Variable Resistance Research

[Guest guest]

Hi guys;

I enthusiastically launched into the research I had presented to until

I realized how involved it is. So here is criminally short outline.

based his variable resistance profiles on;

1. The average of many isometric strength test points across the ROM and

2. Delormes belief that the fully contracted muscle position where the actin

myosin overlap is greatest requires the most resistance -- in spite of the

fact that fiber tension is least, lowest, marginal at this shortened phase.

He then mixed the 2 in his cauldron of maniacal supposition eventuating in a

resistance greatly amplified at the end of the positive rep. Ridiculous. Then

he postulated that using a weight that matched his dellusionary profile would

eventuate in only one rep asked the public to believe that using 75% of 1 rep

max provides the " momentary " resistance equal to the athletes " momentary "

strength. By his own standards the first concentric

rep resistance is 25% below momentary capacity -- not to mention potential

eccentric strength.

He then validated his beliefs by the most outrageous methods previously known

to the universe.

I presented him with my research that I performed on a research instrument I

designed and built, U. S. Patent 4,863,161. This research machine incorporated

an inertial mass, as the " base " resistance on a linear actuator and a pseudo

isokinetic static or dynamic hydraulic system to control for fluctuations in

DYNAMIC concentric and eccentric. all results were stored and expressed in real

time Remembering that A used isometric strength testing projected to

facilitate dynamic strength challenges -- I used ddynamic truly 'accommodating "

resistance to measure strength and provide a varying variable resistance for

training. University research at that time was isometric and or isokinetic. As

a matter of fact someone (Knapic?) even rationalized a way to prove that

athlete isokinetic and isometric strength curves were verifiable by each

protocol

as a function of the other.

My machine was microprocessor controlled -- adding and deleting resistance as

a function of " momentary " subject performance and my projections for that

testing session.

I found these results among many others,

1. there is no such thing as a standard force/strength profile for any

exercise. Strength profiles are artifacts of the loading protocols. I can

provide

residence that results in profiles radically different from one another. For

instance, for 1 protocol I first determined subject isometric strength at the

beginning of a bench press. I then provided that resistance at the start of a

dynamic rep - varying the resistance as function of rate of movement -- keeping

in mind that expressed strength is function of rate of movement, i.e., slower

is stronger -- wrong! (hyperbole) The 15° a second profile was dramatically

different then the 180° a second profile. As a function of position and force

the 180° curve exhibited much more force than the 15° a second curve. As a

function of force, position and time the 15° a second curve expressed much

greater

over all force.

2. Depending on the loading scheme, strength declines fastest at repetitions

end phases, obviously in contrast to initial phases -- all as function of

fatigue.

3. If resistance is provided efficiently eccentric and concentric strength

will decrease at the same relative rate -- not differentially as opined by

.

I used these results to provide actual varying variable resistance for

1. Machines US patent 5,344,374 and

2. TELLEKINETIC free weights principles by manipulating mechanical and

kinetic factors.

My resistance training premise was and still is;

The greatest gains in functional hypertrophy and hypertrophic strength are

realized when the muscle fibers are fatigued at as high a momentary fiber

tension as is sanely/safely possible to an extensive state of fatigue.

Results -- I can substantiate by current peer review assessments my training

concepts are in line with my premise. I believe these methods to be more

efficent than standard protocols -- how much? only god knows at this point. My

concepts certainly wont make mountains fom mole hills -- bigger mountains from

mountains -- but not mole hills.

Consider that an experienced athlete over te course of a year who gains 15%

in strength/hypertrophy with my principles and only 10% with others gains 50%

more with mine.

Sorry guys but that minuet bit of research trivia wore me out.

Ed wrote;

<<<I would also be very interested. I see a number of examples were variable

resistance is very effective. For example chain training for squats and bench

pressing.>>

Telle-- great discussion question. I need to reread these studies before I

can further contribute.

TELLEKINETICâ„¢ concept training suggests using bands at the start of the set

and removing them as the set progresses. This would address the athlete's

asymmetrical decay of strength throughout a set. Can be used for sets of 3-9

reps.

Singles don't, at first blush, seem amenable to this concept.

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA