Re: Pre-Exhaustion

[Guest guest]

Hi there all,

As some other members on ST already stated, the results of the study was not

surprising at all. And neither did the results give anyone a reason to

question the effectiveness of pre-exhaustion if they didn't already. The HIT

theory is not based on maximising EMG-readings anyway. It is based on high

intensity and maximising exhaustion, where intensity isn't defined as high EMG.

[Wayne, the authors stated that the rationale behind the study was a general

opinion among people using pre-exhaustion that it increased EMG. It said so

right in the article. -J Gray]

Gray stated,

> pre-exhaustion causes decreased motor unit activity (EMG) in the muscle that

> you are training. However, this isn't a revolutionary concept; it's been

> known for a long time - when muscle is fatigued, it causes a decrease in the

> firing pattern of the motor units innervating those fibres, decreased muscle

> activity and hence lower EMG.

Wayne replies,

True, but I was not questioning that part,

[it appeared you were when, in your message dated 07/14/2204, you stated: " I

said well of course there was as there was still muscle activity going on from

the pre-exhaustion. " -J Gray]

Gray said,

> There is a possibility that some subjects may still be fatigued from their

> 10 RM after a 20-minute rest. But this effect would have created *lower*

> EMG in the leg press only condition because motor unit activity DECREASES

> when the muscle fibres are fatigued,

Wayne replies,

But what if, in my opinion, there was still muscle activity going on in the

legs, by activity I mean muscular pumping. Then the legs would start cooling

down but then, what if after the pre-exhaustion, and then a 20min rest, the legs

would have not been fatigued, but really warmed up, and the body would have been

producing endofins, and the people would have been ready to put their all in the

leg press after completion of the pre-exhaustion, thus a higher EMG reading in

the second test. This coupled with my first of two more points

[Wayne, I have several years of experience using EMG in a number of research

investigations, and this sounds very unrealistic. -J Gray]

Now two more points in the study, and why I think the study was flawed,

it states in the study, when the leg press was used with pre-exhaustion less

repetitions were done, and more repetitions were done when the leg press only

was used, that is because when they did the pre-test to find out their 10RM, on

that day and the day of the study, they did not take into account that when

doing pre-exhaustion, on average you will need to reduce the weight on the

second exercise of any pre-exhaustion (in this study the second exercise on the

pre-exhaustion being the leg press) by a average of 30%, so if your 10RM was say

150 pounds on the leg press you would on pre-exhaustion, have to reduce by 30%,

thus 150 pounds becomes 105 pounds, this clearly points out the people carrying

out the study, did not fully understand pre-exhaustion, and should have taken

the time to read or ask some experts on the subject.

[The leg press weight is kept constant to ensure that the same WORK is done in

each case. If you take your suggestion, then the leg press at a ligher weight

means the subjects would perform less work, and then get less fatigue. It also

makes it very difficult to compare between the exercises if you vary up their

workloads, and then try to comment on things like EMG. - J Gray]

Last point they really should have done the study the other way around to, say

one week later, in the study they did, pre exhaustion (leg extension, leg press)

then in twenty minutes leg press only, well one week later they should have

done, leg press then in twenty minutes pre exhaustion (leg extension, leg press)

just to see the difference in results.

[As I mentioned in an earlier email, from the results of the study it is highly

likely that this would not have changed their conclusions. -J Gray]

Thank you

Wayne ROWLEY

Valletta Malta

Gray wrote:

> Hi Wayne,

>

> On the contrary, I have read the full study - I get the journal

> delivered to my doorstep. I have a fair amount of research

> experience and read dozens of research articles each week. I don't

> agree with your conclusions about the study, and I don't believe you

> have displayed enough of an understanding right now about EMG to

> appropriately review their research. That was the only point I was

> trying to make in my message. If Jesper Augustsson agreed with you,

> was that in private? I don't understand why he would have, since

> researchers usually put a fair amount of thought into their research

> design.

