Re: Strength and Cross Sectional Area

[Guest guest]

I was considering doing a study on the cross sectional area to strength ratio a

couple of years ago and I found several studies that supported the idea, even

though the results of the studies varied. Some studies had subjects had force to

cross sectional area of twice the other subjects and they used it to support the

believe that their is a relationship. Look at what some lightweight

weightlifters and powerlifters can do and than compare that to the average gym

member or football players and it should be all the proof anyone needs to say

their is not a set relationship between cross sectional area and force

production.

 

Rob Haan

Cincinnati OH

Subject: Strength and Cross Sectional Area

To: Supertraining

Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 12:21 PM

Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a factor of

muscle mass. From my own training and the training of others I know that a

person can get strong; really strong; without bulking up or gaining a lot of

muscle mass - but are there any studies that prove this?

===============================

[Guest guest]

I was considering doing a study on the cross sectional area to strength ratio a

couple of years ago and I found several studies that supported the idea, even

though the results of the studies varied. Some studies had subjects had force to

cross sectional area of twice the other subjects and they used it to support the

believe that their is a relationship. Look at what some lightweight

weightlifters and powerlifters can do and than compare that to the average gym

member or football players and it should be all the proof anyone needs to say

their is not a set relationship between cross sectional area and force

production.

 

Rob Haan

Cincinnati OH

Subject: Strength and Cross Sectional Area

To: Supertraining

Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 12:21 PM

Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a factor of

muscle mass. From my own training and the training of others I know that a

person can get strong; really strong; without bulking up or gaining a lot of

muscle mass - but are there any studies that prove this?

===============================

[Guest guest]

No. Its a proven fact CSA contributes to expression of absolute

strength. This does not contradict the fact that , for a certain CSA,

you can amass very high levels of strength, indeed.

But what you ask is useless. No study required. Simply look at the

top level records in weightlifting and powerlifting. Compare the

totals (or indidividual results) to the weight category.

You need no better study than the one I indicated to you. Elite

athletes, weighted before competitions, lifting on the platform.

You cannot reproduce this in a research setting to easy from obvious

reasons, but you also dont need to.

If you weight 75Kg , would it look fair to you to be forced to compete

with super heavy giants ? Tell you what, my prediction would be that

you can kiss goodbye to any chance whatsoever to step on the winners

podium.

That being said, most of the ppl (except advanced athletes), are less

strong than the CSA they poses would allow theoretically.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

>

> Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a

factor of

> muscle mass. From my own training and the training of others I know

that a

> person can get strong; really strong; without bulking up or gaining

a lot of

> muscle mass - but are there any studies that prove this?

>

> Edwin Freeman, Jr.

> San Francisco, USA

>

[Guest guest]

No. Its a proven fact CSA contributes to expression of absolute

strength. This does not contradict the fact that , for a certain CSA,

you can amass very high levels of strength, indeed.

But what you ask is useless. No study required. Simply look at the

top level records in weightlifting and powerlifting. Compare the

totals (or indidividual results) to the weight category.

You need no better study than the one I indicated to you. Elite

athletes, weighted before competitions, lifting on the platform.

You cannot reproduce this in a research setting to easy from obvious

reasons, but you also dont need to.

If you weight 75Kg , would it look fair to you to be forced to compete

with super heavy giants ? Tell you what, my prediction would be that

you can kiss goodbye to any chance whatsoever to step on the winners

podium.

That being said, most of the ppl (except advanced athletes), are less

strong than the CSA they poses would allow theoretically.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

>

> Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a

factor of

> muscle mass. From my own training and the training of others I know

that a

> person can get strong; really strong; without bulking up or gaining

a lot of

> muscle mass - but are there any studies that prove this?

>

> Edwin Freeman, Jr.

> San Francisco, USA

>

[Guest guest]

Define 'strong'.

:^)

Anytime you are talking about training and adaptation you are talking

about movement. A person can get skilled in a movement through

training and display more apparent strength (ie - use more resistance

in the movement) - but are they really 'stronger'? Or are they more

skilled?

Wrestlers face this all the time. I've heard them refer to someone as

'weight-room strong' - meaning they are strong in the weight room, but

not on the mat.

Personally I think as you do - it is possible to display more strength

without getting bulkier. This is through skilled adaptations - inter-

muscular and intra-muscular coordination, neural firing patterns and

reduction of inhibitors such as the GTO. But at some point the ability

of contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play as

well.

Much of the off-mat training for a wrestler I recommend is looking at

common movement patterns required for wrestling and developing skill

in those movements. Hip extension is a good example. So doing cleans

is a good way of developing explosive hip extension.

If I were smart I'd take a matrix of movement patterns for wrestling

and then break down what is required in that movement - what type of

speed, strength and endurance - and train that.

Another good tenet is training the body to work together. Similar to

Dan 's 'the body is one piece' or Mike Bergener's 'Yes to the 4th

power'. However, having said that in wrestling sometimes the movement

is not explosive. There are times strength/endurance is required.

Hence the matrix.

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada

> Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a

> factor of

> muscle mass. From my own training and the training of others I know

> that a

> person can get strong; really strong; without bulking up or gaining

> a lot of

> muscle mass - but are there any studies that prove this?

>

> Edwin Freeman, Jr.

> San Francisco, USA

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Define 'strong'.

:^)

Anytime you are talking about training and adaptation you are talking

about movement. A person can get skilled in a movement through

training and display more apparent strength (ie - use more resistance

in the movement) - but are they really 'stronger'? Or are they more

skilled?

Wrestlers face this all the time. I've heard them refer to someone as

'weight-room strong' - meaning they are strong in the weight room, but

not on the mat.

Personally I think as you do - it is possible to display more strength

without getting bulkier. This is through skilled adaptations - inter-

muscular and intra-muscular coordination, neural firing patterns and

reduction of inhibitors such as the GTO. But at some point the ability

of contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play as

well.

Much of the off-mat training for a wrestler I recommend is looking at

common movement patterns required for wrestling and developing skill

in those movements. Hip extension is a good example. So doing cleans

is a good way of developing explosive hip extension.

If I were smart I'd take a matrix of movement patterns for wrestling

and then break down what is required in that movement - what type of

speed, strength and endurance - and train that.

Another good tenet is training the body to work together. Similar to

Dan 's 'the body is one piece' or Mike Bergener's 'Yes to the 4th

power'. However, having said that in wrestling sometimes the movement

is not explosive. There are times strength/endurance is required.

Hence the matrix.

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada

> Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a

> factor of

> muscle mass. From my own training and the training of others I know

> that a

> person can get strong; really strong; without bulking up or gaining

> a lot of

> muscle mass - but are there any studies that prove this?

>

> Edwin Freeman, Jr.

> San Francisco, USA

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Edwin Freeman, Jr. wrote:

Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a factor of

muscle mass. From my own training and the training of others I know that a

person can get strong; really strong; without bulking up or gaining a lot of

muscle mass - but are there any studies that prove this?

-----

Edwin,

The short answer: the role of CSA in force production varies with muscle action

speed.

Isometric or low-velocity strength is a function of muscle CSA (the number of

active sarcomeres " in parallel " ). Once the upper limit for specific muscle

tension has been developed [40-45 N/cm2 in trained athletes],

hypertrophy is required - especially in FT fibers - in order to

further increase force and speed production. In

terrestrial movements such as running or jumping, however, resistance usually

includes

the athlete's body mass and equipment.Actually it's difficult to find

examples of sports where high power outputs are not required to rapidly

accelerate, decelerate or achieve high velocities.The athlete's percentage of FT

motor

units, and ability to optimally activate and coordinate them, primarily

determine

these capabilities.

Here are some useful references that address the issue and cite some original

studies:

Edman

K.A.P. Contractile performance of

skeletal muscle fibres. In: Strength & Power in Sport (2nd

Edition), P.V. Komi (Editor).Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2003; pp. 114-133.

Komi

P.V., Rusko H., Vos J., Vihko V. Anaerobic performance capacity in athletes.

Acta

Physiologica Scandinavica 100(1): 107-114, 1977.

Plisk S.S. Speed,

agility, and speed-endurance development. In: T.R. Baechle & R.W. Earle

(Editors), Essentials

of Strength Training & Conditioning (3rd Edition). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics,

2008; pp.

457-485.

Siff

M.C. Supertraining (6th Edition).DenverCO: Supertraining Institute, 2003.

Tesch

P.A. et al. The influence of muscle metabolic

characteristics on physical performance. European Journal of Applied

Physiology 54(3): 237-243, 1985.

Thorstensson

A. Speed and acceleration. In: The

Olympic Book of Sports Medicine, A. Dirix, H.G. Knuttgen & K. Tittel

(Editors).Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1991; pp.

218-229.

Viru

A. Adaptation

in Sports Training.Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 1995.

Regards,

Plisk

Excelsior Sports •Shelton CT

www.excelsiorsports.com

Prepare To Be A Champion!

[Guest guest]

Edwin Freeman, Jr. wrote:

Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a factor of

muscle mass. From my own training and the training of others I know that a

person can get strong; really strong; without bulking up or gaining a lot of

muscle mass - but are there any studies that prove this?

-----

Edwin,

The short answer: the role of CSA in force production varies with muscle action

speed.

Isometric or low-velocity strength is a function of muscle CSA (the number of

active sarcomeres " in parallel " ). Once the upper limit for specific muscle

tension has been developed [40-45 N/cm2 in trained athletes],

hypertrophy is required - especially in FT fibers - in order to

further increase force and speed production. In

terrestrial movements such as running or jumping, however, resistance usually

includes

the athlete's body mass and equipment.Actually it's difficult to find

examples of sports where high power outputs are not required to rapidly

accelerate, decelerate or achieve high velocities.The athlete's percentage of FT

motor

units, and ability to optimally activate and coordinate them, primarily

determine

these capabilities.

Here are some useful references that address the issue and cite some original

studies:

Edman

K.A.P. Contractile performance of

skeletal muscle fibres. In: Strength & Power in Sport (2nd

Edition), P.V. Komi (Editor).Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2003; pp. 114-133.

Komi

P.V., Rusko H., Vos J., Vihko V. Anaerobic performance capacity in athletes.

Acta

Physiologica Scandinavica 100(1): 107-114, 1977.

Plisk S.S. Speed,

agility, and speed-endurance development. In: T.R. Baechle & R.W. Earle

(Editors), Essentials

of Strength Training & Conditioning (3rd Edition). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics,

2008; pp.

457-485.

Siff

M.C. Supertraining (6th Edition).DenverCO: Supertraining Institute, 2003.

Tesch

P.A. et al. The influence of muscle metabolic

characteristics on physical performance. European Journal of Applied

Physiology 54(3): 237-243, 1985.

Thorstensson

A. Speed and acceleration. In: The

Olympic Book of Sports Medicine, A. Dirix, H.G. Knuttgen & K. Tittel

(Editors).Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1991; pp.

218-229.

Viru

A. Adaptation

in Sports Training.Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 1995.

Regards,

Plisk

Excelsior Sports •Shelton CT

www.excelsiorsports.com

Prepare To Be A Champion!

[Guest guest]

Edwin Freeman, Jr. wrote:

Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a factor of

muscle mass. From my own training and the training of others I know that a

person can get strong; really strong; without bulking up or gaining a lot of

muscle mass - but are there any studies that prove this?

-----

Edwin,

The short answer: the role of CSA in force production varies with muscle action

speed.

Isometric or low-velocity strength is a function of muscle CSA (the number of

active sarcomeres " in parallel " ). Once the upper limit for specific muscle

tension has been developed [40-45 N/cm2 in trained athletes],

hypertrophy is required - especially in FT fibers - in order to

further increase force and speed production. In

terrestrial movements such as running or jumping, however, resistance usually

includes

the athlete's body mass and equipment.Actually it's difficult to find

examples of sports where high power outputs are not required to rapidly

accelerate, decelerate or achieve high velocities.The athlete's percentage of FT

motor

units, and ability to optimally activate and coordinate them, primarily

determine

these capabilities.

