F = MA

[quote]rmccart1 wrote:
Max force=max effort. The most force you are able to produce is the most weight you are able to lift. Max power is dynamic effort. That’s where the percents come in.[/quote]

But actually your able to generate more force at submaximal weights moving “fast” than you are at a maximal weight. F=ma, and thus if you decrease the mass by 25% but double acceleration, the force will be greater. I am still a little confused about the theoretical differences between force/velocity, and force/acceleration. It seems that your only able ot accelerate at the beginning of a movement, and then you’ll have to decelerate toward the end, unless your jumping.

As for the forearm thing, i’ll get my book tommorow when im at work. I know it will raise the max force needed to hang on, and thus if you continue to hang on you might be applying more force. If your doing a sub max force, you are still able to achieve maximal isometric grip force, but you dont necessarily have to. As for meeting the demands of increases above isometric max, i think this is where eccentric contractions come in. I will get my book though tommorow, and post the quote from it.

Also, i was thinking more about my question about squats and 1-leg squats.

Bands or chains would easily solve the problem of reaching too much velocity to achieve max force at the mid and top of the rep, but what if you dont have access to these. I was wondering if this would work.

  1. Train full ROM, accelerating out of the hole maximally, with whatever weight you can use for full ROM.

2.) Train just the top 1/4-1/2 of the squat with heavier weight.

3.) Do some form of plyometric where you accelerate maximally throughout the lift and actually leave the ground.

These three woulnd’t be done in the same session, but wouldn’t working these three lead to strength gains throughout the entire ROM?

[quote]dankid wrote:
rmccart1 wrote:
Max force=max effort. The most force you are able to produce is the most weight you are able to lift. Max power is dynamic effort. That’s where the percents come in.

But actually your able to generate more force at submaximal weights moving “fast” than you are at a maximal weight. F=ma, and thus if you decrease the mass by 25% but double acceleration, the force will be greater. I am still a little confused about the theoretical differences between force/velocity, and force/acceleration. It seems that your only able ot accelerate at the beginning of a movement, and then you’ll have to decelerate toward the end, unless your jumping.
[/quote]

rmccart1 is right. The most force that you can produce is a constant.

F=ma comes from Newton’s Third Law.

The F in F=ma is the net force acting on the bar, not the force that you are generating.

F=(the force you apply) - (mass of bar)*(accel due to gravity)

So if when using submaximal weights the net force on the bar may increase, but this is because the force acting in the downward direction has decreased not because you are generating more force.

[quote]rmccart1 wrote:
Max force=max effort. The most force you are able to produce is the most weight you are able to lift. Max power is dynamic effort. That’s where the percents come in.[/quote]

To be nitpicky, the most weight you are able to lift is the most force you can produce at the bottom of the lift, which is typically lower than the force you can produce at different parts of the lift (thus being able to lift more doing partials). In addition, you need to apply more force than the weight of the bar in order to accelerate it upwards (versus an isometric hold).

But then you need to apply less force than the weight of the bar to allow gravity to decelerate the lift in order for velocity to return to zero at the top. The point being that you can and must apply more force to the bar than gravity in order to move it.

Will you be able to apply maximal force at the midpoint of a maximal lift, or will you be fatigued from just getting out of the bottom, in which case perhaps you can more easily apply maximal force to some submaximal load. Or you should just do partials if you are that concerned about maximizing your instantaneous force production.

Sorry to bring this thread up again, but I still have one question pertaining to this theory. I think I’ve asked this before, but haven’t really got a clear answer.

Currently I’m training with weights around 75-85% 1rm, sometimes up to 90%.

Now we can agree that maximal force can be attained at around 85% of 1rm with intent of maximal acceleration (The exact percent doesn’t matter here)

Also, even though max force isn’t obtained with lighter weights, they can still be usefull for developing RFD, and for joint recovery. EX:60-75% range.

So if I’m using 75% of my 1rm on a lift for a straight set of 10 my force production may look like this.

100lbs
98lbs
96lbs
90lbs
89lbs
86lbs
83lbs
80lbs
78lbs
76lbs

73lbs cant lift the weight

I don’t know if thats the correct way to say how much force your producing, but lets just assume thats what it looked like.

Now instead, if I were to do sets of 3, it might look like this.

100lbs
98lbs
96lbs


99lbs
97lbs
96lbs


98lbs
96lbs
95lbs

Basically, I’m doing way less weight and reps than I can actually do, but by keeping the reps low, and the speed up, I’ll be producing much more force. Wouldn’t this suggest that regardless of the weight used, you should always use low reps when going for strength?


I don’t know where im really going with this, but last night i did heavy shoulder presses. I used a lot of weight, so i was only able to do sets of 2. The weight almost came to a complete stop on each rep, and i had to really focus hard to lockout.

Now I’m not trying to avoid this high intensity, but I’m thinking this cant be done too often, and there may be better ways.

Now I can:

  1. drop down the intensity, and do more reps, like 5-8 reps per set, and focus on fast concentrics

  2. drop down the weight and continue to do sets of 2-3, but with fast concentrics.

I know I’m making this more complicated than it needs to be, just trying to understand a concept though.

bump

Yes that’s completely right, and is the logic behind both Charles Staley’s EDT and Chad Waterbury’s “stop when the set slows down” protocols.

Now personally, I won’t say you should NEVER use higher reps for strength, but I’d say very generally, in probably 99% of cases, you’re right on the money.

Also with westside DE work, you do 8-12(EliteFTS DE bench manual actually says 15-20 sets for the “Rookie Cycle” with around 10RM) or so sets of 1-3 with about 50%, maybe up to 70% for beginners. With that weight, lifting as hard as you can, power output is highest, which will help with max force output.

My personal experience with DE is that it is the super awesomeist best. Working on it makes almost immediate improvements, and slacking for more than 1-2 weeks makes said improvements go.

Kk thats what I was suspecting.

So, if you were to keep the weight the same, less reps per set but more sets, would be better for strength.

75% 1rm 4x8

VS.

75% 1rm 8x4 (better?)

But when focusing on hypertrophy instead of strength the 4x8 may be better?

[quote]dankid wrote:
Kk thats what I was suspecting.

So, if you were to keep the weight the same, less reps per set but more sets, would be better for strength.

75% 1rm 4x8

VS.

75% 1rm 8x4 (better?)

But when focusing on hypertrophy instead of strength the 4x8 may be better?[/quote]

Myofibrilar hypertrophy? or Sarcoplastic hypertrophy?

I assume you mean sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, in which case 4 sets of 8 reps would be better (in theory).