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) |
No comments:
Post a Comment