Re: Just answering some questions...

[Guest guest]

" Sorry if I was not clear. What I was simply trying to

> point out is that if muscle contracts against a

> resistance, it gets stronger. Isn't this universally

> accepted? The resistance may be the spring of a Bullworker,

> a weight, an immovable resistance, the antagonist

> muscle's resistance, or the inherent resistance of the

> muscle itself under certain postures. Isn't that a

> reality of how the body works? "

Well yes and no. Remember, specific to sanchin and other tensions

where the antagonist muscle provides the so called resistance, what

you are really doing is contracting two muscles at one time and

producing no movement or " work " in the classic physics sense of the

word.

In essence, there a number of problems with this form of " exercise "

1-You are producing muscle tension but it isn't doing anything. Think

about it. You are simply tensing your muscle but are not using it to

try and do anything. You have a bicep contracting and a tricep

contracting. By definition, one has to be working very little or it

would overpower the other.

2-When you do this form of static movement, what you are really doing

is training your nervous system to act contrary to its nature. By

that I mean that when you extend your arm out to say punch, naturally

your body relaxes the bicep to allow the tricep to contract.

By doing tons of sanchin, you are actually sending your nervous

system a very confusion set of messages. So, the next time you want

to throw a wickedly quick right hand, your nervous system has to walk

around a set of pathways in the brain that have been taught to move

both muscles very very very slowly.

ONE of the ways that Bruce Lee developed his great speed was by

working on this interaction between movers, stabilizers, and

relaxation.

When you do sanchin you are effectively telling the body, don't move

quickly, don't move with ease, get very tense and slow.

How would that training possibly translate into a strong, fast punch?

Please tell me scientifically, not " well the old masters practiced it

so it must be good. " The old masters did a lot of very very stupid

things, like condition their hands into clubs, which is not very

useful in today's world.

BB posing is another matter. It is very good for practicing, well

posing and if you are a BBrl, you need to be very good at that.

BB posing MAY be good for enhancing resting muscle tonus, but that is

just my guess.

I have NEVER seen any credible research that suggests that BB posing,

DVR, or any other form of free form muscle flexing produces ANY

strength gains.

If folks want to use their time pretending to " swim in the air " well,

that is fine. I simply ask that if you are going to advocate this

along side something like isometric work, you ackowledge that it has

NO research to support that it does anything to increase strength,

muscle mass etc.

In other words, that it is a myth.

> >

> > Ok, lets put a cap on this shall we.

> >

> > This is a bullworker site.

> >

> > We are NOT interested in DVR, sanchin, BB posing or

> > the like. Thinking your way to strength is cute not

> > germane.

>

> I don't know about DVR or thinking to strength, but

> isn't sanchin and BB posing isometrics-related, and

> thus, Bullworker related info?

>

> I'm sorry if my posts about sanchin-like drills and BB

> posing appears off topic. But I believe the isometric

> training that occurs in such was related to the topics

> of this forum.

>

> And this post is just answering the questions raised.

>

> My apologies if such are still considered off topic.

>

> Gerry

>

[Guest guest]

So, Mike Marvel's "Dyna-Flex" would be included here, right? Rich rrbelloff wrote: "Sorry if I was not clear. What I was simply trying to> point out is that if muscle contracts against a > resistance, it gets stronger. Isn't this universally> accepted? The resistance may be the spring of a Bullworker, > a weight, an immovable resistance, the antagonist > muscle's resistance, or the inherent resistance of the>

muscle itself under certain postures. Isn't that a > reality of how the body works?"Well yes and no. Remember, specific to sanchin and other tensions where the antagonist muscle provides the so called resistance, what you are really doing is contracting two muscles at one time and producing no movement or "work" in the classic physics sense of the word.In essence, there a number of problems with this form of "exercise"1-You are producing muscle tension but it isn't doing anything. Think about it. You are simply tensing your muscle but are not using it to try and do anything. You have a bicep contracting and a tricep contracting. By definition, one has to be working very little or it would overpower the other.2-When you do this form of static movement, what you are really doing is training your nervous system to act contrary to its nature. By that I mean that when you extend your arm out to say

