Search results

Yes for sure, and that's all failure is anyway, just a bit more fatigue. Hit failure with 200, when fatigue limits your strength to less than that at the sticking point, failure Use 190 instead, it takes a bit more fatigue to limit below 190. the only linear marker with any RM to failure is...

Oh ok like volitional failure

Movement failure?

Yes, I've thought about, and even posted about that on forums before, mostly to HIT people who think a person HAS to hit failure to even have growth. I always would tell them, if failure is required, then doing a compound is only causing failure, maybe, in one of the prime mover groups, all of...

oh yeah your right, duh... I was thinking 6 is 60% effort.. I'm a moron lol If rep 1 is 70% effort and rep 10 is 100%, then rep 6 would be about 88% of full effort.

agree a true RPE of 6 won't even recruit all the fibers, let alone get enough activation on them.

I don't think fatigue inhibits any fibers in a normal set, it would take neural inhibition for a fiber to be inhibited, they still fire, still hit tetany but just lose some actual force output, which IMO is the goal. I agree though, failure is probably not much or any more 'stimulation', it...

In reality, there is no line between in-effective vs effective reps. Reps just get more effective as effort increases, more like a slope. I think it's a dis-service for articles to deem things like Rep 9-12 are effective, it's akin to the old HIT ideas of a 'switch' at failure. That's not to...

good thoughts Mike Yes, agree... it would seem to be evident really when people do double progression... you do 'something', then if next time you get more reps, then the next you add weight. You 'see' your gains happening that way. But let's say you did 200x8 for something... and you actually...

Circuit for sure... cardio hampers 'muscle work' too much. Well Cody's study separated sarco to myo hypertrophy... for sure we can alter the balance somewhat, but even just fibril hypertrophy seems, it's more 'work' than load related. Like load is just one part of the equation....

Here is how I think about it... Anytime you do more than 'a rep' you have fatigue building I myself think metabolic is just a side effect, I think high activation causing high intra-cellular calcium is the stimulus, it fits both mechano and work pathways Obviously, if I and others, have grown...

Yes that's the idea of rest pause scenarios... use fatigue to keep all fibers active, then give them more TUL...

One thing to remember, is going to failure is more about getting the later recruited fibers to really 'work', it's a graded response to the muscle. It's not that the whole muscle 'goes to failure', it s more that each rep ramps up rate coding for the fibers in an orderly fashion. So too far from...

i think it's actually due to that calcium level (activation) 'being' the mechano signal thing...

Ah interesting....this might bridge the gap... how calcium levels might 'be' mechanotransduction.. It would explain how 20% with BFR and high rate coding work the same as 80% loads, or why all loads come out about the same for hypertrophy. Anything that raises intra-cellular calcium (activation...

to 'me' anyway, it's the only common denominator... high calcium causing maximal contraction of the sarcomeres. Regardless of actual tension produced. Then issues with fibrils cause an immediate generation of 'replacement' fibrils, later, removed (via natural atrophy) but for the time, a quick...

Some research support.... The one thing in common with low and high loads, but always reaching full activation... everything from BFR with super low loads, up to heavy loads, is high rate coding...contraction is induced by intra-cellular calcium concentrations, the higher the rate coding, the...

All this got me thinking..... My theory of hypertrophic stimulation..... First, going by how things occur, keep this in mind... Normally, if a person uses a muscle enough to stimulation hypertrophy, the muscle fibers/cells that are affected, will add some new fibrils in the days after. We also...

Above, i meant you can't tall up weekly volume... it's just a luck of the math thing where 1+1+1=3 and 3 = 3 Like not weekly, nothing happens on Friday, it's just 'every other day with a little, ends up similar to every 7 days with more, over time' , Hope that makes sense. Yes meals the...

True.. but, my argument would be... If acute isn't lower, then how come 3x a week isn't 3x better? But if he's right, then there is no anabolic resistance... nothing we have to 'beat' ever then... And here's a weird thought opposite thought maybe in support of higher frequency, what if higher...