Concentric Exercise?

[Sapien]

Essentially what you want to do, and that's probably true for all "exercise", is just that: have it be as effortless as possible,

It has been proven that intensity (proximity to failure, to inroad fast twitch fibers) is the sole factor in inducing muscle muscle growth (through “mechanical tension”) thus I would argue the exact opposite. For effective (building muscle), exercise should be brief, infrequent (to ensure proper recovery), and intense (training to failure).

When, on the other hand, you do eccentric exercises to failure, you'll start to reach fatigue well before failure too

this is not unique to eccentric exercise, when I perform sets to failure I feel very fatigued halfway through even

 

[philalethes]

It has been proven that intensity (proximity to failure, to inroad fast twitch fibers) is the sole factor in inducing muscle muscle growth (through “mechanical tension”) thus I would argue the exact opposite. For effective (building muscle), exercise should be brief, infrequent (to ensure proper recovery), and intense (training to failure).

this is not unique to eccentric exercise, when I perform sets to failure I feel very fatigued halfway through even

That is definitely not true at all, and is far from proven; in fact, that's more of a myth that many researchers have tried to prove, often ending up with a lot of confirmation bias, but with very lacking results in general. In contrast, strength training without going anywhere close to failure has been shown to lead to significant muscle growth over and over again. In my personal view you should absolutely never go anywhere close to failure, that's just a recipe for damage. The most effective way to build muscle by far is the exact opposite of what you mention here: it is rather continuous and effortless (note that "effortless" doesn't necessarily mean avoiding larger loads, just that you should never feel that it requires intentional effort, and definitely never experience fatigue, that's a huge red flag) use of the muscles throughout the day. This isn't that hard to understand considering our origins as a species, as we would have been walking and running and jumping and climbing all day with only intermittent periods of rest for millions of years, and like most other organisms we've evolved to shun all discomfort for very good natural reasons, any feeling of discomfort (including effort and fatigue) is a sign of doing something wrong. Contrary to the popular advice to leave your comfort zone, my advice would rather be: never leave your comfort zone.

 

[Sapien]

that's just a recipe for damage

Training to failure does not cause muscle damage, only eccentric does. Concentric/isometric training produces no DOMS and thus no “muscle damage”

 

[exile]

Lift the Bar and Drop It

What happens when you only do the concentric or lifting part of a rep and avoid the negative? Some surprising things. Info here.

www.t-nation.com

I found these a while back. I don’t do these because I feel great weightlifting like normal, but interesting and will maybe try some day.

 

[philalethes]

Training to failure does not cause muscle damage, only eccentric does. Concentric/isometric training produces no DOMS and thus no “muscle damage”

Training to failure will also definitely cause varying amounts of muscle damage. You very often get quite sore when training exclusively concentrically, and all soreness is a sign of damage (and, needless to say, should be avoided completely). Eccentric training definitely does more damage in general, that's true, but that doesn't mean concentric training doesn't; the notion that you get no DOMS at all from concentric training sounds quite removed from the reality I inhabit, so perhaps we live in alternate dimensions and are communicating through some sort of interdimensional communications gateway. It's also easily possible to get muscle damage from isometric training if the load is great enough, because it's essentially at the moment of failure that damage takes place (which is why concentric training also can easily produce damage and ensuing soreness). And lastly, there's virtually always an eccentric component to most lifts unless you let gravity do that part and the floor/ground take the load (or alternatively get a machine to lift the weight in the other direction).

 

[Sapien]

Eccentric training definitely does more damage in general, that's true, but that doesn't mean concentric training doesn't; the notion that you get no DOMS at all from concentric training sounds quite removed from the reality I inhabit, so perhaps we live in alternate dimensions

Training to failure will also definitely cause varying amounts of muscle damage

Bro you’re literally just talking out of your **** right now. I’m busy right now but I’ll debunk this ***t later lol.

Training to failure DOES NOT induce ANY muscle damage, and muscle damage is NOT required nor beneficial for muscle growth

 

[Sapien]

And lastly, there's virtually always an eccentric component to most lifts

I do mostly isometric contractions, the “timed static contraction” protocol by Drew Baye

0 eccentric work, 0 soreness, amazing gains from fatiguing the fast twitch fibers

 

[Sapien]

Concentric training builds mitochondria, eccentric training destroys it”
-Raymond Peat

 

[philalethes]

Bro you’re literally just talking out of your **** right now. I’m busy right now but I’ll debunk this ***t later lol.

