Is possible gain muscle only in concentric training

[Roni123@]

Ray speaks very well about concentric training, which can repair mitochondria......I think he said something about Russian researchers finding that it can increase testosterone and point to doping


is it possible to build muscles just by training in concentric phases? Has anyone of you ever done this?

 

[Tom K]

Yes it is possible to gain from concentric only training. I was a research subject in a study that examined concentric only, eccentric only, and concentric/eccentric contraction (1978). All subjects trained to momentary muscular failure. There were slight differences within the groups, but nothing that will make headlines. There were limitations to the study, including small sample size (90 participants). The main determinants of how a person responds to exercise are genetic. While these genetic limitations are improved in everyone that exercises, those with favorable genetics (ex. low myostatin) respond to a higher degree. The genetic lottery is no different among exercises than it is with physical attractiveness. Yes, women/men look better with makeup, but a model (genetically gifted-symmetrical balanced face) will look better than the average Jane/Joe.

 

[Roni123@]

Yes it is possible to gain from concentric only training. I was a research subject in a study that examined concentric only, eccentric only, and concentric/eccentric contraction (1978). All subjects trained to momentary muscular failure. There were slight differences within the groups, but nothing that will make headlines. There were limitations to the study, including small sample size (90 participants). The main determinants of how a person responds to exercise are genetic. While these genetic limitations are improved in everyone that exercises, those with favorable genetics (ex. low myostatin) respond to a higher degree. The genetic lottery is no different among exercises than it is with physical attractiveness. Yes, women/men look better with makeup, but a model (genetically gifted-symmetrical balanced face) will look better than the average Jane/Joe.

Woww kkkkk

 

[Sapien]

Ray speaks very well about concentric training, which can repair mitochondria......I think he said something about Russian researchers finding that it can increase testosterone and point to doping


is it possible to build muscles just by training in concentric phases? Has anyone of you ever done this?

Below I am posting my response to the thread "exercise the ray peat way?" I dont know about the testosterone aspect, but I have seen great results doing contraction only training, mixing in the principals of HIT



This is a topic I have been pondering as of late, as a peaty young male looking to build muscle safely and effectively. Ray mentions that muscle mass is beneficial as it increases RMB, and also cited studies that show bodybuilders live longer. However, he has concerns with the eccentric stuff and lactic acid production.

So in summary- a good training routine is one that builds muscle, avoids eccentric movements, and minimizes muscle oxygen debt (i.e, "the pump) as it increases lactic acid.

He once said something along the lines of "brief, infrequent use of muscle is good" (probably butchered the quote but something along those line)

His advice reminded me of a famous bodybuilder in the 80's, Mike Mentzer, who postulated that all bodybuilders are overtraining, and the principals of muscle growth only required a brief and infrequent session to momentary muscular failure. Interestingly, in Synchronicity fashion, I discovered Ray's work just weeks after discovering Mentzer. I noticed great crossover between the two. Mentzer actually cited Hans Selyes "the stress of life" in one of his books about the harms of overtraining, which blew me away. Even Mikes nutritional advice was peaty, emphasizing the importance of (simple) carbohydrates and sugar, and dispelling the myth of the whey(ste product) protein industry that you needed to overload the body with protein to build muscle.

He has some great lectures on youtube on the topic of HIT, specifically, his audio tapes: The logical path to successful bodybuilding are a MUST watch for anyone interested in the topic of building muscle. He was a very intelligent man, many regarded him as a philosopher, and after watching these tapes you will realize why. His articulate speaking manner and use of logic is extremely impressive. He dispels much of the authoritarian dogma in the fitness industry, and like Peat, attempts to teach one about the science behind the topic rather than just giving a protocol. In other words, he was a proponent of "Perceive, Think, Act".

In my opinion, the theory of High Intensity Training is the most logical, science backed theory of effective exercise, and is the antithesis of the current state of bodybuilding- high volume "pump" style workouts popularized by Arnold (Mentzer's arch nemesis).

His training was based on the work of a man named Arthur jones, the inventor of Nautilus equipment proved that brief exercise to failure is the optimal way to build muscle

There is a book titled "body by science" that goes into this in more detail for anyone interested. Mentzer also has serval books of his own

As peaty as all of this sounds, minimizing the amount of stress to the organism and only doing the bare minimum required, there is still the concern of both eccentric movements and lactic acid, albeit to a DRASTICALLY lower degree.

Coauthor of body by science, John Little (a friend and disciple of Mentzer), has a program that implements these principals of brief, infrequent maximal effort training, AND eliminates these two issues. I present to you: Max contraction training (link). He talks about how a scientist in the 50s proved great results simply by a maximal muscular contraction of just 1-6 seconds.