punch, naturally your body relaxes the bicep to allow the tricep to contract. By doing tons of sanchin, you are actually sending your nervous system a very confusion set of messages. So, the next time you want to throw a wickedly quick right hand, your nervous system has to walk around a set of pathways in the brain that have been taught to move both muscles very very very slowly.ONE of the ways that Bruce Lee developed his great speed was by working on this interaction between movers, stabilizers, and relaxation.When you do sanchin you are effectively telling the body, don't move quickly, don't move with ease, get very tense and slow.How would that training possibly translate into a strong, fast punch?Please tell me scientifically, not "well the old masters practiced it so it must be good." The old masters did a lot of very very stupid things, like condition their hands into clubs, which is

not very useful in today's world.BB posing is another matter. It is very good for practicing, well posing and if you are a BBrl, you need to be very good at that.BB posing MAY be good for enhancing resting muscle tonus, but that is just my guess.I have NEVER seen any credible research that suggests that BB posing, DVR, or any other form of free form muscle flexing produces ANY strength gains.If folks want to use their time pretending to "swim in the air" well, that is fine. I simply ask that if you are going to advocate this along side something like isometric work, you ackowledge that it has NO research to support that it does anything to increase strength, muscle mass etc.In other words, that it is a myth.> >> > Ok, lets put a cap on this shall we.> > > > This is a bullworker site.> > > > We are NOT interested in DVR, sanchin, BB posing or > > the like.

Thinking your way to strength is cute not> > germane.> > I don't know about DVR or thinking to strength, but > isn't sanchin and BB posing isometrics-related, and > thus, Bullworker related info?> > I'm sorry if my posts about sanchin-like drills and BB > posing appears off topic. But I believe the isometric > training that occurs in such was related to the topics > of this forum. > > And this post is just answering the questions raised.> > My apologies if such are still considered off topic.> > Gerry>

Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.

[Guest guest]

If I recall correctly, Mike Marvel's course has two types of

exercise. One is a simple form of isometric contractions where you

use one stronger muscle to work a weaker muscle against, allowing no

movement.

The classic is the bicep being held immobile by your other hand.

Classic isometrics, all good.

Of course the BW is better as it allows for feedback via the spring.

The other form of tension work in Marvel is what I would call

isometric stretching. In this method, you would for example, use your

back muscles and try and bring your arms behind your back, thus

stretching the chest muscles as far back as they could go.

This is an interesting way to increase flexibility and I see that as

a good thing.

What I am less sure of is its ability to build strength. In the

example above, I am not sure how much strength you could be building

in the muscles that are contracting, ie the rear deltoids and lats

etc.

I know of no research that has tested that methodology.

I supposed you could do these for flexibility and if strength follows

it would be a bonus.

Good stuff!

> > >

> > > Ok, lets put a cap on this shall we.

> > >

> > > This is a bullworker site.

> > >

> > > We are NOT interested in DVR, sanchin, BB posing or

> > > the like. Thinking your way to strength is cute not

> > > germane.

> >

> > I don't know about DVR or thinking to strength, but

> > isn't sanchin and BB posing isometrics-related, and

> > thus, Bullworker related info?

> >

> > I'm sorry if my posts about sanchin-like drills and BB

> > posing appears off topic. But I believe the isometric

> > training that occurs in such was related to the topics

> > of this forum.

> >

> > And this post is just answering the questions raised.

> >

> > My apologies if such are still considered off topic.

> >

> > Gerry

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and

> always stay connected to friends.

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Rich, good answer. Richrrbelloff wrote: If I recall correctly, Mike Marvel's course has two types of exercise. One is a simple form of isometric contractions where you use one stronger muscle to work a weaker muscle against, allowing no movement.The classic is the bicep being held immobile by your other hand. Classic isometrics, all good. Of course the BW is better as it allows for feedback via the spring.The other form of tension work

in Marvel is what I would call isometric stretching. In this method, you would for example, use your back muscles and try and bring your arms behind your back, thus stretching the chest muscles as far back as they could go.This is an interesting way to increase flexibility and I see that as a good thing.What I am less sure of is its ability to build strength. In the example above, I am not sure how much strength you could be building in the muscles that are contracting, ie the rear deltoids and lats etc.I know of no research that has tested that methodology.I supposed you could do these for flexibility and if strength follows it would be a bonus.Good stuff!> > >> > > Ok, lets put a cap on this shall we.> > > > > > This is a bullworker site.> > > > > > We are NOT interested in DVR, sanchin, BB posing or > > > the like. Thinking your way to strength is cute not> > > germane.> > > > I don't know about DVR or thinking to strength, but > > isn't sanchin and BB posing isometrics-related, and > > thus, Bullworker related info?> > > > I'm sorry if my posts about sanchin-like drills and BB > > posing appears off topic. But I believe the isometric > > training that occurs in such was related to the topics > > of this forum. > > > > And this post is just answering the questions raised.> > > > My apologies if such are still considered off topic.> > >

> Gerry> >> > > > > > > ---------------------------------> Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and > always stay connected to friends.>

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

[Guest guest]

>

> Well yes and no. Remember, specific to sanchin and other

> tensions where the antagonist muscle provides the so called

> resistance, what you are really doing is contracting two

> muscles at one time and producing no movement or " work " in

> the classic physics sense of the word.

>

> In essence, there a number of problems with this form of

> " exercise "

>

> 1-You are producing muscle tension but it isn't doing

> anything. Think about it. You are simply tensing your

> muscle but are not using it to try and do anything.

> You have a bicep contracting and a tricep contracting.

> By definition, one has to be working very little or it

> would overpower the other.

Well, that is one way of looking at it.

However, it does not mean that strength is not developed

nor does it meant that the practice is non-functional.

Agonist/antagonist muscle contractions occur in a lot of

functions, and they result in strength development, as

well as coordination.

Simply standing up is a prime example. We have agonists

and antagonists working together and the result is a

strong and functional pair of legs (compared to a

1-year old still learning to walk). I think my balance

developing unconsciously for walking atop the ballet

barres was the result of sanchin. Sure, I could have

simply practiced walking on those barres again and again,

but the point is, with the control developed by

contracting agonist-antagonist muscle pairs simultaneously,

I developed functional control (balance) unconsciously and

without as much effort.

Several other situations can be given as examples:

Someone learning to do a handstand would be locking his

arms (agonist-antagonist contraction) as he lifts his

body up. Both strength and function develop. And in time,

that person could finally support and balance his/her

weight in a handstand. The same with other gymnastic

moves/positions wherein arms or legs must lock for support.

A standing military barbell press requires leg and

trunk agonist-antagonist muscles to contract simultaneously.

Again, both strength and function develop. I doubt that

anyone who practiced the military press purely on a seated,

leaning position could lift the same weight standing up.

This is further proven by the fact that hardly anyone can

do a standing military press with the same weight s/he could

bench press. So it should be obvious that the simultaneous

contractions of muscles of the trunk and legs in practicing

the military press developed strength of those muscles, as

well as function (balancing the weight overhead).

Then there's the " opposite " function developed. If one is

trained to consciously contract, it somehow follows they

could consciously relax the same muscle groups. This is

the principle behind the simultaneous agonist-antagonist

contractions in Lamaze drills. It gives the future mom

the ability to consciously relax needlessly tense muscles

during labor (and quite effectively at that). When we

were having children decades ago, my wife wasn't really

into exercise, but those muscle tensing drills also gave

her obvious increases in arm and leg strength. (Too bad

I did not publish the results. LOL )

> By doing tons of sanchin, you are actually sending your

> nervous system a very confusion set of messages. So, the

> next time you want to throw a wickedly quick right hand,

> your nervous system has to walk around a set of pathways

> in the brain that have been taught to move

> both muscles very very very slowly.

I think this depended on how one was taught. As shown in

the example of Lamaze drills, relaxing is also a skill

learned along with tensing. This was also the way I learned

Uechi sanchin -- muscles relaxed in movement and tensed only

at the end. So speed in actual movement is not really

compromised. (BTW, I just learned Uechi sanchin from a book

by Mattson. I have no formal karate training. My " formal "

MA training was in arnis and Wing Tsun, though I've studied

a lot of arts from reading and watching.)