Training to failure DOES NOT induce ANY muscle damage, and muscle damage is NOT required nor beneficial for muscle growth

Training concentrically to failure will almost always produce some amounts of muscle damage, which is why it will frequently produce soreness. This is pretty well known to most people who train strength regularly in an "orthodox" fashion (including myself in the past).

That muscle damage isn't required or beneficial for muscle growth is exactly my point, so not sure why you feel the need to stress this; that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying, hence why one should never ever train to failure if one is interested in optimal health. When Ray Peat said concentric training builds mitochondria, he was certainly not suggesting people train to failure; although I'm not aware that he ever wrote explicitly about that, he would probably be appalled at the thought of doing such a thing.

No need to hurl expletives.

 

[Sapien]

Training concentrically to failure will almost always produce some amounts of muscle damage, which is why it will frequently produce sorenes

That muscle damage isn't required or beneficial for muscle growth is exactly my point, so not sure why you feel the need to stress this; that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying, hence why one should never ever train to failure if one is interested in optimal health

TRAINING TO MOMENTARY MUSCULAR FAILURE DOES NOT CAUSE MUSCLE DAMAGE IF IT IS DONE WITHOUT ECCENTRIC ACTVITY

While training with no muscle damage is not common, it can be done by doing Olympic style weightlifting (i.e picking up a weight and dropping it) OR doing isometrics (as long as you refrain from doing them in stretched position)

source: muscle damage/DOMS - mechanism
"Concentric muscle contractions do not cause exercise-induced muscle damage, but exercise-induced muscle damage is evident after isometric contractions at a long muscle length and eccentric muscle contractions, even at low intensity.


Various mechanisms likely account for the loss of strength after eccentrically biased exercise, which is considered to be the best indicator of exercise-induced muscle damage. These mechanisms are outlined in the following theoretical model.

• Mechanical strain during eccentric exercise causes one-half sarcomere nonuniformity and overstretching of sarcomeres beyond filament overlap, leading to “popped sarcomeres.” The Sarcomere is the name given to the part of the muscle fibre that contracts.
• ... etc"

You claim that you get sore doing concentric only training, this is physically impossible so I suspect your training is not concentric only

As for your claim that training to failure is not good, this is based on your erroneous assumption that training to failure produces muscle damage. As my source and several others explain, it is not the intensity that produces muscle damage, but the eccentric nature. Peat even advises against walking down a hill, that is not "training to failure: yet is still damaging.

As for why I recommend training to failure, it is well known in the HIT (high intensity training) circles that fatiguing the fast twitch fibers is the primary way to stimulate growth, which is effectively done by training to failure (henemens size principal)

Peat cautions against over exercising and concentric exercise, but also says that having good amount of muscle mass is beneficial.

Thus, a "HIT" (high intensity training, one set to failure, low volume low frequency high intensity) protocol is the OPTIMAL form of exercise, as you are doing the bare minimum as well as the OPTIMAL amount required to stimulate muscle growth. This minimizes overall eccentric work as well as total amount of time exercising in general, whilst proving the body with stimulus required to build muscle.

I suggest you look into the work of Dr doug mcguff, Drew Baye, Mike mentzer, Arthur Jones, Jay vincent etc on why HIT is the optimal way of building muscle. It is all predicated on the notion of Heneman's size principal, which is best achieved by training to failure

 

[Sapien]

When Ray Peat said concentric training builds mitochondria, he was certainly not suggesting people train to failure; although I'm not aware that he ever wrote explicitly about that, he would probably be appalled at the thought of doing such a thing.

Don't put words in his mouth. If Peat knew that optimal amount of muscle can be built in just minutes a week training concentrically/isometrically to failure with one set only, I presume he would have started a strength training protocol himself, as he mentioned several times the benefits of muscle mass. His anti-exercise stance was due to the common Puritan work ethic style of training that many think is required to build muscle, thus why he said that bodybuilding does more harm than good. It is a shame that that style of volume training is more common than the "logical approach to bodybuilding" as Mike Mentzer coined it.

