Form & controlled reps or exploding???

**ANicley** · 03-17-2004, 05:34 PM

Do most of you use slow squeezing reps with good form and maybe a pause at the end contraction or the exploding reps with bigger weight and not so good form (a kind of cheating). I hope no one has posted this before.

**animal-inside** · 03-17-2004, 06:03 PM

I beleive form and control will give u better size and strength.. but explosive movement will give u jsut that->explosive power

the difference is
explosive power is strength and speed- sprinting
strength is just - strength no speed in the equation- shoudler presses

**wakatak87** · 03-17-2004, 11:58 PM

i know what you mean, i think when people do that exploding hting its trying to make themselves see how much weight they can do, regardless of what muscles you use. This usually ends up hurting your back or something so only do the explode thing if you rproving somethoing

**Elliot** · 03-18-2004, 12:05 AM

Exploding = Muscle Endurance
Slow and Steady = Gain in size..

**hybrid** · 03-18-2004, 08:23 AM

good form, controlled movement and the squeeze at the top should be the main way that you lift for best results. Explosive movements, half reps, negatives, etc... all have their place in helping you reach whatever goals you have, but slow and steady is the base.

**DNoMac** · 03-18-2004, 11:54 AM

I have always been an advocate of slow controlled reps, but just recently (after watching pumping iron) i began the more explosive reps. I still keep them controlled and allow for a little squeez at the end of the rep, but the explosiveness allows for a more intense workout and has worked well for me. I would throw the explosiveness in every now and then as long as you can still maintain good form.

**brad fuel** · 03-18-2004, 03:03 PM

[QUOTE=Elliot]Exploding = Muscle Endurance
QUOTE]

???? Explain your rational behind this please.

It really depends what you're training for. what sport you play and your goals. If you're just doing a general weight training program then i suggest slow controlled lifts

**Animal04** · 03-18-2004, 04:52 PM

I dont see how doing reps slower is better. The more explosive you are, the more muscle fibers you are recruiting. So why wouldnt the best way to gain size and strength be to do the negative slow and under control, pause for a split second, and then move the weight up as fast as you can.

I have read so many articles that 1, state that doing reps slow has absolutely no benefits and 2, the best way to gain is to recruit as much fibers as possible

**Elliot** · 03-18-2004, 05:18 PM

[QUOTE=brad fuel]

Originally Posted by Elliot

Exploding = Muscle Endurance
QUOTE]

???? Explain your rational behind this please.

It really depends what you're training for. what sport you play and your goals. If you're just doing a general weight training program then i suggest slow controlled lifts

i'll scan the page for you out of arnolds book..

**DNoMac** · 03-18-2004, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Animal04

I dont see how doing reps slower is better. The more explosive you are, the more muscle fibers you are recruiting. So why wouldnt the best way to gain size and strength be to do the negative slow and under control, pause for a split second, and then move the weight up as fast as you can.

I have read so many articles that 1, state that doing reps slow has absolutely no benefits and 2, the best way to gain is to recruit as much fibers as possible

I def agree that explosive may recruit more fibers, but to say that slow reps do nothing doesn't make any sense.

**inheritmylife** · 03-18-2004, 09:01 PM

More muscle fibers are recruited as the muscle being worked fatigues. Also, eccentric training recruits more muscle fibers. That being said, training explosively does not recruit more fibers.

***phreezer*** · 03-18-2004, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Elliot

i'll scan the page for you out of arnolds book..

Ahhh..not that cursed book...

both explosive lifts and slow form have their place..but! You won't gain any more size by doing one over the other..The only benefit by going slow on the positive movement of your lift is that it will exhaust the muscle early.. For the best overall results Try being explosive on the positive, and slow (like a full 2-3 seconds) on the negative portion of the lifts.

Training in this manner will net you the best results... BTW, to work on explosiveness doesn't always mean just throwing up weight as fast as you can.. I'm a powerlifter and I regularly work with bands and chains to work on my explosiveness...