But yes, there are drills wherein muscles go against each

other throughout the movement. But the point of these drills

is strength development, not speed. Karate and kung fu

students who do these muscle tensing drills also go through

thousands of repetitions of full speed punching. So a drill

or exercise has its own purpose. Strength is developed with

strength drills and speed is developed with speed drills.

Then there's also flexibility and specific coordination

drills (e.g., sparring). I doubt if anyone would claim to

develop speed with the BWs, in spite of the little

coordination there is in its moves. Neither would anyone

claim that weights, or DT, etc. would develop speed and

power. None would because it is obvious that such were

not being done for speed and power development.

> I simply ask that if you are going to advocate this

> along side something like isometric work, you

> ackowledge that it has NO research to support that

> it does anything to increase strength,

> muscle mass etc.

I acknowledge that I still have not seen any specific

research. However, is there a need? Isn't the fact that

strength is produced when a muscle contracts against a

resistance already an accepted principle? Isn't our own

admission of how tiring sanchin can be an acceptance that

our muscles were worked out?

Besides, undocumented results such as the handstand

and similar abilities, a baby learning to stand up,

the standing military press, and similar situations

should show that strength is developed in simultaneous

agonist-antagonist muscle contractions.

Just some more ideas...

Gerry

[Guest guest]

Nice try but no cigar. The strength development in the things you

cite, such as handstands, walking, gymastics, weightlifting, has to

do with the body's need to overcome the force of gravity, not in

conteracting against its antagonist muscles.

Think about it. In these activies, gravity is pulling straight down.

In order to create motion AND to maintain balance, these muscles are

firing back and forth, back and forth and there is motion, albeit

small movements. The force at play is gravity and the muscle must

strain against it and to maintain stability.

Now, compare that to contracting both agonist and antagonist while

keeping the limb still. No gravity, just wasted energy. A biceps pose

improves ones ability to do a biceps pose. It does squat for your

ability to curl a weight with that same bicep.

Sorry, but the ball is still in your court. After 80 or so years of

exercise research, you still have nothing to support your thesis that

this type of work produces measurable strength gains.

Moreover, if you keep practising speeds movements in a slow motion,

muscle contracted way, you wil get slower, not faster.

That is not just me saying so. Look at any accepted principles of

speed development. They work at OVERSPEED applications, not slowing

the motion down. They work at perfecting the act of freeing up

antagonist contraction, not increasing it.

Cmon, this is simply an old training technique that has proven to

simply be useless.

> >

> > Well yes and no. Remember, specific to sanchin and other

> > tensions where the antagonist muscle provides the so called

> > resistance, what you are really doing is contracting two

> > muscles at one time and producing no movement or " work " in

> > the classic physics sense of the word.

> >

> > In essence, there a number of problems with this form of

> > " exercise "

> >

> > 1-You are producing muscle tension but it isn't doing

> > anything. Think about it. You are simply tensing your

> > muscle but are not using it to try and do anything.

> > You have a bicep contracting and a tricep contracting.

> > By definition, one has to be working very little or it

> > would overpower the other.

>

> Well, that is one way of looking at it.

>

> However, it does not mean that strength is not developed

> nor does it meant that the practice is non-functional.

> Agonist/antagonist muscle contractions occur in a lot of

> functions, and they result in strength development, as

> well as coordination.

>

> Simply standing up is a prime example. We have agonists

> and antagonists working together and the result is a

> strong and functional pair of legs (compared to a

> 1-year old still learning to walk). I think my balance

> developing unconsciously for walking atop the ballet

> barres was the result of sanchin. Sure, I could have

> simply practiced walking on those barres again and again,

> but the point is, with the control developed by

> contracting agonist-antagonist muscle pairs simultaneously,

> I developed functional control (balance) unconsciously and

> without as much effort.

