- Liittynyt
- 19.10.2002
- Viestejä
- 784
eli tuon edellisen summana.... Ensimmäinen ongelma menetelmässä on..millä saada se liike uppoamaan kuin kuuma veitsi voihin....
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Huomio: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Päivitetty hit - high intensity training
- Keskustelun aloittaja K0Mik
- Aloitettu
- Liittynyt
- 27.2.2014
- Viestejä
- 28
The subject of explosive weight training is one that has been in the center of a maelstrom among strength and conditioning practitioners for quite some time. Many individuals and some associations advocate the use of so-called explosive weight training movements, which purportedly offer trainees a distinct advantage in speed and power development over those who choose to incorporate more controlled movements.
It is also suggested by some that explosive weight training movements prepare the body for the exorbitant, potentially traumatic forces of competition more so than other strength training techniques.
For the purpose of this article, only the explosive lifts will be discussed. These include-but are not solely restricted to-the Olympic lifts (i.e., the snatch and clean and jerk), power clean, speed-squats, push jerks and any variations of these movements. Basically any movement performed in a rapid, jerky manner where momentum plays a key role in the execution and or completion of the movement would be included.
The intent of this article is three-fold:
to elucidate the fact that ballistic weight training movements carry with them the highest injury potential of any resistance exercises performed in the weight room setting;
to dispute the erroneous notion that there exists a definitive physiological or biomechanical mechanism by which ballistic weight training movements result in a distinct and irrefutable advantage over controlled, high tension resistance exercises in producing and/or enhancing speed, power or athletic skill development; and
to offer safer more efficient and more productive training alternatives.
The Risk Factor
It is a an accepted premise that all types of resistance modes and/or ideologies will have a certain degree of risk attached to them. This is why instruction and supervision are paramount in resistance training programs, regardless of the lifting movements being performed. There will also be contradictions regarding exercise prescription in isolated cases due to past injuries, structural abnormalities and other physical impediments. As with any physical activity, there exists an assumption of risk with strength training and this is why the participants must be well-schooled regarding lifting/spotting techniques and the myriad of safety guidelines which are of utmost importance in the weight room setting. With judicious care, the majority of the environmental risks associated with the weight room can be effectively controlled.
However, the aforementioned ballistic lifts are immersed in inherent dangers even when supervision and correct techniques are evident. There exists a prepoderance of evidence (4,5,8,9,10,14,17,21,22,23,29,33,34,38) indicating that so-called explosive weight training movements carry a high risk of injury, both acutely and cumulatively, to muscle tissue, fascia, connective tissue and bony structures. Westcott (38) states that the acceleration and deceleration forces placed on involved tendons, ligaments, muscle fascia and bone create both initial and terminal stresses on these structures which are likely to produce training injuries.
Several of the lifts being examined here – primarily the Olympic lifts, power cleans and their analogs – cause repetitive forced hyperextensions of the lumbar spine. This forced hyperextension can lead to any number of physical anomalies and injury defects including lumbar sprain, strain, disc injury or a condition known as spondyloysis which consists of a fracture of the pars interarticularis (an area between the superior and inferior articulating facet on a single vertebra). Dangles et al. (3) noted a 44% incidence of spondolysis in a group of 47 Olympic lifters, while Kotani et al. (22) identified the condition in 30.7% of 26 male lifters. It is important to note that these were *experienced lifters*.
Dr. Lyle Micheli, past president of The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has also indicated that ballistic weight training contributes to spondolysis (14).
While the low back region is a major concern with regard to the injury potential of these lifts, their nature embodies concern for other areas of the body as well. Dr. Fred Allman, another past president of the ACSM, has commented on numerous occasions on the danger in performing Olympic lifts, as well as the hazards of introducing speed to weight lifting movements. Dr. Allman has also stated that the performance of the Olympic lifts provides little benefit to athletes in their training programs for any sport other than Olympic lifting (9).
Kulund (23) has mentioned injuries to the wrist, elbow and shoulder while performing Olympic lifts – injuries which were obviously related to the acceleration and/or deceleration forces imposed on these areas.
Hall (17) concluded from her study on the clean and jerk that fast lifting speeds generate dramatic increases in compressive force, shear force, torque and myoelectric activity in the lumbar region.
