
#37
Nov2611, 12:53 PM

P: 253

Yeah...I would say 41..and read it 40+(40*0)+1 = 40+0+1 = 41
I want you to do that expiriment because I think it will show that activity does not equal force, I think if you hold 20lbs for 1 second, it will be some amount that is less than double activity to hold 40lbs for 1 seconds. In my opinion you need to change your angle of attack, the answer given for applied force obviously doesn't give you what you were looking for, rather than try to figure out how that answer is wrong, perhaps you should look for how that answer relates to what you're looking for. What are you trying to find out about PS resistance training overall? 



#38
Nov2611, 12:56 PM

P: 253

bodmas? I learned please excuse my dear aunt sally (Parenthesis, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction)




#39
Nov2611, 04:20 PM

P: 148





#40
Nov2711, 02:47 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 11,363





#41
Nov2711, 05:34 PM

P: 399

Hi,
Just did the static test, and some others, they were all with about 80% and for 15 seconds on the leg extension. Static hold half way up. Average muscle activation = 92.1. Slow. Average muscle activation = 159.1. Fast. Average muscle activation = 191.7. Wayne 



#42
Nov2711, 05:40 PM

P: 399





#43
Nov2711, 06:00 PM

P: 399

Not sure how you get 41 ??? But no matter, as Douglas did not even reply, it seems like he did not then understand the problem I was trying to get round. Wayne 



#44
Nov2711, 06:08 PM

P: 253





#45
Nov2711, 06:10 PM

P: 399

wayne 



#46
Nov2711, 06:16 PM

P: 253

so 40 + 40 x 0 + 1 you multiply 40 by 0 and have 40+0+1=41 



#47
Nov2711, 06:47 PM

P: 399

Best I say this, as the faster reps will have what 12 v=0 starts and stops, too the slows just 2 v=0. As the full debate is this; which rep/s use the most overall or total force or strength, using roughly 80% of the persons 1RM, and moving the weight 1m up and 1m down, 6 reps at .5/.5 = 6 seconds, moving the weight 12m in all, or 1 rep at 3/3 = 6 seconds, moving the weight 2m in all As you know, an is the integral of a force with respect to time. When a force is applied to a rigid body it changes the movement of that body. A small force {slow rep} applied for a LONG TIME can produce the same movement change as a large force {fast reps} applied briefly, because it is the product of the force and the time for which it is applied that is important. The impulse is equal to the change of momentum. However both reps are done in the same time frame. Wrote this earlier. I can work out the power, learnt this from a site, {hope its right} as seen below and to be honest, I thought it would be basically as simple as this, was I wrong. Calculate how much power/strength I would be used on both rep speeds. Distance weight of 91 kg moved 1.85 M. To determine the force we will need to figure out what the weight of the barbell is (W = mg = 91 kg x 9.81 m/s = 892 kg.m/s or 892 N). Now, if work is equal to Force x distance then, U = 892 N x 1.85 m = 1650 Nm. We can calculate that lifting a 91kg barbell overhead a distance of 1.85 m required 1650 J of work. You will notice that the time it took to lift the barbell was not taken into account. Let us only add up the positive part of the lift. Concept of power however, takes time into consideration. If for example, it took .5 seconds to complete the lift, then the power generated is 1650 J divided .5 s = 3300 J/s. If it took 2 seconds to complete the lift, then the power generated is 1650 J divided 2 s = 825 J/s. Wayne 



#48
Nov2711, 06:49 PM

P: 399

Wayne 



#49
Nov2711, 06:52 PM

P: 399

Why cant anyone asnswerr this please ???
1, We both have a 100 pounds of maximum strength {or a machine is lifting} that we can bench press. We use 80% 80 pounds, I move the weight 1000mm in .5 of a second, I will be accelerating this weight for 60% for the ROM, {range of motion} of for the concentric rep, you will be moving the same weight in .5 of a second for only 166mm. Question, If I have moved the weight more distance in the same time frame, does that not that mean that I have used more force ??? {force and strength are the same I would have thought, but let’s just go for force now} As even if you just count my acceleration its 600mm, that far moré distance than the slow. 2, I bench press the same weight same distance of 80% {and this weight of 80% is important, as my maximum is only 20% more than my maximum} I lift at .5/.5 for 6 reps = 6 seconds covering a distance of 12m. The slow lifts at 3/3 for 1 rep = 6 seconds, covering a distance of only 2m. Question, basically the same as the above. As a force that causes an object with a mass of 1 kg to accelerate at 1 m/s is equivalent to 1Newton, if you move it futher in the same time from you have to use more force, N’s. Wayne 



#50
Nov2811, 02:15 AM

P: 148

In both cases the applied force is equal with gravity's impulse over 6 seconds....so it's the same. 



#51
Nov2811, 03:22 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 11,363





#52
Nov2811, 07:55 AM

P: 399

I don’t understand what you’re saying, to me the questions I asked on distance are just basic questions, and I put them down as plain as I can. I will give an inch or more. I am not from the pub or locker room. I have made videos too which you have seen that you fail faster in the faster reps, thus why else would you fail if it was not because of you had used more force. I bought an EMG that shows more muscle activity in the faster reps, = more force used. I asked quite plain and polite questions on distance, and also proved with this little scenario that more force was used. You place a piece of clay between your hands and the weight, THE CLAY WILL REPRESENT THE FORCE AND THUS TENSION FROM AND TO THE MUSCLES. The clay would be squashed MORE when doing the faster reps in the same time frame, YES ??? What you miss is that the high peak forces of the faster reps, can and do not make up or be balanced out by the medium forces of the slower reps when the faster reps are on the deceleration. HERE IS WHAT A PHYSICIST ON ANOTHER FORUM SAID, 1. The first man uses the most force to do that, since he must push stronger for the weight to move a larger distance within the same time interval (acceleration is greater). Power is larger, energy is larger. 2. The fast man again. Since the time is smaller, there is more acceleration required and thus, higher magnitude of force. Power would be larger, energy would be larger. 3. Same as 2 since this is merely 4 times the work they are doing. I honestly have not tried in any way to offend you, if I have I am all to sorry, that was not my intentions, I did say I would try to learn. What gets me is why you or some others can’t answer my distance questions ??? I dont get why people are getting uptight, all I ever wanted is to ask polite questions, and trieed my best to lay them out right. If you can in my subjects, I would try to help you. Wayne 



#53
Nov2811, 08:30 AM

P: 399

Think this may help the physicists here understand more, and no, this is not in any way to sound sarcastic, as I need to explain in more my layman’s terms.
Does not my more distance moved in the same time frame, more EMG activity, muscles fail faster in the faster reps, and some more things show that. Wayne 



#54
Nov2811, 08:50 AM

P: 399

Or try and tell me how you move a weight 166mm and I move a weight 1000mm in the same time frame, and I accelerate for about 600mm of that distance. Your trying to tell me that you use the same force moving a weight far less disstynce in the same time frame Yes...I failed to answer so I asked my 6 years old son and told me it's 41.[/QUOTE] Let’s see you try and prove this, with basic numbers 40 + 40 x 0 + 1 = ??? Is not 40 + 40 = 80 ??? Now we x 80 by 0, and whatever we x 0 by it will always be 0 right ??? So we are now at 0 right ??? So add 1 to 0 = 1 right ??? Wayne 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Time frame of the sun  General Astronomy  4  
time dilation b/c of Gravitaional field strength  Special & General Relativity  3  
Creating : one frame at a time  Quantum Physics  8  
strength of electrostatic force  Introductory Physics Homework  3  
Relation strength interaction and decay time  High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics  1 