Here are some useful references that address the issue and cite some original

studies:

Edman

K.A.P. Contractile performance of

skeletal muscle fibres. In: Strength & Power in Sport (2nd

Edition), P.V. Komi (Editor).Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2003; pp. 114-133.

Komi

P.V., Rusko H., Vos J., Vihko V. Anaerobic performance capacity in athletes.

Acta

Physiologica Scandinavica 100(1): 107-114, 1977.

Plisk S.S. Speed,

agility, and speed-endurance development. In: T.R. Baechle & R.W. Earle

(Editors), Essentials

of Strength Training & Conditioning (3rd Edition). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics,

2008; pp.

457-485.

Siff

M.C. Supertraining (6th Edition).DenverCO: Supertraining Institute, 2003.

Tesch

P.A. et al. The influence of muscle metabolic

characteristics on physical performance. European Journal of Applied

Physiology 54(3): 237-243, 1985.

Thorstensson

A. Speed and acceleration. In: The

Olympic Book of Sports Medicine, A. Dirix, H.G. Knuttgen & K. Tittel

(Editors).Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1991; pp.

218-229.

Viru

A. Adaptation

in Sports Training.Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 1995.

Regards,

Plisk

Excelsior Sports •Shelton CT

www.excelsiorsports.com

Prepare To Be A Champion!

[Guest guest]

The comparison is bogus , from obvious reasons. A fallacy. You need to

compare ppl subjected to the same type of training, again, I think

from resons very clear to the members of the this forum.

Else, sooner or later, you will stop comparing football players to

weightlifters, and you will compare weightlifter elite with the next

door girl or boy. It doesn't work that way.

The fact that structural factors (like CSA) are a undeniable component

of the expression of human strength, does not mean other factors, as

for example neural factors are not as important as CSA for the

expression as strength.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

>

>

> Subject: Strength and Cross Sectional Area

> To: Supertraining

> Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 12:21 PM

>

> Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a

factor of

> muscle mass. From my own training and the training of others I know

that a

> person can get strong; really strong; without bulking up or gaining

a lot of

> muscle mass - but are there any studies that prove this?

>

> ===============================

>

[Guest guest]

The comparison is bogus , from obvious reasons. A fallacy. You need to

compare ppl subjected to the same type of training, again, I think

from resons very clear to the members of the this forum.

Else, sooner or later, you will stop comparing football players to

weightlifters, and you will compare weightlifter elite with the next

door girl or boy. It doesn't work that way.

The fact that structural factors (like CSA) are a undeniable component

of the expression of human strength, does not mean other factors, as

for example neural factors are not as important as CSA for the

expression as strength.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

>

>

> Subject: Strength and Cross Sectional Area

> To: Supertraining

> Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 12:21 PM

>

> Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a

factor of

> muscle mass. From my own training and the training of others I know

that a

> person can get strong; really strong; without bulking up or gaining

a lot of

> muscle mass - but are there any studies that prove this?

>

> ===============================

>

[Guest guest]

The comparison is bogus , from obvious reasons. A fallacy. You need to

compare ppl subjected to the same type of training, again, I think

from resons very clear to the members of the this forum.

Else, sooner or later, you will stop comparing football players to

weightlifters, and you will compare weightlifter elite with the next

door girl or boy. It doesn't work that way.

The fact that structural factors (like CSA) are a undeniable component

of the expression of human strength, does not mean other factors, as

for example neural factors are not as important as CSA for the

expression as strength.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

>

>

> Subject: Strength and Cross Sectional Area

> To: Supertraining

> Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 12:21 PM

>

> Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a

factor of

> muscle mass. From my own training and the training of others I know

that a

> person can get strong; really strong; without bulking up or gaining

a lot of

> muscle mass - but are there any studies that prove this?

>

> ===============================

>

[Guest guest]

Dr Plisk,

I would argue that in conditions of high speed (high speed -strength,

explosive strength), even neural components of absolute strength are

prevented from expressing totally in output.

I believe that different force time curves will differently allow

expression of max-strength in a specific movement. But is it mandated

to decouple CSA and neural factors in this case ? IMO, role of both

varies with muscle action speed.

Would you like to comment a bit on this?

Respectfully,

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

> Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a

factor of muscle mass. From my own training and the training of

others I know that a person can get strong; really strong; without

bulking up or gaining a lot of muscle mass - but are there any

studies that prove this?

> -----

>

> Edwin,

>

> The short answer: the role of CSA in force production varies with

muscle action speed.

>

> Isometric or low-velocity strength is a function of muscle CSA (the

number of active sarcomeres " in parallel " ). Once the upper limit for

specific muscle

> tension has been developed [40-45 N/cm2 in trained athletes],

> hypertrophy is required - especially in FT fibers - in order to

> further increase force and speed production. In

> terrestrial movements such as running or jumping, however,

resistance usually includes

> the athlete's body mass and equipment.Actually it's difficult to find

> examples of sports where high power outputs are not required to rapidly

> accelerate, decelerate or achieve high velocities.The athlete's

percentage of FT motor

> units, and ability to optimally activate and coordinate them,

primarily determine

> these capabilities.

>

> Here are some useful references that address the issue and cite some

original studies:

>

> Edman

> K.A.P. Contractile performance of

> skeletal muscle fibres. In: Strength & Power in Sport (2nd

> Edition), P.V. Komi (Editor).Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2003; pp.

114-133.

>

> Komi

> P.V., Rusko H., Vos J., Vihko V. Anaerobic performance capacity in

athletes. Acta

> Physiologica Scandinavica 100(1): 107-114, 1977.

>

> Plisk S.S. Speed,

> agility, and speed-endurance development. In: T.R. Baechle & R.W.

Earle (Editors), Essentials

> of Strength Training & Conditioning (3rd Edition). Champaign IL:

Human Kinetics, 2008; pp.

> 457-485.

>

> Siff

> M.C. Supertraining (6th Edition).DenverCO: Supertraining Institute,

2003.