Matt Brzycki, the Strength and Conditioning Coach at Princeton University, offers this perspective:
“Using momentum to lift a weight increases the internal forces encountered by a given joint: the faster a weight is lifted, the greater these forces are amplified – especially at the points of acceleration and deceleration. When these forces exceed the structural limits of a joint, an injury occurs in the muscles, bones or connective tissue. No one knows what the exact tensile strength of ligaments and tendons are at any given moment. The only way to ascertain tensile strength is when the structural limits are surpassed” (11).
Dr. Ken Leistner who has long excoriated ballistic lifting in training programs, points out that the inclusion of these movements in strength programs may, in fact be the genesis of injuries incurred later in practise in games. As Dr. Leistner states, “…the continuous exposure to acceleration/deceleration forces present when doing cleans, snatches and jerks can produce tissue damage which literally is an *accident waiting to happen*” (26). In younger athletes, the risks of damage to the epiphyseal are on the bones is also a cause for concern, as complete ossification may not take place until the late teens or older.
Some individuals take to task the injury potential of this type of weight training by citing the Zemper et al. study (40), which looks at time-loss injuries incurred in the weight room. These same individuals have interjected, “Many of the exercises used by those players would be considered speed-strength exercises…the average team can expect one time-loss injury from the weight room every three years.” The unanswered questions, however, include:
How many of the injuries incurred were a result of *ballistic* training?;
This survey measured acute injuries; what about cumulative trauma which was *aggravated* on the field and not attributed to the weight room?; and
Is *any* injury in the weight room acceptable?
Many proponents of explosive training ignore the *single most* vulnerable area subected to the compressive and shear forces propagated by the majority of the ballistic lifts – the lower back region.
Some authors have suggested that explosive weight training movements are necessary in increasing the tensile strength of viscoelastic tissue as well as increasing bone density and strength. While it has been shown that progressive resistance training, in general, can accomplish these goals, there exists *no* definitive scientific finding indicating that explosive lifting induces a better adaption than high tension, velocity-controlled repetitions – relative to the parameters of the repetition scheme, safe range of motion, and controlled movement speed will strengthen the aforementioned tissues without the introduction of unnecessary momentum (6,7,11,15,21,25,26,31,32,38). You need not perform ballistic weight training movements for injury prevention purposes ANY MORE THAN YOU NEED TO POUND YOUR HEAD WITH A HAMMER IN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR A CONCUSSION.
Contrary to the suggestions of some individuals, injuries do occur in the weight room and have been documented in the literature (5,9,10,29,33,34). Many of these injuries can be directly contributed to ballistic lifting, not merely the failure of the participants to comply to safety guidelines. Also, it is categorically unacceptable to compare weight room injuries with sports-related injuries and to subsequently state that there are fewer injuries in the weight room. Strength training for athletes is NOT a sport, nor is it an activity where injuries should be commonplace. The comparison is ludicrious.
It should also be noted that certain sports, especially football, place inherent technique stresses on the lumbar spine (16,18,19,26,36). In light of this, performing ballistic lifts which have proven to be traumatic to the same region is hardly the prudent thing to do. For example, the Zemper study noted a total of 18 injuries involving either the lower or upper back. The majority of the total injuries were incurred by defensive linemen and offensive linemen/tight ends (19 total). It would be interesting to note the type of lifting which was being performed when these injuries were sustained, but the study fails to examine those important specifics. Zemper states that the most likely explanation for the higher incidence of injury positions is that “…they spend more time in the weight room and generally are lifting more total weight” (40). Could the actuality that these positions are also the ones most persistently directed by their coaches to perform cleans, snatches, etc., be a factor as well?
The underlying tone of explosive lifting proponents, when discussing injuries, is that they are a part of athletics, therefore the fact that certain lifts may carry inherent risks must be accepted. This thinking represents a negligent haphazard approach in the training of athletes who are not competitive weightlifters.
It is important to note that the American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine, an organization which happens to distinguish between *strength training* and *weightlifting* in it’s position paper, contraindicates the Olympic lifts in training regimens. Also, the ACSM, the world’s foremost authority on training protocol since being founded in 1954, recommends safer movements in their position paper and makes no mention of the inclusion of the Olympic lifts in training (6).
There is no question that the medical community needs to become more actively involved in this controversy. It is my personal belief that, with their continuous input, we will be able to slam the door on this dangerous and unnecessary type of lifting for the general athletic population.
