“Stabilizing” might NOT be a “minor effect” at all,as it emerges from the paragraph and study above:it could actually play the MAIN role in reactivity,if you read carefully.
Is it the ratio or size (hypertrophy) of the ST that is important?
A: If you’re fast, who gives a shit what the fibre ratio is?
B: If a man in a lab coat approaches you with a huge hollow needle, run like hell in the other direction!
oh my, thats just elitist! See thats why all low level athletes get biopsies, they just cant run away from tEh docs
what if joe blow has 75% fast fibers, and has a total of 1000 fibers in say his hammies.
lets say Ben J has 45% fast fibers, but has 5000 fibers in his hammies!
What if you have 75% slow fibers, but dont train them? Due to having double the amount of fibers that a normal guy has, you still have the same amount of fast fibers!
I guess, it does not matter?? It just matters working with what you got and run fast. But, saying that, if you could fairly easily find out the ratio’s ST/FT and and volume of fibers, one’s training can be better suited, more indervidualised. Would this be right??
If so, is there not a way to check and test via using weights? i thought i had seen it someplace? How long it takes to recover after a max set and go again? Or how many reps one can do at 80% of max??? Has somebody seen this and know how it works?
You are nitpicking Nikoluski 
I ment that ST fibers may haave (more than already appreciated) role in sprinting and other explosive activities… ok now
It is their “strength” characteristics: how and when they are recruited,how many of them are recruited,how long they stay “on”!
In the modelization they do in their book (SEC,PEC and CE aka serial,parallel and contractile elements), they explain that the F-V properties of a single fiber (wich is not well suited for running) can be "overcome " because after a contraction the tendons are able to absorb , and then release quickly (quicker than the CE) force. Thus , the better it is, the sooner(compared with the concentric action) the contraction happens (thus explaining why a CMJ is more performant than a SJ ).
What i think? The model is quite interesting, and i think i belevie it…but that means a complete different vision we should give on weight training for sprint.
I gotta get that book…
I think that ST fibers may have role in elasticity/reactive strength due muscle pre-activation before foot strike… this way, the active muscle stiffness is increased and the GRF are bigger and the GCT is lower… this may lead us to the CF’s concept of optimal muscle tone…
Why ST may have role, is because if they are pre-activated, then their speed of contracion is not so important…
But be aware of paralysis by analysis…
Slow fiber would be great fo slow stretch-shortening reactive work like squat jumps but not very helpful in truelly fast reactive activities like long jump, sprinting etc.
Lets tackle this by looking at what happens when we overtrain.
When you overtrain as a consequence of inadequate rest and carbohydrate restriction thyroid hormone (promotes fast fiber) downregulates, cortisol which promotes slow fiber, increases. In simple terms there is a regression or stagnation in sprint and strength prowess as a result. Testosterone promotes and maintains fast fiber. When you overtrain your gonads downregulate with your thyroid gland.
I think its better to look at how to prevent situations that lead to the promotion of slow fiber rather than to refute what seems to be the case…that muscle qualities like a high proportion of fast fiber whether attained in fiber number (can not be increased) or an increase in mass proportion (attainable through hypertrophy) is what we strive for as strength and power athletes.
Rest assured that Ben WOULD certainly NOT have had a high percentage of slow fiber when he was dominant.
That is not to say that an athlete with 70% slow fiber NUMBER can not REVERSE this to 70% fast fiber through training the 30% fast fiber they have to OCCUPY 70% of the area within the muscle through enlarging the muscle.
Worry less about finding out what fiber make-up you have and do more to create the right environment to promote and possess the qualities needed to be a good sprinter.
Do you remember how I showed how you was miss-quoted when I posted a google search link in the other thread. If i really took the time to look, I could also find the supposed research on Ben Johnsons fibre make-up. However, if u say it’s bullshit, it’s bullshit so there is no point me trying to find it. I should have stayed on this website and not ventured to far away on my research into sprinting this last several years. I used to post under the name Goose2 on the old forum, but for an email problem could not get back on till now.
Did Charle Polaquin the man you all love and respect say that 7 differant muscle fibres have been identified on the slow-intermediate-fast spectrum of fibres?
I get the point about not needing to care of the fibre make-up if you are fast, but what if you are slow. What if (maybe a big if), you could correctly re-adress your training partly based on knowing if slow twitch are important part of sprinting.
However, if they contribute to any significant degree to sprinting, then would not sprinting itself still be the best way to train them? (without having to add a load of supplementary high rep work in the gym abs/hips/legs/upperbody in order to ensure relevant conditioning.)
I think you’re looking at this the other way around. If we accept that the body is adaptive and individual, the selection of a good training scheme and it’s adaptation to the individual will cause improvement regardless of fibre makeup.
Not to hijack this thread but I have a question about that too. Say Athlete #1 has 20 muscle fibers and Athlete #2 has only 10 muscle fibers(I am being simplistic, obviously there are more muscle fibers than 10-20 but just to keep the math simple) but Athlete #2’s are twice as large. Is there a difference in the potential force the athletes could generate, or is it just that athlete#1 would have more potential for subsequent hypertrophy of those fibers?
Yes the athlete wit more fibres has more innervation, so should be able to deliver more force more quickly.
On a less dramatic differential between two athletes, can one who’s program has the intensity to lead to fibre splitting pass the athlete who starts with more but trains less effectively- sure.
Charlie, does hyperplasia exist in humans?
Yes. How would you address the "different vision " issue in the weigtroom?
They offer solutions in the weights chapter of the book. To be frank, I don’t think its anything new or ground breaking.
What seems to be throwing people off is the belief that muscles are not plastic. Well they are, we count on them being shapeable in both size and constitution. As a result the worry is that no matter how hard you train you will not improve. Well, part of the solution lies in trying to create the environment for changes that lead to a state in the body that is conducive to fast twitch conversions in slow and fast. Yes slow fiber can change to faster slow fiber coming close to the twitch times of slower fast fiber.
This is interesting
… or how fast they go off!
This is a good summary of the situation. Do we cater to what ‘IS’ or do we work to change it?
Excuse me DUXX and Others,
the Rest-pause with 6-4-2-1 repetitions recruit in the first set the FT but from the second,… sets also the ST?
And with a Drop-set?
Where I can find articles and books on training on fibers the red/ white?