>

> A book that you might find interesting to review is " Muscles Alive "

> by Basmajian (1985). This is a fundamental text in EMG that

> explains a lot of what the EMG signal is, and is not. There have

> been a lot of further developments in EMG since then, but at least

> this gives a good foundation on the topic.

[Guest guest]

Wayne,

With all due respect, this is the stupidest thing that I have read

for a long time. Surely muscles will contribute different amount

throughout a rep and as Dr Siff said, fibre recruitment can vary rep

to rep. Any justification for the tempo? As far as accounting

percentages based on your experiment, are you serious?

If you get your friends together again, try pre-exhausting other

muscles first. Try pecs, anterior delts and rotator cuff, forearms

then try to explain why the reduction adds up to more than 100%.

Then chuck in a high intensity stair master session and tell me

which muscles were pre-exhausted because your bench less after

flogging yourself with 10 minutes of interval cardio.

Better yet, inject muscle relaxants into your arms, and when you

can't lift anything, tell us that pulldowns use the arms 100%.

Driscoll

Sydney, Australia.

>

> Hi all,

>

> I said last time, I am doing some simple tests, to prove my point

on pre-exhaustion and the weak link, ( I did these tests years ago,

but all that data is in my other home) which every one can do, and

it proves my point on pre-exhaustion and the weak link, if I

remember correctly on overhead press for example your triceps are

doing say 40% of the work, thus you will fail from the overhead

press with the triceps failing first thus your shoulders are getting

a 60% workout (100% being 100% failure for the shoulders for the

shoulder press) thus your shoulders are getting a mild to good

workout, and you are stopping short of a hard workout for the

shoulders, because of the weak link the triceps, by say 40%.

>

> Hope you all understand the above, it is the only way I could

think of explaining and putting numbers and percentages into pre-

exhaustion.

>

> Will post my results and the test later.

>

> Here are the results of my tests.

>

> I would like to say pre-exhaustion is more for the bodybuilder and

hypertrophy, and I am not at all against compound movements, pre-

exhaustion should be implied in any training program wisely and

infrequently, as to much per-exhaustion will deplete your recovery

ability, thus lead to overtraining.

>

> I did some tests with 10 volunteers trained and untrained,

including one of them myself, on finding out how much the biceps

contributes to the lat pulldowns and how much the triceps contribute

to the shoulder press, to prove the biceps and triceps are weak

links on these exercises, maybe some of the group can do similar

test and post the results ?

>

> I would say the biceps are used (mind you the forearms and other

muscles contribute to the pulldowns) from 20 to 35% in the

pulldowns, all depends on the individual, and the triceps are used

in the shoulder press from 25 to 45%. (please see below)

>

> First you will have to see what you can pulldown IN GOOD FORM, 2

sec. pos. 4 sec. neg. for a one rep max. NO JERKING, then a couple

of days later, do the opposite of what pre-exhaustion is all about,

and pre-exhaust the biceps to complete failure, I would suggest two

exercises;

>

> 1. Twisting (supinating) db. Curls 2 sec. pos. 4 sec neg. 1 x 12

reps. to complete failure, then immediately

> 2. Barbell curls 2 sec. pos. 4 sec neg. 1 x 12 reps. to complete

failure, then immediately (AND I MEAN IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE IF ITS NOT

DONE IMMEDIATELY, most people can get about 30 to 40% of their

strength back after 3 sec.)

>

> You then do the lat pulldowns ( remember no jerking two sec.

positive 4 sec. negative) I would suggest lightening the weight by

25%, you might have to do this test a few times to get it right,

(now you know why I took so long posting back) when you do the

pulldowns after pre-exhausting the biceps to failure, you will find

that you will do less weight in the pulldowns, using a far lighter

weight, will proves the biceps are a weak link.

>

> If you do pulldowns for your lats you are only getting a 65 to 80%

of a workout for them 100% being a total workout to failure.

