lifting techniques

undergroundvibe

Hi,


just wondering what people opinion is on this, when lifting weights to try and put on muscle and keep fat at bay, whats the best approach

i find when i try go up the weight i naturally do the reps faster, am i defeating the purpose, am i better doing the reps slower at a lower weight?

a gym instructor once told me to count to 4 on each movement (e.g 1,2,3,4 while going up and 1.2.3.4 going down)

i never seem able to increase weights

mrpink6789

Isn't it something like controlling motion coming down and exploding motion going up - not sure of the technical term.

But Bench press for example, controlled slower pace bringing it down to your chest and then pushing up as fast as you can.

I think thats the approach to put on muscle as long as you are increasing the weight but lets see what other people say.

Sangre

In short your lifts should slow down as the weight increases not speed up.

You should perform all the concentric (lifting) portions of your lifts quickly/explosively. As the weight increases this will be harder and harder. However, the intent should always be there to move the weight 'explosively'. If you can lift a weight quickly then you can lift a heavier weight.

The weight should then be lower in a controlled manner but doesn't necessarily have to be slow and it doesn't need to be anywhere near as slow as 4 seconds. Time take to lower will depend on the lift itself and range of motion.

gavney1

Sangre wrote: »

In short your lifts should slow down as the weight increases not speed up.

You should perform all the concentric (lifting) portions of your lifts quickly/explosively. As the weight increases this will be harder and harder. However, the intent should always be there to move the weight 'explosively'. If you can lift a weight quickly then you can lift a heavier weight.

The weight should then be lower in a controlled manner but doesn't necessarily have to be slow and it doesn't need to be anywhere near as slow as 4 seconds. Time take to lower will depend on the lift itself and range of motion.

it's always something that's baffled me, cause a couple of people have said that to me, when doing bench press, that i should go slow on the way down, which didn't make sense to me as it seems like the less "important" part of the exercise. But it's more about controlling the movement then i guess?

Mellor

Gav lowering slowly is controlling. And even though you aren't lifting the weight, your muscles are still in force on it, or else it would just drop freely

some people specifically train the lowering portion with a bigger weight than they can lift, often after their muscles are fatigued. Called eccentric movements. negative pull ups are an example of this.

Sangre

gavney1 wrote: »

it's always something that's baffled me, cause a couple of people have said that to me, when doing bench press, that i should go slow on the way down, which didn't make sense to me as it seems like the less "important" part of the exercise. But it's more about controlling the movement then i guess?

Well, there could be some logic behind that. There is a risk with benching that when you lower the bar too quickly you "bounce" it off your chest and the press it back up. It means you're using the energy in the bar to assist you in the lifting phase of the bench. Basically you're making the lift easier. Not the worst thing in the world and some do it on purpose but it can distort how much you could actually little in a "paused" bench attempt (not in PL competition sense but where you lower, stop and raise the bar)

You can lower the bar quickly if you like but just make sure its controled and you're not bouncing the bar off your chest to assist your lift imo.

In fact, I think some people advocate bringing the bar down very quickly in benching (hanley?) before pausing. Not fully sure of the logic behind this (maybe putting muscles under tension to release them?).

By the way, I'm far from a benching expert. This is just based on my general attitude to lifts.

Gav lowering slowly is controlling

I would think there is a big difference between slow and controlled. A bar can be control but still relatively quick. I would describe slow as purposelly lowering the bar slower than you need. Probably lead to lots of DOMS!!

Bottle_of_Smoke

gavney1 wrote: »

it's always something that's baffled me, cause a couple of people have said that to me, when doing bench press, that i should go slow on the way down, which didn't make sense to me as it seems like the less "important" part of the exercise. But it's more about controlling the movement then i guess?

The slower you go on the way down the more your muscles are resisting the force of gravity and therefore the more they're being worked.

gymsoldier

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The slower you go on the way down the more your muscles are resisting the force of gravity and therefore the more they're being worked.

The eccentric portion of any movement is proven to damage more muscle fibres. Gravity is not a factor here, gravity is still there when your working the concentric portion of the movement.

Sangre wrote: »

In short your lifts should slow down as the weight increases not speed up.

You should perform all the concentric (lifting) portions of your lifts quickly/explosively. As the weight increases this will be harder and harder. However, the intent should always be there to move the weight 'explosively'. If you can lift a weight quickly then you can lift a heavier weight.

The weight should then be lower in a controlled manner but doesn't necessarily have to be slow and it doesn't need to be anywhere near as slow as 4 seconds. Time take to lower will depend on the lift itself and range of motion.

Now im not arguing, but can you please explain what youve posted.

Bottle_of_Smoke

gymsoldier wrote: »

The eccentric portion of any movement is proven to damage more muscle fibres. Gravity is not a factor here, gravity is still there when your working the concentric portion of the movement.

