|
|
Post by John A. Casler on Aug 30, 2008 6:19:38 GMT -8
Exercise Science is a VERY COMPLEX subject, and many times there are differences in opinion.
It is not uncommon for many to state how wrong the thinking of everyone is, without supporting their own viewpoint. Nothing to get emotional about, and discussion of the differing viewpoints can be valuable to "understanding".
Not having a "bias" or perspective is impossible, but I like to think that I tend to take an "overview" and examine the subject from a higher position, and generally have fewer influences.
This type of perspective can lead to some rather contentious exchanges, and I have even been BANNED from some sites who do not wish to have alternative opinion. (although there "rules" section states otherwise)
This leads to this particular thread, where I have been informed (usually by one of you) of a particular post or thread that is questionable. I can post alternative viewpoint and welcome "unemotional" and non-personal responses.
|
|
|
|
Post by John A. Casler on Aug 30, 2008 7:43:44 GMT -8
The seat height position with Nautilus machines is a general guideline and based on the general machine design. However it does not take into account "ALL" individual differences such as long humerus and short torso lengths.
You would benefit, from slightly lowering your seat, to allow you to complete the action, as long as it does not create a greater problem somewhere else in the ROM
That is likely the best position for you, if you wish to have the greater ROM and the ending full concentric contraction
There is MUCH confusion here that generally falls into two opinions:
1) Isolation is more important than greater stimulus
2) Synergy of Motor Signals from the CNS can improve the stimulus
In this case I fall into the Synergy Camp. The body is arranged in such a way that it functions at a higher level if the adjacent muscles are also activated. As "intuitive" as it may seem to the layman, to isolate a muscle for the best result, this is actually not generally the case. Relaxing or reducing the involvement of associated agonists is most of the time a retarding strategy to full and higher activation.
So the answer here is also shown by the questioner's own experience. He has found that "involving" the grip, and activating the muscle of the forearm "improve" his ability to create higher performance and overload, while "not doing so" restricts that performance.
Which will cause the greatest stimulus?
|
|
|
|
Post by John A. Casler on Nov 21, 2008 12:42:34 GMT -8
Below is a post I wrote about how a muscle produces force in response to a fellow poster on another forum
Bill Sekerak wrote:
I disagree , if you want to produce proportianate maximum inreases in strength throughout full rom you have to train full rom with proper variable resistance. Such resistance cannot be provided with chins or dips . That is not to say that good results cannot be produced with convential equipment because you can. However for some stuctures such as the muscles that extend the spine , there is only one piece of equipment that will allow you to fully develop these muscles and it ain't a barbell. Can you fully develop the strength of the quads throughout full rom without doing extensions? No.
Etc.
Bill
============================
Hi Bill,
I just came across this discussion and find it interesting and had a couple questions and points relating to your assertions.
Point #1
Do we all agree that a muscle/joints force out put is caused by the following:
1) The changing mechanical efficiency of the joint in question
2) The ability of the muscle(s) that move the joint in a "force/length" relationship
3) The strength of the motor impulse at any point within the ROM.
If the above is true, then would any and all force (strength) abilities that we could "change" via training stimulation within that ROM, be caused by number 3 only?
Since #1 cannot change, and #2 would only change in a "gross strength" increase, wouldn't then any, and all force capabilities be "learned" to the specific action as needed?
And then, would they not draw from the "gross" effectiveness of #1 and #2?
If not, please explain what would take place other than a "learned" motor application, during what you are calling "full range" and "proper variable resistance".
Since #1 cannot be a "trained" consideration, the actions of "chins and dips" would affect #2 and #3. Then #3 would simply be a "learned" motor pattern to the needs of the action itself.
Am I asking this in a way that makes sense?
I'm simply stating that training a muscle/joint through what you are calling a "Full ROM", with what you call "proper variable resistance", is simply creating a "motor impulse to force pattern" that is learned by the CNS.
Point Number 2
There are few to NO machines that train all the muscles of a specific "muscle/joint" system through a complete ROM.
For example you mentioned the Leg Extension or Knee Extension, but that exercise "does not" train the all the knee extensors through their full range. The Rectus Femoris is not trained through its full range, on these machines. The RF is only trained through its full range, if it starts in full stretch with the hip fully extended, which it is not on most Leg Ext. machines.
An Elbow Flexion or Bicep Curl machine "does not" train the bicep through its full range.
To do so ,the action would have to start with the bicep at "full stretch" with the upper arm well behind the body (like if you were doing curls lying on a flat bench) and finish the curl with the elbow over your head (Nautilus used to have a machine like that) with the bicep in the fully shortened position.
We can go through each machine and find that most "don't" have a full ROM.
So given that there are very few that do, would you say that partial ROM like we have is perfect? Or would you think that machines should be developed to actually train the muscles through their "full range"?
Regards,
John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA
|
|
