| | |
10-18-2006, 06:54 PM
| #1 (permalink) |
| Rank: Light Heavyweight Experience: 3-5 Years  Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 3,505
Gender:   |  Interesting Strength Training Meta Study im stealing this one from Fortified Iron's Website  Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Department of Exercise and Wellness, Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona 85212, USA. mdpeterz@hotmail.com The efficiency, safety, and effectiveness of strength training programs are paramount for sport conditioning. Therefore, identifying optimal doses of the training variables allows for maximal gains in muscular strength to be elicited per unit of time and also for the reduction in risk of overtraining and/or overuse injuries. A quantified dose-response relationship for the continuum of training intensities, frequencies, and volumes has been identified for recreationally trained populations but has yet to be identified for competitive athletes. The purpose of this analysis was to identify this relationship in collegiate, professional, and elite athletes. A meta-analysis of 37 studies with a total of 370 effect sizes was performed to identify the dose-response relationship among competitive athletes. Criteria for study inclusion were (a) participants must have been competitive athletes at the collegiate or professional level, (:cool: the study must have employed a strength training intervention, and © the study must have included necessary data to calculate effect sizes. Effect size data demonstrate that maximal strength gains are elicited among athletes who train at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group. The current data exhibit different dose-response trends than previous meta-analytical investigations with trained and untrained nonathletes. These results demonstrate explicit dose-response trends for maximal strength gains in athletes and may be directly used in strength and conditioning venues to optimize training efficiency and effectiveness. -------- Dead on and couldnt agree with it anymore. To much time is spend with lifters just training for general strength or training for athletics spending to much time in the lower intensity zones and missing out a great deal. Kc |
| | |
|  |
|
10-19-2006, 05:47 AM
| #2 (permalink) |
| Moderator Rank: Heavyweight Experience: 7-10 Years Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,265
Country: 
Gender: | Just go here: http://www.hypertrophy-research.com/page9.html and you'll see several of the recent studies. That's the first one they have listed. Now these are just studies of course but I've read over them and in certainly paints a picture.... Some of the things I like from them cuz they back me and others here up is: UNTRAINED individuals get maximum strength gains from working a muscle group three times a week (low volume)  (what's that IA?). Trained individuals do better with 2 times a week. One set only really works for good strength gains in untrained and as training progresses more volume (more sets) is needed. (what's that Hittite's?).However, these are meta-analyses and there is another paper criticizing these four recent ones for not following the proper procedures and saying that the data did not support their conclusions. It's very difficult to compare many studies of different design so nothing is ever cut and dry in these things. We have to go by what we think and what works best for us but we'll see what develops on the horizon. It's nice to have science confirm or discard certain practices though. Last edited by Eric3237; 10-19-2006 at 05:58 AM. |
| | |
| |
|
10-19-2006, 06:10 AM
| #5 (permalink) |
| Moderator Rank: Heavyweight Experience: 7-10 Years Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,265
Country:
Gender: | These analyses are intersesting but there are just so many problems with them. The biggest problem is that there are just not enough studies on trained individuals and some of their methods are very unclear. The paper I mentioned pointed out that the posted study talked about "sets per muscle group" which is a little different than sets per exercise. So their cool and everything but I would hesitate citing them to support my views...  since someone could point to these other papers criticizing these meta-analyses and the ACSM positions stand. I would point out that they were both by the same person(s) who seems to be somewhat biased in their belief that EVERYONE can simply train the same way forever  , making it their business to criticize other's research. Instead I'll go by what the experts out there who have worked with hundreds of individuals advise, my own experience, and the way people actually do it rather than some other realitly created in a study environment. Last edited by Eric3237; 10-19-2006 at 06:44 AM. |
| | |
|
| |
|
10-28-2006, 10:04 AM
| #6 (permalink) | |
| Rank: New Member Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3
| Quote:
| |
| | ||
|
| |
|
10-28-2006, 11:16 AM
| #8 (permalink) | |
| Rank: Light Heavyweight Experience: 3-5 Years Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 3,505
Gender: | Quote:
i made 1-2 threads with a slightly different approach to HST but based on its principles and ur experts likes my ideas pretty much peace sir Sentinel | |
| | ||
|
| |
|
10-28-2006, 12:50 PM
| #9 (permalink) | |
| Rank: New Member Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3
| Quote:
If there is anyone out here that has read my work it's apparent that I'm not a 1 set kinda guy and firmly believe that YES a newb can get away with it and see results but over time it's bound to change. | |
| | ||
|
| |
|
10-28-2006, 12:54 PM
| #10 (permalink) | |
| Rank: New Member Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3
| Quote:
Take care Dan | |
| | ||
|
| |
|
|
Linear Mode