Of course but I don't see how that contradicts what I said.

Concentric move you're pushing against gravity to the point you overcome it but eccentric you're just slowing down the effects of gravity

Mellor

Sangre wrote: »

I would think there is a big difference between slow and controlled. A bar can be control but still relatively quick. I would describe slow as purposelly lowering the bar slower than you need. Probably lead to lots of DOMS!!

Of course a bar can be control but still relatively quick, but not always. Slow lowering is always controled. We may have different ideas of slow.
I'm not talking about 4 second lowering, I'm talking about not bouncing it, not letting it just drop, not swinging it (i'm talking in general here, not specific to benching)

gymsoldier wrote: »

The eccentric portion of any movement is proven to damage more muscle fibres. Gravity is not a factor here, gravity is still there when your working the concentric portion of the movement.

He didn't say it was only a factor for the eccentric portion. He was explaining the theory behind slow lowering.
The longer you take to move the weight, either up or down, the more force your muscles must generate to over come gravity.

gymsoldier

Mellor wrote: »

He didn't say it was only a factor for the eccentric portion. He was explaining the theory behind slow lowering.
The longer you take to move the weight, either up or down, the more force your muscles must generate to over come gravity.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Of course but I don't see how that contradicts what I said.

Concentric move you're pushing against gravity to the point you overcome it but eccentric you're just slowing down the effects of gravity

Ok guys please read what youve writen, gravity does not play a role. Its simple the weight of what ever you are benching that you are over coming, gravity is constant. If i sceintific explanation is needed about muscle fibre recruitment in regards to lowering the bar slowly ill type one up, im just too knackered after the gym at the moment ha

boomtown84

gymsoldier wrote: »

Ok guys please read what youve writen, gravity does not play a role. Its simple the weight of what ever you are benching that you are over coming, gravity is constant. If i sceintific explanation is needed about muscle fibre recruitment in regards to lowering the bar slowly ill type one up, im just too knackered after the gym at the moment ha

of course it does...otherwise, if i lifted a bar above my chest it would stay there until i pulled it down.

Barry.Oglesby

gymsoldier wrote: »

Ok guys please read what youve writen, gravity does not play a role. Its simple the weight of what ever you are benching that you are over coming, gravity is constant. If i sceintific explanation is needed about muscle fibre recruitment in regards to lowering the bar slowly ill type one up, im just too knackered after the gym at the moment ha

I really need to hear the scientific explanation of why gravity doesn't effect lifting things.

boomtown84

In fact how is gravity not the MOST important factor in building muscle?without it we would all be muscless freaks!sure look at the chest development on this guy...he's the leading bodybuilder from the moon:

Lantus

Undgerground,

In general all parts of a rep should in done under control and in a manner that ensures good form (or technique)

There are various options on how long each rep should be from 2 secs +ve and 3 secs -ve and you can add more time or do it slightly quicker.

Most people will vary the rep times over training weeks to add variety.

When we talk about explosivley doing the +ve rep it sounds very dynamic which it shouldn't be. Yes it is slightly quicker than the down cycle but it should still be controlled and take 2 to 3 secs at least. If your moving the weight dynamically your probably not doing it right or engaging other muscle groups. This is often done with bicep curls where people use all sorts of cheating moves (arching backs, swinging arms, bouncing the legs, snapping the elbow, dropping the shoulders etc.) so they can use a big weight and make it look like they are strong but in reality they are not. It's all for show. It's also a waste of time...

the drifter

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

I really need to hear the scientific explanation of why gravity doesn't effect lifting things.

as would i...i demand it has picstures also...

the drifter

boomtown84 wrote: »

In fact how is gravity not the MOST important factor in building muscle?without it we would all be muscless freaks!sure look at the chest development on this guy...he's the leading bodybuilder from the moon:

He's got to have a seriosu deadlift advantage with those arms

Barry.Oglesby

I think people also overstate the importance of friction when lifting.

SanoVitae

I think people overstate the importance of fiction when talking about lifting....

dartstothesea

gymsoldier wrote: »

Ok guys please read what youve writen, gravity does not play a role. Its simple the weight of what ever you are benching that you are over coming, gravity is constant. If i sceintific explanation is needed about muscle fibre recruitment in regards to lowering the bar slowly ill type one up, im just too knackered after the gym at the moment ha

You say this like the weight (a product of mass and gravity) on the bar isn't also constant.

Barry.Oglesby

Stop complicating things poindexter

dartstothesea

I guess I forgot about that inverse relationship between strength and poindexterity.