I have applied this routine to a degree, simply contracting a muscle as hard as possible either on its own or against an immovable object (isometric), briefly and infrequently, and I honestly have had better results doing this the past 2 months than in years of traditional bodybuilding. Each day I wake up in amazement of my progress. I will see muscles that I never knew I had; a couple days after a single pull up I noticed new muscles in my upper back that I had never seen before; after a single rep of a chest contraction I grew my stubborn upper chest more in one workout that I never seemed to build with years of bench press (
"Why I never bench press and you shouldn't either" ) .

Some examples of exercises I will do are: flexing bicep in maximal contracted position as hard as possible by using a doorknob, doing the concentric part of a pull up and maximally contracting for a few seconds at the top then dropping, contracting hamstring by lying down placing heel against the ground, holding the contracted portion of a "mountain climber" pose or sit up for abs, simply contracting my rhomboids or rear delts super hard, doing a "lateral raise" against the bottom of my work desk to provide an immovable resistance, placing my forearm against the back of my (opposite) hamstring and contracting my chest across my body, etc etc. Pretty much anything that you feel a contraction will be effective, you can play around yourself. Using weights in a manner shown in the max contraction video is probably just as if not more viable, but I have seen great results even without going to the gym. The many forms of Isometrics I mentioned, contracting against an immovable object, will provide great stimulation as it will recruit ALL of the possible muscle fibers MAXIMALLY. This is a key principal of HIT (henemens size principal), fatiguing the fast twitch muscle fibers. It can be achieved in any rep range by simply training to failure, but isometrics allow you to do so with minimal/no lactic acid as only one contraction is required.

There was a wrestler named the great gama, who is famous for going 5000-0 in his bouts (yes you read that right) , who touted the benefits of maximal isometric contractions that inspired me to use immovable objects instead of the weights shown in the max contraction video. (that and I don't have a training partner crazy enough to train this way with me lol) Essentially it is the same concept, providing maximal resistance, stimulating the fast twitch muscle fibers ( henemens size principal).

'One day after defeating an opponent much larger than he, someone asked him how he was able to get so strong.' "
“It’s really quite simple,” the Indian said good-naturedly. “In the Punjab, where I lived there was a large tree behind my house. Each morning I would rise up early, tie my belt around it, and try to throw it down.” “A tree?” the boy marveled. “For twenty years.” “And you did it?” “No, little one,” Gama smiled, “but after a tree…a man is easy.” Great gama (link) .

^ This may sound like "bro science", but it actually is an example of "Heneman's size principal" in action. When contracting against an immovable object, you are using ALL of your possible effort, thus stimulating fast twitch muscle fibers.

This all may sound unbelievable, too good to be true; is it really not only possible but OPTIMAL to train this brief and infrequently?; but when one considers the biochemistry of the subject, it makes sense. Muscles are ANEROBIC, the opposite of AEROBIC exercise. This is why sprinters have very muscular legs, while a marathon runner is almost always frail. High intensity, short duration exercise such as sprinting uses predominantly fast twitch, carbohydrate burning fibers, while jogging uses slow twitch fibers that rely on fat. It is the fast twitch muscle fibers that are a lot more prone to growth

While the principals of HIT have been demonstrated scientifically ( View: https://youtu.be/ag5YMTcAudw, View: https://youtu.be/NndeNFVf9eU , View: https://youtu.be/wVYEjFZAERw ), and shown to work in practice by the success of Mentzer and Dorian Yates, these principals have been all but forgotten. It was only through an unrelenting, thorough search for a logical approach to building muscle that I discovered HIT. I have always been unconvinced of the science of traditional bodybuilding; I would follow routines and wonder WHY 3 sets of 10 ( View: https://youtu.be/hddsfYdaZ1k ), why 2 minutes of rest, why not 53 seconds of rest? All of these arbitrary decrees never sat right with me. In science, there is no room for the arbitrary, The principals of HIT initially defined by Arthur Jones and popularized by Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates use science and logic, rather than the arbitrary tradition based programs that are popular today.

As to why it's unknown and forgotten, I don't really have a good answer other than the fact that we live in a "dark age" to some degree, with sheeple believing whatever the popular opinion is, rather than using the logical principals created by Aristotle to cultivate knowledge. It is through the use of logic and reason that I was able to discover ray peat and the community, rather than believing whatever info the dietary guidelines told me, and these same principals of logic led me to discover HIT. As a group of logic based people who Perceive, Think, Act; rather than cultivating information simply because an authority figure told you something, I know you all will really appreciate the science based approach of HIT.

The implications of this are staggering. The entire fitness industry is following the high volume approach simply out of tradition, not logic or science. I wonder how many people's lives would be changed with a proper approach to building muscle, how many more people would take up the sport if only minutes a week were necessary. Hell, a gym membership isn't even required! If anyone decided to try these principals out for themselves (after thorough evaluation of the logic of the theory, not per my advice , {Perceive Think Act!}), please update us with your results!

(P.S , I probably did a poor job explaining the exact science behind HIT, Henemens size principal, fast twitch muscles etc., I recommend reading the works of Dr Doug mcguff, Mike mentzer, Arthur jones and the content of Jay Vincent. This post was a spur of the moment thing after seeing this forum on the home page, I just did my best based on my knowledge of the topic)

 

[Vinny]

Below I am posting my response to the thread "exercise the ray peat way?" I dont know about the testosterone aspect, but I have seen great results doing contraction only training, mixing in the principals of HIT



This is a topic I have been pondering as of late, as a peaty young male looking to build muscle safely and effectively. Ray mentions that muscle mass is beneficial as it increases RMB, and also cited studies that show bodybuilders live longer. However, he has concerns with the eccentric stuff and lactic acid production.

So in summary- a good training routine is one that builds muscle, avoids eccentric movements, and minimizes muscle oxygen debt (i.e, "the pump) as it increases lactic acid.

He once said something along the lines of "brief, infrequent use of muscle is good" (probably butchered the quote but something along those line)

His advice reminded me of a famous bodybuilder in the 80's, Mike Mentzer, who postulated that all bodybuilders are overtraining, and the principals of muscle growth only required a brief and infrequent session to momentary muscular failure. Interestingly, in Synchronicity fashion, I discovered Ray's work just weeks after discovering Mentzer. I noticed great crossover between the two. Mentzer actually cited Hans Selyes "the stress of life" in one of his books about the harms of overtraining, which blew me away. Even Mikes nutritional advice was peaty, emphasizing the importance of (simple) carbohydrates and sugar, and dispelling the myth of the whey(ste product) protein industry that you needed to overload the body with protein to build muscle.

He has some great lectures on youtube on the topic of HIT, specifically, his audio tapes: The logical path to successful bodybuilding are a MUST watch for anyone interested in the topic of building muscle. He was a very intelligent man, many regarded him as a philosopher, and after watching these tapes you will realize why. His articulate speaking manner and use of logic is extremely impressive. He dispels much of the authoritarian dogma in the fitness industry, and like Peat, attempts to teach one about the science behind the topic rather than just giving a protocol. In other words, he was a proponent of "Perceive, Think, Act".

In my opinion, the theory of High Intensity Training is the most logical, science backed theory of effective exercise, and is the antithesis of the current state of bodybuilding- high volume "pump" style workouts popularized by Arnold (Mentzer's arch nemesis).

His training was based on the work of a man named Arthur jones, the inventor of Nautilus equipment proved that brief exercise to failure is the optimal way to build muscle

There is a book titled "body by science" that goes into this in more detail for anyone interested. Mentzer also has serval books of his own

As peaty as all of this sounds, minimizing the amount of stress to the organism and only doing the bare minimum required, there is still the concern of both eccentric movements and lactic acid, albeit to a DRASTICALLY lower degree.

Coauthor of body by science, John Little (a friend and disciple of Mentzer), has a program that implements these principals of brief, infrequent maximal effort training, AND eliminates these two issues. I present to you: Max contraction training (link). He talks about how a scientist in the 50s proved great results simply by a maximal muscular contraction of just 1-6 seconds.

I have applied this routine to a degree, simply contracting a muscle as hard as possible either on its own or against an immovable object (isometric), briefly and infrequently, and I honestly have had better results doing this the past 2 months than in years of traditional bodybuilding. Each day I wake up in amazement of my progress. I will see muscles that I never knew I had; a couple days after a single pull up I noticed new muscles in my upper back that I had never seen before; after a single rep of a chest contraction I grew my stubborn upper chest more in one workout that I never seemed to build with years of bench press (
"Why I never bench press and you shouldn't either" ) .

Some examples of exercises I will do are: flexing bicep in maximal contracted position as hard as possible by using a doorknob, doing the concentric part of a pull up and maximally contracting for a few seconds at the top then dropping, contracting hamstring by lying down placing heel against the ground, holding the contracted portion of a "mountain climber" pose or sit up for abs, simply contracting my rhomboids or rear delts super hard, doing a "lateral raise" against the bottom of my work desk to provide an immovable resistance, placing my forearm against the back of my (opposite) hamstring and contracting my chest across my body, etc etc. Pretty much anything that you feel a contraction will be effective, you can play around yourself. Using weights in a manner shown in the max contraction video is probably just as if not more viable, but I have seen great results even without going to the gym. The many forms of Isometrics I mentioned, contracting against an immovable object, will provide great stimulation as it will recruit ALL of the possible muscle fibers MAXIMALLY. This is a key principal of HIT (henemens size principal), fatiguing the fast twitch muscle fibers. It can be achieved in any rep range by simply training to failure, but isometrics allow you to do so with minimal/no lactic acid as only one contraction is required.

There was a wrestler named the great gama, who is famous for going 5000-0 in his bouts (yes you read that right) , who touted the benefits of maximal isometric contractions that inspired me to use immovable objects instead of the weights shown in the max contraction video. (that and I don't have a training partner crazy enough to train this way with me lol) Essentially it is the same concept, providing maximal resistance, stimulating the fast twitch muscle fibers ( henemens size principal).

'One day after defeating an opponent much larger than he, someone asked him how he was able to get so strong.' "
“It’s really quite simple,” the Indian said good-naturedly. “In the Punjab, where I lived there was a large tree behind my house. Each morning I would rise up early, tie my belt around it, and try to throw it down.” “A tree?” the boy marveled. “For twenty years.” “And you did it?” “No, little one,” Gama smiled, “but after a tree…a man is easy.” Great gama (link) .

^ This may sound like "bro science", but it actually is an example of "Heneman's size principal" in action. When contracting against an immovable object, you are using ALL of your possible effort, thus stimulating fast twitch muscle fibers.

This all may sound unbelievable, too good to be true; is it really not only possible but OPTIMAL to train this brief and infrequently?; but when one considers the biochemistry of the subject, it makes sense. Muscles are ANEROBIC, the opposite of AEROBIC exercise. This is why sprinters have very muscular legs, while a marathon runner is almost always frail. High intensity, short duration exercise such as sprinting uses predominantly fast twitch, carbohydrate burning fibers, while jogging uses slow twitch fibers that rely on fat. It is the fast twitch muscle fibers that are a lot more prone to growth

While the principals of HIT have been demonstrated scientifically ( View: https://youtu.be/ag5YMTcAudw, View: https://youtu.be/NndeNFVf9eU , View: https://youtu.be/wVYEjFZAERw ), and shown to work in practice by the success of Mentzer and Dorian Yates, these principals have been all but forgotten. It was only through an unrelenting, thorough search for a logical approach to building muscle that I discovered HIT. I have always been unconvinced of the science of traditional bodybuilding; I would follow routines and wonder WHY 3 sets of 10 ( View: https://youtu.be/hddsfYdaZ1k ), why 2 minutes of rest, why not 53 seconds of rest? All of these arbitrary decrees never sat right with me. In science, there is no room for the arbitrary, The principals of HIT initially defined by Arthur Jones and popularized by Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates use science and logic, rather than the arbitrary tradition based programs that are popular today.

As to why it's unknown and forgotten, I don't really have a good answer other than the fact that we live in a "dark age" to some degree, with sheeple believing whatever the popular opinion is, rather than using the logical principals created by Aristotle to cultivate knowledge. It is through the use of logic and reason that I was able to discover ray peat and the community, rather than believing whatever info the dietary guidelines told me, and these same principals of logic led me to discover HIT. As a group of logic based people who Perceive, Think, Act; rather than cultivating information simply because an authority figure told you something, I know you all will really appreciate the science based approach of HIT.

The implications of this are staggering. The entire fitness industry is following the high volume approach simply out of tradition, not logic or science. I wonder how many people's lives would be changed with a proper approach to building muscle, how many more people would take up the sport if only minutes a week were necessary. Hell, a gym membership isn't even required! If anyone decided to try these principals out for themselves (after thorough evaluation of the logic of the theory, not per my advice , {Perceive Think Act!}), please update us with your results!

(P.S , I probably did a poor job explaining the exact science behind HIT, Henemens size principal, fast twitch muscles etc., I recommend reading the works of Dr Doug mcguff, Mike mentzer, Arthur jones and the content of Jay Vincent. This post was a spur of the moment thing after seeing this forum on the home page, I just did my best based on my knowledge of the topic)

So, basically, what you doing is: contracting the muscle as hard as possible, hold a few seconds and drop - as simple as that?

 

[Sapien]

So, basically, what you doing is: contracting the muscle as hard as possible, hold a few seconds and drop - as simple as that?

Yes, a max contraction of 1-6 seconds is what theresearcher mentioned in the “max contraction video” (for some reason in the video he has his trainees doing a 30 second rep, ignore that) had the subjects do to build great amount of muscle; I am currently doing this and seeing GREAT results. Just one rep for each muscle group every 3-6 days is all I’m doing atm (HIT principals) but it is likley that you can do more without “overtraining” since there is no muscle damage caused by eccentric movement.

I just came across something in the natilus bullitin one book by Arthur Jones (chapter two) that explains how this can be so effective



"The well-known "all or nothing" principle of muscular-fiber function states that individual muscle-fibers
perform work by contracting, by reducing their length – and that they are incapable of performing various
degrees of work; that is to say, they are either working as hard as possible, or not at all. When a light movement
is performed, it does not involve a slight effort on the part of a large number of muscular fibers; instead, only
the exact number of fibers that are required to perform that particular movement will be involved at all – and
they will be working to the limit of their momentary ability. The other, nonworking fibers may get pushed,
pulled, or moved about by the movement – but they will contribute absolutely nothing to the work being
performed.

Thus, as should be obvious, in order to involve all of the muscle fibers in the work, the resistance must be so
heavy that all of the fibers are required to move it.

However, in practice, this is extremely difficult to do; because all of the individual muscle fibers cannot be
involved in the work unless the muscle is in a position of full contraction.
It should be plain that the muscle could be in no position except its shortest, fully-contracted position if all of
the muscle fibers were contracted at the same time; the individual fibers must grow shorter in order to perform
work, and if all of the fibers were shortened at the same time, then the muscle as a whole would have to be in a
position of full contraction – no other position is even possible with full muscular contraction. Not, at least,
unless the muscle is torn loose from its attachments.

But it does not follow that even a position of full contraction will involve the working of all of the individual
fibers; because only the actual number of fibers that are required to meet a momentarily imposed load will be
called into play.

Thus, in order to involve 100% of the fibers in a particular movement, two conditions are prerequisites; the
muscle (and its related body part) must be in a position of full contraction – and a load must be imposed in that
position that is heavy enough to require the work of all of the individual fibers.
And in almost all conventional exercises, there is literally no resistance in the fully contracted position – at the
very point in the exercise where the greatest amount of resistance is required,
literally none is provided.

In the top position of the squat, when the leg muscles are fully contracted, there is no resistance on these
muscles – in the top position of the curl, when the bending muscles of the arm are in a position of full
contraction, there is no resistance – in the top position of the bench press, when the triceps are in a position of
full contraction and the pectorals and deltoids are as close to a position of full contraction as they get in that
movement, there is no resistance. Dozens of other examples could be given, but those three should be enough.

But what does the shape of a muscle have to do with this?
While I have never been able to find anything in scientific journals regarding the order-of-involvement of
individual muscular fibers in the performance of work (although my being unaware of such studies does not
indicate that they have not been done), the very shape of a muscle seems to make this point clear; or, at least,
when the shape is considered in connection with other, easily proven, factors.
If a muscle is exposed to rotary, perfectly direct resistance, then it is immediately obvious that the strength of
the muscle markedly increases as the position of the muscle changes from one of full extension to one of full
contraction; which observation indicates that more fibers are involved in the work when the muscle is in a
position of full contraction – or, at least, they are if resistance that will require their assistance is imposed.
And since a muscular structure is thickest in its middle, this extra thickness indicating the presence of a greater
number of strands of muscle fibers in that area, it logically follows that this thick midsection of the muscle is
the last part called into play in a maximum-possible effort – and that it cannot be called into play unless the
muscle as a whole is in a position of full contraction; thus it seems that muscular contraction starts at the ends of
a muscle and gradually moves inward towards the middle of the muscle.
In spite of an almost complete lack of scientific studies of the effects of exercise, it is self-evidently true that
exercise does produce increases in both muscular mass and strength; and if this is true in spite of the fact that
only a small percentage of the actual total number of individual muscle fibers are performing any work at all in
conventional exercises, then it logically follows that a form of exercise which involved working all of the fibers
would produce an even greater degree of results. Or, at least, that has been the apparently logical assumption
that most of our research work has been based upon"


The quote that stood out to me was "Thus, in order to involve 100% of the fibers in a particular movement, two conditions are prerequisites; the
muscle (and its related body part) must be in a position of full contraction – and a load must be imposed in that
position that is heavy enough to require the work of all of the individual fibers."

Max contraction training satisfies these prerequisites, literally working ALL of the muscle fibers.

 

[Vinny]

Yes, a max contraction of 1-6 seconds is what theresearcher mentioned in the “max contraction video” (for some reason in the video he has his trainees doing a 30 second rep, ignore that) had the subjects do to build great amount of muscle; I am currently doing this and seeing GREAT results. Just one rep for each muscle group every 3-6 days is all I’m doing atm (HIT principals) but it is likley that you can do more without “overtraining” since there is no muscle damage caused by eccentric movement.

I just came across something in the natilus bullitin one book by Arthur Jones (chapter two) that explains how this can be so effective



"The well-known "all or nothing" principle of muscular-fiber function states that individual muscle-fibers
perform work by contracting, by reducing their length – and that they are incapable of performing various
degrees of work; that is to say, they are either working as hard as possible, or not at all. When a light movement
is performed, it does not involve a slight effort on the part of a large number of muscular fibers; instead, only
the exact number of fibers that are required to perform that particular movement will be involved at all – and
they will be working to the limit of their momentary ability. The other, nonworking fibers may get pushed,
pulled, or moved about by the movement – but they will contribute absolutely nothing to the work being
performed.

Thus, as should be obvious, in order to involve all of the muscle fibers in the work, the resistance must be so
heavy that all of the fibers are required to move it.

However, in practice, this is extremely difficult to do; because all of the individual muscle fibers cannot be
involved in the work unless the muscle is in a position of full contraction.
It should be plain that the muscle could be in no position except its shortest, fully-contracted position if all of
the muscle fibers were contracted at the same time; the individual fibers must grow shorter in order to perform
work, and if all of the fibers were shortened at the same time, then the muscle as a whole would have to be in a
position of full contraction – no other position is even possible with full muscular contraction. Not, at least,
unless the muscle is torn loose from its attachments.

But it does not follow that even a position of full contraction will involve the working of all of the individual
fibers; because only the actual number of fibers that are required to meet a momentarily imposed load will be
called into play.

Thus, in order to involve 100% of the fibers in a particular movement, two conditions are prerequisites; the
muscle (and its related body part) must be in a position of full contraction – and a load must be imposed in that
position that is heavy enough to require the work of all of the individual fibers.
And in almost all conventional exercises, there is literally no resistance in the fully contracted position – at the
very point in the exercise where the greatest amount of resistance is required,
literally none is provided.

In the top position of the squat, when the leg muscles are fully contracted, there is no resistance on these
muscles – in the top position of the curl, when the bending muscles of the arm are in a position of full
contraction, there is no resistance – in the top position of the bench press, when the triceps are in a position of
full contraction and the pectorals and deltoids are as close to a position of full contraction as they get in that
movement, there is no resistance. Dozens of other examples could be given, but those three should be enough.

But what does the shape of a muscle have to do with this?
While I have never been able to find anything in scientific journals regarding the order-of-involvement of
individual muscular fibers in the performance of work (although my being unaware of such studies does not
indicate that they have not been done), the very shape of a muscle seems to make this point clear; or, at least,
when the shape is considered in connection with other, easily proven, factors.
If a muscle is exposed to rotary, perfectly direct resistance, then it is immediately obvious that the strength of
the muscle markedly increases as the position of the muscle changes from one of full extension to one of full
contraction; which observation indicates that more fibers are involved in the work when the muscle is in a
position of full contraction – or, at least, they are if resistance that will require their assistance is imposed.
And since a muscular structure is thickest in its middle, this extra thickness indicating the presence of a greater
number of strands of muscle fibers in that area, it logically follows that this thick midsection of the muscle is
the last part called into play in a maximum-possible effort – and that it cannot be called into play unless the
muscle as a whole is in a position of full contraction; thus it seems that muscular contraction starts at the ends of
a muscle and gradually moves inward towards the middle of the muscle.
In spite of an almost complete lack of scientific studies of the effects of exercise, it is self-evidently true that
exercise does produce increases in both muscular mass and strength; and if this is true in spite of the fact that
only a small percentage of the actual total number of individual muscle fibers are performing any work at all in
conventional exercises, then it logically follows that a form of exercise which involved working all of the fibers
would produce an even greater degree of results. Or, at least, that has been the apparently logical assumption
that most of our research work has been based upon"


The quote that stood out to me was "Thus, in order to involve 100% of the fibers in a particular movement, two conditions are prerequisites; the
muscle (and its related body part) must be in a position of full contraction – and a load must be imposed in that
position that is heavy enough to require the work of all of the individual fibers."

Max contraction training satisfies these prerequisites, literally working ALL of the muscle fibers.

Thanks a lot, mate!
I`m not, however, sure I get the whole picture atm, so allow me please simplify:
1. If I perform John Little`s exercises as in the youtube video you provided, and ignoring the 30 sec and stick to 6 sec, will it work?
2. I can do this even without weights, machines, dumbbells and bands, correct?

 

[Krigeren]

Long-time lifter here, and have tried many approaches as it has been kind-of a lifelong "hobby" (I know, I know, get a life ).

I've found HIT principles to be great for fast and time-efficient gains when I'm somewhat detrained, like after a layoff. If most want to take it further than, say, 80 to 90% of their potential, more volume and frequency (with somewhat lower intensity of course) will probably be needed. I've found it easy to over-train with HIT after I've gotten pretty strong; to go further I needed to add more volume at a lower intensity. My favorite HIT program is Mike Mentzer's "Ideal" routine outlined in "High-Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way" although the recommended frequency (4 days initially up to 7 on a split schedule) I think is too long; if you're diet and recovery are on point you should not need 8 to 14 days to fully recover a muscle, at that point you will regress somewhat before the next workout unless you are _very_ strong. Speaking of diet (enough nutrient dense calories) and recovery, I think those account for about 80% of results from any resistance training program. Probably not a surprise to anyone on here.

I've tried MaxCon training and found it too hard to control all of the variables (like consistent angle of flexion and accurate time of contraction) to apply the progressive overload principle, but at that point I was pretty strong and past the novice phase. It might be a good way to start out b/c most anything will work for novices or otherwise de-trained people.

My 2c worth.. Check out an old-timey bodybuilder named Jerry Brainum on youtube. He was able to get very strong and large over a period of about 9 months using HIT principles w/o steroids (but training/diet/recovery was basically his job at the time).

 

[Roni123@]

how could i do this with calisthenics? raise the bar and stay six seconds it? squat and wait 6 seconds? push the wall and wait 6 seconds?

 

[Sapien]

Thanks a lot, mate!
I`m not, however, sure I get the whole picture atm, so allow me please simplify:
1. If I perform John Little`s exercises as in the youtube video you provided, and ignoring the 30 sec and stick to 6 sec, will it work?
2. I can do this even without weights, machines, dumbbells and bands, correct?

1. Yes, I have seen great results with this protocol. I haven’t tried using weights in the way he showed though, solely at home stuff. His routine should be effective too, probably more so, I just don’t have a spotter to train with. 1b. he stated the 30 seconds he used was just a starting point to develop neuromuscular efficiency, and that he lowers this to 6 and even 1 second in later workouts for his clients. Btw. I messaged him on YouTube and he says he still believes the program is valid ! He is very responsive on his YouTube channel “John Little” (the max contraction training video was not on his channel so don’t comment there) if you have any questions. The program is based off of the research of some study in the 50s that he mentioned, you could look into the original research paper (I forget the name of the researchers off hand, he mentioned them in the video, I’ll link the study later when I have more time)

2. Yes! You have to be kind of creative though, for example, a few days ago, I literally used a vacuum cleaner to work out my lats, LMAO! Simply got on my knees, grabbed the handle and contracted my lat for about 3 seconds super hard. I SWEAR my lats grew from just that one rep.
The trick is to make sure the muscle is in its maximally contracted position, or close to it. Some muscle groups may be tricky to hit without weights, for example: legs/lower back. I haven’t thought of a way to hit thighs or calf’s without equipment. for calf’s I think using a smith machine would work, thighs I would do the leg extensions he demonstrated (although that is only one portion of the thigh being worked, hmm.) lower back you could go on a back extension machine and have a partner hand you a weight too heavy for you to get up on your own with full rom. All other muscle groups I have been able to hit effectively without weights, as discussed in my original post. I didn’t mention a triceps movement in my OP, but since have found an effective one. I tied a rope to an area in my garage, and used that as a tricep extension. Was very effective, woke up sore ! ( which is interesting because people say concentric only training does not make you sore. This has not been the case for me and I use it as an indicator of a successful workout. However It is not precisly the same soreness as I would get doing weightlifting, I can’t really describe how but it feels different and less painful)

If you decide to try this, please update us with your results! I think you will be blown away with your progress :)

 

[Sapien]

how could i do this with calisthenics? raise the bar and stay six seconds it? squat and wait 6 seconds? push the wall and wait 6 seconds?