>

> For bodybuilding and hypertrophy, I think it best to isolate each

muscle group, say 70% of the time, and in this day and age most gyms

have a pullover machine so why not use it and cut out the weak link,

>

> Same goes for the triceps being the weak link on the shoulder

press, pre-exhaust it first with two prime action triceps exercises

then try the shoulder press, or similar compound movement.

>

> You are very clever and I can see where you were getting by

doing the pulldowns correctly, you will use more of the lats, but

this simple test proves there is a weak link.

>

> said,

>

> I have trained long enough at these two movements that I know what

Arthur and you are talking about, but you are both operating under

what is called a " mistaken certainty " . You are " certain " about

something, but are " mistaken " .

>

> Wayne replied,

>

> Do my test and you will see that we are not at a mistaken, but you

are.

>

> Wayne Rowley

> Valletta Malta

[Guest guest]

Oof! My jaw simply dropped in astonishment after reading such

rubbish. It is the policy of Supertraining to refrain from name

calling and such, but the pompsity and condescending vibe of

this " Test " (don't anyone dare call it a study! you all know better)

make it extremely difficult to comply. So out of respect for the

late Dr. Siff (who I'm sure would've also found it hard to reply

politely) let's see what we can learn out of this non-sense:

>>> if I remember correctly on overhead press for example your

tricepsare doing say 40% of the work, thus you will fail from the

overhead press with the triceps failing first thus your shoulders

are getting a 60% workout (100% being 100% failure for the shoulders

for the shoulder press) thus your shoulders are getting a mild to

good workout, and you are stopping short of a hard workout for the

shoulders, because of the weak link the triceps, by say 40%.

Tremendously curious to find out how it was determined that the

triceps do %40 of the work. In order for us to replicate

the " experiment " we need to know what methods/equations were used to

determine the percentage. There is this thing in good research

called reliability, that is, if the conditions are kept similar, no

matter who reproduces the experiment, the results will also be

similar, or very close. This is how one determines whether obtained

results were highly probably because of the methods applied, or a

fluke. Thus, before we proceed to try your " experiment " please do

enlighten us and provide us with the methods/equations that resulted

in the 40% distribution for the triceps. I hope you did not pick

your 40%, say, at ramdom, because that would inmediately nullify

your entire " work " .

>

>

>>> Will post my results and the test later.

Looking forward to them...

>

>

>>> I did some tests with 10 volunteers trained and untrained,

including one of them myself, on finding out how much the biceps

contributes to the lat pulldowns and how much the triceps contribute

to the shoulder press, to prove the biceps and triceps are weak

links on these exercises, maybe some of the group can do similar

test and post the results ?

First, before we can conduct similar " tests " you need to provide us

with the methods/equations used to determine the percentage

distribution of the work performed by the different arm muscle

groups. Second, for a experiment/study to have validity, the

participants cannot know what is expected of them. They just have

to follow instructions. Otherwise, the results have a high

likelyhood of being subjective. Ever heard of the placebo effect?

Your participating in the " experiement " weakens your results with

bias even more.

>

>>> I would say the biceps are used (mind you the forearms and other

muscles contribute to the pulldowns) from 20 to 35% in the

pulldowns, all depends on the individual, and the triceps are used

in the shoulder press from 25 to 45%. (please see below)

Please see above, need to provides us with those methods/equations

first...

>>> First you will have to see what you can pulldown IN GOOD FORM, 2

sec. pos. 4 sec. neg. for a one rep max. NO JERKING, then a couple

of days later, do the opposite of what pre-exhaustion is all about,

and pre-exhaust the biceps to complete failure....