>

> Tesch

> P.A. et al. The influence of muscle metabolic

> characteristics on physical performance. European Journal of Applied

> Physiology 54(3): 237-243, 1985.

>

> Thorstensson

> A. Speed and acceleration. In: The

> Olympic Book of Sports Medicine, A. Dirix, H.G. Knuttgen & K. Tittel

> (Editors).Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1991; pp.

> 218-229.

>

> Viru

> A. Adaptation

> in Sports Training.Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 1995.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Plisk

> Excelsior Sports •Shelton CT

> www.excelsiorsports.com

>

> Prepare To Be A Champion!

>

[Guest guest]

Dr Plisk,

I would argue that in conditions of high speed (high speed -strength,

explosive strength), even neural components of absolute strength are

prevented from expressing totally in output.

I believe that different force time curves will differently allow

expression of max-strength in a specific movement. But is it mandated

to decouple CSA and neural factors in this case ? IMO, role of both

varies with muscle action speed.

Would you like to comment a bit on this?

Respectfully,

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

> Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a

factor of muscle mass. From my own training and the training of

others I know that a person can get strong; really strong; without

bulking up or gaining a lot of muscle mass - but are there any

studies that prove this?

> -----

>

> Edwin,

>

> The short answer: the role of CSA in force production varies with

muscle action speed.

>

> Isometric or low-velocity strength is a function of muscle CSA (the

number of active sarcomeres " in parallel " ). Once the upper limit for

specific muscle

> tension has been developed [40-45 N/cm2 in trained athletes],

> hypertrophy is required - especially in FT fibers - in order to

> further increase force and speed production. In

> terrestrial movements such as running or jumping, however,

resistance usually includes

> the athlete's body mass and equipment.Actually it's difficult to find

> examples of sports where high power outputs are not required to rapidly

> accelerate, decelerate or achieve high velocities.The athlete's

percentage of FT motor

> units, and ability to optimally activate and coordinate them,

primarily determine

> these capabilities.

>

> Here are some useful references that address the issue and cite some

original studies:

>

> Edman

> K.A.P. Contractile performance of

> skeletal muscle fibres. In: Strength & Power in Sport (2nd

> Edition), P.V. Komi (Editor).Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2003; pp.

114-133.

>

> Komi

> P.V., Rusko H., Vos J., Vihko V. Anaerobic performance capacity in

athletes. Acta

> Physiologica Scandinavica 100(1): 107-114, 1977.

>

> Plisk S.S. Speed,

> agility, and speed-endurance development. In: T.R. Baechle & R.W.

Earle (Editors), Essentials

> of Strength Training & Conditioning (3rd Edition). Champaign IL:

Human Kinetics, 2008; pp.

> 457-485.

>

> Siff

> M.C. Supertraining (6th Edition).DenverCO: Supertraining Institute,

2003.

>

> Tesch

> P.A. et al. The influence of muscle metabolic

> characteristics on physical performance. European Journal of Applied

> Physiology 54(3): 237-243, 1985.

>

> Thorstensson

> A. Speed and acceleration. In: The

> Olympic Book of Sports Medicine, A. Dirix, H.G. Knuttgen & K. Tittel

> (Editors).Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1991; pp.

> 218-229.

>

> Viru

> A. Adaptation

> in Sports Training.Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 1995.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Plisk

> Excelsior Sports •Shelton CT

> www.excelsiorsports.com

>

> Prepare To Be A Champion!

>

[Guest guest]

Dr Plisk,

I would argue that in conditions of high speed (high speed -strength,

explosive strength), even neural components of absolute strength are

prevented from expressing totally in output.

I believe that different force time curves will differently allow

expression of max-strength in a specific movement. But is it mandated

to decouple CSA and neural factors in this case ? IMO, role of both

varies with muscle action speed.

Would you like to comment a bit on this?

Respectfully,

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

> Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a

factor of muscle mass. From my own training and the training of

others I know that a person can get strong; really strong; without

bulking up or gaining a lot of muscle mass - but are there any

studies that prove this?

> -----

>

> Edwin,

>

> The short answer: the role of CSA in force production varies with

muscle action speed.

>

> Isometric or low-velocity strength is a function of muscle CSA (the

number of active sarcomeres " in parallel " ). Once the upper limit for

specific muscle

> tension has been developed [40-45 N/cm2 in trained athletes],

> hypertrophy is required - especially in FT fibers - in order to

> further increase force and speed production. In

> terrestrial movements such as running or jumping, however,

resistance usually includes

> the athlete's body mass and equipment.Actually it's difficult to find

> examples of sports where high power outputs are not required to rapidly

> accelerate, decelerate or achieve high velocities.The athlete's

percentage of FT motor

> units, and ability to optimally activate and coordinate them,

primarily determine

> these capabilities.

>

> Here are some useful references that address the issue and cite some

original studies:

>

> Edman

> K.A.P. Contractile performance of

> skeletal muscle fibres. In: Strength & Power in Sport (2nd

> Edition), P.V. Komi (Editor).Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2003; pp.

114-133.

>

> Komi

> P.V., Rusko H., Vos J., Vihko V. Anaerobic performance capacity in

athletes. Acta

> Physiologica Scandinavica 100(1): 107-114, 1977.

>

> Plisk S.S. Speed,

> agility, and speed-endurance development. In: T.R. Baechle & R.W.

Earle (Editors), Essentials

> of Strength Training & Conditioning (3rd Edition). Champaign IL:

Human Kinetics, 2008; pp.

> 457-485.

>

> Siff

> M.C. Supertraining (6th Edition).DenverCO: Supertraining Institute,

2003.

>

> Tesch

> P.A. et al. The influence of muscle metabolic

> characteristics on physical performance. European Journal of Applied

> Physiology 54(3): 237-243, 1985.

>

> Thorstensson

> A. Speed and acceleration. In: The

> Olympic Book of Sports Medicine, A. Dirix, H.G. Knuttgen & K. Tittel

> (Editors).Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1991; pp.

> 218-229.

