Exodus Strength

Hanley wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:43 pm

plaguewielder wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 6:59 amhow do you know if you selected the right amount considering the sessions are so low RPE?

I've always thought power production using a standard load was the best option for crudely gauging fatigue...but I think recent literature suggests that isn't the case. Fuck.

Hmmm. Let's say you have a PR power production with some standard load and THEN obviously you will have a good performance on your work sets. Do you care if you are actually fatigued? How is that then "officially" measured (so that literature suggests power production is not related to fatigue?).

Unless original premise of good power production at standard load always reliably leads to good session is wrong. Probably this.

plaguewielder wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:27 am

Hanley wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:43 pm

plaguewielder wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 6:59 amhow do you know if you selected the right amount considering the sessions are so low RPE?

I've always thought power production using a standard load was the best option for crudely gauging fatigue...but I think recent literature suggests that isn't the case. Fuck.

Hmmm. Let's say you have a PR power production with some standard load and THEN obviously you will have a good performance on your work sets. Do you care if you are actually fatigued? How is that then "officially" measured (so that literature suggests power production is not related to fatigue?).

Unless original premise of good power production at standard load always reliably leads to good session is wrong. Probably this.

Or perhaps it's only the converse that's true: if you have POOR power production with some standard load, then you will have POOR performance on your work sets? So, good power production is required for good working sets, but doesn't necessarily guarantee them.

DannyP wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:54 am

plaguewielder wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:27 am

Hanley wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:43 pm

plaguewielder wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 6:59 amhow do you know if you selected the right amount considering the sessions are so low RPE?

I've always thought power production using a standard load was the best option for crudely gauging fatigue...but I think recent literature suggests that isn't the case. Fuck.

Hmmm. Let's say you have a PR power production with some standard load and THEN obviously you will have a good performance on your work sets. Do you care if you are actually fatigued? How is that then "officially" measured (so that literature suggests power production is not related to fatigue?).

Unless original premise of good power production at standard load always reliably leads to good session is wrong. Probably this.

Or perhaps it's only the converse that's true: if you have POOR power production with some standard load, then you will have POOR performance on your work sets? So, good power production is required for good working sets, but doesn't necessarily guarantee them.

But that tells you quite a bit: your previous session(s) was (/were) inappropriate. So do something else. Not as useful as having a clear sign you did a proper volume/intensity but still much better than nothing.
I think?

In general what %age of velocity drop (compared to fastest rep) are you able to detect without measuring it? IOW (I feel so advanced using this abbreviation) when doing 10RM, on which rep are you able to tell "ok, this one was a bit slower than first" (or whichever was fastest) and how much slower was it?

Ok, this might be borderline overcomplicating but nonetheless:
In the context of lower loads (65-70% e1rm) one has to ensure to do enough reps to ''cycle thru all the motor units''. What does that exactly mean? Simply put, let's say your muscle has 10 MU, labelled 0-9. So on first rep you recruit eg. 2 and 5 MU. Then on next one 3 and 7 and so on until you go through them all? But if you cycle through them all on eg 6rep of 12RM what happens on 7th rep? Motor units from rep one 2 and 5 (in this example) do the work but are fatigued so they need help from motor unit from second rep, ie. number 3?
And then on next set, individual person always begins with the same ones 2 and 5, or do they work randomly, so that in set two you might start with 8 and 9? If it was random you might as well do 40 singles instead of 8x5 and it would be most likely the same? But it's not.
Next, why is 6 reps at 70% then better for hypertrophy than 1 rep at 90% (full recruitment under higher load = more tension)? In first case you had only one rep per MU but at lower weight = lower tension.
Ok, not everything I have on mind but a good start + really sorry for loaded question.

plaguewielder wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 3:13 am Ok, this might be borderline overcomplicating but nonetheless:
In the context of lower loads (65-70% e1rm) one has to ensure to do enough reps to ''cycle thru all the motor units''. What does that exactly mean?

As far as I understand it, if you do a bunch of fast reps then suddenly the velocity drops, one possible explanation is that you ran out of fresh mu's. Dunno exactly how predictable mu selection is, but there's some evidence that it's vaguely in size order, isn't there? I wouldn't expect it to be random, so doing a bunch of singles with a sub-max load, I wouldn't expect to touch my largest MU until I'd seriously fatigued my smaller-but-adequate ones.