 

[Sapien]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrpFjdgtrt0&list=PLC675D5E4AA1FAB28

 

[Sapien]

one should never ever train to failure if one is interested in optimal health

evidence based training recommendations

"Intensity

Persons should train until momentary muscular failure to actively recruit all of the available motor units and muscle fibres"

 

[philalethes]

TRAINING TO MOMENTARY MUSCULAR FAILURE DOES NOT CAUSE MUSCLE DAMAGE IF IT IS DONE WITHOUT ECCENTRIC ACTVITY

I mean, writing in all capital letters doesn't really make the statement any less false. It doesn't sound like you're screaming either, it just makes it harder to read.

And yes, you can definitely, as I've already made quite clear, cause muscle damage through exclusively concentric training. The idea that you can't is, quite frankly, completely nonsensical. As I've also said, yes, eccentric training generally produces significantly more damage, but concentric training, especially to failure, will also produce damage.

While training with no muscle damage is not common, it can be done by doing Olympic style weightlifting (i.e picking up a weight and dropping it) OR doing isometrics (as long as you refrain from doing them in stretched position)

Well, first of all I already mentioned that this would be the best way to achieve as little eccentric movement as possible; however, as stated above and elsewhere, the idea that you get zero muscle damage by training that way if you do it to failure is divorced from reality, it's just not true at all. You can also get muscle damage from isometrics in a fully shortened position if the load is heavy enough. Muscle damage does not require lengthening, contrary to what you appear to believe.

"Concentric muscle contractions do not cause exercise-induced muscle damage, but exercise-induced muscle damage is evident after isometric contractions at a long muscle length and eccentric muscle contractions, even at low intensity.

This sounds like it was written by someone biased rather than someone basing themselves in physiological reality. There are countless research papers and studies showing clearly that muscle damage occurs even in 100% concentric exercise, particularly when done at high load and to failure.

You claim that you get sore doing concentric only training, this is physically impossible so I suspect your training is not concentric only

Not just me, but myriad others, both anecdotally and as shown in studies with strictly controlled concentric contractions. This is very much physically possible, and the idea that it's not has no basis in reality at all.

As for your claim that training to failure is not good, this is based on your erroneous assumption that training to failure produces muscle damage. As my source and several others explain, it is not the intensity that produces muscle damage, but the eccentric nature. Peat even advises against walking down a hill, that is not "training to failure: yet is still damaging.

That assumption is not erroneous at all; and what I've said so far has been more nuanced and complex than what you are representing it as here. Intensity is most definitely one contributor to the amount of damage, especially training to failure, even if doing 100% concentric movements. That is certainly a statement that I will continue to stand by both out of experience as well as understanding: no one who is interested in optimal human health should ever train to failure.

As for why I recommend training to failure, it is well known in the HIT (high intensity training) circles that fatiguing the fast twitch fibers is the primary way to stimulate growth, which is effectively done by training to failure (henemens size principal)

Menno Henselmans is probably one of the last people to listen to in general if optimal health is something you seek. Seeking muscle growth at all cost should not even remotely be the goal of anyone. There are many methods used by e.g. bodybuilders to grow muscles far faster than anything even remotely natural, but they tend to be one of the least healthy populations on the planet.

As for the principle and claim, there is some truth to what he says in general, but as I've already explained this has to do with being compared to lower-intensity exercise that isn't continuous throughout the entire day. The best way to use muscles is using them the way we've been physiologically shaped to over tens of millions of years: low-to-medium intensity throughout the entire day. This will lead to the same recruitment overall (you can try something simple as doing 3 pull-ups every minute for an hour or two to see how that principle works), but that way you're preserving the effortless nature of the movements and can much more easily adjust when you start approaching discomfort and fatigue, and without causing the inevitable muscle damage from high-intensity exercise of any kind.

Peat cautions against over exercising and concentric exercise, but also says that having good amount of muscle mass is beneficial.

Well, on that I certainly agree; it's how you build and use that muscle mass that's rather the issue.

Thus, a "HIT" (high intensity training, one set to failure, low volume low frequency high intensity) protocol is the OPTIMAL form of exercise, as you are doing the bare minimum as well as the OPTIMAL amount required to stimulate muscle growth. This minimizes overall eccentric work as well as total amount of time exercising in general, whilst proving the body with stimulus required to build muscle.

That is definitely far removed from the truth; the optimal form of exercise is, as I've already mentioned, the opposite: it's continuous low-to-medium-intensity "training" (ideally it should never even be considered "training", that word should be replaced entirely with "fun" and "play") throughout the entire day (not to be confused with aerobic exercise, of course, that would be going to the other extreme, and is likely even worse).

Persons should train until momentary muscular failure to actively recruit all of the available motor units and muscle fibres"

Anyone seeking to build muscle in a safe and sound way and remain optimally healthy should never train until failure ever.

 

[Sapien]

There are countless research papers and studies showing clearly that muscle damage occurs even in 100% concentric exercise, particularly when done at high load and to failure

You wrote an entire 5 paragraph essay and didn’t cite one of them

This sounds like it was written by someone biased

Why tf would they be biased toward concentric exercise wtf are you even talking about dude.

Anyone seeking to build muscle in a safe and sound way and remain optimally healthy should never train until failure ever.

Intensity is most definitely one contributor to the amount of damage, especially training to failure, even if doing 100% concentric movements

That is certainly a statement that I will continue to stand by both out of experience as well as understanding: no one who is interested in optimal human health should ever train to failure.

Stop spreading misinformation on this forum. You are simply talking out of your **** until I see you provide me scientific literature.

 

[philalethes]

Stop spreading misinformation on this forum.

I might advise you to do the same.

You are simply talking out of your **** until I see you provide me scientific literature.

It seems to me that you're the one making rather outrageous claims, such as the notion that you can concentrically train to failure without any muscle damage at all. I'd like to see a single study showing that concentric exercise performed to failure produces zero muscle damage.

 

[Sapien]

It seems to me that you're the one making rather outrageous claims, such as the notion that you can concentrically train to failure without any muscle damage at all. I'd like to see a single study showing that concentric exercise performed to failure produces zero muscle damage.

You very often get quite sore when training exclusively concentrically, and all soreness is a sign of damage (and, needless to say, should be avoided completely).

Training to failure will also definitely cause varying amounts of muscle damage

(which is why concentric training also can easily produce damage and ensuing soreness)

Training concentrically to failure will almost always produce some amounts of muscle damage, which is why it will frequently produce soreness. This is pretty well known to most people who train strength regularly in an "orthodox" fashion (including myself in the past).

link

Methods: "Thirteen untrained men performed unilateral concentric-only dumbbell curls and shoulder presses twice per week for 4 weeks. Sets of 8–12 repetitions were performed to failure'

"Delayed onset muscle soreness All 13 subjects reported a complete absence of delayed onset muscle soreness for the training arm by circling zero on the Likert scale upon arriving to the laboratory"

"...Our findings demonstrated significant increases in lean mass, muscle thickness, and flexed arm circumference within seven training sessions, but no evidence of training-induced muscle damage was observed"

I'd like to see a single study showing that concentric exercise performed to failure produces zero muscle damage.

 

[Sapien]

Stop spreading misinformation on this forum. You are simply talking out of your ****

 

[philalethes]

link

Methods: "Thirteen untrained men performed unilateral concentric-only dumbbell curls and shoulder presses twice per week for 4 weeks. Sets of 8–12 repetitions were performed to failure'

"Delayed onset muscle soreness All 13 subjects reported a complete absence of delayed onset muscle soreness for the training arm by circling zero on the Likert scale upon arriving to the laboratory"

"...Our findings demonstrated significant increases in lean mass, muscle thickness, and flexed arm circumference within seven training sessions, but no evidence of training-induced muscle damage was observed"


Checkmate.

Ah, yes, self-reporting half a week after the exercise, the pinnacle of science. Seems like they didn't actually measure any biomarkers of damage at all, so I'm curious about what this evidence they speak of is (surely it is not based entirely on self-reporting half a week afterwards, especially not for those muscle groups in particular).

Once again it seems you should probably be taking your own advice when it comes to whence you speak.

 

[exile]

What concentric leg exercises are people doing?