http://rugbystrengthcoach.com/7-reasons-why-aerobic-training-beats-anaerobic-training-for-rugby-players/
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Thursday, July 10, 2014
2013 in Strength Science: Nutrition, Supplements, and Drugs (GH, caffeine, and NSAIDS)
Continuing my summary of Jonathan Sullivan's "The Year in Strength Science, 2013" with Part VII on Nutrition, Supplements, and Drugs. (full text)
(1) Tavares et al [86] looked at the effect of growth hormone (GH) administration on muscle strength in men over 50 years old. . . . The investigators found no significant effect on bench press strength after 6 months of therapy, and a clinically insignificant effect on leg press strength." BUT, the problem, as Sully explains is this: "There was no training program here. No progressive overload, no documentation of exercises, no supervised resistance training at all. It’s just flabbergasting – these authors actually expected a bunch of geezers to get stronger just because they got growth hormone, without any sort of programmed training intervention." (p. 31)
(2) "Hurley et al [90] investigated the effect of caffeine on delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), using a crossover study design with an indeterminable number of “low-caffeine-consuming” bros doing preacher curls with and without caffeine on separate occasions. They report that bros had less DOMS, particularly on post-workout day 3, when they consumed caffeine." Sounds great, but unfortunately, Sully argues, the whole design of the study was flawed (weak controls) and their data presentation was "inappropriate." (p. 32)
(3) In the past, Sully has "inveighed at length against the longstanding, non-evidence-based mythology that the use of anti-inflammatory therapies, particularly NSAIDs and cooling, would inhibit our adaptation to resistance exercise and stunt our gains." So he reports gleefully about the latest in-depth review of the literature on this topic by Trappe and co-author Sophia Liue. "The review is worth the read just for this stuff, but their conclusion, based on the data we have, is the money shot:
(1) Tavares et al [86] looked at the effect of growth hormone (GH) administration on muscle strength in men over 50 years old. . . . The investigators found no significant effect on bench press strength after 6 months of therapy, and a clinically insignificant effect on leg press strength." BUT, the problem, as Sully explains is this: "There was no training program here. No progressive overload, no documentation of exercises, no supervised resistance training at all. It’s just flabbergasting – these authors actually expected a bunch of geezers to get stronger just because they got growth hormone, without any sort of programmed training intervention." (p. 31)
(2) "Hurley et al [90] investigated the effect of caffeine on delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), using a crossover study design with an indeterminable number of “low-caffeine-consuming” bros doing preacher curls with and without caffeine on separate occasions. They report that bros had less DOMS, particularly on post-workout day 3, when they consumed caffeine." Sounds great, but unfortunately, Sully argues, the whole design of the study was flawed (weak controls) and their data presentation was "inappropriate." (p. 32)
(3) In the past, Sully has "inveighed at length against the longstanding, non-evidence-based mythology that the use of anti-inflammatory therapies, particularly NSAIDs and cooling, would inhibit our adaptation to resistance exercise and stunt our gains." So he reports gleefully about the latest in-depth review of the literature on this topic by Trappe and co-author Sophia Liue. "The review is worth the read just for this stuff, but their conclusion, based on the data we have, is the money shot:
 |
| (p. 33) |
2013 in Strength Science: Sports Medicine (foam rolling, icing)
Continuing my summary of Jonathan Sullivan's "The Year in Strength Science, 2013" with Part VI on Sports Medicine. (full text)
(1) MacDonald et al [84] present the first peer-reviewed data examining the impact of self-myofascial release via foam roller on muscle performance and joint mobility. . . . On the whole, the paper is a weak data point in favor of the practice." (p. 30)
(2) "Cheng-Yu et al [85] report that icing delays recovery from eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage, with a study that is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the sports science and exercise physiology literature. . . . This is a poorly designed study with conclusions that cannot possibly be supported by its data. It’s almost certain to be quoted widely." (p. 30)