>

> Viru

> A. Adaptation

> in Sports Training.Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 1995.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Plisk

> Excelsior Sports •Shelton CT

> www.excelsiorsports.com

>

> Prepare To Be A Champion!

>

[Guest guest]

,

Interesting way to put it. " At some point " only will the ability

contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play as

well ????

Sorry , but the only way for a muscle to produce work is by getting

the contractile protein to work at the first place. They dont come

into play " at some point " . They are the **only** way to produce

mechanical force.

I think this problem is, in a popular form, best thought at in terms

of limiting factors.

For the sake of simplicity, we will talk now only about max-strength,

so we dont get too distracted by skill, force - velocity or force time

curves. Also, we will limit to a single joint system , again for the

sake of simplicity. Those simplifications will really not alter the

conclusions.

The primary force production apparatus is the muscle. Using in vitro

conditions, one can set very easily an experiment to measure the

maximum isometric contraction of the muscle. Its also simple to show

that largest the CSA, largest the maximum isometric contraction.

In vivo, things are a little more different. When we will measure

maximum voluntary contraction of a the homologous muscle with the same

CSA , we will notice a lower force then the idealized one measured in

vitro. This is because a lot of other factors came into play, and

suffice to limit ourselves to neural factors which affect expression

of strength. Those factors are in the case, limiting factors. A

increase in CSA will not yield a important modification of the output

, because the output is limited be neural components which affect the

expression of strength.

But this means only one thing : that currently in the force output of

said organism neural factors are the limiting factors. It doesn't say

anything about the how force output is modulated by CSA by obvious

reasons.

As a childish analogy, a 370hp engine in a car can be very effectively

limited by the fear of the driver to press the pedal to the metal.

Would you draw any conclusions on the power of the engine of a Ferrai

because you seen it driven by a idiot who was afraid to accelerate it

more than 50km/h in 10 seconds ?

The fact that CSA modulates expression of strength is the very reason

weight categorizes exist, in sports where result is dependent by

max-strength , or strength-speed. Powerlifting and weightlifting are

the obvious examples.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

> Personally I think as you do - it is possible to display more strength

> without getting bulkier. This is through skilled adaptations - inter-

> muscular and intra-muscular coordination, neural firing patterns and

> reduction of inhibitors such as the GTO. But at some point the ability

> of contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play as

> well.

[Guest guest]

,

Interesting way to put it. " At some point " only will the ability

contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play as

well ????

Sorry , but the only way for a muscle to produce work is by getting

the contractile protein to work at the first place. They dont come

into play " at some point " . They are the **only** way to produce

mechanical force.

I think this problem is, in a popular form, best thought at in terms

of limiting factors.

For the sake of simplicity, we will talk now only about max-strength,

so we dont get too distracted by skill, force - velocity or force time

curves. Also, we will limit to a single joint system , again for the

sake of simplicity. Those simplifications will really not alter the

conclusions.

The primary force production apparatus is the muscle. Using in vitro

conditions, one can set very easily an experiment to measure the

maximum isometric contraction of the muscle. Its also simple to show

that largest the CSA, largest the maximum isometric contraction.

In vivo, things are a little more different. When we will measure

maximum voluntary contraction of a the homologous muscle with the same

CSA , we will notice a lower force then the idealized one measured in

vitro. This is because a lot of other factors came into play, and

suffice to limit ourselves to neural factors which affect expression

of strength. Those factors are in the case, limiting factors. A

increase in CSA will not yield a important modification of the output

, because the output is limited be neural components which affect the

expression of strength.

But this means only one thing : that currently in the force output of

said organism neural factors are the limiting factors. It doesn't say

anything about the how force output is modulated by CSA by obvious

reasons.

As a childish analogy, a 370hp engine in a car can be very effectively

limited by the fear of the driver to press the pedal to the metal.

Would you draw any conclusions on the power of the engine of a Ferrai

because you seen it driven by a idiot who was afraid to accelerate it

more than 50km/h in 10 seconds ?

The fact that CSA modulates expression of strength is the very reason

weight categorizes exist, in sports where result is dependent by

max-strength , or strength-speed. Powerlifting and weightlifting are

the obvious examples.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

> Personally I think as you do - it is possible to display more strength

> without getting bulkier. This is through skilled adaptations - inter-

> muscular and intra-muscular coordination, neural firing patterns and

> reduction of inhibitors such as the GTO. But at some point the ability

> of contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play as

> well.

[Guest guest]

,

Interesting way to put it. " At some point " only will the ability

contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play as

well ????

Sorry , but the only way for a muscle to produce work is by getting

the contractile protein to work at the first place. They dont come

into play " at some point " . They are the **only** way to produce

mechanical force.

I think this problem is, in a popular form, best thought at in terms

of limiting factors.

For the sake of simplicity, we will talk now only about max-strength,

so we dont get too distracted by skill, force - velocity or force time

curves. Also, we will limit to a single joint system , again for the

sake of simplicity. Those simplifications will really not alter the

conclusions.

The primary force production apparatus is the muscle. Using in vitro

conditions, one can set very easily an experiment to measure the

maximum isometric contraction of the muscle. Its also simple to show

that largest the CSA, largest the maximum isometric contraction.

In vivo, things are a little more different. When we will measure

maximum voluntary contraction of a the homologous muscle with the same

CSA , we will notice a lower force then the idealized one measured in

vitro. This is because a lot of other factors came into play, and

suffice to limit ourselves to neural factors which affect expression

of strength. Those factors are in the case, limiting factors. A

increase in CSA will not yield a important modification of the output

, because the output is limited be neural components which affect the

expression of strength.

But this means only one thing : that currently in the force output of

said organism neural factors are the limiting factors. It doesn't say

anything about the how force output is modulated by CSA by obvious

reasons.

As a childish analogy, a 370hp engine in a car can be very effectively

limited by the fear of the driver to press the pedal to the metal.

Would you draw any conclusions on the power of the engine of a Ferrai

because you seen it driven by a idiot who was afraid to accelerate it

more than 50km/h in 10 seconds ?

