If I am repping say 70% as fast as possible, at both transitions from positive to negative and from negative to positive, would in those two transitions be a place where the barbell is at zero speed ??? I say no, as there is a continuous movement of the barbell.

As you know, when you lift a weight of 100 pounds you need 100.1 pounds of force to move it, but to keep it moving you only need a 100 pounds to keep it moving, thus when going from both transitions I must be in motion. As it is far easier to lift a weight when you do the negative first and then the positive, thus as it is in motion.

Hope I am right, but as Einstein not around, thought I would ask one of the second best.

deleted

Wayne

I did not want that to sound like I was being smug or anything, as I am not that type, and I know you physics is 95% better than mine is, I just know the basics, but enjoying learning more. In addition, I am sure and hope if there were anything wrong in what I wrote, you would tell me. Thx for you time again.

WHAT !!! My Grammar bad ??? Yes it is, most of the time in English class at school, we just talked with the teacher about everyday life. Also at that time, I was more interested in training and Bruce Lee, and learning my wrought iron trade in my Fathers workshop.

Would it be possible to work out the force of ??? Let us say a 90kg weight, dropping at .5 of a second for .5m, then immediately after .5m the lifter exerts his full force/strength for the concentric. As we know when a given load is lifted or lowered very fast, the acceleration component means that the forces exerted on the load (and thereby by the muscles) by far exceeds the nominal weight of the load. IF YOU HAVE TIME THAT IS.

Did you try your bench with bigger diameter and thinner plates on ??? You would find it far easier with the exact same weight. It must be because of gravity, air resistance, drag, torque and leverage, but I know you know far more about it that me. Its like when lifting a 112-cement bag above your head, it is far easier to lift the same weight on a barbell.

Thx for your time again.

Wayne

As you can see I read the artice. Seems all I wrote was write.

Wayne

Sumo wrote,
And thereby conclude that high acceleration equals high force.

Wayne wrote,
But higher acceleration with the same weight does equals high force/strength.

Sumo wrote,
it seems that actin-myosin energy cycle times are limited therefore faster contractions necessarily involve fewer actin-myosin bonds.

Wayne wrote,
I think they are when speeds get very fast, like free hand fast punches.

Sumo wrote,
The lifter’s max force of 1000 N would never be exceeded – faster moves would not involve a force higher than 1000 N.

Wayne wrote,
However, the lifter will be taking more than his max force of 1000 N. As in the fast transition from negative to positive, this is where maximum size and strength is produced some say, as force can get up to 120 to 140% Call MMMTs {Momentary Maximum Muscle Tensions} That is one of the forces we have been trying to work out, hold on I think your next writings; Impact may help me, no that’s over my head, but Examples, I can easy understand.

Would it be possible to work out the force of ??? Let’s say a 90kg weight, dropping at .5 of a second for .5m, then immediately after .5m the lifter exerts his full force/strength for the concentric. As we know when a given load is lifted or lowered very fast, the acceleration component means that the forces exerted on the load (and thereby by the muscles) by far exceeds the nominal weight of the load.

Thx for you time, if you have the time.

Wayne

I know for some videos of the axle lift, boat pull dead lift and farmers walk from 2009 final if you want to look ??? Two secs let me find it. You may have to go to the Polish site and remember the name of the thread and page number, best part is you can download the videos on to your face book in less than a second. In addition, there are some great candied photos of Mariusz. If you do not know the results and do not want to know, do NOT follow this link.

deleted

Thx for the reply.

Will have a read of that force discussion now.

I know all about the force-velocity curve, and that you can generate more force on a heaver object than a lighter one, and it will be moving slower, and in NO way am I trying to tell you about physics, as you are one of the best I know on the subject . I imagine you speed read what I wrote, and it’s pretty much correct, hope so anyway

When you punch someone faster, it’s harder and more forceful thus you will inflict more damage.”
He was saying this in support of the notion that fast lifting involves greater forces than slow lifting.

If you see where I am coming from, the above is true, is it not,

But what I was saying in our debate over at Ellington’s, was that you will produce more force and power {energy work} moving faster with the same weight barbell in the same time frame, like 2/4 rep = 1 rep = 6 seconds, .5/.5 rep = 6 reps = 6 seconds. However, this other person seems to say there is the same amount of force in both reps and more energy used in the slower one.

Here is the last part from the debate, if you have time.

deleted

Wayne

Why would you say that is not true ???

I am not saying all the below is true.

great long winded copy and paste bearing no relation to article.

Wayne

I could not find that video of you doing a one arm heavey curl, sure I remember one ???

Hey, you would be able to lift more if you used bigger diameter thinner plate. You are very strong, and very clever at the physics.

See you love Strongman like me.

I know I suggested this before, but maybe you’re more interested in lower RMs, but why not up the food ??? How many calories do you eat a day now please.

I now we did not seem to get on before, hope we can this time.

You should join us over at Ellington’s, there’s a great physics debate going on.

Wayne