Next, why is 6 reps at 70% then better for hypertrophy than 1 rep at 90% (full recruitment under higher load = more tension)? In first case you had only one rep per MU but at lower weight = lower tension.

better stimulus:fatigue ratio. I might be able to get equivalent stimulus from singles@90% in today's session, but it would constrain the rest of my week more than 6s@70% does.

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 4:04 am
As far as I understand it, if you do a bunch of fast reps then suddenly the velocity drops, one possible explanation is that you ran out of fresh mu's. Dunno exactly how predictable mu selection is, but there's some evidence that it's vaguely in size order, isn't there? I wouldn't expect it to be random, so doing a bunch of singles with a sub-max load, I wouldn't expect to touch my largest MU until I'd seriously fatigued my smaller-but-adequate ones.

Yes, I understand it is in size order. But then you would have been getting stronger as the set progresses if you would use largest MU only once the smaller-but-adequate ones have gotten tired? I thought that you don't generally go ''up the ladder'' with recruitment only downwards?
Ok, or more precisely, I thought it's like this: on first rep with 70% you recruit mostly middle sized MU but couple of strongest ones (denoted with numbers in original example). Then on second rep middle ones aren't fatigued yet but strongest are, so you are still using middle ones but different largest ones, rep three still middle ones and yet another differrent set of largest ones. Hence cycling?
Or I am probably completely off, right?

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 4:04 am better stimulus:fatigue ratio. I might be able to get equivalent stimulus from singles@90% in today's session, but it would constrain the rest of my week more than 6s@70% does.

Okay maybe true with 90% but surely you recruit all MU at lower intensities or not?
Even then, is it really better doing 40 singles at ''whatever lowest percentage where you recruit all MU'' than 5x8 eg? In the context of one single session, not caring about the fatigue, so that which single session would be more hypertrophic.

Thank you for reply.

plaguewielder wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 4:27 am

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 4:04 am
As far as I understand it, if you do a bunch of fast reps then suddenly the velocity drops, one possible explanation is that you ran out of fresh mu's. Dunno exactly how predictable mu selection is, but there's some evidence that it's vaguely in size order, isn't there? I wouldn't expect it to be random, so doing a bunch of singles with a sub-max load, I wouldn't expect to touch my largest MU until I'd seriously fatigued my smaller-but-adequate ones.

Yes, I understand it is in size order. But then you would have been getting stronger as the set progresses if you would use largest MU only once the smaller-but-adequate ones have gotten tired? I thought that you don't generally go ''up the ladder'' with recruitment only downwards?

IDK what I'm talking about, but I think that would be quite weird: you'd have fresh, strong MU's that your neurology won't let you use, because they're *too* strong?

Ok, or more precisely, I thought it's like this: on first rep with 70% you recruit mostly middle sized MU but couple of strongest ones (denoted with numbers in original example). Then on second rep middle ones aren't fatigued yet but strongest are, so you are still using middle ones but different largest ones, rep three still middle ones and yet another differrent set of largest ones. Hence cycling?
Or I am probably completely off, right?

I don't think anyone has determined what happens to that level of detail. eg the size-order idea comes from a study on an isolation exercise IIRC. If you're squatting, there's all the fun of the fair, with entire muscle groups substituting for each other as they fatigue at different rates.

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 4:04 am better stimulus:fatigue ratio. I might be able to get equivalent stimulus from singles@90% in today's session, but it would constrain the rest of my week more than 6s@70% does.

Okay maybe true with 90% but surely you recruit all MU at lower intensities or not?
Even then, is it really better doing 40 singles at ''whatever lowest percentage where you recruit all MU'' than 5x8 eg? In the context of one single session, not caring about the fatigue, so that which single session would be more hypertrophic.

Thank you for reply.

There's a theory that you can look at how velocity degrades through a set and tell whether your cycling MUs or getting full recruitment from the start: if they slow down gradually, that looks like full recruitement (no fresh MUs available to hide the decline). Hanley aims to hit this on Strength or Practice days, at around 80% or more intensity.

plaguewielder wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 4:27 am I thought that you don't generally go ''up the ladder'' with recruitment only downwards?

