wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Feb 14, 2011 12:48:53 GMT -8
Get what you mean big time about barbell being better than machines, but thats not this debate. And get you where the load should be diffrent for my tests, dammed I thought I was being very fair to have both the same weight. But will have to think about this more, and think of a new test. Hi John, But tell me this all, why does not the slow rep flatten the clay out so much than, as you all claim the average forces are the same, if they were they would and should all even out in the long run, and when the fast reps are decelerating and not using much force, the slow rep are still using their medium force, thus they should catch up and flatten out the clay as much as the fast reps, but they do not do they Wayne It is a flawed experiment without knowing what level of plasticity causes deformation. However if you try it and get your anticipated result, it is likely because of higher peak forces causing greater deformations. As well if you perfrom more reps, that too will increase eother the time or number of cycles integral to cause deformation. Hmm, that’s what someone else just said on the physics forum, as I want an independate thought, too which I wrote the below. However I can not see that, say you are bench pressing with the clay between your hands and the barbell, the clay will now act/flatten throughout the range of motion, if there is a low force, median force, high force or peak force, thus the clay will take all forces on it like the muscles are, thus the clay is showing all the exact same tensions the muscles will, will it not So if I am correct, and please state if and where you think I am not, as I know you will. If the average forces were the same, the clay should flatten the same, as when the weight is decelerating on the faster reps, but it does not flatten out the clay as much, the slow reps do not make up for what they lost to the faster reps in the first half or more of the range of motion, from the peak and high forces. My point is that in the faster reps, the peak forces, and not just the peak force, but also the peak force and the higher high force in the first 10 to 70% of the range of motion, are FAR higher than the forces that are in the slow rep when the fast rep is decelerating. And this would also apply to reps like 2 reps at 5/5 and 1 at 10/10. As the faster you move the weight up against gravity and air resistance, the more you will flatten the clay like with G-force. As I said, THEREFORE, does that mean the average forces are NOT the same. I say the average forces cannot be the same, as the high higher forces, and the higher peak forces, {peak forces, the forces on the second and conceding repetitions, as of the transition from eccentric to concentric} are far greater total force. 100 = 20, or 25% more than 80, and again, 100 = 20 or 25% more than 80, and again, 100 = 20 or 25% more than 80. Or second rep, 140 = 60 or 75% more than 100, then 100 = 20, or 25% more than 80, and again, 100 = 20 or 25% more than 80, thus I cannot see how the forces are the same. And impulse is higher. Fast and slow repetition/s, {split up into 5 segments, concentric only} 100, 100, 100, 80, 20. {Second fast rep 140, 100, 100, 60, zero} Slow rep, 80, 80, 80, 80, 80. The averages are/seem the same, but the peak forces are higher. That is a rough estimate. The below is sort of like the above. I am looking at the reps split into 5 segments, but looking at the second rep of the faster reps, as it has the peak forces. Slow rep 80, fast rep 140, fast = 60 or 75% more for the fast rep. Slow rep 80, fast rep 100 = 20 or 25% more for the fast rep. Slow rep 80, fast rep 100 = 20 or 25% more for the fast rep. So the high and peak forces are 100 or 125% more on the fast reps. As I do not think we need to count up the last two segments, as the slow reps are just using the force of the weight. And the fast reps I think are using less force than the weight. Or maybe we have to count them, but not thought enough about this part yet. I find it odd that we can easy measure the Power, but not the force. www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3137680#post3137680Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Feb 16, 2011 6:02:44 GMT -8
D. seems to thing energy is used diffrentey on the vertical ??? How can D. know and say we all agree that the faster reps use more power {work energy} but then think/say that, I quote D. No dammit. When same average force is applied for the same duration the energy expended is ALWAYS the same. I feel I'm having deza-vu's with the "intelligent" discussion with Wayne. He said thought this before ??? Wayne wrote; D. you are not right. AS MORE {ENERGY CALORIES} ARE USED IN THE FASTER {SHORTER DURATION} RUN {REP} 1, Time ran 1 hour, Bodyweight 130 pounds Running, 10 mph (6 min mile) 944 {calories} 10 mile ran 944 {calories} Work done 10 miles = 10mph = 10 miles in 1 hour = 944 {energy calories} 2, Time ran 1 hour, Bodyweight 130 Running, 5 mph (12 min mile) 472 {calories} Work done 10 miles = 5mph = 10 miles in 2 hours = 944 {energy calories} www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htmWsyne wrote; D. you said that you use the same energy {calories} was used doing the same work for the same speeds, this is NOT true, 10 miles = 10mph = 10 miles in 1 hour = 944 {energy calories} 10 miles = 5mph = 10 miles in 2 hours = 944 {energy calories} Note the 10mph used MORE {double} the {energy calories} That the 5mph did the same time frame This is right D. and you are wrong. Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Feb 17, 2011 16:22:56 GMT -8
Yes you are right John, I do understand what more power {work energy} means to training, {as you wrote on Ellington’s site} far far far more multiple forces/tensions to the muscles in the same time frame. What I keep imagining is, a weight on your hands, and the harder/faster you push, the more it presses back into your hand, that’s what’s happening when you rep faster, more force equals more tensions to the muscles, it’s so simple even a child could see this.
