Do you have a stronger bench than Nassar..

[legbreaker]

burn out your cns more than anything. maybe for a rep or two at the end of a set, but i don't see the point in taking weights over your max just for negatives.

people keep saying that muscles are stronger on negatives, well no shit. you're letting the weight down, not lifting it back up. that's like saying you can run down a hill faster than you can run up it because your legs are biomechanically engineered to go downhill. you're going with gravity, duh.

Negatives are EXTREMELY helpful for strength increases...especially with an assisted positive speed rep, either with a partner or bands, etc.  That's exactly why they are and have always been a mainstay in many powerlifters training programs.

[MisterMagoo]

That's actually the reason why I brought them up, because I had heard of powerlifters doing them so often.

most i know call them a drain on the cns, at best they mentally get you adjusted to the weight but little beyond that. if you want to acclimate your body to heavier weights, do lockouts or board presses. bands aren't that useful unless you have a shirt.

if you really want, just do your normal training with extra slow negatives, and given your bench vids it might do you some good to do pauses at the bottom for a while if that's your goal.

[legbreaker]

most i know call them a drain on the cns, at best they mentally get you adjusted to the weight but little beyond that. if you want to acclimate your body to heavier weights, do lockouts or board presses. bands aren't that useful unless you have a shirt.

if you really want, just do your normal training with extra slow negatives, and given your bench vids it might do you some good to do pauses at the bottom for a while if that's your goal.

Not a knock on you at all, but the cns talk with neg sounds like stuff spwed from these new internet gurus and not legit powerlifters.  Either way, I like them and have always found them extremely effective for myself and others I've trained.  Of course they should be placed properly into your training and not just thrown in.

[MisterMagoo]

Not a knock on you at all, but the cns talk with neg sounds like stuff spwed from these new internet gurus and not legit powerlifters.  Either way, I like them and have always found them extremely effective for myself and others I've trained.  Of course they should be placed properly into your training and not just thrown in.

well, that's not the case. sorry, but you'll find far fewer people who use negatives that you will guys who use boards, lockouts, chains, or bands. the injury potential on negatives is just mindblowing. and after looking at the training protocols of the top lifters in monster muscle online, elite, t-mag, or wherever else they'll put things, i noticed a distinct lack of negatives in them.

they may have a use, but their usefulness is not beyond other lifts that could be used instead, and the risks outweigh the rather meager benefits they do offer.

[legbreaker]

well, that's not the case. sorry, but you'll find far fewer people who use negatives that you will guys who use boards, lockouts, chains, or bands. the injury potential on negatives is just mindblowing. and after looking at the training protocols of the top lifters in monster muscle online, elite, t-mag, or wherever else they'll put things, i noticed a distinct lack of negatives in them.

they may have a use, but their usefulness is not beyond other lifts that could be used instead, and the risks outweigh the rather meager benefits they do offer.

I would never say their usefulness is beyond the other techniques you mentioned and didn't.  I just don't agree with the other that they (neg) are not benificial.

[BEAST 8692]

well, that's not the case. sorry, but you'll find far fewer people who use negatives that you will guys who use boards, lockouts, chains, or bands. the injury potential on negatives is just mindblowing. and after looking at the training protocols of the top lifters in monster muscle online, elite, t-mag, or wherever else they'll put things, i noticed a distinct lack of negatives in them.

they may have a use, but their usefulness is not beyond other lifts that could be used instead, and the risks outweigh the rather meager benefits they do offer.

word.

matt, if you really want to get a feeling for more weight try the old faithful static holds (strong range) and partial reps in the power rack. you should also be doing statics on your weak point.

doing excess reps with a comfortable weight ie 225 for 30 - 40 is retarded. id don't understand these guys who say they want to beat what nasser or ronnie did. i mean why you do know they are actually bbers don't you? doing 70 partial super quick reps with 225  means about as much to ronnie as a warmup and has about the same effect on his physiology.

why don't you try pushup reps with a weight on your back or something. that would be a much greater test of endurance with far greater results - abs, chest, tris, back, etc - than lying back on a bench and doing 40 partial piston like reps.

in any case, you take your drol and do your reps, you get to 80reps and so what? is ANYONE going to compare you to ronnie? the best reaction you'd get would be laughter at your monster obsession with a guy way out of your league, but most people would just yawn and move away.

i assume you'll be doing your 800lb squats and 430lb rows like ronnie too right?

maybe it's time you got over your obsession with pro bbers and got a life of your own. you know, just for shits and giggles.