The fact that CSA modulates expression of strength is the very reason

weight categorizes exist, in sports where result is dependent by

max-strength , or strength-speed. Powerlifting and weightlifting are

the obvious examples.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

> Personally I think as you do - it is possible to display more strength

> without getting bulkier. This is through skilled adaptations - inter-

> muscular and intra-muscular coordination, neural firing patterns and

> reduction of inhibitors such as the GTO. But at some point the ability

> of contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play as

> well.

[Guest guest]

Dan - good points. I wasn't very clear.

I meant at some point CSA is going to have to be increased to create

more force.

I agree with your analogy. If a person develops skill in movement by

maximizing neural components of coordination, timing and recruitment

and reducing inhibition both neurally and with antagonist motor units

than obviously contractile strength is going to have to be increased.

However, there are still some unanswered questions in this issue.

As I understand the current research there does appear to be question

of whether contractile strength (or at least contractile rate of force

development) can be increased by changed in fiber characteristics.

And there has been some discussion of sarcoplasmic versus myofibrillar

hypertrophy. Is CSA really the important distinction or can density

also be a factor?

I look forward to your thoughts on these issues.

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada

>

> ,

>

> Interesting way to put it. " At some point " only will the ability

> contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play as

> well ????

>

> Sorry , but the only way for a muscle to produce work is by getting

> the contractile protein to work at the first place. They dont come

> into play " at some point " . They are the **only** way to produce

> mechanical force.

>

> I think this problem is, in a popular form, best thought at in terms

> of limiting factors.

>

> For the sake of simplicity, we will talk now only about max-strength,

> so we dont get too distracted by skill, force - velocity or force time

> curves. Also, we will limit to a single joint system , again for the

> sake of simplicity. Those simplifications will really not alter the

> conclusions.

>

> The primary force production apparatus is the muscle. Using in vitro

> conditions, one can set very easily an experiment to measure the

> maximum isometric contraction of the muscle. Its also simple to show

> that largest the CSA, largest the maximum isometric contraction.

>

> In vivo, things are a little more different. When we will measure

> maximum voluntary contraction of a the homologous muscle with the same

> CSA , we will notice a lower force then the idealized one measured in

> vitro. This is because a lot of other factors came into play, and

> suffice to limit ourselves to neural factors which affect expression

> of strength. Those factors are in the case, limiting factors. A

> increase in CSA will not yield a important modification of the output

> , because the output is limited be neural components which affect the

> expression of strength.

>

> But this means only one thing : that currently in the force output of

> said organism neural factors are the limiting factors. It doesn't say

> anything about the how force output is modulated by CSA by obvious

> reasons.

>

> As a childish analogy, a 370hp engine in a car can be very effectively

> limited by the fear of the driver to press the pedal to the metal.

> Would you draw any conclusions on the power of the engine of a Ferrai

> because you seen it driven by a idiot who was afraid to accelerate it

> more than 50km/h in 10 seconds ?

>

> The fact that CSA modulates expression of strength is the very reason

> weight categorizes exist, in sports where result is dependent by

> max-strength , or strength-speed. Powerlifting and weightlifting are

> the obvious examples.

>

> Dan Partelly

> Oradea, Romania

>

>

>

> > Personally I think as you do - it is possible to display more

> strength

> > without getting bulkier. This is through skilled adaptations -

> inter-

> > muscular and intra-muscular coordination, neural firing patterns and

> > reduction of inhibitors such as the GTO. But at some point the

> ability

> > of contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play

> as

> > well.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dan - good points. I wasn't very clear.

I meant at some point CSA is going to have to be increased to create

more force.

I agree with your analogy. If a person develops skill in movement by

maximizing neural components of coordination, timing and recruitment

and reducing inhibition both neurally and with antagonist motor units

than obviously contractile strength is going to have to be increased.

However, there are still some unanswered questions in this issue.

As I understand the current research there does appear to be question

of whether contractile strength (or at least contractile rate of force

development) can be increased by changed in fiber characteristics.

And there has been some discussion of sarcoplasmic versus myofibrillar

hypertrophy. Is CSA really the important distinction or can density

also be a factor?

I look forward to your thoughts on these issues.

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada

>

> ,

>

> Interesting way to put it. " At some point " only will the ability

> contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play as

> well ????

>

> Sorry , but the only way for a muscle to produce work is by getting

> the contractile protein to work at the first place. They dont come

> into play " at some point " . They are the **only** way to produce

> mechanical force.

>

> I think this problem is, in a popular form, best thought at in terms

> of limiting factors.

>

> For the sake of simplicity, we will talk now only about max-strength,

> so we dont get too distracted by skill, force - velocity or force time

> curves. Also, we will limit to a single joint system , again for the

> sake of simplicity. Those simplifications will really not alter the

> conclusions.

>

> The primary force production apparatus is the muscle. Using in vitro

> conditions, one can set very easily an experiment to measure the

> maximum isometric contraction of the muscle. Its also simple to show

> that largest the CSA, largest the maximum isometric contraction.

>

> In vivo, things are a little more different. When we will measure

> maximum voluntary contraction of a the homologous muscle with the same

> CSA , we will notice a lower force then the idealized one measured in

> vitro. This is because a lot of other factors came into play, and

> suffice to limit ourselves to neural factors which affect expression

> of strength. Those factors are in the case, limiting factors. A

> increase in CSA will not yield a important modification of the output

> , because the output is limited be neural components which affect the

> expression of strength.

>

> But this means only one thing : that currently in the force output of

> said organism neural factors are the limiting factors. It doesn't say

> anything about the how force output is modulated by CSA by obvious

> reasons.

>

> As a childish analogy, a 370hp engine in a car can be very effectively

> limited by the fear of the driver to press the pedal to the metal.

> Would you draw any conclusions on the power of the engine of a Ferrai

> because you seen it driven by a idiot who was afraid to accelerate it

> more than 50km/h in 10 seconds ?

>

> The fact that CSA modulates expression of strength is the very reason

> weight categorizes exist, in sports where result is dependent by

> max-strength , or strength-speed. Powerlifting and weightlifting are

> the obvious examples.

