Is Average Force the Same in Fast vs. Slow Weightlifting Reps?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the comparison of average force exerted during fast versus slow weightlifting repetitions, specifically using a 100-pound weight. Participants argue that while average forces may appear similar, peak forces during fast repetitions are significantly higher, leading to greater overall muscle tension. The kinetic energy required for faster lifts is also noted to be substantially greater, contributing to quicker fatigue. Ultimately, the consensus is that average forces are not equivalent due to the differences in peak forces and energy expenditure.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts such as force, energy, and power.
  • Familiarity with weightlifting terminology, including concentric and eccentric movements.
  • Knowledge of kinetic energy calculations and their implications in exercise.
  • Experience with muscle physiology and the effects of different lifting speeds on muscle tension.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the impact of lifting speed on muscle hypertrophy and strength gains.
  • Explore the relationship between force, power, and energy in resistance training.
  • Learn about the biomechanics of muscle contractions during different lifting techniques.
  • Investigate tools for measuring force and power output during weightlifting exercises.
USEFUL FOR

Weightlifters, strength coaches, exercise physiologists, and fitness enthusiasts seeking to optimize their training techniques and understand the mechanics of muscle tension during different lifting speeds.

  • #211


waynexk8 said:
I do not think the meaning of work, that is if you move a weight up and then down = zero, is helping this debate at all. As we all know here that force and energy have been used to lift the weight and to lower it under control, thus physical work has been done.
I have told you this many times already. Energy has been expended, but no work has been done. What is not helpful for the debate is for you to use the incorrect terminology when the correct terminology has been provided. These are technical words with specific mathematical meanings. If you want to learn science, which you have claimed several times is your goal, then you need to learn the meanings of the terms and use them correctly.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #212


waynexk8 said:
thats what I sort of said
so is it not like I just said above
However if we take some numbers,
I say
It would be the same

Stop all of this and start learning.

1. What you say contradicts itself.
2. As point 1.
3. Your numbers are meaningless.
4. You keep trying to explain things using incorrect knowledge.
5. A conclusion based on the above incorrect knowledge.

You need to try and understand this. How many times have you posted those numbers and how many times has everyone ignored - every time.

You are ignoring what you are being told and trying to apply your own flawed explanations. Just stop it.
 
  • #213


This thread is going nowhere fast. It is now done.

Zz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
9K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
10K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K