Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 31 of 31

Thread: Training breakthrough (I hope)

  1. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    847
    I still don't understand how the were able to monitor the strength increases on a daily / weekly basis without breaking their recovery pattern.

    They would have to actually workout to demonstrate a strength increase, therefore, how can you continue to measure recovery?

    Sorry to nitpick Chris, it's a great post, but you seem to banking on the studies results which seem somewhat questionable.

  2. #27
    Administrator chris mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    12,691
    Well, I am not banking on anything other than my own intellect and experience. That article merely reinforced what I knew from empirical evidence. A good question, let us ponder it. Do remember one thing, I read an article, not the actual study. A good article should simplify the study and get across the main points, conclusion of the study. The word for word illustration may not be entirely accurate, but the gist should be.

    As for how they would measure strength increases, there could be a couple of ways. One way would be to have the subjects train, then lift again 3 days later, then take a break for some specified period of time and start over again, this time waiting 7 days before checking progress, get it? Another way would be to have multiple control groups. In other words, have 5 groups each performing the lifts concetrically and 5 groups performing the complete reps. Within the sub-groups of 5 training in a particular way, measure the average strength increase in each group using varying time frames. For example, of the 5 groups performing full reps, measure % increase/decrease after 2 days, group 2 would be 3 days, group 4 7 days etc.

    With regards to my results, once again, they will or will not speak for themselves, no?
    Last edited by chris mason; 02-10-2002 at 11:19 AM.

  3. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    847
    Yeah, I figured it would be done by groups, which in my opinion leads to questionable accuracy, but, since you'll be conducting your own experiment it's somewhat irrelevant how accurate the study was.

    I hope things work out well. Let us know!

    One more question though, have you though of training at, let's say, 75% all the time, and just constantly increasing the weight you can handle at 75% effort?

  4. #29
    Administrator chris mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    12,691
    Yes, I have thought of that. Maybe a little bio would be helpful here. I have been training for 14+ years. I am quite strong and have good size currently. Weightlifting/bodybuilding/fitness are my passions in life. When I am not at work, they are basically all I think about. So, yes, I have thought about and tried many a method of training. I still believe that training to failure elicits the ultimate growth stimulus.

  5. #30
    Da Bears slashkills's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Joliet, IL
    Posts
    2,749
    Don't know how I found this but what ever happened with this

  6. #31
    squat rack curler platypus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    482
    I have not changed my mind with respect to what I just stated, but I have come up with a new solution to the problem. Back to the nervous system recovery issue. As I continued to read the article, it mentioned a study done by a German professor. In a nutshell, the study involved 2 groups. The first group performed 5 sets of 3 reps in the bench press. The "reps" only consisted of the concentric (lifting) phase of the movement. The second group had to perform the same 5 sets of 3 reps, but they performed complete reps (positive and negative, or raising and lowering the weight). Both groups were then monitored for recovery of strength. The first group experienced a decline in strength for the first 48 hours followed by an increase of 21.5% on day 3. As time progressed, so did strength gains. By day 7, strength in this group was up by 24%. 10 days after training, this group peaked at a 27% increase in strength. For group 2, similar results occurred, initially. The second group experienced a greater strength loss in the first 48 hours. On the 3rd day, strength was up 20% (vs. 21.5 in group 1). After 7 days, strength was up 24% (same as group 1). By 10 days, strength was up 27.5% (.5% greater than group 1). Unlike group 1, strength did not peak after 10 days, after 3 weeks (group 1 had regressed to baseline levels by this time), group 2 was up just over 29% in strength. It may have gone on longer, but the study stopped at this point.

    Read the above paragraph again if you only skimmed it.
    Made me laugh. Interesting read.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •