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).
No comments:
Post a Comment