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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the comparison of average force exerted during fast versus slow weightlifting repetitions, specifically focusing on how these different speeds affect muscle tension and overall force application. Participants explore the implications of repetition speed on muscle engagement, energy expenditure, and the relationship between force and work done during lifting exercises.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether average forces are truly the same for fast and slow repetitions, suggesting that peak forces during fast lifts may be significantly higher.
  • One participant proposes a thought experiment involving clay to illustrate that faster repetitions may exert greater forces, despite claims of equal average forces.
  • Another participant argues that if the acceleration remains constant during fast repetitions, the force should also remain constant, challenging the notion that average forces differ.
  • Energy expenditure is discussed, with some noting that moving weights at higher velocities requires more energy, which could lead to quicker fatigue.
  • Concerns are raised about the complexity of relating muscle tissue behavior to simple mechanical concepts, emphasizing that muscle contractions involve more than just average force calculations.
  • Participants express uncertainty regarding the appropriate quantities to analyze in this context, suggesting that impulse, power, and energy should be considered alongside force.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether average forces are the same for fast and slow repetitions. Multiple competing views are presented, with some arguing for equality and others asserting differences based on peak forces and energy considerations.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their analyses, including assumptions about acceleration, the complexity of muscle dynamics, and the need for precise definitions of force and energy in the context of weightlifting.

  • #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
4K