Question on Isometric / Isotonic Exercises

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Lou Stein, Mar 19, 2006.

  1. Lou Stein

    Lou Stein Guest

    I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:

    Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
    show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
    object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
    muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
    "flexing" ; )

    Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
    range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
    Isotonic? Isokinetic?

    Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
    muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
    contraction.

    Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?

    Thanks,
    Lou Stein
     
    Tags:


  2. It's called "beating off".

    On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:
    >
    >Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
    >show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
    >object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
    >muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
    >"flexing" ; )
    >
    >Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
    >range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
    >Isotonic? Isokinetic?
    >
    >Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
    >muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
    >contraction.
    >
    >Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Lou Stein
     
  3. JMW

    JMW Guest

    Lou Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:
    >
    >Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
    >show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
    >object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
    >muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
    >"flexing" ; )
    >
    >Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
    >range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
    >Isotonic? Isokinetic?
    >
    >Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
    >muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
    >contraction.


    You're confusing old-fashioned exercise terms with their actual
    anatomical/physiological meanings. What you're talking about is an
    isometric contraction; the fibers twitch to maintain a static force
    without movement of the joint. In isotonic contractions, the fibers
    collectively shorten (concentric) or lengthen (eccentric), moving the
    joint against the load with either more force or less force than the
    load.

    In the type of isometric contraction you're describing, I think that
    you will find that the load is created by the antagonist muscles. The
    ability to keep the joint from moving is a matter of neuromuscular
    proprioception.
     
  4. sid bonfire

    sid bonfire Guest

    It's called isokinetic exercise.It's like isometric but with movement.
     
  5. JMW

    JMW Guest

    "sid bonfire" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >It's called isokinetic exercise.It's like isometric but with movement.


    Uh, no. What the OP was describing, the so-called "flexing" of
    muscles, involves no movement of the joint, right? Isokinetic
    movement is an isotonic movement with a variable load that creates a
    constant speed through the whole range of motion. It's essentially
    impossible to achieve that with free weights; most isokinetic movement
    is done with expensive gizmos often used in performance labs.
     
  6. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:
    >
    >Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
    >show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
    >object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
    >muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
    >"flexing" ; )
    >
    >Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
    >range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
    >Isotonic? Isokinetic?
    >
    >Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
    >muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
    >contraction.
    >
    >Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Lou Stein


    On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:
    >
    >Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
    >show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
    >object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
    >muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
    >"flexing" ; )
    >
    >Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
    >range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
    >Isotonic? Isokinetic?
    >
    >Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
    >muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
    >contraction.
    >
    >Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Lou Stein


    "Sid Bonfire" replied:
    "It's called isokinetic exercise.It's like isometric but with
    movement."

    Maybe I'll learn something here.

    I Googled this very briefly and came across two different descriptions
    of isokinetic. One involves contracting and shortening the muscle at
    constant speed. The other is sometimes called "accommodating
    resistance exercise" and entails maximum muscle contraction throughout
    the full range of joint movement. "Resistance is variable in
    proportion to the change in muscular capability at every point in the
    range of motion. The variation is controlled so that at all times it
    equals the product of the muscular strength." In either case, it
    seems that machines (Norm, Cybex) are needed to do it.

    I'm not exactly sure why this has been touted as
    "the fastest way to increase muscle strength".
    http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/mustrain.htm

    Isn't "flexing while lifting" another way to describe getting and
    staying "tight" while lifting? So why is moving a free weight through
    a full range of motion while staying tight a less efficient method of
    gaining strength than using machines to do isokinetic exercises?
     
  7. JMW

    JMW Guest

    [email protected] wrote:

    >On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email protected]>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:
    >>
    >>Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
    >>show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
    >>object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
    >>muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
    >>"flexing" ; )
    >>
    >>Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
    >>range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
    >>Isotonic? Isokinetic?
    >>
    >>Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
    >>muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
    >>contraction.
    >>
    >>Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?
    >>
    >>Thanks,
    >>Lou Stein

    >
    >On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email protected]>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:
    >>
    >>Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
    >>show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
    >>object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
    >>muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
    >>"flexing" ; )
    >>
    >>Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
    >>range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
    >>Isotonic? Isokinetic?
    >>
    >>Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
    >>muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
    >>contraction.
    >>
    >>Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?
    >>
    >>Thanks,
    >>Lou Stein

