- This topic has 7 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
Wondering if Kiefer has any thoughts on this review:http://versita.metapress.com/content/h86m566718338834/fulltext.pdf
That would be very interesting if they are correct. I know i've read one or two people who advocate this. I can't remember who and what their backing for it was. But I also read a number of articles who say this is wrong. So I don't know what to believe. That would be cool if it was. Then I could get a gym session in all the time.
The paper makes recommendations almost identical to my original, unpublished book that I wrote a year prior to Carb Nite. However, I find there's a discrepancy in research that compares different levels of volume among trained athletes and the effect on hypertrophy. I have not completely figured out how to resolve this puzzle. But for more insight into the 1-set max effort argument, how old the evidence is and how the exercise community was derailed, see:Berger in retrospect: effect of varied weight training programmes on strengthhttp://bjsm.bmj.com/content/36/5/319.full.pdf#page=1&view=FitHBerger's Response to the abovehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1724662/pdf/v037p00372b.pdfAnd the author's response to Berger's response named, appropriately, "Science vs. Opinion"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1724765/pdf/v038p00240a.pdf
If what this article says is correct, does that make the “Perfect Rep” no longer perfect as the science seems to push for a sustained motion over an explosion contraction? And, thus, disqualify the ELECT/PSR system of reps as well?Your new Heavy Duty CBL workout seems to incorporate the mantra of this article of momentary muscular failure through the use of negative sets. Or am I misunderstanding the direction of Heavy Duty?
If what this article says is correct, does that make the "Perfect Rep" no longer perfect as the science seems to push for a sustained motion over an explosion contraction? And, thus, disqualify the ELECT/PSR system of reps as well?Your new Heavy Duty CBL workout seems to incorporate the mantra of this article of momentary muscular failure through the use of negative sets. Or am I misunderstanding the direction of Heavy Duty?
Kiefer didn't say the article was correct; he said that the book he almost published back in 2005 was almost identical to the stuff contained in this paper.New evidence has come out since then, and Kiefer's had far more time in the past 2 years than he's had in most of his life to keep up on research. So whatever Kiefer's writing now reflects his best recommendations -- and the book he scrapped is probably not the set of recommendations he would still stand behind.
Late to the game on this thread…Read through the material from the OP and Kiefer's links.One thing I noticed is that it seems a lot of the studies referenced in the Berger study discussion were to do with untrained or detrained people in a resistance training program. I don't think all of them were with untrained individuals, it just stuck out to me that it seemed like a majority were dealing with untrained or injured people (detrained) going through a type of rehab program. It seems that the "best" program will depend on context for the individual. It seems logical that an untrained person would respond just as well with 1-set vs 3-sets as long as the stimulus is enough for strength gain or muscle growth. One would think, the person hasn't experienced such a stimulus before so anything would initiate the body to respond. However, once you involve a trained athlete or lifter then you are dealing with a person whose body has already adapted to such a stimulus. Now, that athlete or experienced lifter would need a stronger input signal to become stronger or grow more muscle.I thought the Berger study discussion was interesting as it seems that the one 1962 study was the basis for the recommendation for multiple sets for resistance training for 50 years. However, I'm curious of the evidence for either side of the argument as the study would have to be identical contextually for someone as an athlete to apply. As Kiefer states he has found discrepancy in research looking at volume differences among trained athletes and its effect on hypertrophy. Not trying to put words in Kiefer's mouth, just trying to connect the dots for myself. So, would that mean for any particular person that the resistance training would have to be enough of a signal for their body to adapt to? In other words, the resistance training would have be heavier in weight or higher volume for their body to detect that change and adapt to it. So, a sedentary individual will not grow muscle or get stronger unless an input (we focus on training or diet or other lifestyle factors) changes that the body would then adapt to. For a lifter this would mean that the training would have to change and why things such as linear progression work well as you increase the weight lifted so the body continues to adapt to an ever increasing stimulus. Also, another thing that came to mind while I was reading those links was that it is really difficult to take what a study and apply it practically. The definition of strength seems to be a very isolated parameter in the studies and it has to be. You have to measure a particular individual parameter to know that it changed and to a statistically significant degree. For the coach or athlete they just want the numbers in a particular lift to go up and that to translate to on the field performance. The variables increase tremendously with that example and teasing out correlated factors becomes more difficult and hence causal factors are hard to find.Understand I'm glossing over details and other intricacies just trying to get out what I'm seeing from this reading. I'm not trying to push a particular position on this argument just trying to understand the underlying mechanisms.Interesting reading and discussion.Sorry, if I've resurrected a discussion people are done with.