Mexihalo

slightly off topic but u guys seem to know what you're talking about......going to the gym on a regular basis and doing bits and pieces nothing too serious, anyway benching was going good (repping 85kgs on a good day or 80kgs normal day) then at the start of December I missed about a week, next time back in the gym went to warm up on 60kgs as usual but cud barely squeeze 2 reps out...felt very weak and has taking me till now to get back to previous good levels...just wondering has anyone ever experienced this before and what was the cause? Didn't feel like a normal dip in form from missing a few sessions..

boomtown84

Mexihalo wrote: »

slightly off topic but u guys seem to know what you're talking about......going to the gym on a regular basis and doing bits and pieces nothing too serious, anyway benching was going good (repping 85kgs on a good day or 80kgs normal day) then at the start of December I missed about a week, next time back in the gym went to warm up on 60kgs as usual but cud barely squeeze 2 reps out...felt very weak and has taking me till now to get back to previous good levels..and what was the cause? Didn't feel like a normal dip in form from missing a few sessions..

ah your gym manager probably just let too much gravity in that day probably to mess with your head

.just wondering has anyone ever experienced this before

all of us except gymsoldier

gymsoldier

boomtown84 wrote: »

In fact how is gravity not the MOST important factor in building muscle?without it we would all be muscless freaks!sure look at the chest development on this guy...he's the leading bodybuilder from the moon:

You constantly have not added anything of value to this fourm.

gymsoldier

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

I really need to hear the scientific explanation of why gravity doesn't effect lifting things.

Gravity is constant, its always there, you dont add the affect of gravity onto a lift as is get harder when you are lowering the bar slowly to your chest in a bench press. Gravity is always there, and weight being pressed is constant, the muscle experiences more force due to the theroy of muscle fibre recuitment and fatigue. When the bar is at your chest, you dont have to overcome "extra" gravity.

gymsoldier

Mexihalo wrote: »

slightly off topic but u guys seem to know what you're talking about

Yeah some of us do, myself included, other's dont.

boomtown84

gymsoldier wrote: »

Yeah some of us do, myself included, other's dont.

<vows never to enter another thread with gymsoldier again>

SanoVitae

gymsoldier wrote: »

The muscle experiences more force due to the theroy of muscle fibre recuitment and fatigue.

What is the theory of muscle recruitment and fatigue you're referring to?

Barry.Oglesby

gymsoldier wrote: »

Gravity is constant, its always there, you dont add the affect of gravity onto a lift as is get harder when you are lowering the bar slowly to your chest in a bench press. Gravity is always there, and weight being pressed is constant, the muscle experiences more force due to the theroy of muscle fibre recuitment and fatigue. When the bar is at your chest, you dont have to overcome "extra" gravity.

I don't really have time for rudimentary science lessons but I can recommend some secondary school books. Pay particular attention to the section on mass. Weight can only be understood in the context of gravity. You've said that gravity doesn't play a part, which is like saying friction doesn't play a part, or atoms don't play a part. This kind of half baked science does more harm than good.

What is "the theory of muscle fibre recruitment and fatigue". I'm not aware of this theory.

littlehannah96

slowly does it

mushykeogh

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

What is "the theory of muscle fibre recruitment and fatigue". I'm not aware of this theory.

I think he may be on about the size principle of motor recruitment, Henneman and Mendell i think were the two buckos

Force output may be controlled by increasing the number of motor units recruited and frequency of same.

But i could be completely wrong.

itsallaboutheL

gymsoldier wrote: »

You constantly have not added anything of value to this fourm.

I've been doing that for years.

Brian?

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

I've been doing that for years.

You've made an art of it.

dartstothesea

Depending on how long your arms are, it actually will be a tiny, tiny, TINY bit harder to move the bar when it's lowered down to your chest during bench press.

gymsoldier

mushykeogh wrote: »

I think he may be on about the size principle of motor recruitment, Henneman and Mendell i think were the two buckos

Force output may be controlled by increasing the number of motor units recruited and frequency of same.

But i could be completely wrong.

Now we're getting there.

People still fail to realise that when I say gravity is not a factor, I say it because gravity is constant and not variable. It dosent change. My posts need to be read a bit deeper than just glanced over.

gymsoldier

boomtown84 wrote: »

<vows never to enter another thread with gymsoldier again>

I present to the members of the board boomtown84's acceptance of defeat.

boomtown84

gymsoldier wrote: »

I present to the members of the board boomtown84's acceptance of defeat.

listen maybe i'm not smrt! enough to get what you're saying gymsoldier but my argument is this: the only reason that your muscles fatigue/recruit more fibres is because of the weight you're holding, which only has weight because of the gravitational force pulling everything towards the earth.if there was no gravity, the bar(and everything on it) would only be a floating mass and would not apply any force to the body.

gymsoldier wrote: »

Gravity is constant, its always there, you dont add the affect of gravity onto a lift as is get harder when you are lowering the bar slowly to your chest in a bench press. Gravity is always there, and weight being pressed is constant, the muscle experiences more force due to the theroy of muscle fibre recuitment and fatigue. When the bar is at your chest, you dont have to overcome "extra" gravity.

my problem with the underlined is that it is only a 'lift' because of gravity.

bold-how can the muscles experience MORE force if the weight/gravity/force is constant?surely the muscles just can't withstand the SAME force over a certain length of time??

underlined italics-no gravity...no fatigue
in my book anyway.please explain the theory.