    >
    >"Sid Bonfire" replied:
    >"It's called isokinetic exercise.It's like isometric but with
    >movement."
    >
    >Maybe I'll learn something here.
    >
    >I Googled this very briefly and came across two different descriptions
    >of isokinetic. One involves contracting and shortening the muscle at
    >constant speed. The other is sometimes called "accommodating
    >resistance exercise" and entails maximum muscle contraction throughout
    >the full range of joint movement. "Resistance is variable in
    >proportion to the change in muscular capability at every point in the
    >range of motion. The variation is controlled so that at all times it
    >equals the product of the muscular strength." In either case, it
    >seems that machines (Norm, Cybex) are needed to do it.
    >
    >I'm not exactly sure why this has been touted as
    >"the fastest way to increase muscle strength".
    > http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/mustrain.htm
    >
    >Isn't "flexing while lifting" another way to describe getting and
    >staying "tight" while lifting? So why is moving a free weight through
    >a full range of motion while staying tight a less efficient method of
    >gaining strength than using machines to do isokinetic exercises?


    You're asking that question of The Troll. Are you expecting an
    informed answer?

    BTW, if you closely at the "two different descriptions" of isokinetic
    movement, you will find that they describe the same thing. See my
    earlier response.
     
  8. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:31:35 -0500, JMW
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >You're asking that question of The Troll. Are you expecting an
    >informed answer?
    >


    The only troll here is JMW.

    >BTW, if you closely at the "two different descriptions" of isokinetic
    >movement, you will find that they describe the same thing. See my
    >earlier response.


    You can fit what JMW knows about this into a thimble, and still get
    your finger in.
     
  9. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:31:35 -0500, JMW
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email protected]>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:
    >>>
    >>>Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
    >>>show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
    >>>object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
    >>>muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
    >>>"flexing" ; )
    >>>
    >>>Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
    >>>range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
    >>>Isotonic? Isokinetic?
    >>>
    >>>Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
    >>>muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
    >>>contraction.
    >>>
    >>>Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?
    >>>
    >>>Thanks,
    >>>Lou Stein

    >>
    >>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email protected]>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:
    >>>
    >>>Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
    >>>show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
    >>>object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
    >>>muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
    >>>"flexing" ; )
    >>>
    >>>Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
    >>>range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
    >>>Isotonic? Isokinetic?
    >>>
    >>>Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
    >>>muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
    >>>contraction.
    >>>
    >>>Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?
    >>>
    >>>Thanks,
    >>>Lou Stein

    >>
    >>"Sid Bonfire" replied:
    >>"It's called isokinetic exercise.It's like isometric but with
    >>movement."
    >>
    >>Maybe I'll learn something here.
    >>
    >>I Googled this very briefly and came across two different descriptions
    >>of isokinetic. One involves contracting and shortening the muscle at
    >>constant speed. The other is sometimes called "accommodating
    >>resistance exercise" and entails maximum muscle contraction throughout
    >>the full range of joint movement. "Resistance is variable in
    >>proportion to the change in muscular capability at every point in the
    >>range of motion. The variation is controlled so that at all times it
    >>equals the product of the muscular strength." In either case, it
    >>seems that machines (Norm, Cybex) are needed to do it.
    >>
    >>I'm not exactly sure why this has been touted as
    >>"the fastest way to increase muscle strength".
    >> http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/mustrain.htm
    >>
    >>Isn't "flexing while lifting" another way to describe getting and
    >>staying "tight" while lifting? So why is moving a free weight through
    >>a full range of motion while staying tight a less efficient method of
    >>gaining strength than using machines to do isokinetic exercises?

    >
    >You're asking that question of The Troll. Are you expecting an
    >informed answer?
    >
    >BTW, if you closely at the "two different descriptions" of isokinetic
    >movement, you will find that they describe the same thing. See my
    >earlier response.


    Sometimes a subject is interesting regardless of who's asking or
    commenting. In such cases, I might get involved. I try not to forget
    there's a bunch of lurkers out there as well as active posters who
    have something interesting to contribute. I try to avoid pointless
    name-calling for its own sake.

    Your description of isokinetic movement neatly combines the
    two descriptions I referenced. Thanks for that.
     