**RP7** · 03-18-2004, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Animal04

I have read so many articles that 1, state that doing reps slow has absolutely no benefits

What the hell are you reading?

**eggplant** · 03-19-2004, 03:37 AM

lifting explosively have many meanings..do u mean explosive and controlled or explosive and uncontrolled? i believe the first is better definitely..if u mean explosive and uncontrolled, u may be using other muscle grps than your intended muscle grp

**decadbal** · 03-19-2004, 10:42 AM

try both and see which works best for you, dont go by arnolds book, its crap...

**Latimus** · 03-19-2004, 12:47 PM

There is no argument here...you need both...a person who does both will grow faster then a person you sticks to one...therefore if anyone answers your question with one or the other they are wrong. Explosive is good if done right...it doesnt mean going fast and not doing a negative at all..lettin the bar hit your chest so hard that others chring....slow and controlled is great too...but like pheezer said...its good to go with explosive pos. and slow negative...if you have never done it you should try it!

**Powrlftr** · 03-19-2004, 02:16 PM

Explosive movements on the concentric part of a lift will recruit more fast twitch fibers and convert, over time, slow twitch fibers to fast twich. The fast twitch fibers are what builds mass and strength.

Lowering the weight slowly and controlled will help build mass also. For building a good strength/mass base you should do all the compound movements explosively and the concentric slowly.

I think doing the concentric portion of isolation exercises is a good idea, like when doing concentration curls.

**brad fuel** · 03-20-2004, 05:48 AM

Elliot: not taking anything away from Arnold, but he is strictly a body builder not an athlete.

it's all about training for specificity

**RP7** · 03-20-2004, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by brad fuel

Elliot: not taking anything away from Arnold, but he is strictly a body builder not an athlete.

Time out! Are you saying bodybuilders aren't athletes? Shame on you!

And by the way I always have explosive gas on the concentric part of my deadlifts... does that count?

**Latimus** · 03-20-2004, 07:35 PM

I cant believe someone dared say BBers arent athletes...

imagine arnold playing a sport...he'd dominate!haha

**arthurb999** · 03-20-2004, 07:36 PM

Arnold is the man...

**chicamahomico** · 03-20-2004, 07:50 PM

BB's are NOT athletes.

IMO triaining explosively and slow controlled reps should have a time and place in everyone's routine. However, I think the functional benefits of explosive trinaing are primarily limited to compound exercises. I just dont see the benefits of explosive concentration curls or other isolation movements. Anyone else have any thoughts on this ?

**Superhuman** · 03-20-2004, 07:57 PM

i'm an athlete that bodybuilds. I think that bodybuilding is more of a hobby, or a game. Kind-of like golf or bowling. And also a business, in the professional BBing scene. BBing competitions are more like talent shows I think. The main difference between BBing and sports is that it is subjective. The judges decide who wins. In football, soccer, basketball, baseball, it's whoever scores the most points - and there is no debating about it. BBing is kind-of like diving.

**RP7** · 03-21-2004, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by chicamahomico

BB's are NOT athletes.

IMO triaining explosively and slow controlled reps should have a time and place in everyone's routine. However, I think the functional benefits of explosive trinaing are primarily limited to compound exercises. I just dont see the benefits of explosive concentration curls or other isolation movements. Anyone else have any thoughts on this ?

Well I disagree with your first statement 100%.

ath·lete ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thlt)
n.
A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength, agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts.

On the other side, you are absoluetly right about explosive training's benefits being limited to compund movements. In fact, if I saw someone doing explosive concentration curls I'd probably laugh out loud.

**Latimus** · 03-21-2004, 03:29 AM

yeah true that...explosive bi's would make me laugh too...to classify sport as subjectivity is also laughable...think about all the sports that depend on judges...gymnastics is not a sport now?? and in football think about the ref and the impact they have on the outcome. BB is a sport!!!!!!!

**Superhuman** · 03-21-2004, 07:50 PM

yeah I guess you're right. If golf can be a sport, the BBing is definately a sport!

