So, if you do 3 sets / 4 reps with a heavy weight, can we agree on that we end up with roughly the same intensity when we do 3 sets / 12 reps, with a lighter weight but cutting the rest-time in half? But what's the nature of the work? Is it the explosive fast-twitch fibers taking the hit, or the elsewise spared slow-twitch?
Rhetoric questions. Boring. So let's get to the point: While maintaining intensity, we're able to not only shock the body with something it's not used to - we also allow the often-overworked fast-twitch fibers to REST, while putting the under-stimulated slow-twich fibers at WORK. The reason for this being a nice bonus is that if a muscle contained 40% slow-twitch fibers, that means that 40% of that muscle has not recieved maximum stimulation before! Go ahead, roll up your sleeve and have a look. Think about what those percents could do for you.
Ok, now raise a hand, everyone who still insists that always doing heavy training is the best way to build muscle.
For the rest of you, it's time to get down to business. Step one is to drop the fancy names and labels on things you might stumble over if you read a book or an article about this. Step two is to draw a simple chart for, say the next 12 months. Mark up 52 weeks and use these simple measures.
Go To Page: 1 2
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Matt Danielson's Weight Training topic, please visit the Discussions page.