Productive Discussions-Explosive Exercise is pointless

[Guest guest]

Rob Barrese wrote:

Good point . Looking at the post I commented on it started with time

under tension. I would throw a couple things out there for discussion.

The relative speed of the bar will move slow because you are overcoming

700lb rather than 135lb. I would think we could agree that at maximal lifts

such as this the body is seeing maximal motor recruitment? Or maximal

stimulation of all working muscle groups?

If this is the case and 700lb is " heavy " relative to the individual then

they could not lift it more than 1, 2, or 3 times? lets say 700lb is my

maximal lift and it takes me 10-15 seconds to perform the lift. Would this

be an appropriate time under tension for a single set? What time under

tension would you require to feel a set is appropriate?

Casler writes:

Hi Rob,

I find the concept of TUT and TUL (time under tension and time under load) a

bit confusing and underwhelming as a training element/quantifier. It would

be equivalent to TOTR (Time On The Road) in travel, since it is meaningless

without the quantifiers of speed, distance, and load. If we want to get

really technical, then we want to measure or compute " Average Work/Power, or

Average Muscle Tension, or even MMMT Momentary Maximum Muscle Tension, it is

pertinent to our goals, and understanding the force/time relationships

during a rep or group of reps.

While this can have value, why waste time looking for a new element of

expression, when a more accurate formula called " WORK " or " POWER " tells you

as much or more about what your musculature is doing to move itself, or

affect an external load.

This might also be another example of why HIT in its Classic Form is not

taken seriously. It has rebadged terms like TUT, TUL, Failure, Turnarounds,

Inroad, and any number of terms that are used to replace known terms like

Power, Work, Rep Maximum, SSC Transitions, Fatigue, etc..

Rob Barrese wrote:

Another thought I'd like to throw out is The " Strength Continuum. " Over

the years it has become evident that some people buy into this and others

disavow it. What are your thoughts on the idea that strength, power and

endurance are all expressions of each other?

Casler writes:

Strength (or muscular strength) is the ability of the bodies muscles to

create and exert FORCE.

Power is the expression of strength/force to perform work.

Endurance is an ability to maintain power or work expression over time.

There certainly is a continuation of and blending of these qualities, and

each has affect on the other.

Rob Barrese wrote:

When taking a set to fatigue, refusal or MMF (momentary muscular fatigue),

the goal would be to engage the individual to contract the muscle in an

explosive or powerful fashion. I am NOT referring to single sets but rather

one set within a workout. For example on a bench press if it becomes clear

the individual is reaching fatigue you would prompt them to produce as many

additional reps as possible until it is clear they are not able. This is a

difficult condition to describe since it is relative to the person and your

knowledge of their lifting ability.

Do you see a Neuromuscular adaptation occurring in such a situation. That

is the person begins an exercise explosively (but under relative control of

the implement) and becomes more explosive as the exercise gets harder? This

would include good coaching though to maintain good form and engage effort

on the part of the lifter. What are your thoughts on this?

Casler writes:

I prefer to look at a set as NOT going to " failure " but to Rep Maximum, or

Personal Record. This is not insurance to progress as some think, since if

you only perform a single set to Rep Maximum, you will eventually not be

able to create an overload stimulus.

That is why multiple sets are eventually needed to allow you to distribute

the stimulus and the ability to overload the body adequately, to cause SAID

(Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand). This is what I call DIRECT or

CORRESPONDING COMPENSATION, which differs from the concept of SUPER

COMPENSATION, in that the adaptation is in a DIRECT or CORRESPONDING

relationship to the stimulus, rather than a " seeming " OVER or SUPER

Adaptation.

While the element of " intensity " can be applied to any part of a rep, rep,

group of reps, complete set, set, workout, or training cycle, the inclusion

of higher levels and larger amounts of " intensity " as a training component

will tend to create the greater stimulus, for strength and power goals.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA