Re: Bullworker exercises are not isometrics

[Guest guest]

Makes perfect sense to me. If I'd check my mail more

often, I'd have used the dumbbell example. When you

compress a spring, light or heavy makes no difference,

the spring is going to push back, trying to get back

to its original length. Thus, the person pushing is

using different muscles, or using them in different

ways, to hold the spring in a compressed state than

when pushing against a static, immovable object.

The Bullworker/Steel Bow is more effective as a

result.

Chuck

--- mmcrider56 wrote:

> I have no idea why you are bringing

> into this. I

> didn't bring him up.

>

> I think the Bullworker more closely is aligned with

> the Max

> Contraction idea that Little and Mike Mentzer

> came up with. It's

> easy to experience the difference. Take a weight

> JUST too heavy for

> you to move, have someone place it in your hands,

> hold it for 7 - 10

> seconds. Now, do an isometric against something

> that doesn't push

> back using the same 'movement' and then tell me

> there's no

> difference. I think you'll easily be able to tell

> which was harder.

>

> Little contends that when there is a 'push

> back' and the

> movement is static, the muscle is worked

> eccentrically as much as it

> is worked concentrically. This would not be true

> with a stationary

> object that does not push back.

>

> I guess if one could not compress the Steel Bow 28

> (everyone says

> it's hard) at all, then I would grant that it would

> be isometric. I

> challenge anyone to compare the difference and see

> it for yourself.

>

> I just offered this as a possible explanation of why

> some people were

> getting better results with the Bullworker than

> predicted by a

> similar isometric protocol.

>

> Matt

>

>

> > >

> > > Bullworker exercises are not isometrics. If you

> grabbed a pipe

> > about

> > > the length of a Bullworker and attempted to

> squeeze it together

> as

> > > one would do with the inner handles of a

> Bullworker in a chest

> > > compression exercise, then THAT would be

> isometric. The pipe

> does

> > > not 'push back'.

> > >

> > > But, when one compresses the Bullworker to the

> point where it can

> > no

> > > longer move, then, unlike the pipe, the

> Bullworker IS pushing

> > back.

> > > Little explained in his book Max

> Contraction that when

> holding

> > a

> > > weight that one cannot move, there are eccentric

> muscle

> > contractions

> > > that never occur in an isometric move.

> Isometrics and most

> > > isokinetic exercises only work concentrically.

> > >

> > > So, citing studies for or against isometrics

> misses the point in

> my

> > > opinion. I think this may account for the

> differences in the

> > results

> > > people experience with the Bullworker beyond

> that of Isometrics.

> > >

> > > Matt

> > >

> >

>

>

>

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Got a little couch potato?

Check out fun summer activities for kids.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail & p=summer+activities+for+kids & cs=bz

[Guest guest]

Matt,

The pipe does 'push back'. This is simple physics (Newton's 3rd

Law), if it didn't it would deform and be crushed.

I believe the reason that a spring was used in the initial research

into isometrics was so that the force/strength used in the

contraction could be measured accurately and any gains would be

apparent. This would be hard to do using something like a pipe.

> > > >

> > > > Bullworker exercises are not isometrics. If you

> > grabbed a pipe

> > > about

> > > > the length of a Bullworker and attempted to

> > squeeze it together

> > as

> > > > one would do with the inner handles of a

> > Bullworker in a chest

> > > > compression exercise, then THAT would be

> > isometric. The pipe

> > does

> > > > not 'push back'.

> > > >

> > > > But, when one compresses the Bullworker to the

> > point where it can

> > > no

> > > > longer move, then, unlike the pipe, the

> > Bullworker IS pushing

> > > back.

> > > > Little explained in his book Max

> > Contraction that when

> > holding

> > > a

> > > > weight that one cannot move, there are eccentric

> > muscle

> > > contractions

> > > > that never occur in an isometric move.

> > Isometrics and most

> > > > isokinetic exercises only work concentrically.

> > > >

> > > > So, citing studies for or against isometrics

> > misses the point in

> > my

> > > > opinion. I think this may account for the

> > differences in the

> > > results

> > > > people experience with the Bullworker beyond

> > that of Isometrics.

> > > >

> > > > Matt

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

______________

> Got a little couch potato?

> Check out fun summer activities for kids.

> http://search.yahoo.com/search?

fr=oni_on_mail & p=summer+activities+for+kids & cs=bz

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Bullworker exercises are not isometrics. If you grabbed a pipe

> about the length of a Bullworker and attempted to squeeze it

> together as one would do with the inner handles of a Bullworker

> in a chest compression exercise, then THAT would be isometric.

> The pipe does not 'push back'.

>

> But, when one compresses the Bullworker to the point where it

> can no longer move, then, unlike the pipe, the Bullworker IS

> pushing back. Little explained in his book Max Contraction

> that when holding a weight that one cannot move, there are

> eccentric muscle contractions that never occur in an isometric

> move. Isometrics and most isokinetic exercises only work

> concentrically.

Interesting insight.

However, could it be just a matter of definition? I know " isometric "

refers to the contracting muscle, whether or not the resistance

" pushes " back. So whatever the resistance, if the muscle doesn't

change in length, then it's isometric.

So maybe terminologies must center around this. As you started, we

can have terms like " eccentric isometrics " and " concentric

isometrics " ?

In relation to this, http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/kelly22.htm

mentions " overcoming isometrics " and " yielding isometrics, " though

the latter is not strictly isometric. If we compress or expand the

Bullworker to our max so that we can't hold the position longer

than a second or so, then the BW pushes/pulls back but we

continue resisting for some 7 seconds, it would be " yielding "

isometrics.

Just some more thoughts.

Gerry

[Guest guest]

Nice one ! - one up for Newton and the BW...

Maybe we WOULD all be better off with a BW that we can hardly

compress but seems to me that this goes against what the BW

is all about - making pipe-compressing enjoyable.

I rarely compress my BW2 beyond half=way, but am happy with

the results and have never caused myself any injuries...

Cheers,

J,S.

> > > > >

> > > > > Bullworker exercises are not isometrics. If you

> > > grabbed a pipe

> > > > about

> > > > > the length of a Bullworker and attempted to

> > > squeeze it together

> > > as

> > > > > one would do with the inner handles of a

> > > Bullworker in a chest

> > > > > compression exercise, then THAT would be

> > > isometric. The pipe

> > > does

> > > > > not 'push back'.

> > > > >

> > > > > But, when one compresses the Bullworker to the

> > > point where it can

> > > > no

> > > > > longer move, then, unlike the pipe, the

> > > Bullworker IS pushing

> > > > back.

> > > > > Little explained in his book Max

> > > Contraction that when

> > > holding

> > > > a

> > > > > weight that one cannot move, there are eccentric

> > > muscle

> > > > contractions

> > > > > that never occur in an isometric move.

> > > Isometrics and most

> > > > > isokinetic exercises only work concentrically.

> > > > >

> > > > > So, citing studies for or against isometrics

> > > misses the point in

> > > my

> > > > > opinion. I think this may account for the

> > > differences in the

> > > > results

> > > > > people experience with the Bullworker beyond

> > > that of Isometrics.

> > > > >

> > > > > Matt

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

__________________________________________________

____________________

> ______________

> > Got a little couch potato?

> > Check out fun summer activities for kids.

> > http://search.yahoo.com/search?

> fr=oni_on_mail & p=summer+activities+for+kids & cs=bz

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I believe you have set up a straw man. The pipe does not " push

back " (a non-scientific term) as the Bullworker or weights " push

back. "

Try this experiment and see for yourself. Go to a machine and

lock a weight bar down. Don't put any weights on the bar. Do an

isometric curl for seven seconds. Then unlock the bar and place JUST

enough weight that you cannot advance a curl. Have someone spot you

the weight and hold it for seven seconds. Then tell me if you don't

see the difference. The muscles are working both eccentrically and

concentrically in the case of the weights and only concentrically in

the case of the isometric. But, both exercises were static. The

extra exertion you need for the weights is the extra force needed for

the additional " push back " of the weights.

Sure, the machine " pushes back " just as you say, but you can

see that it doesn't " push back " in the same way as the weights " push

back. "

I hope that clears up what I was saying.

Matt

> > > > >

> > > > > Bullworker exercises are not isometrics. If you

> > > grabbed a pipe

> > > > about

> > > > > the length of a Bullworker and attempted to

> > > squeeze it together

> > > as

> > > > > one would do with the inner handles of a

> > > Bullworker in a chest

> > > > > compression exercise, then THAT would be

> > > isometric. The pipe

> > > does

> > > > > not 'push back'.

> > > > >

> > > > > But, when one compresses the Bullworker to the

> > > point where it can

> > > > no

> > > > > longer move, then, unlike the pipe, the

> > > Bullworker IS pushing

> > > > back.

> > > > > Little explained in his book Max

> > > Contraction that when

> > > holding

> > > > a

> > > > > weight that one cannot move, there are eccentric

> > > muscle

> > > > contractions

> > > > > that never occur in an isometric move.

> > > Isometrics and most

> > > > > isokinetic exercises only work concentrically.

> > > > >

> > > > > So, citing studies for or against isometrics

> > > misses the point in

> > > my

> > > > > opinion. I think this may account for the

> > > differences in the

> > > > results

> > > > > people experience with the Bullworker beyond

> > > that of Isometrics.

> > > > >

> > > > > Matt

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> ______________

> > Got a little couch potato?

> > Check out fun summer activities for kids.

> > http://search.yahoo.com/search?

> fr=oni_on_mail & p=summer+activities+for+kids & cs=bz

> >

>

[Guest guest]

that's right ..the Pipe pushes back as well ( every

action has an equal and opposite reaction ). However,

as an exercising media , meant for regular use ,

pushing a pipe ( which has no visual effect ) will be

pretty darn boring and woud be quickly discarded.

However, in a Bullworker , there ia a motion which can

be seen and also gives a visual impact on the progress

on strength increase.