>

> Several other situations can be given as examples:

>

> Someone learning to do a handstand would be locking his

> arms (agonist-antagonist contraction) as he lifts his

> body up. Both strength and function develop. And in time,

> that person could finally support and balance his/her

> weight in a handstand. The same with other gymnastic

> moves/positions wherein arms or legs must lock for support.

>

> A standing military barbell press requires leg and

> trunk agonist-antagonist muscles to contract simultaneously.

> Again, both strength and function develop. I doubt that

> anyone who practiced the military press purely on a seated,

> leaning position could lift the same weight standing up.

> This is further proven by the fact that hardly anyone can

> do a standing military press with the same weight s/he could

> bench press. So it should be obvious that the simultaneous

> contractions of muscles of the trunk and legs in practicing

> the military press developed strength of those muscles, as

> well as function (balancing the weight overhead).

>

> Then there's the " opposite " function developed. If one is

> trained to consciously contract, it somehow follows they

> could consciously relax the same muscle groups. This is

> the principle behind the simultaneous agonist-antagonist

> contractions in Lamaze drills. It gives the future mom

> the ability to consciously relax needlessly tense muscles

> during labor (and quite effectively at that). When we

> were having children decades ago, my wife wasn't really

> into exercise, but those muscle tensing drills also gave

> her obvious increases in arm and leg strength. (Too bad

> I did not publish the results. LOL )

>

> > By doing tons of sanchin, you are actually sending your

> > nervous system a very confusion set of messages. So, the

> > next time you want to throw a wickedly quick right hand,

> > your nervous system has to walk around a set of pathways

> > in the brain that have been taught to move

> > both muscles very very very slowly.

>

> I think this depended on how one was taught. As shown in

> the example of Lamaze drills, relaxing is also a skill

> learned along with tensing. This was also the way I learned

> Uechi sanchin -- muscles relaxed in movement and tensed only

> at the end. So speed in actual movement is not really

> compromised. (BTW, I just learned Uechi sanchin from a book

> by Mattson. I have no formal karate training. My " formal "

> MA training was in arnis and Wing Tsun, though I've studied

> a lot of arts from reading and watching.)

>

> But yes, there are drills wherein muscles go against each

> other throughout the movement. But the point of these drills

> is strength development, not speed. Karate and kung fu

> students who do these muscle tensing drills also go through

> thousands of repetitions of full speed punching. So a drill

> or exercise has its own purpose. Strength is developed with

> strength drills and speed is developed with speed drills.

> Then there's also flexibility and specific coordination

> drills (e.g., sparring). I doubt if anyone would claim to

> develop speed with the BWs, in spite of the little

> coordination there is in its moves. Neither would anyone

> claim that weights, or DT, etc. would develop speed and

> power. None would because it is obvious that such were

> not being done for speed and power development.

>

> > I simply ask that if you are going to advocate this

> > along side something like isometric work, you

> > ackowledge that it has NO research to support that

> > it does anything to increase strength,

> > muscle mass etc.

>

> I acknowledge that I still have not seen any specific

> research. However, is there a need? Isn't the fact that

> strength is produced when a muscle contracts against a

> resistance already an accepted principle? Isn't our own

> admission of how tiring sanchin can be an acceptance that

> our muscles were worked out?

>

> Besides, undocumented results such as the handstand

> and similar abilities, a baby learning to stand up,

> the standing military press, and similar situations

> should show that strength is developed in simultaneous

> agonist-antagonist muscle contractions.

>

> Just some more ideas...

>

>

>

> Gerry

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Sorry, but the ball is still in your court. After 80 or

> so years of exercise research, you still have nothing to

> support your thesis that this type of work produces

> measurable strength gains.

So you're saying a muscle contracting this way will not

become stronger? Isn't that going against an already

accepted principle? I really see no difference between

the work of a bicep contracting against a BW or against

a tricep, or against any form of resistance. Sure, the

force might be different, but there is obvious work on

the muscle. Otherwise, we can just keep our arm tensed

forever without getting tired.

If the muscle contracts, then it develops (or at least,

maintains) strength. What you are saying seems going

against this accepted fact.

