2002, 08:36 AM
I've tried most of the "other routines out there". None have yielded results comparable to my 6*6. And what B&I said (as well as others) validates my points. I am not claiming it is a magic number. I use 6*6 because it is what was originally propounded and it is a round number which makes it easy to remember. If it were true that my strength gains would not be optimized, then how was it possible that my bench increased from 120 kilos for 10 to 150 kilos for 5? I only train that one exercise on chest day and have for the past six months, so it was not due to dropping other exercises. Nor with six sets of one exercise can I see how my CNS will be overloaded. I plan to start adding back in the exercises I dropped and see how that goes. Again you fail to address the questions I posed in the other thread. I am basing my opinions on facts. What are you basing yours on, given that you have not tried this program. Just because others say so? If I listened to other people all the time, I would not have achieved half the gains I have. Everyone is different and different workouts work for different people.
But telling me it couldn't possibly work is foolish as well as completely wrong, since it has for me...and for other people as well.

ElPietro
07-25-2002, 08:51 AM
120 for 10 to 150 for 5 isn't some absolutely amazing increase in weight. Yes I know you are speaking kilos. But for me to give any credit to what you are doing I'd need to know what you were doing before etc. I haven't seen much that was posted here that reinforces your program. If you like it than by all means continue with it. In my opinion it's a poor choice and that's what I've stated before. I never said it can't work...just that I doubt it will work better than other routines. And no I won't waste my time trying it as there are many other routines that I think WILL work, that I would give preference too first.

When I spoke about the CNS I meant that at 6 reps you may not put enough stress to trigger a positive response from your CNS. Things like overloading or negative reps, or just lower rep ranges with weight you aren't used to can allow you to lift more the next time out. Generally the CNS will prevent you from lifting that max weight you've never done before...so by doing lower rep high level weight will allow you to adapt and lift heavier weight on your higher rep sets. I don't understand why 6 sets of 6 seem so appealing to you but if you are enjoying it then by all means. What benefit are you gaining in the 5th set? Or the 6th set? You only bench so you should be very good at benching, but I bet your strength has suffered setbacks in probably all other slightly dissimilar chest exercises. You are simply very well adapted to the bench press now.

You actually haven't given any good reason other than "it worked for you" to state what is so good about this system. Anyone can experience gains on any program...whether it be optimal or not is generally what we discuss.

I don't mind debating this further as I'm always willing to listen and learn, but I don't feel that your rep scheme is a very good one. Perhaps for hypertrophy it is good...but I think for strength gains it is very much less than optimal.

ElPietro
07-25-2002, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by PowerManDL
lifting speed doesn't affect fiber recruitment. Force, or actually tension developed in the muscle, does. Faster movements generate more tension, as do heavier ones.


Just one thing here I thought I'd bring up as I just re-read it. If I am understanding what you said here there seems to be a bit of contradiction...or you might just be you being semantically anal. :p So lifting speed doesn't affect fiber recruitment, tension does, and greater tension can be generated from faster movements. Am I missing something here, because your statement would then seem to be saying one thing and then the exact opposite? The only conclusion I can come to is that you are trying to say that it is tension not speed even though tension is can be related to speed. But in the end lifting speed then WOULD affect fibre recruitment by generating greater tension.

I truly don't care if i'm right or wrong...just rather know what is correct.

Blood&Iron
07-25-2002, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by ElPietro

I truly don't care if i'm right or wrong...just rather know what is correct.
Did you read the post I quoted from Bryan Haycock? I think that explains it pretty thoroughly.

Songsangnim
07-25-2002, 11:27 AM
Granted, you make a couple of good points. However when you say optimal, wouldn't that mean the workout scheme which gave you the best results? In that case that would be my workout of 6*6. Again, I am NOT saying it seems to be the best. I AM saying that it appears (at the present time) to be the best for me. Stuart McRobert and Fred Hatfield have both promoted similar programs to this, and as I mentioned, I'm not the only one who has made gains on this. 120/10-150/5 is not astonishing gains, I grant you that...but keep in mind, when I tried this program, I was already a highly advanced trainee with 12+ years experience under my belt (I'm the same age as Mr. Mason).
Basically what I was doing before, was flat bench, dips, and flyes. Flat bench 2 sets of 120 for 10 reps, dips (bodyweight) for 2 sets of 12, and flyes for 3 sets (40 kg dumbells). This was a basic routine for chest. From time to time I would mix it up (using different exercises, sets, reps and many, many routines...but as I stated nothing gave me the rapid (2 months) strength gains as the 6*6 routine did. Perhaps the reason I experienced no appreciable hypertrophy on this routine, was my level of training experience. After 12 years, one must expect gains to be rather slow.;) :cool: Anyway, as I mentioned in a previous post, there are many ways to train, and because one way doesn't suit a person, doesn't mean it isn't the best way to train for another person. There is NO one right way to train for everyone, rather there are many right ways to train (as well as many more wrong ways);)

PowerManDL
07-25-2002, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by ElPietro
The only conclusion I can come to is that you are trying to say that it is tension not speed even though tension is can be related to speed.