  10. JMW

    JMW Guest

    [email protected] wrote:

    >On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:31:35 -0500, JMW
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>[email protected] wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email protected]>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:
    >>>>
    >>>>Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
    >>>>show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
    >>>>object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
    >>>>muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
    >>>>"flexing" ; )
    >>>>
    >>>>Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
    >>>>range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
    >>>>Isotonic? Isokinetic?
    >>>>
    >>>>Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
    >>>>muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
    >>>>contraction.
    >>>>
    >>>>Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?
    >>>>
    >>>>Thanks,
    >>>>Lou Stein
    >>>
    >>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email protected]>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:
    >>>>
    >>>>Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
    >>>>show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
    >>>>object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
    >>>>muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
    >>>>"flexing" ; )
    >>>>
    >>>>Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
    >>>>range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
    >>>>Isotonic? Isokinetic?
    >>>>
    >>>>Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
    >>>>muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
    >>>>contraction.
    >>>>
    >>>>Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?
    >>>>
    >>>>Thanks,
    >>>>Lou Stein
    >>>
    >>>"Sid Bonfire" replied:
    >>>"It's called isokinetic exercise.It's like isometric but with
    >>>movement."
    >>>
    >>>Maybe I'll learn something here.
    >>>
    >>>I Googled this very briefly and came across two different descriptions
    >>>of isokinetic. One involves contracting and shortening the muscle at
    >>>constant speed. The other is sometimes called "accommodating
    >>>resistance exercise" and entails maximum muscle contraction throughout
    >>>the full range of joint movement. "Resistance is variable in
    >>>proportion to the change in muscular capability at every point in the
    >>>range of motion. The variation is controlled so that at all times it
    >>>equals the product of the muscular strength." In either case, it
    >>>seems that machines (Norm, Cybex) are needed to do it.
    >>>
    >>>I'm not exactly sure why this has been touted as
    >>>"the fastest way to increase muscle strength".
    >>> http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/mustrain.htm
    >>>
    >>>Isn't "flexing while lifting" another way to describe getting and
    >>>staying "tight" while lifting? So why is moving a free weight through
    >>>a full range of motion while staying tight a less efficient method of
    >>>gaining strength than using machines to do isokinetic exercises?

    >>
    >>You're asking that question of The Troll. Are you expecting an
    >>informed answer?
    >>
    >>BTW, if you closely at the "two different descriptions" of isokinetic
    >>movement, you will find that they describe the same thing. See my
    >>earlier response.

    >
    >Sometimes a subject is interesting regardless of who's asking or
    >commenting. In such cases, I might get involved. I try not to forget
    >there's a bunch of lurkers out there as well as active posters who
    >have something interesting to contribute. I try to avoid pointless
    >name-calling for its own sake.


    How very magnanimous of you. And you were hoping for a useful answer
    from someone whose stated goal is the destruction of this newsgroup?
    Perhaps we should call you Pollyanna.

    >Your description of isokinetic movement neatly combines the
    >two descriptions I referenced. Thanks for that.


    You're welcome for that.
     
  11. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:25:26 -0500, JMW
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >How very magnanimous of you. And you were hoping for a useful answer
    >from someone whose stated goal is the destruction of this newsgroup?
    >Perhaps we should call you Pollyanna.


    1. I really don't try to track trolls or the people you call trolls.
    2. Before this thread I don't think I've read anything by "Lou Stein"
    3. I don't compare headers to try to figure out which mask a troll
    is wearing now.
    4. I don't think a troll is capable of destroying this NG. I
    wouldn't even be mildly concerned if someone declared this to be
    his/her intention.

    This NG was once simultaneously really annoying and very
    educational. I decided to accept reading the asinine (and
    occasionally funny) diatribes, ad hominem attacks, and
    occasionally uninformed comments from the "regulars" as the cost
    for being able to learn a lot of really useful stuff here.

    Most of these people have left and this NG is now nearly
    dead. I hang around because it is my hope (if not quite my
    expectation) that informed people will someday want to post here.
    Besides, I like to lurk and post in other NGs and it's easy
    enough to return here

    According to Wikipedia, through the success of the 1913 book
    Pollyanna by Eleanor Porter, "the term 'pollyanna' entered the
    language to describe someone who is cheerfully optimistic. It then
    became by extension (and contrary to the spirit of the book) a
    somewhat derogatory term for a naïve person who always expects people
    to act decently, despite strong evidence to the contrary."

