spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 15, 2009 19:11:16 GMT -5
I'll paste in some abstracts of some relevant research:
NONLINEAR PERIODIZATION MAXIMIZES STRENGTH GAINS IN SPLIT RESISTANCE TRAINING ROUTINES Artur G Monteiro, Marcelo S Aoki, Alexandre L Evangelista, Daniel A Alveno, et al. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Champaign: Jul 2009. Vol. 23, Iss. 4; pg. 1321, 6 pgs Abstract (Summary)
The purpose of our study was to compare strength gains after 12 weeks of nonperiodized (NP), linear periodized (LP), and nonlinear periodized (NLP) resistance training models using split training routines. Twenty-seven strength-trained men were recruited and randomly assigned to one of 3 balanced groups: NP, LP, and NLP. Strength gains in the leg press and in the bench press exercises were assessed. There were no differences between the training groups in the exercise pre-tests (p > 0.05) (i.e., bench press and leg press). The NLP group was the only group to significantly increase maximum strength in the bench press throughout the 12-week training period. In this group, upper-body strength increased significantly from pre-training to 4 weeks (p < 0.0001), from 4 to 8 weeks (p = 0.004), and from 8 weeks to the post-training (p < 0.02). The NLP group also exhibited an increase in leg press 1 repetition maximum at each time point (pre-training to 4 weeks, 4-8 week, and 8 weeks to post-training, p < 0.0001). The LP group demonstrated strength increases only after the eight training week (p = 0.02). There were no further strength increases from the 8-week to the post-training test. The NP group showed no strength increments after the 12-week training period. No differences were observed in the anthropometric profiles among the training models. In summary, our data suggest that NLP was more effective in increasing both upper- and lower-body strength for trained subjects using split routines. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 15, 2009 19:54:32 GMT -5
ARE ACUTE EFFECTS OF MAXIMAL DYNAMIC CONTRACTIONS ON UPPER-BODY BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE LOAD SPECIFIC? Goran Markovic, Sanja Simek, Asim Bradic. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Champaign: Nov 2008. Vol. 22, Iss. 6; pg. 1811, 5 pgs Abstract (Summary)
This study investigated the acute effects of upper-body maximal dynamic contractions on maximal throwing speed with 0.55- and 4-kg medicine balls. It was hypothesized that heavy preloading would transiently improve throwing performance only when overcoming the heavier of the two loads. Twenty-three male volunteers were randomly allocated into experimental (n = 11) and control (n = 12) groups. Both groups performed initial and final seated medicine ball throws from the chest, and the maximal medicine ball speed was measured by means of a radar gun. Between the two measurements, the control group rested passively for 15 minutes, and the experimental group performed three sets of three-repetition maximum bench presses. For the 0.55-kg load, a 2 × 2 repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed no significant effect of time × group interaction (p = 0.22), as well as no significant time (p = 0.22) or group (p = 0.72) effects. In contrast, for the 4-kg load, a significant time × group interaction (p = 0.004) and a significant time (p = 0.035) but not group (p = 0.77) effect were observed. Analysis of simple main effects revealed that the experimental group significantly (8.3%; p < 0.01) improved maximal throwing speed with the 4-kg load. These results support our research hypothesis and suggest that the acute effects of heavy preloading on upper-body ballistic performance might be load specific. In a practical sense, our findings suggest that the use of upper-body heavy resistance exercise before ballistic throwing movements against moderate external loads might be an efficient training strategy for improving an athlete's upper-body explosive performance. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 15, 2009 20:08:52 GMT -5
Just in case anyone uses a 'fatbar': THE INFLUENCE OF BAR DIAMETER ON NEUROMUSCULAR STRENGTH AND ACTIVATION: INFERENCES FROM AN ISOMETRIC UNILATERAL BENCH PRESS Douglas Fioranelli, C Matthew Lee. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Champaign: May 2008. Vol. 22, Iss. 3; pg. 661, 6 pgs Abstract (Summary)
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of two different bar diameters on neuromuscular activation and strength. The bar diameters used reflected a standard Olympic bar (28 mm (1.1 inch); THIN) and a larger fat bar (51 mm [2 inch]; THICK). Eighteen healthy men (age 25.0 ± 1 years) were assessed for their maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) during a unilateral isometric bench press exercise with the 2 bar types at 2 different joint angles (angle 1 and angle 2; elbow joint at ~45 and 90°, respectively). Additionally, on a separate day, subjects performed three 10-second isometric repetitions at an intensity of 80% MVC using the 2 different bars at angle 1 and angle 2. Electromyographic recordings were collected in the pectoralis major and the muscles of the forearm flexor region at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz during the second day of testing. Analysis of variance was used to examine differences in MVC between bars and also examine between bar differences in electromyographic activity for each muscle group at each joint angle. A significance level of 0.05 was used for all tests. MVC was not different between bar types, although there was a main effect of joint angle on MVC such that it was greater at angle 2. There was a main effect of bar at both angles for the forearm muscles and at angle 1 for the pectoralis such that electromyographic activity was greater with THIN. Our data do not support the hypothesis that bar diameter influences performance during an isometric bench press exercise. However, higher electromyographic activity with THIN suggests greater neuromuscular activation with a standard Olympic bar as opposed to a larger diameter "fat" bar. Although our data do not support the use of a fat bar for increasing neuromuscular activation, these findings should be confirmed in other resistance training exercises. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 15, 2009 20:17:13 GMT -5
1-SET VS. 3-SET RESISTANCE TRAINING: A CROSSOVER STUDY Hartmut Humburg, Hartmut Baars, Jan Schröder, Rüdiger Reer, Klaus-Michael Braumann. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Champaign: May 2007. Vol. 21, Iss. 2; pg. 578, 5 pgs Abstract (Summary)
This crossover study was conducted to investigate the effects of a 1-set and 3-set strength training program. The subjects were untrained men and women who were randomly signed into 1 of 3 groups: 10 subjects trained during the first 9 weeks (training period 1) with 1 set and 8-12 repetitions per set. After the break (9 weeks), they trained with 3 sets and 8-12 repetitions in training period 2. Twelve subjects started with the 3-set program and continued with the 1-set regime after the break. The control group (n = 7) did not train. The subjects were tested on 1 repetition maximum (1RM) for the biceps curl, leg press (unilateral: left and right), and bench press. Analysis of the data was done in a sampled manner for each strength training program (1-set and 3-set). The 1-set (n = 22) and 3-set (n = 22) programs led to significantly (p < 0.05) improved 1RM performances in every exercise. The relative improvements (%) for the 1RM were significantly higher during the 3-set program for the biceps curl and the bench press compared with the 1-set program. The control group exhibited no changes in any of the tested parameters over the course of this study. The design of this study allowed insight into the effects of different strength training volume without any genetical variations. The same subjects improved their 1RM during the 3-set program by 2.3 kg (biceps curl; corresponding effect size = 0.24), 8.9 kg (leg press right; 0.30), 10.9 kg (leg press left; 0.28), and 2.5 kg (bench press; 0.09) more than during the 1-set program. Depending on the goals of each trainee, these differences between the effects of different strength training volumes indicate that it may be worth spending more time on working out with a 3-set strength training regime. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 15, 2009 20:17:57 GMT -5
DISSIMILAR EFFECTS OF ONE- AND THREE-SET STRENGTH TRAINING ON STRENGTH AND MUSCLE MASS GAINS IN UPPER AND LOWER BODY IN UNTRAINED SUBJECTS Bent R Rønnestad, Wilhelm Egeland, Nils H Kvamme, Per E Refsnes, et al. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Champaign: Feb 2007. Vol. 21, Iss. 1; pg. 157, 7 pgs Abstract (Summary)
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of single- and multiple-set strength training on hypertrophy and strength gains in untrained men. Twenty-one young men were randomly assigned to either the 3L-1UB group (trained 3 sets in leg exercises and 1 set in upper-body exercises; n = 11), or the 1L-3UB (trained 1 set in leg exercises and 3 sets in upper-body exercises; n = 10). Subjects trained 3 days per week for 11 weeks and each workout consisted of 3 leg exercises and 5 upper-body exercises. Training intensity varied between 10 repetition maximum (RM) and 7RM. Strength (1RM) was tested in all leg and upper-body exercises and in 2 isokinetic tests before training, and after 3, 6, 9, and 11 weeks of training. Cross sectional area (CSA) of thigh muscles and the trapezius muscle and body composition measures were performed before training, and after 5 and 11 weeks of training. The increase in 1RM from week 0 to 11 in the lower-body exercises was significantly higher in the 3L-1UB group than in the 1L-3UB group (41 vs. 21%; p < 0.001), while no difference existed between groups in upper-body exercises. Peak torque in maximal isokinetic knee-extension and thigh CSA increased more in the 3L-1UB group than in the 1L-3UB group (16 vs. 8%; p = 0.03 and 11 vs. 7%; p = 0.01, respectively), while there was no significant difference between groups in upper trapezius muscle CSA. The results demonstrate that 3-set strength training is superior to 1-set strength training with regard to strength and muscle mass gains in the leg muscles, while no difference exists between 1- and 3-set training in upper-body muscles in untrained men. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 15, 2009 20:19:46 GMT -5
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF REPETITIONS AND SELECTED PERCENTAGES OF ONE REPETITION MAXIMUM IN FREE WEIGHT EXERCISES IN TRAINED AND UNTRAINED MEN Tomoko Shimano, William J Kraemer, Barry A Spiering, Jeff S Volek, et al. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Champaign: Nov 2006. Vol. 20, Iss. 4; pg. 819, 5 pgs Abstract (Summary)
Shimano, T., W.J. Kraemer, B.A. Spiering, J.S. Volek, D.L. Hatfield, R. Silvestre, J.L. Vingren, M.S. Fragala, C.M. Maresh, S.J. Fleck, R.U. Newton, L.P.B. Spreuwenberg, and K. Hakkinen. Relationship between the number of repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum in free weight exercises in trained and untrained men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 20(4):819-823. 2006.--Resistance exercise intensity is commonly prescribed as a percent of 1 repetition maximum (1RM). However, the relationship between percent 1RM and the number of repetitions allowed remains poorly studied, especially using free weight exercises. The purpose of this study was to determine the maximal number of repetitions that trained (T) and untrained (UT) men can perform during free weight exercises at various percentages of 1RM. Eight T and 8 UT men were tested for 1RM strength. Then, subjects performed 1 set to failure at 60, 80, and 90% of 1RM in the back squat, bench press, and arm curl in a randomized, balanced design. There was a significant (p < 0.05) intensity x exercise interaction. More repetitions were performed during the back squat than the bench press or arm curl at 60% 1RM for T and UT. At 80 and 90% 1RM, there were significant differences between the back squat and other exercises; however, differences were much less pronounced. No differences in number of repetitions performed at a given exercise intensity were noted between T and UT (except during bench press at 90% 1RM). In conclusion, the number of repetitions performed at a given percent of 1RM is influenced by the amount of muscle mass used during the exercise, as more repetitions can be performed during the back squat than either the bench press or arm curl. Training status of the individual has a minimal impact on the number of repetitions performed at relative exercise intensity. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2009 9:25:01 GMT -5
Thanks for posting this SP! I am very much a "why" person - this is excellent information to have!
After reading the bar diameter abstract, I'm regretting the money I dropped on the fat gripz. haha
I think the first abstract was most revealing (and really along the lines of what I was prodding earlier this week), interesting how the LP group only demonstrated an increase only after the 8th week as opposed to the Sheiko, er, I mean NLP group that had an increase throughout. Great stuff indeed!
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 16, 2009 15:09:07 GMT -5
No problems- I'll post up more when I get some spare time.
|
|
|
Post by benburgess on Dec 16, 2009 15:57:42 GMT -5
After reading the bar diameter abstract, I'm regretting the money I dropped on the fat gripz. haha Dont be...the study says that using a fat bar didnt increase bench press...I dont think anyone should be surprised by that. Its still a great tool for increasing grip strength though and the study doesnt change that. I think the first abstract was most revealing (and really along the lines of what I was prodding earlier this week), interesting how the LP group only demonstrated an increase only after the 8th week as opposed to the Sheiko, er, I mean NLP group that had an increase throughout. Great stuff indeed! I dont think you can infer the fact that the NLP group trained in a 'Sheiko' style just because it was non linear....Westside, Wave periodisation and a million other methods are non linear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2009 17:17:03 GMT -5
Just a not on the fat bar one. I have never trained with one (this is sounding very below the belt) but at the last comp the warmup area had one and i used it for deadlifts. It didnt affect me although i was wondering if it was a bad plan. When i grabbed the bar on the platform for my opener it was obvious my mind/neuromuscular system had adapted to the larger diameter in that short time because it felt like i could wrap my hand around the comp bar much much tighter, it felt like an iron grip. So if you trained with the fat bar especially for deadlift where the grip is the issue it would surely make comp day grip feel great. Even if its just a mental thing, the confidence would translate to the platform. Just my thoughts.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2009 19:05:44 GMT -5
Of course, referring to the NLP group as Sheiko was just a weak jab touting the superiority (at least to me) of non-linear methods (I said Sheiko because I'm biased). Agree with both on the fat bar, definitely good for grip, which was the main reason I bought them. aaron that's interesting with your experience of going from the fat to normal bar, going to test that out on myself.
Appreciate the posts, all good info!
|
|
|
Post by erictalmant on Dec 16, 2009 19:27:03 GMT -5
Excellent Contribution!
|
|
|
Post by superaveragebro on Dec 26, 2011 13:21:57 GMT -5
Study on fat bar only tested pectoralis major! Fat bar is good for tricep training. I use fat gripz to blast my tris on close grip bench presses.
|
|