Sorry again to have been a pain, it was not really meant at all, I am not the type to be what I might have sounded like. A VERY big thank you for the education, and even more the muscle and strength. I might get a few good photos on me done soon and post them.
Enjoy reading all you write on Ellington, Supertraining and a few other forums. Ho, I have posted a bit more on the Physics forum again, dammed funny how D. does not get it, as he’s very bright, but maybe he’s gone too far now.
Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Feb 19, 2011 11:50:46 GMT -8
I am enjoying the debate over at Ellington’s.
D. is/was contradicting himself on {power {work energy} energy used, as now he saying other ??? He’s a great guy, but cannot understand how he is getting the work energy wrong, what is he thinking that’s different in vertical and horizontal, but must use more power {energy work} if you move faster and it the motion more times in the same time frame. He did seem to think that you get energy back when you lower ???
Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Feb 25, 2011 14:48:00 GMT -8
D. you are not reading what john is writing and what I have been trying to tell you in my crude way, stop thinking pure physics, you have to add in biomechanics. First try and understand the difference between free weights and machines, and why free weights are better in so many ways. Give you a clue, when the muscles encounter a biomechanical disadvantage, the muscles will then have to try and put out a higher force, this in turn puts out a higher tension on the muscles, it does this many times in a rep, and many many many more times in a set. And it’s not just that, there are the biomechanical advantages, the transition from negative to positive, and the free movement of the free weights, and stats only the start, and if you understand that, you might then see how your pure physics without biomechanics is so wrong its a crime. I thought that to make it fair, the load would have to be the same, however, but I am not sure of this yet, have not thought it out long enough yet. However, I think it will have to be for distance of the ROM for each reps, and then add in time.
So if I was going to do 8 reps at .5/.5 I would use say 85 to 90% = 16 seconds. Then when doing 8 reps at 3/3 I would not be able to use as much, more like 60 to 70% = 48 seconds. Now we know that the average force will be higher in the faster reps, as well as the higher high forces, {high high forces means the forces after the peak forces} and the higher peak forces in the transition from negative to positive, and remember there will be 7 of these.
Then you will say, yes but I have TUT on my side. Well after that 16 seconds, basically the faster muscle fibers {the ones with most of the potential for growth} will be out of fuel, thus your basically over working, or working the wrong muscle fibers, the slow muscle fibers, and your also still using the fast muscle fibers, but working them in such a wrong way that you’re doing more harm than good. It is like going for a marathon run, and four days later trying to beast you 8RM squat.
However, leaving all that aside, if I was doing my 8 x 8 I would use say 80 to 85% and have 15 seconds rest in-between sets = 64 seconds, which has higher average force, higher high force, and higher peak forces, and all this directed on the faster muscle fibers, working the slow ones just as hard as of the more sets. Alternatively, if I was doing Johns program, I would use ??? 65% for 30 rep = 30 seconds, rest 5 minutes add 25% so now we use 81% for 15 reps = 15 seconds, rest 5 minutes add 15% so now we use 93% for 10 reps, and will finish off reducing the load and doing another 20 reps. All in all 75 seconds, which also has higher average force, higher high force, and higher peak forces, and all this directed on the faster muscle fibers, working the slow ones just as hard as of the more sets.
ITS wrong to use the same load, as we would not be in real life, and the study/test we are doing is real life, mind you were still very worn about that, as my higher high forces, and higher peak forces were far far far higher in percentage than your forces, which you could not answer or admit to when I showed you in the above.
Thats then multable high force tensions to the muscles, no wonder I do not have sticking points any more.
Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Mar 11, 2011 15:04:33 GMT -8
Hi John, First loving the debates over at Ellington’s. You have you hands full, what gets me is why some do not get what your saying. Second you may like the last 2/3 pages over at the Physics forum. I did just quote you, but “please” it’s not out of context, well please take a look, if you want me to remove it please say, as you did answer my on this your forum, I definitely do not want to get on the wrong side of you again. You will be glad to hear that’s about the only thing I will ever quote from you again, I know far better now, and its far better all round if I debate using my own thoughts and writings. www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3182678#post3182678I still for the life of me do not understand why D. thinks you use the same energy doing 6 reps at .5/.5 1m each way, = 6 seconds and 12m distance coved. And doing 1 rep at 3/3 1m each way, = 6 seconds and 2m distance coved. So if use more energy, you must be using more muscle activity = more work = more force/strength. Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Mar 13, 2011 15:29:56 GMT -8
Hi there D. and all,
First have to commended you on being more than a Gentleman, ok we both had our little leg pulling, that got a little too much at times, but well in a debate like this and for so long, well !!! And I do take my hat off to you for what you said. As to be honest, I thought you might to in the debate to long and deep, as that whatever the outcome you might not have been able to say what you have, big thx there. I suppose its and easy mistake, I mean you know far more about physics than me, just you were looking at one thing, the average force to much maybe ??? Who knows. Also my bad Grammar, way of putting things did not help, and my long posts.