2 Sec. positive, 4 second negative. We are all still trying to

figure out how the complex processes that lead to muscle

contraction, with all the neurological and biochemical processes

involved were given such precise speeds. Don't start with " Arthur

said... " because AJ himself did not give a satisfactory

explanation and rather resorted to calling people " idiots " for

questioning him. I'm sure that you have plenty of supporting

material to make reference to those speeds, otherwise, you would add

another strike to your " experiment "

>

>

>>>..You then do the lat pulldowns ( remember no jerking two sec.

positive 4 sec. negative) I would suggest lightening the weight by

25%, you might have to do this test a few times to get it right,

(now you know why I took so long posting back) when you do the

pulldowns after pre-exhausting the biceps to failure, you will find

that you will do less weight in the pulldowns, using a far lighter

weight, will proves the biceps are a weak link.

Actually, this falls more in the common sense category, also known

as " Duh " . I have yet to see anyone determined to work their backs

hard, frying their arms first. Of course the arms help with the

pull, and so do a lot more other muscle groups that cross the

glenohumeral joint and shoulder girdle. Muscle isolation (under

natural circumstances of course) is physiologically impossible, and

those who keep advocating it rabidly, do so under blind faith to a

training system rather than solid knowledge.

>

>>> If you do pulldowns for your lats you are only getting a 65 to

80% of a workout for them 100% being a total workout to failure.

I don't know about anyone else, but this sense does not make any

sense...

>

>>> For bodybuilding and hypertrophy, I think it best to isolate

each muscle group, say 70% of the time, and in this day and age most

gyms have a pullover machine so why not use it and cut out the weak

link,

Why 70? Once again, where do these numbers come from?

>

>>> Same goes for the triceps being the weak link on the shoulder

press, pre-exhaust it first with two prime action triceps exercises

then try the shoulder press, or similar compound movement.

Ok, let's see, the triceps are the weak link on the shoulder press,

so I have to pre-exhaust them first... wouldn't that make them

weaker? Wouldn't that hinder the so called " weak link " even more?

If you want to " target " the shoulders to max exhaustion without much

interference from the triceps, wouldn't it make sense to " pre-

exhaust " them with " isolation movements " (such as lateral raises)

and then when the shoulders are tired, do your presses so that your

triceps assist you as opposed to hinder you? I think you just shot

yourself in the foot.

>

>

>>> Wayne replied,

>>>

>>> Do my test and you will see that we are not at a mistaken, but

you are.

Oh are we? For a while now,you have trolling the forum with

all this nonsense, failing to back-up your claims with credible

material. You also have a deity-like attitude whose mission is to

enlighten those poor exercise physiologists trapped in the darkness

of strength and conditioning, with the " wisdom " of bodybuilding.

After all, were you not the one who stated that athletes should

train like bodybuilders? Believing that you are right does not make

it so. Had you handed that " experiment " of yours in an academic

setting, you would've been give a big time " F " and sent back to

remdial classes. Then again, we all merit the chance of doubt.

Perhaps when you explain your methods and techniques and enlighten

us as to how you obtained your magical numbers (as any valid study

does) then we may further that painful-to-read posting of yours into

some more constructive. Until then, your " experiment " proves

nothing.

Israel A.

Clifton, NJ

[Guest guest]

,

Although I agree with you in the matter of Wayne's " study " being

absurd, I feel your response was quite unprofessional as a moderator

of this site. Specifically because I have had messages filtered and

not posted that were more tasteful than your response to Wayne. I

have responded to some of the " supposedly educated " individuals on

this site using physics and engineering as " proof " of mechanical

properties of function and had the message rejected because I didn't

quote clinical trials or a study and supposedly used bad a " tone " in

my wording. I feel if my messages are going to get filtered for

those types of things, it should be standard across the board. Just

a thought.

p.s. I actually really enjoyed reading your message, it was

hysterical. And Wayne's message was absolutely ridiculous, but I

would appreciate being able to post a similar message without fear

of getting the message rejected. Thanks so much.