Anything that puts your muscle in a maximally contracted position against a force that is impossible to move should recruit ALL muscle fibers MAXIMALLY. Like stated above, you kinda have to be creative haha. I posted some of the stuff I do that I found effective, but perceive, think, act and do what works best for you ! may the gains be with you :)

 

[Sapien]

Another thing I have been thinking about is the fact that since you are not inducing muscular damage/stres, by avoiding eccentric and oxygen debt, it is likley you can do more than just one set without the dreaded “overtraining”. Perhaps it would be optimal to do this more often than one contraction, but since the original research was with one set and since I have seen good results just doing one contraction I think I will stick with that until it fails me. If you do decide to do multiple sets, keep them apart by a few minutes at least: that is, do not try to obtain a “pump” , as this produces lactate and is a “stress” on the muscle

 

[Michael Mohn]

Ray speaks very well about concentric training, which can repair mitochondria......I think he said something about Russian researchers finding that it can increase testosterone and point to doping


is it possible to build muscles just by training in concentric phases? Has anyone of you ever done this?

Walking up the stairs in a high rise building and going down in the elevator is a very practical way of concentric only exercise. Riding a bicycle, rowing and Olympic lifting is concentric only too.

I tried HIT and followed Doug McGuff's blog for a long time. There are problems with the body by science approach. In particular the disregard for the nervous system, that organ that controls all voluntary muscle contractions.
Training consistently to failure will burn out your nervous system and high weights/intensity will make you slow because slow high resistance movement will down regulate you nervous system.

Another negative is the production of lots of lactic acid. Body by Science is very anti Peat.

Doug McGuff admitted that his protocol is not useful for sports and probably not for bodybuilding either. Maybe good for recovery.

He eats Paleo and is anti sugar. He is about my age and he has aged horribly, and I worked nightshifts too (McGuff is a surgeon).

 

[windinthepines]

I read the Body by Science book. Never done the method personally. I like the idea that you rest more. I don't like the idea of pushing so hard when you're training. I agree with the comment above about the nervous system. For regular people, seems like a myopic approach, considering that light daily training is also known to work -- could you get farther to the other end of the spectrum, compared to HIT, than that?
I'm experimenting with easy strength by Dan John now. I like it.

 

[Roni123@]

I just climbed a bar and stayed for six seconds, but the weight was just the body weight but it really creates an insane muscle pump

I pushed my house with all my strength for 6 seconds

but that builds strength but builds muscle?

 

[Sapien]

Another negative is the production of lots of lactic acid. Body by Science is very anti Peat.


He eats Paleo and is anti sugar. He is about my age and he has aged horribly, and I worked nightshifts too (McGuff is a surgeon).

Doing only 12 minutes of exercise a week would provide a lot less lactic acid than pretty much any other training program. For that reason, body by science/ HIT is pretty peaty compared to everything else (high volume pump training.

If you read my OP, I have posted a way to be completely peaty when weightlifting : minimal lactic acid and 0 eccentric movements

Yes, drmrguffs diet is not good I agree. But I would argue most on the forum were convinced by paleo at some point, this is not a reason to think his science is not valid

 

[Sapien]

I just climbed a bar and stayed for six seconds, but the weight was just the body weight but it really creates an insane muscle pump

I pushed my house with all my strength for 6 seconds

I have heard that to increase lactic acid you want to do high volume training :
"Basically, the belief is that by doing lots of repetitions (about 2-3 sets of 12-25 repetitions) of an exercise, using a relatively lighter weight (about 30% of your one-rep maximum), with very little rest between, you can build up the lactic acid in your body."

Thus, i assumed a short , 6 second contraction would provide little to no lactic acid buildup, as it would not be under oxygen debt, burning primarily the stored muscle glycogen...

But as you said, this does cause a very intense muscle "pump" as well... I don't know how I am just now realizing this... silly me

I may have been mistaken by claiming this style of exercise does not produce lactic acid, I will have to do more research on the subject.

Sorry for making that claim without being 100% sure

but that builds strength but builds muscle?

If you meant "strength not* muscle", this is a false dichotomy that most of the fitness industry believes in. I refer you to these videos
View: https://youtu.be/aIzVcrc72-A

View: https://youtu.be/vK45DrM06xk

 

[Sapien]

Doug McGuff admitted that his protocol is not useful for sports and probably not for bodybuilding either. Maybe good for recovery.

The subtitle of the book is literally " A Research Based Program for Strength Training, Body building, and Complete Fitness in 12 Minutes a Week", I dont think he "admitted" its not good for bodybuilding lol.

 

[windinthepines]

If I remember right in Body by Science he talks about pushing himself so hard in his abbreviated training sessions that he's shaking. Is that right? Those are the sorts of things that make me think it isn't healthy.

 

[Sapien]

If I remember right in Body by Science he talks about pushing himself so hard in his abbreviated training sessions that he's shaking. Is that right? Those are the sorts of things that make me think it isn't healthy.

yeah i totally agree. I dont see the point in doing back to back sets like why not do one set to failure and rest your cardio system before doing the next. He does all 5 back to back it's pretty stupid. But lot of good info in the book.