Speed and Muscle Fiber Recruitment

[maverick]

I don't often post about new ideas in weight lifting cause I tend to think its all different versions of the same thing. But every now and again an article resonates and just makes sense. Chad Waterbury says a lot of those things that just make sense for me. His latest crusade is about emphasizing rep speed for max muscle fiber recruitment during a set while keeping unnecessary fatigue to a minimum. From an athletic standpoint, like I said, it just makes sense. Here's his latest article:

TESTOSTERONE NATION - The Secret to Motor Unit Recruitment=

And here's some past articles, including "Maximum Recruitment Training II" which includes an actual workout based around the theories (for those of you with no desire to erad all this):

TESTOSTERONE NATION - Maximum Recruitment Training I=
TESTOSTERONE NATION - Maximum Recruitment Training II=

Just curious what others here think, particularly those trying to balance a taxing athletic endeavor along with building or maintaining muscle.

[Big Mike]

definitely an interesting read. are you going to give that work out a try?

[maverick]

Its hard for me to commit even 3 days a week to weight training anymore, but I will be applying pretty much all of the given concepts to the workouts that I do get in. I've become a huge fan over the last year of the whole "target number of reps" to determine how many sets you do. The speed thing seems to fall in line with my current athletic training and it would be a great bonus if the proposed strength and muscle came with it. Plus it minimizes fatigue, which is crucial for me now as I am trying to up my work capacity.

[gcs118]

It sounds similar to some of the powerlifting articles I've read or heard about, promoting the 6x3 (his 8x3 sounds very similar). Also reminds me of DE and ME bench days, with the DE day to do like 9 sets of 3 as fast as you possibly can with minimal rest between, which trains you to push as hard as you can for ME day. I believe there is some truth to what he's saying.

[maverick]

He doesn't draw a line between ME and DE though. In a sense, everything in the workout is DE. Its just a matter of whether the weight you need to be moving quickly will fall in the heavy (4-6 rep), medium (10-14), or light (20-24) rep range.

[DarkLord]

Firstly I must say this is crap," If you want bigger calves you NEED TO train them often" NO NO NO! If ever you have lifted a weight you must have noticed that the negatvie phase (lowering) is easier than the postive phase. Speed of contraction is always important to eliminate momentum. I like to hit each of my workouts now by dipping into my reserve ability of muscular strength to get the best out of it. Full range of movement is crtical though if you want to use the most muscle fibres.

[gcs118]

Originally Posted by maverick

He doesn't draw a line between ME and DE though. In a sense, everything in the workout is DE.

Right. I was simply making a comparison I was familiar with, having similar principles. I don't doubt what he says, it's just a bit different than I have trained in the past.

[maverick]

Originally Posted by DarkLord

Firstly I must say this is crap," If you want bigger calves you NEED TO train them often" NO NO NO! If ever you have lifted a weight you must have noticed that the negatvie phase (lowering) is easier than the postive phase. Speed of contraction is always important to eliminate momentum. I like to hit each of my workouts now by dipping into my reserve ability of muscular strength to get the best out of it. Full range of movement is crtical though if you want to use the most muscle fibres.

Can you relate your comments to specific parts of the article? I'm having a hard time trying to understand what you are saying, if you are agreeing or disagreeing...

[Big Mike]

Originally Posted by maverick

He doesn't draw a line between ME and DE though. In a sense, everything in the workout is DE. Its just a matter of whether the weight you need to be moving quickly will fall in the heavy (4-6 rep), medium (10-14), or light (20-24) rep range.

When I first read it, I was thinking a WSBB variation all the way. I read it again and I came up with the same conclusion. There really isn't a distinct line between ME and DE in his ideology.

[DarkLord]

I'd say it's more 50/50, I partly agree with what's being stated and partly not.

Bump for some great info.

While I only read the first article, I have to agree with what was written. And I'm not familiar with West Side and therefore can't comment on any comparisons made between the two, but I've been training with some similar principals and find that it works.

[maverick]

I've been trying these workouts out for the last 2 weeks and I'm pretty intrigued. I think many of us did high(er) volume routines at one point then shifted to low(er) volume or even HIT routines and said to ourselves, "What's the point of high volume if I can drain myself in one set?" I think this routine answers that question and would be a great middle ground for low volume advocates to try and up their workload.

Instead of your "intensity" being measured by proximity to failure (or beyond), it is now measured in force output, which is a function of speed; speed being the cornerstone of the workout. In this respect, you can still work at high "intensity" without making multiple sets pointless by checking fatigue by aborting a set once your rep speed noticably decreases. This allows you to generate the fatigue necessary for muscle stimulation, but not so much that you are drained for your next set.

Oh, and those searching for a pump and burn (not me, but I know some of you are still reading "Flex" ), I've noticed that focusing on high rep speed creates a burn from the first or second rep. The theory behind that is that you are teacing your body to activate as many muscle fibers as possible from the start of your set. Whether or not that's the case will need further research by someone smarter and more dedicated than me, but for now, I'm convinced enough to spend some more time on this. It fits in with my other training goals and schedule also.

If I have one negative thing to say, its that judging your rep speed on heavy sets (4-6 rep) is tough, cause the first one ain't all that fast. I think a few more sessions and I'll have a better sense of it though. Be sure to check the ego on his one, carrying unnecessary fatigue into the second, third, fourth, etc... sets will kill you if you are forcing yourself to get more reps than you can get at a quick speed.

Read the first article. Makes sense to me. It's the way Oly lifters train. Low reps, perfect technique, explosion, speed, done. Works great with power cleans, high pulls, push presses, split jerks, the stuff that university strength and conditioning coaches put their football players and other athletes through.

Good young person stuff.

[Big Mike]

Here's is another good article, IMO, based on Power (ForcexDistance/Time). Makes sense with the equation given. To me, it adds another demension to the speed training article.

http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle....dra?id=1863140

[DarkLord]

Sounds, sound there Maverick about low volume workouts as they are of greater efficiency then high volume. Remember that you can train hard for short periods or you can train long for less intensity but merging the two is not possible. Over the course of several weeks now since changing my training to H.I.T, my strengths are really making great progress with my deadlifts getting stronger each week or two by one-to two reps on the lift. My back is really strengthening. This only works FOR ME and I will in NO WAY try and ram down anyones throat how much better you can get this that and the other out of it, but anyone struggling for mass and are out of options then this is a kicker but be ready for brutallity as the workouts are around 20-40mins.