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]
|
|
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 20:17:13 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 20:08:52 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 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 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 0:26:30 GMT -5
well- if I attach the pdfs here I will be in breach of copyright . . .
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 14, 2009 23:51:38 GMT -5
I have been collecting bits and peices over the last couple of years- mainly basic stuff like research into amounts of sets, degree of specificity, loading and neural patterns from journals- I am lucky here because I work in a university and have access to all the databases etc- I can track all that down and forward it on as most is in pdf format. There is an article or two from Sheiko floating around, as well as bits from an email. I have them somewhere. All the basic stuff on specificity and adaptation is covered in Zatsiorsky and Kraemer's Science and Practice of Strength Training, there is some interesting stuff on loading, specificty and strength in Pavel's beyond bodybuilding and power to the people- I have these in pdf as well. The rest comes from Eric's dvds and from discussions with Dave, Eric, Joel and Ben.
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 14, 2009 18:13:32 GMT -5
Another great resource, of course, is Eric's dvd of his seminar. I am no sports scientist and all I know is gathered from information derived from Sheiko's book, an article or two as well as general literature on strength and conditioning. In an attempt to add a little more for Mark's first question, here is my basic understanding: I think its Eric who points out that the greatest gains made by lifters initially are made through the development of muscular strength and condition, but significantly by increased neural efficiency. I have seen studies that note, not surprisingly, that with beginners you get a huge improvement in the first few months of training. Many put this down to initial adaptation which results an increase in muscular strength and basic skill acquisition, but often people seem to place a great emphasis on muscle growth. The interesting thing is that when they examine changes in muscle tissue they find that they are not as significant as many would expact- it turns out that the neural pattern development and learning is actually a huge part of the improvement- often much more so that muscle growth. The more neurologically complex a movement, the more improvement is rapidly gained through repetition, which reinforces and builds 'skill'. A crude anaology would be a kid learning to throw a ball- they'll throw it further by learning the skill, rather than just working the muscles involved. Most of us get no where close to harnessing the strength we have due to inefficiencies- repetition improves and increases efficiency. Of course improvements that lead to great power output also have a positive impact on muscular strength. This is all basic sports science. But, the Russians researched their butts off looking at the optimal levels of adaptation/variation to build strength, as well as volume/loading. We know that in response to challnge the body adapts- it gets stronger, but we reach a point where gains decrease and fruther gains require further challenge- this is where variation comes in. How much variation is needed- it turns out not much. So the variation (reps/loads) you find in Sheiko is all about just the right amount to challenge the body to promote strength gains, with this balanced against the need for specificity to build skill. It should be noted that, on my understanding, the various reps/loads are not simply about variation or building volume with the goal of skill acquistion, but also address a variety of needs that relate to the idea of a well rounded athlete/lifter- so this includes conditioning, hypertrophy, power, strength etc. They also found that for most lifters in the early to intermediate stages strength is most effectively built by increasing volume. If you look at the 13 week cycle for example, you see the prep part is repeated with increasing volume- in theory a lifter would continue to build volume as they make their way up the lifter classifications. Then they often reach a stage where they may respond better to increased intensity or different forms of variation- ie a greater variety of lifts. My understanding is that the science gives a picture of optimal strength development based on a generalised notion of a lifter. All of the programming is all about packing in the most volume in a way that will build skill and produce optimal strength gains via supercompensation- so accummulating fatigue in a way that will result in maximal adaptation. If you look through the templates with this way of thinking- you'll see patterns- waving loads and volume- this is all based on the generalised picture that they get from the mountains of research they did. To move beyond the generalised picture you need to develop a sense of what works for you, as Dave says, but the smart starting point is the template. You then move little by little towards an understanding of what you respond to. Someone like Dave is a huge asset to us here because he has worked with so many lifters, he has developed a very good understanding of how to best address individual needs. The question about suits and shirts relates to all this in some ways. Straps down will increase the strength related training effect, straps up will address skill related issues- if squatting in full gear is a goal. I think the answer is in what you are trying to do in a specific part of your training. With shirts- you can get a looser shirt- which will build strength related areas- or stick with the comp shirt and work on skill in that shirt. Of course, its not that simple, and either way offers something more than this- but I think you see what I mean.
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 7, 2009 20:41:47 GMT -5
wow- thats awesome. Two questions- what is #99? when are you moving to Australia to reinforce and boost our mighty sheiko team?
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 6, 2009 23:00:20 GMT -5
yeah- I guess fatties get it good, especially in the bench. There is only 7.5kg separating the word records in deadlift for 100 and 125 class, but in bench its 34.5kg and squat 32kg.- total record is 55kg apart. Maybe the rating chart has been put together in way to encourage weight gain?
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 6, 2009 20:44:24 GMT -5
Joel is also IPF
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 5, 2009 22:36:36 GMT -5
Dave has written versions of the 13 week that have regular 90% lifts in a shirt. I'd suggest sending him an email and explain what you need.
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 5, 2009 18:07:51 GMT -5
True- but its interesting to note that at the IPF worlds its normal for their to be very little difference between the totals in the 100s to the totals put up by the shws. In fact, on a few occasions the biggest totals have come from 100s or 110s. This year the top two places in the 100s were 1027.5 and 1025, 110s was 1050 and 1017.5, 125s was 1062.5 and 1055 and shw was 1055 and 1055. Not much separating them really.
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 5, 2009 18:00:36 GMT -5
I have done this sort of thing before. Just repeat a week from the prep cycle (i.e. 37), so that way you get 5 weeks of prep and the 32 as written. I would recommend repeating week 2 or 3.
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 5, 2009 1:51:18 GMT -5
yeah I would be well into MS, but for me I have got awesome results from just sticking with the basic template.
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 5, 2009 1:07:46 GMT -5
cheers kiwipowah- I'll try that. I totally agree about the head- its something I need to work on and it definitely has an impact on lockout. Thanks again.
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Dec 1, 2009 16:11:34 GMT -5
Maybe they arent. Why is your deadlift so low anyway? I dont think its your hands. Perhaps you enlighten me. Whats the problem then? I'd love to improve my deadlift. Why are you so certain that its not grip?
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Nov 30, 2009 18:25:54 GMT -5
To be honest I think it really depends on who is ref. Here in Oz there has been a real push to tighten up on reffing and this has meant there are no 'gift' lifts and they tend to operate with the view that the lifter must leave no doubt. I have witnessed some very inconsistent refereeing at the worlds, with some people getting dodgey lifts through and others having to put their butt on the floor to get a lift passed. I personally could not get a squat in at the 2007 worlds, so I'm not going to say that refereeing at the worlds is easy. I guess at the end of the day all the lifter can do is their best- its just frustrating when sometimes you feel you are being asked to go beyond the rules. All in all I'd say the refereeing in Oz and New Zealand is about as tough as it gets, so I think we could expect to get a good run on any international stage. I'm a national level referee here as well so I am probably seeing from both sides (lifter and referee)- but I think while the refereeing is tough, at least here its consistently tough. I found the worlds a little disheartening- not so much from my own performance, but watching others lift and being puzzled at the calls I was seeing.
|
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Nov 30, 2009 15:29:22 GMT -5
centre ref is a Cat 1 ref, who regularly refs at the worlds and invented the Wilks formula.
|
|