> That is not just me saying so. Look at any accepted

> principles of speed development. They work at OVERSPEED

> applications, not slowing the motion down.

I completely agree with you on this one! Strength training

is different from speed training. The muscle tensing is

for strength, not speed. So we have no disagreement here.

To say that strength training with simultaneous

agonist-antagonist muscle contraction is detrimental to

speed is reminiscent of claims that weight training results

in slowness. Do you believe in this?

> The strength development in the things you cite, such as

> handstands, walking, gymastics, weightlifting, has to

> do with the body's need to overcome the force of gravity,

> not in conteracting against its antagonist muscles.

I think the issue is whether or not strength was developed.

It was.

Besides, the trunk and leg contractions in a military press

have nothing to do with gravity, but with hollding the body

still so that the weight can be supported. Balancing against

gravity is actually working against forces perpendicular to

the line of gravity. The back-and-forth small movements you

mention are along this line of force, not against the line

of force of gravity.

> Cmon, this is simply an old training technique that has

> proven to simply be useless.

Well, you say I have no proof it's useful (though I disagree:

it's been proven time and again that muscle that contracts

against a resistance develops strength, with no regard as to

the type of resistance), but I think the opposite holds true:

there's no proof that it's useless. And my own experience

(balance coordination improvement without consciously

developing for balance) is proof enough for me.

Gerry

[Guest guest]

I am not going to argue with you as you keep coming back to the point

that muscle contraction builds strength.

The fact is that not all muscle contraction builds usable strength.

For example, in BB posing, over time I am sure that you can develop

the ability to contract that muscle intensely ie so that it is quite

hard.

However, does that translate into the ability to curl a heavy

weight? I have never seen any research to suggest this and I have

never seen any competitive weightlifter even remotely suggest that

this practice is good for gaining useable strength.

So, the ball really is in your court as there is simply no science

that supports this dry land swimming theory.

Specific to my gravity comment, I stand by it. Think it through. Are

you suggesting that by simply standing up and contracting my legs, I

am getting stronger. Get real.

Now, if I am supporting 500 lbs above, you get I can get stronger,as

the weight is making me use my muscles and skeleton to support it

overhead.

This is very different than what you are suggesting.

Specific to deveoping the speed and strength of a punch, there is NO

priniciple of training or physiology that I know of to suggest that

the contracting of an agonist and atagonist msucle at the some time

is a good thing.

Both the power and the speed of a punch require that the antagonist

RELAX in order for the mover muscle to create speed and power.

The only time both contract IS AT THE MOMENT OF IMPACT!

If you are training in the way you suggest, you are suboptimizing

your training and COULD be getting better results.

THINK about it.

> >

> > Sorry, but the ball is still in your court. After 80 or

> > so years of exercise research, you still have nothing to

> > support your thesis that this type of work produces

> > measurable strength gains.

>

> So you're saying a muscle contracting this way will not

> become stronger? Isn't that going against an already

> accepted principle? I really see no difference between

> the work of a bicep contracting against a BW or against

> a tricep, or against any form of resistance. Sure, the

> force might be different, but there is obvious work on

> the muscle. Otherwise, we can just keep our arm tensed

> forever without getting tired.

>

> If the muscle contracts, then it develops (or at least,

> maintains) strength. What you are saying seems going

> against this accepted fact.

>

> > That is not just me saying so. Look at any accepted

> > principles of speed development. They work at OVERSPEED

> > applications, not slowing the motion down.

>

> I completely agree with you on this one! Strength training

> is different from speed training. The muscle tensing is

> for strength, not speed. So we have no disagreement here.

> To say that strength training with simultaneous

> agonist-antagonist muscle contraction is detrimental to

> speed is reminiscent of claims that weight training results

> in slowness. Do you believe in this?

>

> > The strength development in the things you cite, such as

> > handstands, walking, gymastics, weightlifting, has to

> > do with the body's need to overcome the force of gravity,

> > not in conteracting against its antagonist muscles.

>

> I think the issue is whether or not strength was developed.

> It was.