No. Fatigue lowers the recruitment threshold for a motor unit.

The more effort a set takes the greater the MU recruitment. You can increase effort by moving faster, lifting closer to failure, or increasing load.

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:54 am
IDK what I'm talking about, but I think that would be quite weird: you'd have fresh, strong MU's that your neurology won't let you use, because they're *too* strong?

Well maybe, but isn't walking same as this then? When you walk you a re also too strong too use all MUs.

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:54 am I don't think anyone has determined what happens to that level of detail. eg the size-order idea comes from a study on an isolation exercise IIRC. If you're squatting, there's all the fun of the fair, with entire muscle groups substituting for each other as they fatigue at different rates.

Fair enough and probably true.

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:54 am
There's a theory that you can look at how velocity degrades through a set and tell whether your cycling MUs or getting full recruitment from the start: if they slow down gradually, that looks like full recruitement (no fresh MUs available to hide the decline). Hanley aims to hit this on Strength or Practice days, at around 80% or more intensity.

Hmm and that's exactly what I wonder: what is ''cycling of MUs''. How does that look? Are all middle ones recruited and a couple (let's say 20%) of larger ones each rep? Which are then, as the set progresses, cycled through so eventually all 100% of larger ones do their work and then on rep whatever there is suddenly no more large MU to cycle through and velocity plummets. (I understand the separation between large and middle not descrete but continouos and we just decide where to draw a line).

michael wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:59 am
No. Fatigue lowers the recruitment threshold for a motor unit.

The more effort a set takes the greater the MU recruitment. You can increase effort by moving faster, lifting closer to failure, or increasing load.

I am sorry but I don't understand what you mean by ''Fatigue lowers the recruitment threshold for a motor unit''. The more fatigued you are the sooner you will use larger MUs?

Why aren't you then stronger on rep 4 of 10RM than on first if larger MUs start their work later?

plaguewielder wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:13 am

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:54 am
IDK what I'm talking about, but I think that would be quite weird: you'd have fresh, strong MU's that your neurology won't let you use, because they're *too* strong?

Well maybe, but isn't walking same as this then? When you walk you a re also too strong too use all MUs.

But I'm not fatigueing my smaller mu's to failure. If I did, I would expect the larger mu's to step up.

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:54 am
There's a theory that you can look at how velocity degrades through a set and tell whether your cycling MUs or getting full recruitment from the start: if they slow down gradually, that looks like full recruitement (no fresh MUs available to hide the decline). Hanley aims to hit this on Strength or Practice days, at around 80% or more intensity.

Hmm and that's exactly what I wonder: what is ''cycling of MUs''. How does that look? Are all middle ones recruited and a couple (let's say 20%) of larger ones each rep? Which are then, as the set progresses, cycled through so eventually all 100% of larger ones do their work and then on rep whatever there is suddenly no more large MU to cycle through and velocity plummets. (I understand the separation between large and middle not descrete but continouos and we just decide where to draw a line).

It's just a story to explain how velocity within a set degrades suddenly below a certain intensity threshold, but suddenly when intensity rises above that threshold. It's not solid, it's conjecture. It's a couple of steps above talking about muscle memory or muscle confusion.
Better questions (or rather, questions with more definite answers) include: are you using MM? Are you paying attention to barspeed? Does it work well for you?

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:32 am But I'm not fatigueing my smaller mu's to failure. If I did, I would expect the larger mu's to step up.

Hmm. how I imagine it is that even during walking, during every single step you get a contribution of large MUs. But only like 1% or whatever of them are active during each step. Still after 1000 steps they all got cycled in and out a couple of times and got fatigued.
Otherwise you get some random super strong steps just before dying from exhaustion?

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:54 am
It's just a story to explain how velocity within a set degrades suddenly below a certain intensity threshold, but suddenly when intensity rises above that threshold. It's not solid, it's conjecture. It's a couple of steps above talking about muscle memory or muscle confusion.
Better questions (or rather, questions with more definite answers) include: are you using MM? Are you paying attention to barspeed? Does it work well for you?

I assume you mean gradually here, right? Or I just don't know

Probably not, Hanley is programming sessions, I am just bored at work and like to think about it lol.

plaguewielder wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:49 am

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:32 am But I'm not fatigueing my smaller mu's to failure. If I did, I would expect the larger mu's to step up.