That's what I was trying to say.

Songsangnim
07-25-2002, 10:16 PM
I have a few questions for B&I and one for Powerman. Brian Haycock says "push that same 10 pounds as fast as you can and you will recruit nearly all of your fast twitch fibers". So basically one can make good gains training with ten pounds if his logic is correct? Maybe I read it wrong, but the way it is presented doesn't sound correct at all. Also he states that "4-6 reps will recruit all of your muscle fibers.." I don't think that is right. If it were possible to recruit every last fiber in a particular muscle or muscle group, wouldn't that muscle be torn right off the bone? There is always an built-in inhibitory factor that prevents you from using all your fibres. With certain training it is possible to decrease the effects of this factor, but not bypass it all together. Again I am no expert, but this is what I seem to remember.
As for EP, 6*6 is NOT a long term training program. It was simply a short-term program to boost my BP past a sticking point. I don't recommend it for any longer than 2-3 months. Powerman, if speed generates tension and tension affects fiber recruitment, then why wouldn't speed affect fiber recruitment (by generating said tension)?

Blood&Iron
07-25-2002, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by ExtremeAnabolic
I have a few questions for B&I and one for Powerman. Brian Haycock says "push that same 10 pounds as fast as you can and you will recruit nearly all of your fast twitch fibers". So basically one can make good gains training with ten pounds if his logic is correct? Maybe I read it wrong, but the way it is presented doesn't sound correct at all. Also he states that "4-6 reps will recruit all of your muscle fibers.." I don't think that is right. If it were possible to recruit every last fiber in a particular muscle or muscle group, wouldn't that muscle be torn right off the bone? There is always an built-in inhibitory factor that prevents you from using all your fibres. With certain training it is possible to decrease the effects of this factor, but not bypass it all together. Again I am no expert, but this is what I seem to remember.

I really don't have the answers. My off-hand guess would be that while the fibers are recruited, i.e. they are not quiescent, they are not 'fatigued' by such an action. There is not sufficient stress and/or microtrauma to cause adaption. Besides, Bryan's not saying every fiber is recruited, merely all the fast twitch ones. Of course, I'm probalby spewing complete bullsh*t here(Belial, shut up). Powerman will probably be better able to address your question. If he is not, I'd suggest asking Bryan directly on the HST forums.

Alex.V
07-25-2002, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Blood&Iron

Of course, I'm probalby spewing complete bullsh*t here.

Yes, yes you are.


assface.



:D

PowerManDL
07-26-2002, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by ExtremeAnabolic
I have a few questions for B&I and one for Powerman. Brian Haycock says "push that same 10 pounds as fast as you can and you will recruit nearly all of your fast twitch fibers". So basically one can make good gains training with ten pounds if his logic is correct? Maybe I read it wrong, but the way it is presented doesn't sound correct at all.

I haven't read a whole lot of Haycock's material, and thusly am not familiar with his writing style, but it may be very possible that he was attempting an analogy with that.

Tension, even with the speed factor, is still load-dependent. There are specific percentages of your 1RM, in other words, where speed-based training works the best.

Also he states that "4-6 reps will recruit all of your muscle fibers.." I don't think that is right. If it were possible to recruit every last fiber in a particular muscle or muscle group, wouldn't that muscle be torn right off the bone? There is always an built-in inhibitory factor that prevents you from using all your fibres. With certain training it is possible to decrease the effects of this factor, but not bypass it all together. Again I am no expert, but this is what I seem to remember.

Again, I'm thinking this is boiling down to simple semantics. You're correct in that a *truly* maximal muscular contraction would cause quite a bit of damage to the connective tissues surrounding the muscle.

In reading his statement, I simply assumed he was referring to all fibers possible in a voluntary contraction, which is always going to be a different story from what the muscle is truly capable of doing.

Powerman, if speed generates tension and tension affects fiber recruitment, then why wouldn't speed affect fiber recruitment (by generating said tension)? [/QUOTE]

Because like I said, its also load-dependent. To oversimply, tension is nothing more than mechanical force in the muscle. Force has two components, mass and acceleration. Speed affects fiber recruitment yes, but speed is also dependent on the external loading; so yes, I'm sorta playing word games there, but to say in a blanket statement that "higher speed means more fibers are recruited" would be incorrect.

Songsangnim
07-27-2002, 12:51 AM
I appreciate the responses. Thanks for clearing that up Powerman.:)