Joe DeAntonis

Pittsburgh, PA

> >

> > Hi all,

> >

> > I said last time, I am doing some simple tests, to prove my

point

> on pre-exhaustion and the weak link, ( I did these tests years

ago,

> but all that data is in my other home) which every one can do, and

> it proves my point on pre-exhaustion and the weak link, if I

> remember correctly on overhead press for example your triceps are

> doing say 40% of the work, thus you will fail from the overhead

> press with the triceps failing first thus your shoulders are

getting

> a 60% workout (100% being 100% failure for the shoulders for the

> shoulder press) thus your shoulders are getting a mild to good

> workout, and you are stopping short of a hard workout for the

> shoulders, because of the weak link the triceps, by say 40%.

> >

> > Hope you all understand the above, it is the only way I could

> think of explaining and putting numbers and percentages into pre-

> exhaustion.

> >

> > Will post my results and the test later.

> >

> > Here are the results of my tests.

> >

> > I would like to say pre-exhaustion is more for the bodybuilder

and

> hypertrophy, and I am not at all against compound movements, pre-

> exhaustion should be implied in any training program wisely and

> infrequently, as to much per-exhaustion will deplete your recovery

> ability, thus lead to overtraining.

> >

> > I did some tests with 10 volunteers trained and untrained,

> including one of them myself, on finding out how much the biceps

> contributes to the lat pulldowns and how much the triceps

contribute

> to the shoulder press, to prove the biceps and triceps are weak

> links on these exercises, maybe some of the group can do similar

> test and post the results ?

> >

> > I would say the biceps are used (mind you the forearms and other

> muscles contribute to the pulldowns) from 20 to 35% in the

> pulldowns, all depends on the individual, and the triceps are used

> in the shoulder press from 25 to 45%. (please see below)

> >

> > First you will have to see what you can pulldown IN GOOD FORM, 2

> sec. pos. 4 sec. neg. for a one rep max. NO JERKING, then a couple

> of days later, do the opposite of what pre-exhaustion is all

about,

> and pre-exhaust the biceps to complete failure, I would suggest

two

> exercises;

> >

> > 1. Twisting (supinating) db. Curls 2 sec. pos. 4 sec neg. 1 x 12

> reps. to complete failure, then immediately

> > 2. Barbell curls 2 sec. pos. 4 sec neg. 1 x 12 reps. to complete

> failure, then immediately (AND I MEAN IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE IF ITS

NOT

> DONE IMMEDIATELY, most people can get about 30 to 40% of their

> strength back after 3 sec.)

> >

> > You then do the lat pulldowns ( remember no jerking two sec.

> positive 4 sec. negative) I would suggest lightening the weight by

> 25%, you might have to do this test a few times to get it right,

> (now you know why I took so long posting back) when you do the

> pulldowns after pre-exhausting the biceps to failure, you will

find

> that you will do less weight in the pulldowns, using a far lighter

> weight, will proves the biceps are a weak link.

> >

> > If you do pulldowns for your lats you are only getting a 65 to

80%

> of a workout for them 100% being a total workout to failure.

> >

> > For bodybuilding and hypertrophy, I think it best to isolate

each

> muscle group, say 70% of the time, and in this day and age most

gyms

> have a pullover machine so why not use it and cut out the weak

link,

> >

> > Same goes for the triceps being the weak link on the shoulder

> press, pre-exhaust it first with two prime action triceps

exercises

> then try the shoulder press, or similar compound movement.

> >

> > You are very clever and I can see where you were getting by

> doing the pulldowns correctly, you will use more of the lats, but

> this simple test proves there is a weak link.

> >

> > said,

> >

> > I have trained long enough at these two movements that I know

what

> Arthur and you are talking about, but you are both operating under

> what is called a " mistaken certainty " . You are " certain " about

> something, but are " mistaken " .

> >

> > Wayne replied,

> >

> > Do my test and you will see that we are not at a mistaken, but

you

> are.

> >

> > Wayne Rowley

> > Valletta Malta