[rocket]

There's no doubt that exaggerated negative portions of lifts (not sole negatives) are hugely beneficial.  Especially as a training variant.

[BEAST 8692]

There's no doubt that exaggerated negative portions of lifts (not sole negatives) are hugely beneficial.  Especially as a training variant.

yes, i'd agree with this. dorian used to do his reps like this. getting the advantage of the eccentric portion without overloading it.

i'm not really sure what effect doing repetitive overloaded -ve only reps with excess weight would have over the long term, but i'd tend to believe that you'd end up overtraining/injury prone.

i know darden (hit) used to recommend it be practised almost exclusively at one stage, but i have no idea what long term results the trainees got from it. 

[rocket]

Occasionally I used to do Ian King's Bring on the Pain workouts (particularly the first phase) from tmag and they always gave me more strength.

[MisterMagoo]

I would never say their usefulness is beyond the other techniques you mentioned and didn't.  I just don't agree with the other that they (neg) are not benificial.

most lifts have a benefit of some kind. i just cannot for the life of me figure out why someone would use them instead of any number of other lifts. at least over-max negatives. i think negatives with the weight you used for a set can be helpful, but why risk the injury with way heavier weights?

[rocket]

Its not really an over max thing though is it.  Its taking advantage of the fact that generally one can lower/stabilise more weight than they can commit a full lift with.  Negatives are no more dangerous than the lift portion of any particularly heavy lift and people do that all the time. 

The thing about a negative is it can't be done with poor form very easily, you always have a spotter with you because you're aware and you're always extremely careful because its a large weight for you.  Things can still go wrong of course, but isn't that always true?

[MisterMagoo]

well yes it's over max. you are putting more downward force on your muscles than they are capable of exerting upwards. it's a negative because if you can bench with 300 pounds of force, you're putting 320 on it. so your muscles are going to be pushing with just about their absolute maximum strength, only the weight's coming down. so now your muscles are exerting the absolute most they can while elongating.

it's more dangerous because it's more than you can lift. if i can bench 300 pounds for one rep and i have 300 or less on the bar, when the weight is coming down i'm not pulling my full 300 pounds of strength into it. think of it like math, and we'll simplify it. your chest is capable of that 300 pounds of force we keep saying. to lower 300 requires under 300 pounds of force. the up requires over 300 (otherwise it'd just stay still). your muscles are now putting the most strength they can and contracting.

to lower 320 pounds requires less than 320 pounds of force. such as 300 pounds of force. so now your muscles are attempting to contract as hard as they can, but they're also stretching at the same time. bad combo. it works at the end of the set because it's not maximal force of your muscles.

[rocket]

well yes it's over max. you are putting more downward force on your muscles than they are capable of exerting upwards. it's a negative because if you can bench with 300 pounds of force, you're putting 320 on it. so your muscles are going to be pushing with just about their absolute maximum strength, only the weight's coming down. so now your muscles are exerting the absolute most they can while elongating.

it's more dangerous because it's more than you can lift. if i can bench 300 pounds for one rep and i have 300 or less on the bar, when the weight is coming down i'm not pulling my full 300 pounds of strength into it. think of it like math, and we'll simplify it. your chest is capable of that 300 pounds of force we keep saying. to lower 300 requires under 300 pounds of force. the up requires over 300 (otherwise it'd just stay still). your muscles are now putting the most strength they can and contracting.

to lower 320 pounds requires less than 320 pounds of force. such as 300 pounds of force. so now your muscles are attempting to contract as hard as they can, but they're also stretching at the same time. bad combo. it works at the end of the set because it's not maximal force of your muscles.

Its not that I disagree with you, I just do not automatically assume that the ability to lift a weight gauges the maximum ability to suffer a force on the muscles. 

Everything you have said I agree with, but consider that in order to lift we must apply a force above that of the effect of gravity/weight.  In lowering we introduce a controlled deficit.  Since we do not fight gravity quite so much we're able to control higher weight.  Again, I don't disagree with what you're saying I'm just not sure whether their is a correlation or whether lowering a weight with a deficit is equally as vulnerable as the lifting portion and thus "over max" per se.  To me, you are contending that lifting a weight and lowering a weight (the same weight) is of equal danger in terms of injury.  I propose (with not a single piece of physiological experience behind me that that is not true.

So yeh.. I've not done any physiology so perhaps someone who definitely knows what they are talking about could pipe in.