Second, however, its been more than a fascinating and interesting debate to say the least, the things I have learnt made it all so worthwhile and better. Also on looking things up on the net I often got sidetracked, and started reading up and learning many different things, ho, and my physics is better, not that much ROL. Actually my physics is very good, its just I find it had to write things and say things, but no, I cannot tell what most of the equations are or mean, I mean people need to spend a lot of time learning that.
Next, I will write a little more on the outcome.
Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Mar 13, 2011 16:09:12 GMT -8
Not sure about the distance, work ??? As the point I did make thought this debate, was that I moved the weight 12m to your 2m in the same time frame, {as all know its not a straight 12m to 2m, as its a set of reps up and down, so its not at all that simple} and that the only time you would use the same energy is when you done the same work, covered the same distance, as in the running example. And as I was travelling faster I would have higher highs and higher peaks. But anyway who cears.
That’s what I thought, as of the higher highs and high peak forces, but if the constant medium force cannot balance out the high and low forcers, is it really the same average forces ???
I do just about get your average force is not the same on running, mind you, it’s confusing me again now, mind you it’s getting late here. So your saying that the average force are the same on the fast and slow rep because I have to use a percentage of my faster rep for the deceleration, and thats where my forces drop very low, “however” dammed its late and I am tiered should not have started this now, most probably I will get it in the morning, however, you say the average forces are not the same on running, but what if I sprinted a 100m and had to stop on the 100m, would not the average forces be the same then ???
But then again look at this,
10 miles = 10mph = 10 miles in 1 hour = 944 {energy calories} 5 miles = 5mph = 5 miles in 1 hours = 472 {energy calories}
Both are done in the same time frame like the reps, and the 10mph must or could have a decelerating phase, but if it did, it would only be a few metiers and only take a few seconds, but the energy is twice as much, so how could that little deceleration phase make such a difference ???
Or am I getting this wrong or missing something as of the time here ???
10 miles = 5mph = 10 miles in 2 hours = 944 {energy calories}
Right, as also there are far more things to take into consideration than just the average force, like; Energy Expenditure and Nutrient Oxidation will and have been established in a room calorimetry. Many Statistics will be measured eg; Heart rate, oxygen consumption, fat consumption, protein consumption and carbohydrate consumption, to determine the effects of exercise at different intensities.
Yes, I say.
Yes the weight has to be around 70 or 80% of the persons RM.
Fascinating debate all the way for my. Actually as I said all along, the debate for me was not about the best way to train, but which rep/s got the most power, work, energy, force, and tension to the muscles with the same weight in the same time frame.
I am going to say, write a little more why we do use more energy in the faster reps tomorrow, but anyone please feel free to do that before me you have any thoughts on this.
Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Mar 14, 2011 15:17:34 GMT -8
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Mar 14, 2011 15:30:07 GMT -8
www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3188110&posted=1#post3188110Just the last few pages might interest you. Have to say a big thank you to all the people here that have helped. As looking at the two other forums we are debating on, seems that my friend D. is going more to the side that the faster reps must use more energy. This is what I said. Therefore, if more energy is used on the faster reps, and in this example I will just say the reps are twice as fast. So we have 100 pounds moved up 1m and down 1m, twice in 2 seconds = 4m. We then have 100 pounds moved up 1m and down 1m, one time in 2 seconds = 2m. I would say the faster rep uses twice the amount of energy. I would also say, that because twice the amount of energy was used, was because there was more muscle activity, meaning the higher high forces, and the higher peak forces uses far far far more energy in the same time frame as the slower rep. As it needs to use more energy and higher high forces and higher peak forces to cover twice the distance in the same time frame. Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Apr 4, 2011 13:43:18 GMT -8
Ok, what about this idea John or anyone. By the way John, D. did actually admit that he was wrong and the faster reps use more energy, just cannot see why he could not see that at the start. I also said the same thing to D. that you said on Ellington’s forum, that when doing the faster reps, you use that average force far far far more times. Imagine giant Butterflies, one Butterfly flaps their wings once up for a height of 3m, taking 3 seconds, and then flaps them down for 3m, taking 3 seconds. Thus one flap in 6 seconds. The Butterfly moves up in the air 3m. The Butterfly, flaps their wings once up for a height of 3m, taking .5 of second, and then flaps them down for 3m, taking .5 of a second. Thus does six flaps in 6 seconds. The Butterfly moves up in the air 18m. A force is something that causes a object to undergo a change in speed, thus the most force for the same time frame, and the object undergoes more of a change in speed “thus covers more distance in the same time frame” right ??? So the second Butterfly did more physical work, thus must have produced MORE force/strength to move their wings, to move their whole bodies faster at more speed coving more distance. Butterfly one, did not produce as much force/strength in the same time frame, thus did not move so fast with as much speed, thus coved less distance. Would you think I am right or wrong ??? If wrong, how can Butterfly one not move as fast, with less speed, coving less distance if it used the same force/strength in the same time frame ??? As a force is something that causes a object to undergo a change in speed, thus the most force for the same time frame, and the object undergoes more of a change in speed “thus covers more distance in the same time frame” right ??? forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=124113491&page=31Wayne
|
|