>

> Dan Partelly

> Oradea, Romania

>

>

>

> > Personally I think as you do - it is possible to display more

> strength

> > without getting bulkier. This is through skilled adaptations -

> inter-

> > muscular and intra-muscular coordination, neural firing patterns and

> > reduction of inhibitors such as the GTO. But at some point the

> ability

> > of contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play

> as

> > well.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dan - good points. I wasn't very clear.

I meant at some point CSA is going to have to be increased to create

more force.

I agree with your analogy. If a person develops skill in movement by

maximizing neural components of coordination, timing and recruitment

and reducing inhibition both neurally and with antagonist motor units

than obviously contractile strength is going to have to be increased.

However, there are still some unanswered questions in this issue.

As I understand the current research there does appear to be question

of whether contractile strength (or at least contractile rate of force

development) can be increased by changed in fiber characteristics.

And there has been some discussion of sarcoplasmic versus myofibrillar

hypertrophy. Is CSA really the important distinction or can density

also be a factor?

I look forward to your thoughts on these issues.

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada

>

> ,

>

> Interesting way to put it. " At some point " only will the ability

> contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play as

> well ????

>

> Sorry , but the only way for a muscle to produce work is by getting

> the contractile protein to work at the first place. They dont come

> into play " at some point " . They are the **only** way to produce

> mechanical force.

>

> I think this problem is, in a popular form, best thought at in terms

> of limiting factors.

>

> For the sake of simplicity, we will talk now only about max-strength,

> so we dont get too distracted by skill, force - velocity or force time

> curves. Also, we will limit to a single joint system , again for the

> sake of simplicity. Those simplifications will really not alter the

> conclusions.

>

> The primary force production apparatus is the muscle. Using in vitro

> conditions, one can set very easily an experiment to measure the

> maximum isometric contraction of the muscle. Its also simple to show

> that largest the CSA, largest the maximum isometric contraction.

>

> In vivo, things are a little more different. When we will measure

> maximum voluntary contraction of a the homologous muscle with the same

> CSA , we will notice a lower force then the idealized one measured in

> vitro. This is because a lot of other factors came into play, and

> suffice to limit ourselves to neural factors which affect expression

> of strength. Those factors are in the case, limiting factors. A

> increase in CSA will not yield a important modification of the output

> , because the output is limited be neural components which affect the

> expression of strength.

>

> But this means only one thing : that currently in the force output of

> said organism neural factors are the limiting factors. It doesn't say

> anything about the how force output is modulated by CSA by obvious

> reasons.

>

> As a childish analogy, a 370hp engine in a car can be very effectively

> limited by the fear of the driver to press the pedal to the metal.

> Would you draw any conclusions on the power of the engine of a Ferrai

> because you seen it driven by a idiot who was afraid to accelerate it

> more than 50km/h in 10 seconds ?

>

> The fact that CSA modulates expression of strength is the very reason

> weight categorizes exist, in sports where result is dependent by

> max-strength , or strength-speed. Powerlifting and weightlifting are

> the obvious examples.

>

> Dan Partelly

> Oradea, Romania

>

>

>

> > Personally I think as you do - it is possible to display more

> strength

> > without getting bulkier. This is through skilled adaptations -

> inter-

> > muscular and intra-muscular coordination, neural firing patterns and

> > reduction of inhibitors such as the GTO. But at some point the

> ability

> > of contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play

> as

> > well.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Edwin,

There was a study done a while back showing a relationship between

differences in interleuking 15 receptors were associated with different

degrees of hypertrophy relative to strength gains. Some individuals will

experience less or more increase in CSA than others relative to strength

gain depending on this, and probably a lot of other factors.

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/6/2214

" Association of interleukin-15 protein and interleukin-15 receptor genetic

variation with resistance exercise training responses

E. Riechman,1 G. Balasekaran,1 M. Roth,2 and E.

Ferrell1

1Department of Human Genetics, Graduate School of Public Health, University

of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260; and 2Department of

Kinesiology, University of land, College Park, land 20742

Submitted 6 May 2004 ; accepted in final form 16 July 2004

Interleukin-15 (IL-15) is an anabolic cytokine that is produced in skeletal

muscle and directly affects muscle anabolism in animal and in vitro models.

The contribution of IL-15 variability in muscle responses to 10 wk of

resistance exercise training in young men and women was examined by

measuring acute and chronic changes in IL-15 protein in plasma and

characterizing genetic variation in the IL-15 receptor- gene (IL15RA).

Participants trained 3 days a week at 75% of one repetition maximum,

performing three sets (6–10 repetitions) of 13 resistance exercises. Plasma

IL-15 protein was significantly increased (P < 0.05) immediately after acute

resistance exercise but did not change with training and was not associated

with variability in muscle responses with training. A single nucleotide

polymorphism in exon 7 of IL15RA was strongly associated with muscle

hypertrophy and accounted for 7.1% of the variation in regression modeling.

A polymorphism in exon 4 was also independently associated with muscle

hypertrophy and accounted for an additional 3.5% of the variation in

hypertrophy. These results suggest that IL-15 is an important mediator of

muscle mass response to resistance exercise training in humans and that

genetic variation in IL15RA accounts for a significant proportion of the

variability in this response. "

My belief, based on my experience with clients and what I've read on the

subject, is that this varies significantly between individuals, and that for

X% strength increase two different people may experience significantly

different degrees of hypertrophy. This may be a part of the reason some

people are incredibly strong despite not appearing to be heavily muscled,

and why some very large bodybuilders are nowhere near as strong as they

appear. It is probably also part of the reason behind different opinions

regarding training for " strength " versus " size " . It is also my opinion that

the best way to try to become as muscular as possible is to simply try to

become as strong as possible, and that one's genetics will determine how big

you can get in relation to your strength increases.

Drew Baye

Orlando, FL

www.baye.com

> Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a

> factor of

> muscle mass. From my own training and the training of others I know that a

> person can get strong; really strong; without bulking up or gaining a lot

> of

> muscle mass - but are there any studies that prove this?

