Re: --- 70% of Present Strength for Maximum Result?

[Guest guest]

With 100% strength you only can try how strong you can pull or push something.

But you are not able to make a correct exercise for 10 times.

So test your maximum strength and take 70% of it for your repetitions.

That's the best way we have developed together with some great universities here

in Germany.

Best wishes

- Cliff Koelbel

Koelbel Training Research

Germany

>

> My mind doesnt want to accept that 70% of my present strength will bring

" maximimum " results. It seems logical that 100% would bring better results.

>

> Has anyone tried it both ways?

>

> I wonder where they come up with the 70% idea. The 70% concept has always

buged me. ))

>

> What do you guys thing?

>

>

>

> Watash

>

[Guest guest]

Wow! Mr. Koelbel himself!! Welcome to this forum!

When I read " 100% " or " maximum " , I always ask myself, what does that mean? If

you apply a certain strength against some resistance, is 100% (the maximum) what

you can push or pull or lift for 1 second? Or for a fraction of a second? Or for

3, or 7 seconds, or even longer?

As for the bullworker: Let's say you do a chest compression and push the ring up

to a certain number on the powermeter, but you are not able to hold the

compression at that point for even 2 seconds. Then I would say, you don't really

master that level of resistance, because you cannot apply this force for a

certain time.

The duration or the number of possible repetitions of a certain movement is very

essential in stimulating strength and muscle growth.

Of course, there are many various opinions about how intense and how long (or

how short) your training should be for maximum results.

Powerlifters usually use heavy weights, in a range of only 1-5 repetitions, done

in an explosive way, but many sets of the same exercise, with long pauses (3-5

min) in between. This seems to stimulate pure strength through better muscle

coordination, technique and electric innervation, such as powerlifters need, but

will not necessarily let the muscles grow as much as bodybuilders would like to.

And because of the heavy weights, it always bears a high risk of injury, if you

lose control of the weight for just one second.

Other trainers recommend moderate to heavy weights in a range of 6-10

repetitions for 3-5 sets in every exercise. This is the " classic " way

bodybuilders trained in the 1950's to 1960's. But even here exists no agreement

in whether you should train in a way that you stop a set shortly before failure,

when you feel you won't be able to finish the next repetition, or whether you

should train until failure, or even train beyond failure (by cheating out some

more reps, getting support from a training partner, or doing several partial

repetitions if you can't do a complete one).

Some go as far as training 20 -30 sets per muscle group (high volume training,

which can last 2 hours or more a day, is out of reality for most of us, and is

not even necessary, as many scientific studies verify), others advocate brief

workouts with only one set for each muscle group, always to or beyond failure

(HIT - High Intensity Training as made famous by Mike Menther; you can finish

such a workout in 7-10 minutes!).

Truth is, all these methods can produce results, but the extreme ones (very

brief high intensity - very long volume training sessions) don't work for

everyone, or not for a long time. They might be a way to " shock " your muscles

and thereby stimulate new growth or strength initially, but if you carry it too

far, it will kill any progress, because it's pure stress for the recovery

ability of your body ( " overtraining " ).

Common ground in most scientific studies about weight training is, that 60-80%

of your 1 repetition maximum (the maximum weight you are able to lift up and let

down in a controlled manner for ONE TIME) are enough to stimulate your muscles

to grow. These 60 - 80% (= average of 70%) mean, that with such a weight you are

able to do not only 1 repetition, but 6-12 consecutive repetitions. Here again,

the time factor, the duration of a full repetition must be included in the

calculation.

From my training with free weights I am used to do one complete repetition

within 4-6 seconds, which is rather slow compared to what you can see in many

training video clips on youtube. But this slow speed makes sure that the muscles

are under tension during the whole time and lift the weight, and I am not

throwing the weights and use momentum. I do short range movements in 4 seconds,

long range movements in 6 seconds. A metronome set at 60 beats per minute helps

me to monitor the speed.

Now, when I do isokinetic exercises (with my isokinator), I use a resistance

which allows me to do 6-10 repetitions, 4-6 seconds each, until I fail. This

means I hold the targeted muscles under constant tension (controlled by the

" cockpit " ) for a complete duration of 24 - 60 seconds for one set. That's the

" time under tension " which most scientists regard as ideal for stimulating

muscle growth.

With this kind of training to failure within 24 - 60 seconds, I do 2-3 sets

(with a 30 second pause between sets) for each muscle group. After that, the

targeted muscles are " pumped " up, I pause for a 1 minute and continue to train

the next muscle group. This way, a training session lasts only about 25-30

minutes.

It's absolutely right, what Cliff Koelbel writes: If you go for 100%, you just

test your maximum power, but you don't train your muscles!

Jens

> >

> > My mind doesnt want to accept that 70% of my present strength will bring

" maximimum " results. It seems logical that 100% would bring better results.

> >

> > Has anyone tried it both ways?

> >

> > I wonder where they come up with the 70% idea. The 70% concept has always

buged me. ))

> >

> > What do you guys thing?

> >

> >

> >

> > Watash

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Truly outstanding !

> > >

> > > My mind doesnt want to accept that 70% of my present strength will bring

" maximimum " results. It seems logical that 100% would bring better results.

> > >

> > > Has anyone tried it both ways?

> > >

> > > I wonder where they come up with the 70% idea. The 70% concept has always

buged me. ))

> > >

> > > What do you guys thing?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Watash

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Welcome aboard Cliff!

For some reason I thought you had already joined our E-Group a long time ago.

I look forwad to reading your comments and insights with both your legacy/older

Bullworker type products, as well as your newer Isokinator designs & products.

I'm getting the feeling that Isokinetics/Isomotion is the wave of the future and

both Bullworker & Isokinator designs have that capability.

I commend you and your family's long term commitment to offering innovative

quality products, and look forward to hearing news about your newer developments

and products also.

All the best,

TG

> >

> > My mind doesnt want to accept that 70% of my present strength will bring

" maximimum " results. It seems logical that 100% would bring better results.

> >

> > Has anyone tried it both ways?

> >

> > I wonder where they come up with the 70% idea. The 70% concept has always

buged me. ))

> >

> > What do you guys thing?

> >

> >

> >

> > Watash

> >

>