The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
T-Cell Alpha
 
Things I Can't Prove, But Believe
 

Caveman
Level

Join date: Nov 2002
Posts: 213

WestCoast7 wrote:
Marzouk wrote:
I believe having a spotter makes you lift less. For example:

You may try to lift heavier than normal but because you have a spotter subconsciously you're more likely to rely on them to help before you fail.

Whereas if you did the same weight without a spotter i believe the fear of death will force you to push through and lift the weight.


I strongly disagree with this. If you have a great training partner, and you are both well aware of each others relative strength, I think having a spotter present helps you lift MORE.

One or two partials at the end of your heaviest sets can make all the difference in the world, and your definitely not going to be able to get those in if your on your own.

Having a great spotter = No fear of hurting yourself, thus you can exert every ounce of energy you have without having to worry about re-racking on your own.


A spotter is OK, once or twice every 6 months and not as a staple of your training. If you cant rack the weights.... what the fuck are you doing with them. And chances of getting hurt are the same with or without a spotter. Its just a spotter, not an oracle for muscle tear or whatever.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

deat
Level 3

Join date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1035

Caveman wrote:
WestCoast7 wrote:
Marzouk wrote:
I believe having a spotter makes you lift less. For example:

You may try to lift heavier than normal but because you have a spotter subconsciously you're more likely to rely on them to help before you fail.

Whereas if you did the same weight without a spotter i believe the fear of death will force you to push through and lift the weight.


I strongly disagree with this. If you have a great training partner, and you are both well aware of each others relative strength, I think having a spotter present helps you lift MORE.

One or two partials at the end of your heaviest sets can make all the difference in the world, and your definitely not going to be able to get those in if your on your own.

Having a great spotter = No fear of hurting yourself, thus you can exert every ounce of energy you have without having to worry about re-racking on your own.


A spotter is OK, once or twice every 6 months and not as a staple of your training. If you cant rack the weights.... what the fuck are you doing with them. And chances of getting hurt are the same with or without a spotter. Its just a spotter, not an oracle for muscle tear or whatever.


A spotter can:
1) Decrease the severity of a an injury (i.e. you tear your tricep benching and the bar wants to roll up to your neck/face, a spotter could help)
2) Provide assisted/forced reps, an advanced intensity training technique (as westcoast said)
3) Peace of mind (combination of 1) and 2)) when hitting big weights it is nice to have someone ready to help you if something goes wrong and to observe/coach your form if you're lucky.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

DoubleDuce
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 12623

deat wrote:
Caveman wrote:
WestCoast7 wrote:
Marzouk wrote:
I believe having a spotter makes you lift less. For example:

You may try to lift heavier than normal but because you have a spotter subconsciously you're more likely to rely on them to help before you fail.

Whereas if you did the same weight without a spotter i believe the fear of death will force you to push through and lift the weight.


I strongly disagree with this. If you have a great training partner, and you are both well aware of each others relative strength, I think having a spotter present helps you lift MORE.

One or two partials at the end of your heaviest sets can make all the difference in the world, and your definitely not going to be able to get those in if your on your own.

Having a great spotter = No fear of hurting yourself, thus you can exert every ounce of energy you have without having to worry about re-racking on your own.


A spotter is OK, once or twice every 6 months and not as a staple of your training. If you cant rack the weights.... what the fuck are you doing with them. And chances of getting hurt are the same with or without a spotter. Its just a spotter, not an oracle for muscle tear or whatever.


A spotter can:
1) Decrease the severity of a an injury (i.e. you tear your tricep benching and the bar wants to roll up to your neck/face, a spotter could help)
2) Provide assisted/forced reps, an advanced intensity training technique (as westcoast said)
3) Peace of mind (combination of 1) and 2)) when hitting big weights it is nice to have someone ready to help you if something goes wrong and to observe/coach your form if you're lucky.


I don't think spotters are a bad thing, but there are a lot of bad spotters.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

DoubleDuce
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 12623

DoubleDuce wrote:
I had an interesting thought on a possible relationship between muscle shape and strength.

In a muscle with a very nice peak, the outside muscle cells are at a steep angle in relation the resultant contractive force of the muscle. The resultant force transferred to the bone for a muscle cell is really the force of the cell multiplied by the sin of the angle.

If 2 muscles have entirely equal composition aside from shape, mechanically, the â??lowerâ?? the profile (meaning muscle cells more closely aligned with the attachment points), the larger the resultant force.

It would also suggest the mechanical advantage of having muscle attachments farther from joints is 2 fold. 1, it acts as a larger lever for the muscle. 2, it allows for higher efficiency within the muscle itself because less prime â??muscularly efficient real-estateâ?? is occupied by bone.

This also seems to support the notion or best weight classes for individuals in strength sports. From untrained, gaining muscle increases strength per pound as a result of larger portions of bodyweight being muscle.

However, for an individual, there is a point where adding more muscle increases strength, but lowers relative strength even though a higher percentage of body weight would be muscle.

Iâ??ve generally heard this phenomenon explained as â??what a persons frame can hold.â?? Iâ??m thinking this may be, at least in part, due to geometric inefficiencies within a muscle itself.

I really should draw pictures.



From today's article:
"Pennation angle. The angle formed by the individual muscle fibers with a muscle's line of action significantly impacts strength irrespective of muscle hypertrophy. Specifically, increased pennation angles appear to have a negative correlation with muscle strength ?? as pennation angle increases, a muscle's force-generating capacity decreases (Kawakami et al. 1995). Interestingly, studies show that bodybuilders have greater pennation angles than power lifters, potentially due to their training methods (Ikegawa et al. 2008)."

Sounds like I was right, but someone else published a paper the year before...

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

spar4tee
Level

Join date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10220

I think more intelligent people benefit from training on their own first as in not being instructed by someone else. I'm not saying that instruction is bad or that you have to be some kind of genius to train on your own. I'm also not saying one shouldn't seek out information from reliable and experienced sources. I'm just saying that people that demonstrate higher intelligence "seem" to get a better start under their own tutelage. That is what I'm doing, so of course I can't argue the opposite from my personal experience.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

spar4tee
Level

Join date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10220

I also that people that are more critical of themselves make more progress in the long term because they don't become complacent with a method or pattern that has ceased to be effective due to critical self-analysis.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

spar4tee
Level

Join date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10220

Feels good to post in the T-Cell

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

spar4tee
Level

Join date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10220

spar4tee wrote:
I think more intelligent people benefit from training on their own first as in not being instructed by someone else. I'm not saying that instruction is bad or that you have to be some kind of genius to train on your own. I'm also not saying one shouldn't seek out information from reliable and experienced sources. I'm just saying that people that demonstrate higher intelligence "seem" to get a better start under their own tutelage. That is what I'm doing, so of course I can't argue the opposite from my personal experience.

I also want to clarify that I was speaking mainly in the sense of the pursuit of a very desired goal. I think most will benefit from training with friends/like-minded people.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

spar4tee
Level

Join date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10220

People that think about whether or not they have a question worth asking that hasn't already been answered or they haven't already crafted an opinion about tend to gain a better understanding of the core principles regarding what they would have asked.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

WestCoast7
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5081

That carbs are necessary to build muscle. You can utilize healthy ones of unhealthy ones if you like, but carbs are a must if your looking to add strength.

I tried to the no carb/trace carb path for a while. Great for cutting or losing weight, not great for gaining muscle.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

DeltaOne
Level

Join date: May 2010
Posts: 1555

Steady state cardio more than 3 times a week will not take away your muscles.

Not if you're eating enough.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SteelyD
Level 4

Join date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12067

re: "Nocturnal Feedings vs HGH Production"

I bet if you work your ass off in the gym, like, leave nothing working your ass off -- and you're giving everything you've got everytime - some days more than others no doubt. Consistently, over time -- stay with me here...

I bet if you're doing that, and you're forcing the muscles to breakdown enough to repair and grow (given the right nutrients) and you're weights are progressing -- consistently, over time -- now, stay with me ---

I bet if you're doing that, and you're eating enough to grow, like *really* eating to grow, to just throw calories and protein and all that shit your body needs -- stay with me, now dammit ---

I bet if you're doing that, it doesn't make a whole fuckton of difference if you drink a damn protein shake 1 hour before, half hour before, 8 minutes before, or 2 hours after you go to sleep --- YOU'RE GOING TO GROW.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Nards
Level

Join date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10947

SteelyD wrote:
re: "Nocturnal Feedings vs HGH Production"

I bet if you work your ass off in the gym, like, leave nothing working your ass off -- and you're giving everything you've got everytime - some days more than others no doubt. Consistently, over time -- stay with me here...

I bet if you're doing that, and you're forcing the muscles to breakdown enough to repair and grow (given the right nutrients) and you're weights are progressing -- consistently, over time -- now, stay with me ---

I bet if you're doing that, and you're eating enough to grow, like *really* eating to grow, to just throw calories and protein and all that shit your body needs -- stay with me, now dammit ---

I bet if you're doing that, it doesn't make a whole fuckton of difference if you drink a damn protein shake 1 hour before, half hour before, 8 minutes before, or 2 hours after you go to sleep --- YOU'RE GOING TO GROW.

X500

I'd add that the guys that worry about the time and amount don't look anywhere near as big and strong as the guys that don't worry about it.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Aragorn
Level 10

Join date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9343

Something i think holds true, but can't prove. Yet it seems reasonable--

The overhead squat drives the front squat (olympic), the front olympic squat drives the olympic back squat and the deadlift. But you can only have one degree of separation between drivers. In other words, the overhead squat will not drive your back squat up because the differential in load is too great. You could use it for a warm-up (mobility/stability), & you could see some small carryover from increases in stability, balance and such, but barring xompetitive olympic lifters the load is just too different ot move your back squat up. However, it seems to do wonders for the front squat.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report