Maybe i was a bit childish yesterday but i'd like if you could explain this in more detail.the sciencier the better!!:D
if you convince me i'll promise never* to accuse you of talking shiiiiiiiiiiiit again.

*never only lasts for 3 posts or 1 hour....whichever comes first.

and if you can't explain then please GTFO BECAUSE MY HEAD IS WRECKED!!!:p

Barry.Oglesby

mushykeogh wrote: »

I think he may be on about the size principle of motor recruitment, Henneman and Mendell i think were the two buckos

Force output may be controlled by increasing the number of motor units recruited and frequency of same.

But i could be completely wrong.

Don't think I've ever read that... or had to read that...

I'd warrant that's not what he's on about though since so far he's misused the words force, gravity and weight in pretty much every post. And since it's a given that you would have at least a modicum of scientific understanding before embarking upon reading scientific studies, even if he has read it I doubt he's applying it correctly here.

SanoVitae

gymsoldier wrote: »

People still fail to realise that when I say gravity is not a factor, I say it because gravity is constant and not variable.

Gravity or no gravity, your argument has no weight whatsoever.....

mushykeogh

gymsoldier wrote: »

Now we're getting there.

People still fail to realise that when I say gravity is not a factor, I say it because gravity is constant and not variable. It dosent change.

I think gravity does change, local acceleration and all that.

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

Don't think I've ever read that... or had to read that...

I'd warrant that's not what he's on about though since so far he's misused the words force, gravity and weight in pretty much every post. And since it's a given that you would have at least a modicum of scientific understanding before embarking upon reading scientific studies, even if he has read it I doubt he's applying it correctly here.

Bedtime reading for when you cant sleep! I agree, its not relevant to the topic being discussed. Torque, inertia and lever arms might be more relevant.

Edwardius

mushykeogh wrote: »

I think gravity does change, local acceleration and all that.

Wut?

mushykeogh

Dead Ed wrote: »

Wut?

Now, im not claiming to know this but i remember having to study something about mass and gravity etc. Basically,the earth is not uniform sphere, the distance from the center of the earth for any person standing on the surface depends upon the latitude, where your standing may be close or further away frrom the centre of the earth. The gravity amount depends on the square of that distance., the higher the altitude the less gravitational pull, i think? Open to correction here, Had to look that up there!

Edwardius

mushykeogh wrote: »

Now, im not claiming to know this but i remember having to study something about mass and gravity etc. Basically,the earth is not uniform sphere, the distance from the center of the earth for any person standing on the surface depends upon the latitude, where your standing may be close or further away frrom the centre of the earth. The gravity amount depends on the square of that distance., the higher the altitude the less gravitational pull, i think? Open to correction here, Had to look that up there!

This is true, but context is needed too. The weight of 100kg at the point of highest g vs the lowest g (due to an observers position on the earth) will change very little and should be well within the tolerance of most bars and plates, I think the diff in acceleration is around 9.81 vs 9.78 m/s^2, so it basically has bugger all effect.

Sorry, I was bored !

Barry.Oglesby

Dead Ed wrote: »

This is true, but context is needed too. The weight of 100kg at the point of highest g vs the lowest g will change very little and should be well within the tolerance of most bars and plates, I think the diff in acceleration is around 9.81 vs 9.78 m/s^2, so it basically has bugger all effect.

Sorry, I was bored !

You're also ignoring the potential g-force of any J path of the bar. There could be some gravity acting in all sorts of directions on this. I think we're wrong to ignore gravity. I tried once in a low ceilinged room. Big mistake.

itsallaboutheL

I lift things up and put them down

Barry.Oglesby

Yes but aren't you always injured? Could be gravity.

SanoVitae

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

You're also ignoring the potential g-force of any J path of the bar. There could be some gravity acting in all sorts of directions on this. I think we're wrong to ignore gravity. I tried once in a low ceilinged room. Big mistake.

This post has made me go all nostalgic....

itsallaboutheL

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

Yes but aren't you always injured?

I'm always carrying an injury there's a difference, is gravity the cause of my obesity?


It is isn't it.

Lantus

Jesus! This is so off topic it beggars believe! Your all arguing that gravity plays a part in weight training?!?

Gravity is a contsant for everyone. It's what makes weight lifting what it is. It isn't any different in Tallaght than in it is in Dublin or Mullingar.

Nothing to do with how you lift.....

Edwardius

Gravity's a goddamned troll!