Hmm. how I imagine it is that even during walking, during every single step you get a contribution of large MUs. But only like 1% or whatever of them are active during each step. Still after 1000 steps they all got cycled in and out a couple of times and got fatigued.
Otherwise you get some random super strong steps just before dying from exhaustion?

repeat disclaimer: IDK what I'm talking about, but I disagree. I think during low-intensity activity, large motor units stay out of it.

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:54 am
It's just a story to explain how velocity within a set degrades suddenly below a certain intensity threshold, but suddenly when intensity rises above that threshold. It's not solid, it's conjecture. It's a couple of steps above talking about muscle memory or muscle confusion.
Better questions (or rather, questions with more definite answers) include: are you using MM? Are you paying attention to barspeed? Does it work well for you?

I assume you mean gradually here, right? Or I just don't know

No, it's sudden below the threshold (ie, the muscle is able to maintain performance at near fresh levels for longer), and gradual above it (ie performance starts to suffer from early in the set).

Probably not, Hanley is programming sessions, I am just bored at work and like to think about it lol.

Well, I like thinking about the MU's and stuff, but I try to keep in mind that it's all quite far from measurement and established science; there's little point getting lost in the weeds.

Edit: completely changed my mind about something

Sorry if this has been answered before, I couldn't find it.

If I wanted to do beltless high bar, SSB or front squats for the H day, should I reduce the percentages until it looks manageable or just calculate the H day weights off of the variation max?

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:06 am
repeat disclaimer: IDK what I'm talking about, but I disagree. I think during low-intensity activity, large motor units stay out of it.

I'd disagree with myself as well but then I don't know why, during say lifting 12rm big MU come in play later while during lower intensity like walking they never do. Like, you'd walk 100km and drop almost dead while some MU would be actually completely unused?

I thought it's something like this: (Excuse my poor paint skills + I know it's all speculation but I like getting lost in the weeds).

plaguewielder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:35 am

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:06 am
repeat disclaimer: IDK what I'm talking about, but I disagree. I think during low-intensity activity, large motor units stay out of it.

I'd disagree with myself as well but then I don't know why, during say lifting 12rm big MU come in play later while during lower intensity like walking they never do. Like, you'd walk 100km and drop almost dead while some MU would be actually completely unused?

I thought it's something like this: (Excuse my poor paint skills + I know it's all speculation but I like getting lost in the weeds).

I used this model of MU recruitment and fatigue to get my head around what's going on (the model uses sustained isometric contractions):

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ ... bi.1005581

Hanley wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:18 pm

plaguewielder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:35 am

convergentsum wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:06 am
repeat disclaimer: IDK what I'm talking about, but I disagree. I think during low-intensity activity, large motor units stay out of it.

I'd disagree with myself as well but then I don't know why, during say lifting 12rm big MU come in play later while during lower intensity like walking they never do. Like, you'd walk 100km and drop almost dead while some MU would be actually completely unused?

I thought it's something like this: (Excuse my poor paint skills + I know it's all speculation but I like getting lost in the weeds).

I used this model of MU recruitment and fatigue to get my head around what's going on (the model uses sustained isometric contractions):

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ ... bi.1005581

Ufff, thank you.. Do we get some kind of certificate if we read it all?

If, while attempting to follow the Montana Method, one is limited to 2x/wk (Front) Squatting, it's obviously not possible to do each HP&S. My current line of thinking is to do a couple cycles with H&P days, then a couple cycles with P&S days. Is there any reason to pair the sessions differently? H&S for a couple cycles, then P&S for a couple cycles?

PC wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:31 am If, while attempting to follow the Montana Method, one is limited to 2x/wk (Front) Squatting, it's obviously not possible to do each HP&S. My current line of thinking is to do a couple cycles with H&P days, then a couple cycles with P&S days. Is there any reason to pair the sessions differently? H&S for a couple cycles, then P&S for a couple cycles?

Just make power-hypertrophy or power-strength hybrid sessions.

2-5 singles between 85-90% (power), then

6 x 5 @ ~70-72% (for power-hyp hybrid...) OR

A buncha doubles and triples with ~80% for hybrid power-strength