I recall ,some months back we were havin a discussion

( in this group ) on the merit of having a 'power

meter' on te bullworker and many had comented that it

didn't make much sense. The psychology is similar ..it

just gives a feature by which you can have a

'measurement' and this could be interesting to someone

to record the 'changes'. Similar to measuring your

body dimensions on a weekly / monthly basis

--- keithsav_uk wrote:

> Matt,

>

> The pipe does 'push back'. This is simple physics

> (Newton's 3rd

> Law), if it didn't it would deform and be crushed.

>

> I believe the reason that a spring was used in the

> initial research

> into isometrics was so that the force/strength used

> in the

> contraction could be measured accurately and any

> gains would be

> apparent. This would be hard to do using something

> like a pipe.

>

>

>

>

>

> > > > >

> > > > > Bullworker exercises are not isometrics. If

> you

> > > grabbed a pipe

> > > > about

> > > > > the length of a Bullworker and attempted to

> > > squeeze it together

> > > as

> > > > > one would do with the inner handles of a

> > > Bullworker in a chest

> > > > > compression exercise, then THAT would be

> > > isometric. The pipe

> > > does

> > > > > not 'push back'.

> > > > >

> > > > > But, when one compresses the Bullworker to

> the

> > > point where it can

> > > > no

> > > > > longer move, then, unlike the pipe, the

> > > Bullworker IS pushing

> > > > back.

> > > > > Little explained in his book Max

> > > Contraction that when

> > > holding

> > > > a

> > > > > weight that one cannot move, there are

> eccentric

> > > muscle

> > > > contractions

> > > > > that never occur in an isometric move.

> > > Isometrics and most

> > > > > isokinetic exercises only work

> concentrically.

> > > > >

> > > > > So, citing studies for or against isometrics

> > > misses the point in

> > > my

> > > > > opinion. I think this may account for the

> > > differences in the

> > > > results

> > > > > people experience with the Bullworker beyond

> > > that of Isometrics.

> > > > >

> > > > > Matt

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> ______________

> > Got a little couch potato?

> > Check out fun summer activities for kids.

> > http://search.yahoo.com/search?

> fr=oni_on_mail & p=summer+activities+for+kids & cs=bz

> >

>

>

>

=== message truncated ===

Cheers,

Surojit

Get the freedom to save as many mails as you wish. To know how, go to

http://help.yahoo.com/l/in/yahoo/mail/yahoomail/tools/tools-08.html

[Guest guest]

I agree that Bullworker exercise does not become purely isometric

until you are in the fully contracted position - at which point it

should make no difference that the Bullworker is pushing back against

you. Whenever you push on any object - if it is stationary by

definition it pushes back with an equal and opposite force (any

physics or mech eng majors care to argue that?). The question is - is

there any significant benefit to the Bullworker movement and the

forces applied before you reach full contraction - and is there a

benefit to when you relax against the machine to return to starting

position (eccentric contraction)?

If there were no benefit to these then we would all be just as well

off to have an adjustable telescoping tube to do pure isometrics with.

However, if you believe there are benefits to the range and the

negative resistance then clearly free weights must be an even better

choice for building maximum muscle and strength. We can't have it

both ways.

Ed

> >

> > Bullworker exercises are not isometrics. If you grabbed a pipe

> about

> > the length of a Bullworker and attempted to squeeze it together as

> > one would do with the inner handles of a Bullworker in a chest

> > compression exercise, then THAT would be isometric. The pipe does

> > not 'push back'.

> >

> > But, when one compresses the Bullworker to the point where it can

> no

> > longer move, then, unlike the pipe, the Bullworker IS pushing

> back.

> > Little explained in his book Max Contraction that when holding

> a

> > weight that one cannot move, there are eccentric muscle

> contractions

> > that never occur in an isometric move. Isometrics and most

> > isokinetic exercises only work concentrically.

> >

> > So, citing studies for or against isometrics misses the point in my

> > opinion. I think this may account for the differences in the

> results

> > people experience with the Bullworker beyond that of Isometrics.

> >

> > Matt

> >

>

[Guest guest]

In my experience the results with BW 'isometrics' are far more

certain and controllable than with weights. It's all wrapped up in

one piece of kit, and takes a few minutes to do. Aside from the

Physics, it gives me more pleasure to compress than to try to

compress, and that's why the BW is so innovative...

Cheers, J,S.

> > >

> > > Bullworker exercises are not isometrics. If you grabbed a

pipe

> > about

> > > the length of a Bullworker and attempted to squeeze it

together as

> > > one would do with the inner handles of a Bullworker in a

chest

> > > compression exercise, then THAT would be isometric. The

pipe does

> > > not 'push back'.

> > >

> > > But, when one compresses the Bullworker to the point

where it can

> > no

> > > longer move, then, unlike the pipe, the Bullworker IS

pushing

> > back.

> > > Little explained in his book Max Contraction that when

holding

> > a

> > > weight that one cannot move, there are eccentric muscle

> > contractions

> > > that never occur in an isometric move. Isometrics and

most

> > > isokinetic exercises only work concentrically.

> > >

> > > So, citing studies for or against isometrics misses the

point in my

> > > opinion. I think this may account for the differences in the

> > results

> > > people experience with the Bullworker beyond that of

Isometrics.

> > >

> > > Matt

> > >

> >

>