    If I knew that "Lou Stein" was a troll, I wouldn't expect him
    to act decently. I might respond anyway because this might
    get informed non-trolls involved. If not, I'd quickly figure it out
    and stop posting to that thread.

    The whole effort in this NG to portray someone as a troll theme is
    really lame and way overplayed. I could give a rat's ass who anyone
    here thinks is a troll. I'll make up my own mind who shouldn't get
    the time of day.
     
  12. On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:14:11 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

    > it is my hope (if not quite my
    > expectation) that informed people will someday want to post here.
    >


    I'm here to prevent that, I'll be forever. Please allow me to
    introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and fame WOO WOO


    > I'll make up my own mind who shouldn't get
    >the time of day.


    What time is it?
     
  13. Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    >On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:25:26 -0500, JMW
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>How very magnanimous of you. And you were hoping for a useful answer
    >>from someone whose stated goal is the destruction of this newsgroup?
    >>Perhaps we should call you Pollyanna.

    >
    >1. I really don't try to track trolls or the people you call trolls.
    >2. Before this thread I don't think I've read anything by "Lou Stein"
    >3. I don't compare headers to try to figure out which mask a troll
    > is wearing now.
    >4. I don't think a troll is capable of destroying this NG. I
    > wouldn't even be mildly concerned if someone declared this to be
    > his/her intention.
    >
    > This NG was once simultaneously really annoying and very
    > educational. I decided to accept reading the asinine (and
    > occasionally funny) diatribes, ad hominem attacks, and
    > occasionally uninformed comments from the "regulars" as the cost
    > for being able to learn a lot of really useful stuff here.
    >
    > Most of these people have left and this NG is now nearly
    > dead. I hang around because it is my hope (if not quite my
    > expectation) that informed people will someday want to post here.
    > Besides, I like to lurk and post in other NGs and it's easy
    > enough to return here
    >
    > According to Wikipedia, through the success of the 1913 book
    >Pollyanna by Eleanor Porter, "the term 'pollyanna' entered the
    >language to describe someone who is cheerfully optimistic. It then
    >became by extension (and contrary to the spirit of the book) a
    >somewhat derogatory term for a naïve person who always expects people
    >to act decently, despite strong evidence to the contrary."
    >
    >If I knew that "Lou Stein" was a troll, I wouldn't expect him
    >to act decently. I might respond anyway because this might
    >get informed non-trolls involved. If not, I'd quickly figure it out
    >and stop posting to that thread.
    >
    >The whole effort in this NG to portray someone as a troll theme is
    >really lame and way overplayed. I could give a rat's ass who anyone
    >here thinks is a troll. I'll make up my own mind who shouldn't get
    >the time of day.


    Well thanks for the info guys. If I'm a troll then I'm a pretty lousy one
    because the question wasn't really controversial, and I didn't respond to the
    flame bait. I just knew this group had a bunch of steller knowledgable people
    on it a few years ago. I'm really sorry to hear it's declined since then.
    Maybe I'll need to find out where all the good people went.

    FYI - I think the closest thing I'm looking for so far is Tai-Chi because that
    has (can have) high tension movement. That's really my focus... any research
    or system or philosophy of movement that incorporates high tension movements
    where both a muscle and it's antagonist is contracting (regardless of whether
    it's shortening or lengthening), along with any terminology that has been used
    specifically to describe this situation.

    Another reference I found is that Weider would flex his muscles while lifting
    but I can't find that one right now maybe I'll dig it up later.

    Regards,
    Lou Stein
     
  14. David  Cohen

    David Cohen Guest

    "JMW" <[email protected]> wrote
    > [email protected] wrote:
    >>JMW <[email protected]> wrote:


    >>>You're asking that question of The Troll. Are you expecting an
    >>>informed answer?


    >>Sometimes a subject is interesting regardless of who's asking or
    >>commenting. In such cases, I might get involved. I try not to forget
    >>there's a bunch of lurkers out there as well as active posters who
    >>have something interesting to contribute. I try to avoid pointless
    >>name-calling for its own sake.

    >
    > How very magnanimous of you. And you were hoping for a useful answer
    > from someone whose stated goal is the destruction of this newsgroup?
    > Perhaps we should call you Pollyanna.


    I would probably dislike The Troll more, but he DOES have that Pinky
    sidekick. I really like Pinky.