>

> Besides, the trunk and leg contractions in a military press

> have nothing to do with gravity, but with hollding the body

> still so that the weight can be supported. Balancing against

> gravity is actually working against forces perpendicular to

> the line of gravity. The back-and-forth small movements you

> mention are along this line of force, not against the line

> of force of gravity.

>

> > Cmon, this is simply an old training technique that has

> > proven to simply be useless.

>

> Well, you say I have no proof it's useful (though I disagree:

> it's been proven time and again that muscle that contracts

> against a resistance develops strength, with no regard as to

> the type of resistance), but I think the opposite holds true:

> there's no proof that it's useless. And my own experience

> (balance coordination improvement without consciously

> developing for balance) is proof enough for me.

>

> Gerry

>

[Guest guest]

I already addressed that about 5 posts ago.

Tryt to keep up!

> > > >

> > > > Sorry, but the ball is still in your court. After 80 or

> > > > so years of exercise research, you still have nothing to

> > > > support your thesis that this type of work produces

> > > > measurable strength gains.

> > >

> > > So you're saying a muscle contracting this way will not

> > > become stronger? Isn't that going against an already

> > > accepted principle? I really see no difference between

> > > the work of a bicep contracting against a BW or against

> > > a tricep, or against any form of resistance. Sure, the

> > > force might be different, but there is obvious work on

> > > the muscle. Otherwise, we can just keep our arm tensed

> > > forever without getting tired.

> > >

> > > If the muscle contracts, then it develops (or at least,

> > > maintains) strength. What you are saying seems going

> > > against this accepted fact.

> > >

> > > > That is not just me saying so. Look at any accepted

> > > > principles of speed development. They work at OVERSPEED

> > > > applications, not slowing the motion down.

> > >

> > > I completely agree with you on this one! Strength training

> > > is different from speed training. The muscle tensing is

> > > for strength, not speed. So we have no disagreement here.

> > > To say that strength training with simultaneous

> > > agonist-antagonist muscle contraction is detrimental to

> > > speed is reminiscent of claims that weight training results

> > > in slowness. Do you believe in this?

> > >

> > > > The strength development in the things you cite, such as

> > > > handstands, walking, gymastics, weightlifting, has to

> > > > do with the body's need to overcome the force of gravity,

> > > > not in conteracting against its antagonist muscles.

> > >

> > > I think the issue is whether or not strength was developed.

> > > It was.

> > >

> > > Besides, the trunk and leg contractions in a military press

> > > have nothing to do with gravity, but with hollding the body

> > > still so that the weight can be supported. Balancing against

> > > gravity is actually working against forces perpendicular to

> > > the line of gravity. The back-and-forth small movements you

> > > mention are along this line of force, not against the line

> > > of force of gravity.

> > >

> > > > Cmon, this is simply an old training technique that has

> > > > proven to simply be useless.

> > >

> > > Well, you say I have no proof it's useful (though I disagree:

> > > it's been proven time and again that muscle that contracts

> > > against a resistance develops strength, with no regard as to

> > > the type of resistance), but I think the opposite holds true:

> > > there's no proof that it's useless. And my own experience

> > > (balance coordination improvement without consciously

> > > developing for balance) is proof enough for me.

> > >

> > > Gerry

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I wish he'd put that "virtual" stuff to rest once and for all! Let's get back to the rrbelloff wrote: I already addressed that about 5 posts ago.Tryt to keep up!>

> > >> > > > Sorry, but the ball is still in your court. After 80 or> > > > so years of exercise research, you still have nothing to> > > > support your thesis that this type of work produces> > > > measurable strength gains.> > > > > > So you're saying a muscle contracting this way will not> > > become stronger? Isn't that going against an already> > > accepted principle? I really see no difference between> > > the work of a bicep contracting against a BW or against> > > a tricep, or against any form of resistance. Sure, the > > > force might be different, but there is obvious work on > > > the muscle. Otherwise, we can just keep our arm tensed > > > forever without getting tired. > > > > > > If the muscle contracts, then it develops (or at least, >