**brad fuel** · 03-21-2004, 10:04 PM

okay i see your points. I should have been more careful when typing my last post. I agree body builders are athletes just not what i had in mind at the time. What i meant was all the training/lifting they do in the gym is not for functionality. They are concerned with hypertrophy where as other athletes would be concerned with strength or power. When they are on stage, it doesn't matter what their bench press is, so long as they look big. Secondly, it's not functional because all their training is dynamic yet on stage the only type of contraction used is a isometric contraction.

As for Bodybuilding being a sport or not. I'm kinda borderline for considering more of a contest. I think it's too subjective. If bodybuilding is goal oriented, what do you guys think those goals are? List them out.

**Powrlftr** · 03-22-2004, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Powrlftr

I think doing the concentric portion of isolation exercises is a good idea, like when doing concentration curls.

Err ... I meant to type that doing the concentric part of isolation exercises SLOWLY is a good idea LoL

**the hulkster** · 03-22-2004, 08:24 PM

I think it all depends on what muscle group you are trying to stimulate. bench is definetly a great chest workout and should require a slow negative and an explosive positive. Squat the same, but what else I'm not going in the weight room and doing power curls.LOL

Whatcha gonna do......

**Animal04** · 03-23-2004, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by DNoMac

I def agree that explosive may recruit more fibers, but to say that slow reps do nothing doesn't make any sense.

Good point...what i meant was that you can definately lift more when being explosive, and lifting the bar slowly has not shown to be as effective as exploding the bar up. So, lifting the bar slowly, which is unneccissarily harder, does not have the muscle size and strength benefits that explosive movements have

**Animal04** · 03-23-2004, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by inheritmylife

More muscle fibers are recruited as the muscle being worked fatigues. Also, eccentric training recruits more muscle fibers. That being said, training explosively does not recruit more fibers.

I strongly disagree with that statement. I do agree with the eccentric part< definately, thats what your muscles remember most from the lift

The greater the force you use, the more muscle you will involve

F=MA force=mass(acceleration)

The faster you push the bar up, the greater the acceleration(bigger acc.(force))= bigger force or more fiber stimulation

Think about shoving a dude. if you gently push him, you are not using much force so he doesnt go as far
but if you shove him as hard as you can( as fast as you can,) you will be using more muscle, thus he goes farther

**RP7** · 03-23-2004, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Animal04

I strongly disagree with that statement. I do agree with the eccentric part< definately, thats what your muscles remember most from the lift

The greater the force you use, the more muscle you will involve

F=MA force=mass(acceleration)

The faster you push the bar up, the greater the acceleration(bigger acc.(force))= bigger force or more fiber stimulation

Think about shoving a dude. if you gently push him, you are not using m force so he doesnt go as far
but if you shove him as hard as you can( as fast as you can,) you will be using more muscle, thus he goes farther

He's right for the most part. The more explosive the more fast twitch fibres you recruit, period.

**Superhuman** · 03-23-2004, 08:55 PM

hey I bought this book a while ago called "static contraction training". It says that using that method, and only that method nothing else will get you big like nothing else. What do you guys think about that?

**inheritmylife** · 03-23-2004, 09:53 PM

This goes against the Size Principle of Fiber Recruitment. Acceleration has nothing to do with it. It is a measurment of intensity that recruits muscle fibers. Fast twitch fibers cannot be fatigued or specificaly worked whatsoever until slower twitch fibers are fatigued.

Maximum fiber recruitment is only achieveable through complete muscular failure, reguardless of the speed or number of repetitions.

**Trying2Gain** · 03-24-2004, 07:56 PM

In your body you have two basic types of muscle fibers. They are called fast twich and slow twich. Your fast twich are used for explosive exercises and your slow twich are used for endurance exercises. This is why you dont see a person compete in a 100 yard sprint and a 2 mile run at the same track meet. This is because their training is geared to their certain type of muscle fiber required for their event.