(1) MacDonald et al [84] present the first peer-reviewed data examining the impact of self-myofascial release via foam roller on muscle performance and joint mobility. . . . On the whole, the paper is a weak data point in favor of the practice." (p. 30)
(2) "Cheng-Yu et al [85] report that icing delays recovery from eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage, with a study that is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the sports science and exercise physiology literature. . . . This is a poorly designed study with conclusions that cannot possibly be supported by its data. It’s almost certain to be quoted widely." (p. 30)
2013 in Strength Science: Training, Coaching and Performance (Borg-RPE, overtraining, DOMS, stretching, MMA training, and squat suits)
Continuing my summary of Jonathan Sullivan's "The Year in Strength Science, 2013" with Part V on Training, Coaching, and Performance. (full text)
(1) "Scherr et al [70] reported on a very large study (n=2560) of the correlation between the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale and heart rate. They also looked at the relationship between RPE and lactate production. Their intention was to determine whether the RPE could be used as part of an exercise prescription (a “dose,” as it were) for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). They found that RPE correlated strongly with heart rate and fixed lactate threshold, and concluded that the RPE could be used to prescribe exercise intensity for patients with CAD." (p. 26)
(2) "Tian et al [73] studied heart rate variability as a diagnostic for nonfunctional overreaching [or early overtraining] in elite female wrestlers, using the relatively inexpensive Omegawave monitor. . . . The study is worth a read primarily for its introduction and discussion, both of which contain some interesting material on what is known about overreaching and overtraining at the metabolic, neurobiologic and hormonal levels." However, the results of the study are not impressive, and Sully concludes: "This underscores an important point: as far as I know, there is no single generally accepted gold standard biomarker for the diagnosis of nonfunctional overreaching. Although many different biomarkers have been studied, including heart rate variability and hormonal responses, none have ever been shown to be superior to the assessment of a vigilant coach on the lookout for clinical signs and symptoms." (p. 26)
(3) "Brad Schoenfeld’s . . . literature review with Bret Contreras [74], which asks an important question: is DOMS a useful metric for strength training? . . . . But as they go on to explain, the actual clinical evidence and coaching experience falls far short of any demonstration that DOMS can be used as a reliable gauge for determining the adequacy and appropriateness of training stimuli. Although routines that produce no soreness may indicate a lack of adequate hypertrophic stimulus (bodybuilders beware!) no such conclusion can be drawn for general strength or power training. DOMS is too subjective, its effects too variable, and its potential for abuse too high, to serve as an appropriate metric for training. Here is
another paper that belongs in the literature file of every S&C coach." (p. 27)
(4) "In an important non-systematic review published in Strength and Conditioning Journal, Sands et al have given stretching proponents what Hartmann has given the squats-are-bad-for-the-knees crowd: a thorough and ruthless deconstruction. . . . The authors then make a penetrating observation: A serious problem permeates nearly all studies of stretching – how does one measure stretching intensity? … Ouch. And yet, despite the lack of consistent metrics in this field of study, on balance the available literature on stretching for warmup or recovery does not indicate any benefit. In fact, the best data we have strongly indicates that serious stretching to increase range of motion through acquisition of stretch tolerance makes you weaker." (p. 28)
(5) "Tack [82] proposes a set of “evidence-based” guidelines for strength and conditioning in MMA. . . . The author lays down a fair bit of gobbledygook and silliness in his approach to this result, but he still gets there: a program that progresses from general assessment and preparation, to raw strength (using compound barbell movements), to power (using Olympic lifts and complexes), to fight-specific power and conditioning, to strength-power maintenance and technical practice; all integrated into a program that manipulates volume and intensity in a rational way that could be expected to result in peaking just before a competition. Any implication that this approach is “evidence-based” stretches credulity, however." (p. 29)
(6) Finally, "McBride’s group presents us with a study of effect of compression suits on biomechanical parameters in the squat [83]."
(1) "Scherr et al [70] reported on a very large study (n=2560) of the correlation between the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale and heart rate. They also looked at the relationship between RPE and lactate production. Their intention was to determine whether the RPE could be used as part of an exercise prescription (a “dose,” as it were) for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). They found that RPE correlated strongly with heart rate and fixed lactate threshold, and concluded that the RPE could be used to prescribe exercise intensity for patients with CAD." (p. 26)
(2) "Tian et al [73] studied heart rate variability as a diagnostic for nonfunctional overreaching [or early overtraining] in elite female wrestlers, using the relatively inexpensive Omegawave monitor. . . . The study is worth a read primarily for its introduction and discussion, both of which contain some interesting material on what is known about overreaching and overtraining at the metabolic, neurobiologic and hormonal levels." However, the results of the study are not impressive, and Sully concludes: "This underscores an important point: as far as I know, there is no single generally accepted gold standard biomarker for the diagnosis of nonfunctional overreaching. Although many different biomarkers have been studied, including heart rate variability and hormonal responses, none have ever been shown to be superior to the assessment of a vigilant coach on the lookout for clinical signs and symptoms." (p. 26)
(3) "Brad Schoenfeld’s . . . literature review with Bret Contreras [74], which asks an important question: is DOMS a useful metric for strength training? . . . . But as they go on to explain, the actual clinical evidence and coaching experience falls far short of any demonstration that DOMS can be used as a reliable gauge for determining the adequacy and appropriateness of training stimuli. Although routines that produce no soreness may indicate a lack of adequate hypertrophic stimulus (bodybuilders beware!) no such conclusion can be drawn for general strength or power training. DOMS is too subjective, its effects too variable, and its potential for abuse too high, to serve as an appropriate metric for training. Here is
another paper that belongs in the literature file of every S&C coach." (p. 27)
(4) "In an important non-systematic review published in Strength and Conditioning Journal, Sands et al have given stretching proponents what Hartmann has given the squats-are-bad-for-the-knees crowd: a thorough and ruthless deconstruction. . . . The authors then make a penetrating observation: A serious problem permeates nearly all studies of stretching – how does one measure stretching intensity? … Ouch. And yet, despite the lack of consistent metrics in this field of study, on balance the available literature on stretching for warmup or recovery does not indicate any benefit. In fact, the best data we have strongly indicates that serious stretching to increase range of motion through acquisition of stretch tolerance makes you weaker." (p. 28)
(5) "Tack [82] proposes a set of “evidence-based” guidelines for strength and conditioning in MMA. . . . The author lays down a fair bit of gobbledygook and silliness in his approach to this result, but he still gets there: a program that progresses from general assessment and preparation, to raw strength (using compound barbell movements), to power (using Olympic lifts and complexes), to fight-specific power and conditioning, to strength-power maintenance and technical practice; all integrated into a program that manipulates volume and intensity in a rational way that could be expected to result in peaking just before a competition. Any implication that this approach is “evidence-based” stretches credulity, however." (p. 29)
(6) Finally, "McBride’s group presents us with a study of effect of compression suits on biomechanical parameters in the squat [83]."
 |
| (p. 30) |
2013 in Strength Science: Programming (days/week, big vs. strong, time of day, and the Crossfit Paper)
Continuing my summary of Jonathan Sullivan's "The Year in Strength Science, 2013" with Part IV on Programming. (full text)
(1) "A study by Farinatti et al [52] purports to demonstrate that active women older than 60 years old make bigger gains on a 3-day/week RT program than on a 2-day or 1-day program. However, since the observed differences were of highly questionable practical significance, since the primary strength outcome measure was a 10RM, and since the program studied was dominated by silly exercises like dumbell curls, calf raises and knee extensions, its relevance to coaches trying to assemble a serious training program for geriatric patients is open to debate." (pp. 21-22)
(2) You may be able to get big and strong at the same time:
(1) "A study by Farinatti et al [52] purports to demonstrate that active women older than 60 years old make bigger gains on a 3-day/week RT program than on a 2-day or 1-day program. However, since the observed differences were of highly questionable practical significance, since the primary strength outcome measure was a 10RM, and since the program studied was dominated by silly exercises like dumbell curls, calf raises and knee extensions, its relevance to coaches trying to assemble a serious training program for geriatric patients is open to debate." (pp. 21-22)
(2) You may be able to get big and strong at the same time:
 |
| (p. 22) |
(3) "Ekstrand et al [55] studied the effect of a resistance training bout in the morning on afternoon power performance. . . . If I were to take one thing from this paper, it would not be that resistance training in the morning can improve afternoon performance. Rather, I would take this paper as very weak evidence that resistance training in the morning won’t significantly degrade your performance in afternoon practice. That deserves more investigation." (pp. 22-23)
(4) "And now for one of the most talked-about, most controversial and, from a scientific standpoint, most unimportant papers of the year: the “Crossfit Paper” by Smith et al [61]. The authors of this study classified Crossfit as HIPT, or high intensity power training, as a variant of high-intensity interval training, or HIIT. This is reasonable, and it has become abundantly clear that, whatever its specific bioenergetic impact, HIIT results in positive conditioning and body composition adaptations. The authors wondered whether a HIPT program, being a variant of HIIT, will have similar effects. . . . In one of the most unsurprising findings of the year, the authors demonstrate that thrashing around with barbells and kettlebells, Crossfit-style, burns fat and improves your conditioning." (p. 24) Sully goes on to discuss the lawsuit that stemmed from this study (the XF box suing the scientists for publicly revealing the drop-out and injury-rates of the study).
(4) "And now for one of the most talked-about, most controversial and, from a scientific standpoint, most unimportant papers of the year: the “Crossfit Paper” by Smith et al [61]. The authors of this study classified Crossfit as HIPT, or high intensity power training, as a variant of high-intensity interval training, or HIIT. This is reasonable, and it has become abundantly clear that, whatever its specific bioenergetic impact, HIIT results in positive conditioning and body composition adaptations. The authors wondered whether a HIPT program, being a variant of HIIT, will have similar effects. . . . In one of the most unsurprising findings of the year, the authors demonstrate that thrashing around with barbells and kettlebells, Crossfit-style, burns fat and improves your conditioning." (p. 24) Sully goes on to discuss the lawsuit that stemmed from this study (the XF box suing the scientists for publicly revealing the drop-out and injury-rates of the study).
2013 in Strength Science: Big Medicine (hypertension, metabolic syndrome, muscular dystrophy, academics, and statins)
Continuing my summary of Jonathan Sullivan's "The Year in Strength Science, 2013" with Part III on Big Medicine. (full text)
(1) Sully presents a meta-analysis done by some Canadians which finds shockingly few good randomly-controlled trial studies on hypertension and resistance training. The conclusion can only be that there is "insufficient evidence" to support the prescription of strength training for high blood pressure. Sully rants, "A single, large, properly powered, long-term RCT using high-dose resistance training would answer this question. Why the hell doesn’t somebody just do it?"
(2) "2013 saw more papers on the role of exercise medicine in the treatment or prevention of insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and diabetes. ... I’ll just point out two representative papers for interested readers. The first is an original investigation by Croymans et al [35], who observed an increase in insulin sensitivity in resistance-trained obese young men. The second is a non-systematic review of the evidence by Mann et al [36]. Their survey of the literature found that the preponderance of the evidence shows any form of exercise improves metabolic control and insulin sensitivity, but that a combination of resistance training and conditioning seems to have the most powerful effect." (p. 18)
(3) In a small study of strength training's effect on muscular dystrophy patients: "Indeed, boys treated with exercise therapy demonstrated stabilization of the Motor Function Movement assay, whereas boys in the control group manifested minor declines, consistent with the progressive nature of this horrific disease." However, Sully cautions the need for bigger, better designed, and more rigorous studies before "doctors can make informed recommendations about resistance training in this population." (p. 19)
(4) "In a study that is bound to get some attention, Keating et al [43] found an association between strength training and self-reported academic performance in University students. This would be something to crow about if the data weren’t so limited and if we knew the causal direction, if any, of this association. Were these students smarter because they trained? Did they train because they’re smarter? Or was there no relationship, other than a statistical one, between the two variables? We don’t know. This is a hypothesis generator, nothing more." (p. 19)
(5) "Murlasita and Mohammad [48] present a nice overview of a problem that should be on the minds of all serious strength coaches and older athletes: the potential for adverse interaction between statin medications and training." There's evidence that "statin-induced myopathy is more prevalent than previously thought, that it is more common in the aged and
individuals engaged in strenuous exercise, and that it can on occasion lead to serious consequences, including full-blown rhabdomyolysis, acute tubular necrosis and renal failure." (p. 21)
There's also a bunch of stuff I don't really understand on the possible effects of lifting on congestive heart failure (p. 17), where there's also this great aside: "Perhaps more importantly, it underscores an important emerging concept I alluded to earlier: the idea that muscle tissue is an endocrine organ. It is, in fact, a gland, an organ that participates in physiological regulation by releasing signaling molecules with profound tissue-level and systemic effects. And like any gland, it can get sick. Sick, weak, atrophic muscle is like a sick, weak, atrophic thyroid, pituitary or adrenal. The consequences are potentially devastatin."
(1) Sully presents a meta-analysis done by some Canadians which finds shockingly few good randomly-controlled trial studies on hypertension and resistance training. The conclusion can only be that there is "insufficient evidence" to support the prescription of strength training for high blood pressure. Sully rants, "A single, large, properly powered, long-term RCT using high-dose resistance training would answer this question. Why the hell doesn’t somebody just do it?"
(2) "2013 saw more papers on the role of exercise medicine in the treatment or prevention of insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and diabetes. ... I’ll just point out two representative papers for interested readers. The first is an original investigation by Croymans et al [35], who observed an increase in insulin sensitivity in resistance-trained obese young men. The second is a non-systematic review of the evidence by Mann et al [36]. Their survey of the literature found that the preponderance of the evidence shows any form of exercise improves metabolic control and insulin sensitivity, but that a combination of resistance training and conditioning seems to have the most powerful effect." (p. 18)
(3) In a small study of strength training's effect on muscular dystrophy patients: "Indeed, boys treated with exercise therapy demonstrated stabilization of the Motor Function Movement assay, whereas boys in the control group manifested minor declines, consistent with the progressive nature of this horrific disease." However, Sully cautions the need for bigger, better designed, and more rigorous studies before "doctors can make informed recommendations about resistance training in this population." (p. 19)
(4) "In a study that is bound to get some attention, Keating et al [43] found an association between strength training and self-reported academic performance in University students. This would be something to crow about if the data weren’t so limited and if we knew the causal direction, if any, of this association. Were these students smarter because they trained? Did they train because they’re smarter? Or was there no relationship, other than a statistical one, between the two variables? We don’t know. This is a hypothesis generator, nothing more." (p. 19)
(5) "Murlasita and Mohammad [48] present a nice overview of a problem that should be on the minds of all serious strength coaches and older athletes: the potential for adverse interaction between statin medications and training." There's evidence that "statin-induced myopathy is more prevalent than previously thought, that it is more common in the aged and
individuals engaged in strenuous exercise, and that it can on occasion lead to serious consequences, including full-blown rhabdomyolysis, acute tubular necrosis and renal failure." (p. 21)
2013 in Strength Science: Exercise Physiology (aging and Type 2 muscle, hormones and hypertrophy, Valsalva reflex)
Continuing my summary of Jonathan Sullivan's "The Year in Strength Science, 2013" with Part II on Exercise Physiology. (full text)
(1) "Nilwik et al [18] present data suggesting that the decline in muscle mass with aging is almost entirely due to a reduction in Type II muscle fiber size – but not number. . . . it’s a happy thought, because making atrophic Type II fibers larger with training is a rather more tractable prospect than replacing lost fibers…which probably doesn’t happen to any clinically relevant degree." (pp. 9-10)
(2) "In a related study, Verdijk [19] et al looked at satellite cells [a type of stem cell specific to muscle tissue] in human muscle in 165 subjects ranging in age from < 18 to 86 years old. . . . As in the Nilwik, older subjects demonstrated Type II fiber atrophy. This was accompanied by a decrease in Type II fiber-associated satellite cells. Twelve weeks of strength training increased Type II fiber muscle size and satellite cell content. These two important papers, taken together, underscore the power of resistance exercise in older populations, the relative susceptibility of Type II fibers (the strong/powerful fibers) to aging and atrophy, and the responsiveness of these fibers to even very brief periods of strength training." (p. 10)
(3) "Mitchell et al [21] continue the attack on a rapidly eroding model of muscle hypertrophy in which circulating trophic factors stimulate muscle growth. Like other investigators, they found little correlation between circulating hormones (testosterone, IGF-1) and muscle protein accretion. In line with a growing consensus, they conclude that muscle responses to training are dominated by paracrine and autocrine effects – within the tissue itself, rather than from factors released into the circulation. I think that’s probably right, although this paper doesn’t prove it. But I also think it glosses over an important set of questions. Circulating trophic factors may very well not be directly responsible for muscle protein accretion after exercise. But circulating levels of those factors are nevertheless increased by resistance exercise. Why? And to what purpose?" (p. 11)
(4) "Hacket and Chow present us with a systematic review of the literature on the Valsalva maneuver [29]. . . . For me, however, one of the most important findings of this paper is that
the literature strongly indicates that the Valsalva is a reflexive and virtually unavoidable response to lifting loads at high intensity. And this underscores a point I made in my own review: prohibition of the Valsalva is tantamount to a prohibition of heavy lifting itself." (pp. 14-15)
(5) "Luo et al [31] present data in the rat supporting pro-autophagic and anti-apoptotic effects of chronic resistance training on aging muscle. . . . Apoptosis, as I’ve discussed elsewhere, is a regulated form of “cell suicide.”. . . This paper, with all its limitations, is a data point in favor of the view that resistance training down-regulates muscle apoptosis."
(1) "Nilwik et al [18] present data suggesting that the decline in muscle mass with aging is almost entirely due to a reduction in Type II muscle fiber size – but not number. . . . it’s a happy thought, because making atrophic Type II fibers larger with training is a rather more tractable prospect than replacing lost fibers…which probably doesn’t happen to any clinically relevant degree." (pp. 9-10)
(2) "In a related study, Verdijk [19] et al looked at satellite cells [a type of stem cell specific to muscle tissue] in human muscle in 165 subjects ranging in age from < 18 to 86 years old. . . . As in the Nilwik, older subjects demonstrated Type II fiber atrophy. This was accompanied by a decrease in Type II fiber-associated satellite cells. Twelve weeks of strength training increased Type II fiber muscle size and satellite cell content. These two important papers, taken together, underscore the power of resistance exercise in older populations, the relative susceptibility of Type II fibers (the strong/powerful fibers) to aging and atrophy, and the responsiveness of these fibers to even very brief periods of strength training." (p. 10)
(3) "Mitchell et al [21] continue the attack on a rapidly eroding model of muscle hypertrophy in which circulating trophic factors stimulate muscle growth. Like other investigators, they found little correlation between circulating hormones (testosterone, IGF-1) and muscle protein accretion. In line with a growing consensus, they conclude that muscle responses to training are dominated by paracrine and autocrine effects – within the tissue itself, rather than from factors released into the circulation. I think that’s probably right, although this paper doesn’t prove it. But I also think it glosses over an important set of questions. Circulating trophic factors may very well not be directly responsible for muscle protein accretion after exercise. But circulating levels of those factors are nevertheless increased by resistance exercise. Why? And to what purpose?" (p. 11)
(4) "Hacket and Chow present us with a systematic review of the literature on the Valsalva maneuver [29]. . . . For me, however, one of the most important findings of this paper is that
the literature strongly indicates that the Valsalva is a reflexive and virtually unavoidable response to lifting loads at high intensity. And this underscores a point I made in my own review: prohibition of the Valsalva is tantamount to a prohibition of heavy lifting itself." (pp. 14-15)
(5) "Luo et al [31] present data in the rat supporting pro-autophagic and anti-apoptotic effects of chronic resistance training on aging muscle. . . . Apoptosis, as I’ve discussed elsewhere, is a regulated form of “cell suicide.”. . . This paper, with all its limitations, is a data point in favor of the view that resistance training down-regulates muscle apoptosis."
2013 in Strength Science: Biomechanics (cheating and hypertrophy, muscle imbalances, unstable surfaces, and squatology)
Summarizing some interesting stuff found in Jonathan Sullivan's "The Year in Strength Science, 2013" (full text) Every year, Sully sums up some of the often very silly studies done in the name of exercise science, and his writing is hilarious. Here are some of the most interesting (to me) bits.
(1) From Ognjen Arandjelovic's investigation the effect on hypertrophy when "cheating" a dumbbell exercise with momentum.
In other words: Cheating did not affect results one way or another, and in fact, he thinks it might actually be conducive to *increased* hypertrophy; however, he's careful to state clearly that he's only focused on size, not strength, power, or performance.
(2) From Luke et. al's "comparison of muscle strength imbalance in competitive powerlifters
and Division III field jumpers"
In other words: Powerlifters are stronger and have less asymmetry. Coaches should have athletes work with barbells to increase force production and correct imbalances. Duh.
In one section, Sully summarizes three papers that "challenge the whole idea of performing resistance exercises on unstable surfaces."
(3) "Saeterbakken and Fimland looked at the effect of having bros do bench presses on balance
cushions, Swiss balls, and standard benches."
In other words: Swiss balls suck. The other two studies find pretty much the same thing: "The authors conclude that increasing muscle activation is best achieved by increasing the load, rather than by making the working surface more squishy."
(4) My favorite study summarized in the "squatology" section is this one:
This is a short, clear explanation of PAP, which I like. The researchers had rugby players do either 1/4-squats or parallel squats and then measured their jumping ability. Of course, the parallel squatters had "superior improvements in jump height, impulse, flight time and peak power."
Finally, Sully refers to a study by a German scientist named Hartmann whose "literature review in Sports Medicine, one of the most important papers of the year, demolishes arguments that deep squatting is more injurious to passive structures – namely, the knees and spine." I should look these papers up:
(1) From Ognjen Arandjelovic's investigation the effect on hypertrophy when "cheating" a dumbbell exercise with momentum.
| p. 4 |
(2) From Luke et. al's "comparison of muscle strength imbalance in competitive powerlifters
and Division III field jumpers"
| p. 5 |
In one section, Sully summarizes three papers that "challenge the whole idea of performing resistance exercises on unstable surfaces."
cushions, Swiss balls, and standard benches."
| p. 6 |
(4) My favorite study summarized in the "squatology" section is this one:
 |
| p. 7 |
Finally, Sully refers to a study by a German scientist named Hartmann whose "literature review in Sports Medicine, one of the most important papers of the year, demolishes arguments that deep squatting is more injurious to passive structures – namely, the knees and spine." I should look these papers up:
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Pay attention!
Pay attention! Turn off the television, close the Twitter feed, ignore the text messages. Get absorbed in something – a drawing, a book, an essay on distraction... more»
Summer reading list
http://flavorwire.com/459675/9-literary-luminaries-ultimate-summertime-reads/view-all?src=longreads
Invictus' Guide to Buying Olive Oil
LINK
Sadly, there is manufacture fraud that takes place with olive oil. How do you know if you’re really getting olive oil or a mix of some other oils? This isn’t a foolproof way but a great start to test your olive oil by placing a small quantity of the oil in a glass bowl and refrigerate it for a few days. If it becomes crystalline, the chances are good that it is a true extra-virgin olive oil. If it forms a block, it is most likely chemically refined oil that has had some first-pressed oil added to it.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Vitamin D and fast-twitch muscle
Excerpt:
Vitamin D also increases the size and number of type II, or fast twitch, muscle fibers. Most of the cross sectional studies show that 25-hydroxy vitamin D is directly associated with muscular performance in older individuals.
LINK to full article
Exercise reduces alzheimers risk
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/can-exercise-reduce-alzheimers-risk/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)