    David
     
  15. JMW

    JMW Guest

    [email protected] wrote:

    >On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:25:26 -0500, JMW
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>How very magnanimous of you. And you were hoping for a useful answer
    >>from someone whose stated goal is the destruction of this newsgroup?
    >>Perhaps we should call you Pollyanna.

    >
    >1. I really don't try to track trolls or the people you call trolls.
    >2. Before this thread I don't think I've read anything by "Lou Stein"
    >3. I don't compare headers to try to figure out which mask a troll
    > is wearing now.


    You obviously don't read attributions to quotes, either. You were not
    responding to Lou Stein. You were responding to "Sid Bonfire" aka
    Bill Davidson. I have no reason to believe that Lou Stein is a troll,
    nor did I ever imply that he was.

    >4. I don't think a troll is capable of destroying this NG. I
    > wouldn't even be mildly concerned if someone declared this to be
    > his/her intention.
    >
    > This NG was once simultaneously really annoying and very
    > educational. I decided to accept reading the asinine (and
    > occasionally funny) diatribes, ad hominem attacks, and
    > occasionally uninformed comments from the "regulars" as the cost
    > for being able to learn a lot of really useful stuff here.
    >
    > Most of these people have left and this NG is now nearly
    > dead. I hang around because it is my hope (if not quite my
    > expectation) that informed people will someday want to post here.
    > Besides, I like to lurk and post in other NGs and it's easy
    > enough to return here


    Bullshit. The exodus of most of the knowledgeable people can be
    traced to a few bitter bastards trolling them. That goes all the way
    back to Dan Duchaine. I've been here ten years and watched it happen.

    >The whole effort in this NG to portray someone as a troll theme is
    >really lame and way overplayed. I could give a rat's ass who anyone
    >here thinks is a troll. I'll make up my own mind who shouldn't get
    >the time of day.


    You spend most of your time kissing up to Steve Friedes, so why should
    I be concerned? Carry on.
     
  16. JMW

    JMW Guest

    [email protected] wrote:

    >On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:14:11 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
    >
    >> it is my hope (if not quite my
    >> expectation) that informed people will someday want to post here.
    >>

    >
    >I'm here to prevent that, I'll be forever. Please allow me to
    >introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and fame WOO WOO


    It's "wealth and taste," dimwit.

    Of course, the lyrics may be different for your version: Sympathy for
    the Moron.
     
  17. JMW

    JMW Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >Well thanks for the info guys. If I'm a troll then I'm a pretty lousy one
    >because the question wasn't really controversial, and I didn't respond to the
    >flame bait.


    I didn't call you a troll. I was referring to the dimwit who defined
    your description as "isokinetic." He hasn't a clue and was just
    making a stupid statement to draw fire.

    >I just knew this group had a bunch of steller knowledgable people
    >on it a few years ago. I'm really sorry to hear it's declined since then.
    >Maybe I'll need to find out where all the good people went.
    >
    >FYI - I think the closest thing I'm looking for so far is Tai-Chi because that
    >has (can have) high tension movement. That's really my focus... any research
    >or system or philosophy of movement that incorporates high tension movements
    >where both a muscle and it's antagonist is contracting (regardless of whether
    >it's shortening or lengthening), along with any terminology that has been used
    >specifically to describe this situation.


    Perhaps you could say what you didn't like about my answer?

    >Another reference I found is that Weider would flex his muscles while lifting
    >but I can't find that one right now maybe I'll dig it up later.


    The classic is the concentration curl where one would "squeeze" at the
    top of the movement. I have not read any research that indicates such
    an action signficantly increases strength or hypertrophy, although
    some folks swear by it. If you're desperate for a term, try
    "isometric hold." I've used it occasionally, and I think you'll find
    many in MFW have used the same term. Google is your friend.

    --

    No puppies were harmed during the posting of this
    message. Any similarity of identities defamed to
    actual persons living, dead, or existing in a
    transcendental state is purely coincidental.
     
  18. JRH

    JRH Guest

    On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:31:35 -0500, JMW
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email protected]>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:
    >>>
    >>>Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
    >>>show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
    >>>object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
    >>>muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
    >>>"flexing" ; )
    >>>
    >>>Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
    >>>range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
    >>>Isotonic? Isokinetic?
    >>>
    >>>Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
    >>>muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
    >>>contraction.
    >>>
    >>>Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?
    >>>
    >>>Thanks,
    >>>Lou Stein

    >>
    >>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email protected]>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:
    >>>
    >>>Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
    >>>show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
    >>>object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
    >>>muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
    >>>"flexing" ; )
    >>>
    >>>Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
    >>>range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
    >>>Isotonic? Isokinetic?
    >>>
    >>>Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
    >>>muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
    >>>contraction.
    >>>
    >>>Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?
    >>>
    >>>Thanks,
    >>>Lou Stein

    >>
    >>"Sid Bonfire" replied:
    >>"It's called isokinetic exercise.It's like isometric but with
    >>movement."
    >>
    >>Maybe I'll learn something here.
    >>
    >>I Googled this very briefly and came across two different descriptions
    >>of isokinetic. One involves contracting and shortening the muscle at
    >>constant speed. The other is sometimes called "accommodating
    >>resistance exercise" and entails maximum muscle contraction throughout
    >>the full range of joint movement. "Resistance is variable in
    >>proportion to the change in muscular capability at every point in the
    >>range of motion. The variation is controlled so that at all times it
    >>equals the product of the muscular strength." In either case, it
    >>seems that machines (Norm, Cybex) are needed to do it.
    >>
    >>I'm not exactly sure why this has been touted as
    >>"the fastest way to increase muscle strength".
    >> http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/mustrain.htm
    >>
    >>Isn't "flexing while lifting" another way to describe getting and
    >>staying "tight" while lifting? So why is moving a free weight through
    >>a full range of motion while staying tight a less efficient method of
    >>gaining strength than using machines to do isokinetic exercises?

    >
    >You're asking that question of The Troll. Are you expecting an
    >informed answer?


    Everyone is a "troll" except those who the "Trollmeister" likes to
    exclude, which is precious few! ;o)

    Ugh! It's Monday! ;o(
     
  19. JRH

    JRH Guest

    On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:15:10 -0500, JMW
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:25:26 -0500, JMW
    >><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>How very magnanimous of you. And you were hoping for a useful answer
    >>>from someone whose stated goal is the destruction of this newsgroup?
    >>>Perhaps we should call you Pollyanna.

    >>
    >>1. I really don't try to track trolls or the people you call trolls.
    >>2. Before this thread I don't think I've read anything by "Lou Stein"
    >>3. I don't compare headers to try to figure out which mask a troll
    >> is wearing now.

    >
    >You obviously don't read attributions to quotes, either. You were not
    >responding to Lou Stein. You were responding to "Sid Bonfire" aka
    >Bill Davidson. I have no reason to believe that Lou Stein is a troll,
    >nor did I ever imply that he was.
    >
    >>4. I don't think a troll is capable of destroying this NG. I
    >> wouldn't even be mildly concerned if someone declared this to be
    >> his/her intention.
    >>
    >> This NG was once simultaneously really annoying and very
    >> educational. I decided to accept reading the asinine (and
    >> occasionally funny) diatribes, ad hominem attacks, and
    >> occasionally uninformed comments from the "regulars" as the cost
    >> for being able to learn a lot of really useful stuff here.
    >>
    >> Most of these people have left and this NG is now nearly
    >> dead. I hang around because it is my hope (if not quite my
    >> expectation) that informed people will someday want to post here.
    >> Besides, I like to lurk and post in other NGs and it's easy
    >> enough to return here

    >
    >Bullshit. The exodus of most of the knowledgeable people can be
    >traced to a few bitter bastards trolling them. That goes all the way
    >back to Dan Duchaine. I've been here ten years and watched it happen.


    You were the root cause of all the upset here John Williams, with your
    "trolling" and "stalking" against those whom you considered
    interlopers here.

    Those that weren't involved with your "trolling" simply got fed up
    with all the flak you attracted to the NG, and buggered off. this
    group will never recover all the while you are here policing it and
    "prosecuting" people...
     
  20. JRH

    JRH Guest

    On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:18:47 -0500, JMW
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:14:11 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
    >>
    >>> it is my hope (if not quite my
    >>> expectation) that informed people will someday want to post here.
    >>>

    >>
    >>I'm here to prevent that, I'll be forever. Please allow me to
    >>introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and fame WOO WOO

    >
    >It's "wealth and taste," dimwit.


    You know everything John Williams...
     
Loading...
Loading...