The paper makes recommendations almost identical to my original, unpublished book that I wrote a year prior to Carb Nite. However, I find there's a discrepancy in research that compares different levels of volume among trained athletes and the effect on hypertrophy. I have not completely figured out how to resolve this puzzle. But for more insight into the 1-set max effort argument, how old the evidence is and how the exercise community was derailed, see:Berger in retrospect: effect of varied weight training programmes on strengthhttp://bjsm.bmj.com/content/36/5/319.full.pdf#page=1&view=FitHBerger's Response to the abovehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1724662/pdf/v037p00372b.pdfAnd the author's response to Berger's response named, appropriately, "Science vs. Opinion"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1724765/pdf/v038p00240a.pdf
Damn late on this one again! So many studies, so little time.Much of this stuff is old news, although my notes are as such:Intensity: I'll agree with the article on the point of training until momentary muscle failure and not using 1RM% unless dictated by a certain program and finding your own RM% from there, as in 5-3-1. The 1RM% are wholly unaccurate as far as repetition ranges, which can be seen in a simple gender comparison. Take women for example, which are quite capable of lifting heavy loads, but the repetition range from a 7RM to a 3RM is a large percentage% of load. Sometimes women who can lift say 100lbs for a 3RM on bench press, can do 12-15reps at 70lbs or their supposed 7RM. I think Polquin annotated this in one of his books (he's the only one I've ever known to have noticed this, or at least documented it). The article however does not have a good evaluating point for intensity, other than go until you fail. Roger, got it! Does nothing to quantify intensity levels...Load/Rep Range: "Person's should select a load at 80% of the 1RM%," ummm, doesn't this sound a little counterintuitive if you're not using 1RM% for calcuating intensity? Obviously they're saying you have to achieve muscular failure with a slightly heavier load, but this has been well documented before.Resistance Type: I don't believe they can compare free weight training methods to machine based versions, simply based on the fact that most of these studies use untrained individuals. That's the problem with a lot of resistance training studies, is that they use people who don't train. You throw an untrained individual on any type of program and they're going to show similar markers of improvement. Do a long term study and see how they progress and then plateau while using machine based resistance and then we'll talk about it. Additionally, machines don't incorporate a really accurate feeling for muscle force development and optimal tension patterns that you can achieve with free weights. Granted you have to become accustomed to lifting with free weights, which is why you can progress from machine or stabilized resistance forms to unstabilized free weights and achieve better results. One size machine does not fit all bodies, nor is it productive to try to mimic a person in 3 dimensional space producing force along one unaligned plane of motion.Repetitions: Person's should maintain steady force production and reduce momentum...another kind of duh statement. Obviously the more tension placed upon the muscle, the more adaptation you can get. However, in regards to explosive training (which should be done with persons suited to the task), it's a simple matter of getting what you want out of an exercise. Force development has to be relative to what degree a person wants to stimulate there muscles. If you need to be able to produce force rapidly, then plyometric and/or Olympic lifts are the way to go. It's obvious that neuromuscular fatigue will set in after a few explosive repetitions thus decreasing force patterns for the rest of the lift (yeah, it's explosive...) that's why you see a increase in momentum in these lifts. They're designed to be that way. Large forces produced plus an explosively high velocity increases the power of a lift, so that the force transfered to an object increases it's momentum, so naturally you would see the "explosive forces increased by 45% initially but then decreased by 85% for the majority of the repetition". If the force wasn't explosive enough to overcome inertia, then the BB in a clean and jerk wouldn't make it up to the rack position. In terms of strength gain, more tension upon the muscle will elicit more functional response to the muscle, but it's like comparing apples and oranges.Volume, Frequency, and Periodization: "the same strength gains by performing only a single set of each exercise 1x to 2x week" again, too much focus on untrained populations, and not considering the difficulty of performing a single set of resistance exercise to failure. I don't see many trained athletes and bodybuilders going into a workout to hit a single set of squats with 405 right off the bat. It's possible, but the increase to injury level is increased tremendously. Not to mention they don't mention hypertrophic responses within the muscle tissue, that has been documented that it takes slightly more volume than a singe set to increase muscular adaptation within the muscle fibers of trained individuals. I personally feel that most people wouldn't be able to perform one set to failure all the time.Genetics: This is something that I would tend to agree with, and I will read up on the studies of genetic dispositions in regards to muscle strength and size adaptations. It would seem logical that different body types would have slightly different muscle fiber components that would respond better to different programs. I think you can see that largely in just working with people of different body types, some respond to high reps, low volume, while others respond better to high volume, low reps, and so forth. It will be interesting to see what the science says on genetic dispositions to strength training.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.