> > maintains) strength. What you are saying seems going> > > against this accepted fact.> > > > > > > That is not just me saying so. Look at any accepted> > > > principles of speed development. They work at OVERSPEED > > > > applications, not slowing the motion down. > > > > > > I completely agree with you on this one! Strength training > > > is different from speed training. The muscle tensing is > > > for strength, not speed. So we have no disagreement here. > > > To say that strength training with simultaneous > > > agonist-antagonist muscle contraction is detrimental to > > > speed is reminiscent of claims that weight training results > > > in slowness. Do you believe in this?> > > > > > > The strength development in the things you cite, such as > >

> > handstands, walking, gymastics, weightlifting, has to > > > > do with the body's need to overcome the force of gravity,> > > > not in conteracting against its antagonist muscles.> > > > > > I think the issue is whether or not strength was developed.> > > It was. > > > > > > Besides, the trunk and leg contractions in a military press > > > have nothing to do with gravity, but with hollding the body > > > still so that the weight can be supported. Balancing against> > > gravity is actually working against forces perpendicular to> > > the line of gravity. The back-and-forth small movements you> > > mention are along this line of force, not against the line> > > of force of gravity.> > > > > > > Cmon, this is simply an old training technique that has> >

> > proven to simply be useless.> > > > > > Well, you say I have no proof it's useful (though I disagree:> > > it's been proven time and again that muscle that contracts> > > against a resistance develops strength, with no regard as to> > > the type of resistance), but I think the opposite holds true: > > > there's no proof that it's useless. And my own experience > > > (balance coordination improvement without consciously > > > developing for balance) is proof enough for me. > > > > > > Gerry> > >> >>

Be a PS3 game guru.Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.

[Guest guest]

I wish he'd put that "virtual" stuff to rest once and for all! Let's get back to the Bullworker. Richrrbelloff wrote: I already addressed that about 5 posts ago.Tryt to keep up!> > > >> > > > Sorry, but the ball is still in your court. After 80 or> > > > so years of exercise research, you still have nothing to> > > > support your thesis that this type of work produces> > > > measurable strength gains.> > > > > > So you're saying a muscle contracting this way will not> > > become stronger? Isn't that going against an already> > > accepted principle? I really see no difference between> > > the work of a bicep contracting against a BW or against> > > a tricep, or against any form of resistance. Sure, the > > > force might be different, but there is obvious work on > > > the muscle. Otherwise, we can just keep our arm tensed > > > forever without getting tired. > > > > > > If the muscle contracts, then it

develops (or at least, > > > maintains) strength. What you are saying seems going> > > against this accepted fact.> > > > > > > That is not just me saying so. Look at any accepted> > > > principles of speed development. They work at OVERSPEED > > > > applications, not slowing the motion down. > > > > > > I completely agree with you on this one! Strength training > > > is different from speed training. The muscle tensing is > > > for strength, not speed. So we have no disagreement here. > > > To say that strength training with simultaneous > > > agonist-antagonist muscle contraction is detrimental to > > > speed is reminiscent of claims that weight training results > > > in slowness. Do you believe in this?> > > > > > > The strength development in the things

you cite, such as > > > > handstands, walking, gymastics, weightlifting, has to > > > > do with the body's need to overcome the force of gravity,> > > > not in conteracting against its antagonist muscles.> > > > > > I think the issue is whether or not strength was developed.> > > It was. > > > > > > Besides, the trunk and leg contractions in a military press > > > have nothing to do with gravity, but with hollding the body > > > still so that the weight can be supported. Balancing against> > > gravity is actually working against forces perpendicular to> > > the line of gravity. The back-and-forth small movements you> > > mention are along this line of force, not against the line> > > of force of gravity.> > > > > > > Cmon, this is simply an old training

technique that has> > > > proven to simply be useless.> > > > > > Well, you say I have no proof it's useful (though I disagree:> > > it's been proven time and again that muscle that contracts> > > against a resistance develops strength, with no regard as to> > > the type of resistance), but I think the opposite holds true: > > > there's no proof that it's useless. And my own experience > > > (balance coordination improvement without consciously > > > developing for balance) is proof enough for me. > > > > > > Gerry> > >> >>

Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.