>

> Edwin Freeman, Jr.

> San Francisco, USA

[Guest guest]

Edwin,

There was a study done a while back showing a relationship between

differences in interleuking 15 receptors were associated with different

degrees of hypertrophy relative to strength gains. Some individuals will

experience less or more increase in CSA than others relative to strength

gain depending on this, and probably a lot of other factors.

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/6/2214

" Association of interleukin-15 protein and interleukin-15 receptor genetic

variation with resistance exercise training responses

E. Riechman,1 G. Balasekaran,1 M. Roth,2 and E.

Ferrell1

1Department of Human Genetics, Graduate School of Public Health, University

of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260; and 2Department of

Kinesiology, University of land, College Park, land 20742

Submitted 6 May 2004 ; accepted in final form 16 July 2004

Interleukin-15 (IL-15) is an anabolic cytokine that is produced in skeletal

muscle and directly affects muscle anabolism in animal and in vitro models.

The contribution of IL-15 variability in muscle responses to 10 wk of

resistance exercise training in young men and women was examined by

measuring acute and chronic changes in IL-15 protein in plasma and

characterizing genetic variation in the IL-15 receptor- gene (IL15RA).

Participants trained 3 days a week at 75% of one repetition maximum,

performing three sets (6–10 repetitions) of 13 resistance exercises. Plasma

IL-15 protein was significantly increased (P < 0.05) immediately after acute

resistance exercise but did not change with training and was not associated

with variability in muscle responses with training. A single nucleotide

polymorphism in exon 7 of IL15RA was strongly associated with muscle

hypertrophy and accounted for 7.1% of the variation in regression modeling.

A polymorphism in exon 4 was also independently associated with muscle

hypertrophy and accounted for an additional 3.5% of the variation in

hypertrophy. These results suggest that IL-15 is an important mediator of

muscle mass response to resistance exercise training in humans and that

genetic variation in IL15RA accounts for a significant proportion of the

variability in this response. "

My belief, based on my experience with clients and what I've read on the

subject, is that this varies significantly between individuals, and that for

X% strength increase two different people may experience significantly

different degrees of hypertrophy. This may be a part of the reason some

people are incredibly strong despite not appearing to be heavily muscled,

and why some very large bodybuilders are nowhere near as strong as they

appear. It is probably also part of the reason behind different opinions

regarding training for " strength " versus " size " . It is also my opinion that

the best way to try to become as muscular as possible is to simply try to

become as strong as possible, and that one's genetics will determine how big

you can get in relation to your strength increases.

Drew Baye

Orlando, FL

www.baye.com

> Does anyone on this forum have any studies on strength not being a

> factor of

> muscle mass. From my own training and the training of others I know that a

> person can get strong; really strong; without bulking up or gaining a lot

> of

> muscle mass - but are there any studies that prove this?

>

> Edwin Freeman, Jr.

> San Francisco, USA

[Guest guest]

,

thanks for the additional thoughts. Also, thanks for your earlier

response to my question regarding Casey Burgener.

Sure density is a factor. After all, production of force is determined

mainly by the contractile components of the muscle fibers.

But I think this is mainly genetic, and not the consequence of a

certain training protocol.

In the regard of sarcoplasmic vs myofibrylar hypertrophy. I dont

believe that a certain training protocol based on repetition range

would induce preferential up-regulation of protein synthesis in either

contractile and sarcoplasmic fraction. I seen many papers regarding

hypertrophy, and no one seems to support this preferential hypertrophy

type based on rep protocol.

Weightlifters are being many time indicated as a example of

myofibrilar hypertrophy, because they are so " small " compared to bb.

Yes, they are " small " , but you all did notice the very strong

development of their quads, present in most WLs, no ? If all their

muscles would be so hypertrophy like their quads, those guys would be

quite huge overall.

But the end result is of course determined of many other factors, for

example a certain rep protocol may determine in what type of muscle

fibers hypertrophy will occur, myosin heavy chain shifts, and so on...

As for a definitive answer to what degree muscle can change

phenotype, I still read every paper on this subject which gets in my

hand. Im not prepared yet to have an extensive discussion on it.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

> >

> > > Personally I think as you do - it is possible to display more

> > strength

> > > without getting bulkier. This is through skilled adaptations -

> > inter-

> > > muscular and intra-muscular coordination, neural firing patterns and

> > > reduction of inhibitors such as the GTO. But at some point the

> > ability

> > > of contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play

> > as

> > > well.

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

,

thanks for the additional thoughts. Also, thanks for your earlier

response to my question regarding Casey Burgener.

Sure density is a factor. After all, production of force is determined

mainly by the contractile components of the muscle fibers.

But I think this is mainly genetic, and not the consequence of a

certain training protocol.

In the regard of sarcoplasmic vs myofibrylar hypertrophy. I dont

believe that a certain training protocol based on repetition range

would induce preferential up-regulation of protein synthesis in either

contractile and sarcoplasmic fraction. I seen many papers regarding

hypertrophy, and no one seems to support this preferential hypertrophy

type based on rep protocol.

Weightlifters are being many time indicated as a example of

myofibrilar hypertrophy, because they are so " small " compared to bb.

Yes, they are " small " , but you all did notice the very strong

development of their quads, present in most WLs, no ? If all their

muscles would be so hypertrophy like their quads, those guys would be

quite huge overall.

But the end result is of course determined of many other factors, for

example a certain rep protocol may determine in what type of muscle

fibers hypertrophy will occur, myosin heavy chain shifts, and so on...

As for a definitive answer to what degree muscle can change

phenotype, I still read every paper on this subject which gets in my

hand. Im not prepared yet to have an extensive discussion on it.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

> >

> > > Personally I think as you do - it is possible to display more

> > strength

> > > without getting bulkier. This is through skilled adaptations -

> > inter-

> > > muscular and intra-muscular coordination, neural firing patterns and

> > > reduction of inhibitors such as the GTO. But at some point the

> > ability

> > > of contractile proteins to create force is going to come into play

> > as

> > > well.

> >

> >

> >

>