Juste ca pour back up mon msg plus haut :
"It’s been a while since we’ve known that the yielding (eccentric/negative) portion of an exercise is responsible for more strength gains than the overcoming (concentric/miometric/positive) portion.
For example, a study by Hortobagyi and coworkers found that the total maximal strength improvement from eccentric-only training brought more strength gains than a concentric-only program followed for six weeks. "
"The hypothesis was tested that exercise training with maximal eccentric (lengthening) muscle actions results in greater gains in muscle strength and size compared to training with concentric (shortening) actions. Changes in muscle strength, muscle fiber size, and surface electromyographic (EMG) activity of the quadriceps muscle have been compared following 36 sessions/12 weeks of either isokinetic concentric (n = 8) or eccentric (n = 7) exercise training using a one-leg model. Eccentric training increased eccentric strength 3.5 times more (pre/post 46%, P < 0.05) than concentric training increased concentric strength (pre/post 13%). Eccentric training increased concentric strength and concentric training increased eccentric strength by about the same magnitude (5% and 10%, respectively P> 0.05). Eccentric training increased 7 times more the EMG activity during eccentric testing (pre/post 86%, P< 0.05) than concentric training increased EMG activity during concentric testing (pre/post 12%). Eccentric training increased the EMG activity measured during concentric tests and concentric training increased the EMG activity measured during eccentric tests by about the same magnitude (8% and 11%, respectively P > 0.05). No significant changes occurred in Type I muscle fiber percentages, but Type IIa increased and Type IIb decreased significantly (P < 0.05) in both training groups. No significant changes occurred in Type I fiber areas (P > 0.05),
but Type II fiber area increased about 10 times more (P < 0.05) in the eccentric than in the concentric group. It is concluded that adaptations to training with maximal eccentric contractions are specific to eccentric muscle actions that are associated with greater neural adaptation and muscle hypertrophy compared to concentric exercise.
Received 23 November 1994; accepted in final form 10 October
1995.
APS Manuscript Number A1197-4.
Article publication pending Journal of Applied Physiology.
ISSN 1080-4757 Copyright 1995 The American Physiological Society.
Published in APStracts on 6 November 95"
et voila et je connais les résultats 99% des études vont montrer la supériorité du négatif only et 99% des études vont montrer que 1 set = y set ! Mais meme avec ca j'y crois pas forcément, mais quand je lis les résultats que Jones a obtenu (sur lui et des milliers de gens) et les résultats des gens sur les différents forums....
mais comme Jones dit que le Negatif est bon c'est donc qu'il (le negatif training) est forcément mauvais, meme si les faits prouvent le contraire, après tout peutêtre que Jones est le maitre de la MATRIX et peut changer la réalité et ouvrir des portes vers de nouvelles dimensions
! and SO ON !
". No significant changes occurred in Type I fiber areas (P > 0.05),
but Type II fiber area increased about 10 times more (P < 0.05) in the eccentric than in the concentric group."
c'est FAUX !!! c'est impossible puisque c'est aussi ce que pense Jones !
mais Jones enverrait au DIABLE ces scientifiques qui se basent sur l'EMG et des études conduites n'importe comment !!! et qui n'ont de surcroit pas plus de valeur que l'avis de mon cousin de 5 ans (que je n'ai pas) !