To all those who have believed in me, I thank you. Not because it's a boost to ego, but because you are my brothers in arms and I believe in you. The following is from the Gym Jones website. Enjoy and may it guide you to many future personal records. Size matters, but not necessarily the way you want it to. Relative strength (positive power-to-weight ratio) is more important than absolute strength for functional movement. If one trains in a manner that causes muscle hypertrophy (increased size) in order to bench or squat greater weight the ability to run or do pull-ups is compromised. At Gym Jones we stress this concept by combining a big guy move (deadlift) with a little guy move (pull-ups) in single effort. The movements, loads, effort and recovery intervals we use are designed to stimulate increases in myofibril density, the fibers that actually contract rather than increases in sarcoplasma volume, which merely enlarges the muscle due to fluid volume increases without necessarily making it stronger. We do this because, for most of the athletes we train muscle recruitment (neurological efficiency) is more important than muscle volume. An average person is able to contract a meager 30% of any active muscle when giving his utmost. Top athletes can engage 50% so the muscle must be twice as large as would be necessary if he could activate 100% of the muscle. Improving the ability of nervous system to synchronize the electrical impulses that cause the muscles to contract and act in concert produces greater capacity to generate power than does merely increasing the size of those same muscles. And the athlete remains lighter, which places less stress on the system during locomotion. Maintaining minimum muscle volume also improves oxygen efficiency; when running uphill a big upper body, though not being used demands constant delivery of oxygen and fuel sources, robbing the legs of that same blood and reducing their capacity to produce force and continue doing so. To illustrate our reasoning I will use my own experience as an example. Many of the training methods or ideals at Gym Jones develop from lessons learned by climbing on the hardest and highest mountains of the world. The benefits of training the maximum possible strength into the minimum body mass and weight are immediately apparent to the climber. Attaining this ideal should be attractive to other athletes as well. And my experience as a climber is easy to extrapolate to other athletic disciplines. Most successful mountain climbers and those indigenous to the mountains are relatively small in stature with efficient rather than large musculature. In my prime speed climbing period I weighed 148lbs (5'9") and was able to gain 4000'/hour on foot. At 165lbs the best I could manage (on foot) was 3400'/hour and this pace was achieved following an 18-month period during which I consciously shed upper body mass, shifting muscle and energy supply to my legs. Then, after coaxing the muscle from my legs back to my upper body while maintaining 165 pounds I lost approximately 8% of my ability to gain altitude, falling back to 2900-3000'/hour. I was faster when I was lighter and I could still carry a pack and pull almost twice my bodyweight on the lat pull machine. My fitness was very sport-specific, which is to say that I was imbalanced, and weak in areas not applicable to climbing. I could only bench press 65% of my weight, I could not do dips, and though I had pretty abs I had no genuine core strength. During 2003-04 I modified diet and training, aiming for better balance. Although I dropped to 152 pounds, I can easily bench my weight, clean and jerk more than bodyweight, deadlift more than twice my weight, do more than 20 (strict) pull-ups, and gain more than 3500'/hour. I have found a better balance. Each athlete must find an acceptable compromise power/weight ratio that does not cost him dearly in during any particular task. The power-to-weight ratio is important to the sports requiring locomotion; the cyclist that generates 400 watts of power with a 145-pound frame is more efficient than the cyclist that creates the same force with a 180-pound body. The 200-meter runner who can deadlift 3x bodyweight runs faster than the sprinter who can only deadlift 2x bodyweight. The runner's size/weight does not determine the one-rep max instead it is the neurological pathways and ability to recruit a greater percentage of existing muscle that are decisive factors. Because of this an athlete may develop the ability to generate incredible power without significant size or weight increase - by simply making the appropriate neurological pathways more efficient.
The power-to-weight ratio is important to the sports requiring locomotion; the cyclist that generates 400 watts of power with a 145-pound frame is more efficient than the cyclist that creates the same force with a 180-pound body. The 200-meter runner who can deadlift 3x bodyweight runs faster than the sprinter who can only deadlift 2x bodyweight. The runner's size/weight does not determine the one-rep max instead it is the neurological pathways and ability to recruit a greater percentage of existing muscle that are decisive factors. Because of this an athlete may develop the ability to generate incredible power without significant size or weight increase - by simply making the appropriate neurological pathways more efficient. Relative strength can also determine how individuals integrate into a team. In the military context, every soldier wants to be strong and in an effort to become strong many get big as well. So how does the 230-pound guy integrate into the team? He's strong enough to hump heavy loads all day or carry a casualty. But what if he gets shot or sprains an ankle and his teammates have to carry him, and his gear? This same issue affects mountain climbers and backcountry skiers who often operate in remote areas and must be 100% self-sufficient, fire fighters, SWAT cops, etc. To be sure, fitness is an individual concept but each individual's fitness, size and speed can make the team more capable and flexible or less so. So size matters, but bigger is not necessarily better, nor is bigger always stronger.
[Using the Force, Yoda effortlessly frees the X-Wing from the bog] Luke: I don't, I don't believe it. Yoda: That is why you fail.
It's saying you should be as strong as you can be without putting on size as extra size will kill your efficiency and slow you down as relatively speaking you are losing power. Power to weight ratio.
found that very interesting Puma. I mean when you really break it down it is comon sense and yet so many of us get it all wrong lol! Iv been finding that balance lately without thinking about all that stuff. I used to run long distances and when i started boxing wanted to be as light as possible. Now iv changed my training to more interval work and circuit iv put on alot of muscle gone from approx 160 to 169. I feel better all round for it! However i would not want to keep just adding muscle and compromise efficiency . Hard to explain and while its simple its so complicated too haha Good read :good
should add me putting on weight wasnt a goal if you know what i mean it has happened naturally with the work iv been doing
There are two forms of hypertrophy sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar when someone lumps the two together like the above article I normally stop reading right there. This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
?? It says right in the first paragraph. "The movements, loads, effort and recovery intervals we use are designed to stimulate increases in myofibril density, the fibers that actually contract rather than increases in sarcoplasma volume, which merely enlarges the muscle due to fluid volume increases without necessarily making it stronger."
He was basically just saying that he trains his subjects to focus on myofibrillar hypertrophy as opposed to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (at least that's what I take from it). You are correct in the fact that it was poorly explained though. He's looking at it from a very general point of view and is dismissing typical bodybuilding workouts.