Ballistic Weight Training is Unnecessary
It is the contention of explosive lifting proponents that ballistic lifting movements are necessary in enhancing athletic performance in addition to “simulation movement patterns and velocity and acceleration of many sports movements.” These claims are *not* supported with definitive, conclusive research data. Some individuals make numerous “suggestions” taken from bits and pieces of the scientific literature which fit into their ideology, but the smoking gun is nonexistent. At best, the conflicting data and/or lack of irrefutable findings on these matters render the entire controversy inconclusive.
Some explosive lifting proponents have conceded that, “Slow movement speed does not necessarily mean that an exercise is not explosive. A slow movement may be considered explosive if the athlete applies maximal force as rapidly as possible, although the weight moves slowly due to its great inertia.” If one performs a maximum or near maximum set of an exercise within a given repetition range, this “controlled explosion” will be in effect for the majority of the reps performed.
This type of training can be done with exercise machines, free weights and the various velocity-controlled modes (i.e., isokinetic devices). It is definitely a safer way to train and is a more efficient manner in which to train.
ANY type of progressive strength training will elicit gains in muscle hypertrophy and strength with concurrent enhancement in the contractile properties of muscle tissue (6,8,11,27,39). However, high force/low velocity movements produce longer periods of continuous muscle tensition during both the concentric and eccentric phases, thereby placing heavier demands on the target muscles (7,11,12,15,27,31,32,39).
There exists an inverse relationship between movement speed and muscle force production, which dictates that maximal tension is developed at slow velocities (though the “intent” to move rapidly is evident) and decreases as the speed of contraction increases (7,8,12,15,27,31,32,38,39). Low force/high velocity movements, are therefore less productive with respect to maximal force production and concomitant strength development.
While there exists considerable controversy in the scientific literature on the mechanisms of motor unit recruitment, the most widely accepted precept is the “size principle” of activation (7,12,15,27,32,39,40). Henneman (39) states that the size of the newly recurited motor unit increases with the tension level at which it is recruited. Basically, smaller motor units are recruited first, with successfully larger units firing at increasing tension levels. Slow twitch units (Type I) ten to be smaller and produce less overall force than the intermediate and fast twitch units (Type II A, Type II AB, or Type II B). A major difference in the speed of contraction between the Type I units and the Type II units (including the intermediate Type II fibers) is the fact that they have different degrees of myosin ATPase activity.
Myosin ATPase is intimately involved in the muscle contraction process and the fibers that have more of this activity can contract more rapidly. Also related to contractile speed is the fact that slow twitch fibers have a very poorly developed sarcoplasmic reticulum when compared to fast twitch fibers. This may help explain the response of slow twitch fibers to stimulation, as the sarcoplasmic reticulum is important for the quick release of calcium to trigger contraction. Couple this with the fact that the troponin of Type I fibers has a low affinity for calcium when compared to the continuum of Type II fibers, and a clearer picture of the differences in contraction capabilities surfaces.
There are also numerous metabolic differences between slow twitch and fast twitch units, due to oxidative properties which dictate energy production and endurance capacities (e.g., mitochondria supply, glycogen stores, etc.).
The element most germane to this discussion, however is that of neural innervation. Slow units are innervated by motor neurons that tend to be much smaller – both in the diameter of their axons and in the size of their cell bodies in the spinal cord – than that of fast motor units. In addition, the net conduction velocity is much slower in the nerves of slow motor units. These differences in innervation elicit a lower threshold of activation in the slow motor units as compared to the fast motor units. The net effect of this neural mechanism is that slow units are recruited first for nearly all activities, regardless of movement speed (7,8,11,15,27,32,39,40). It is only when the INTENSITY of activation is very great or when the slow twitch units are fatigued that the larger, more powerful fast motor units are brought into play.
Herein lies much of the controversy regarding fiber recruitment: Is there a preferential recruitment of the fast motor units when fast movement speeds are employed? Again, literature exists where “implications” and/or “suggestions” are made in favor of such an occurence, but the preponderance of currently available data do not support this viewpoint. Lesmes et al. (27) states that both muscle fiber types are actively recruited during maximal muscular contractions, regardless of the movement speed. The entire “size principle” of fiber recruitment is predicated on *muscle force production* NOT the actual *speed of movement*. Slow motor units are quite capable of inititating fast speeds of limb movement if the force requirements are low. Therefore, if the training goal is the recruitment and development of the fast twitch muscle fibers, fast weight training speeds at low intensity
(i.e., high velocity/low resistance movements) represent the *least* efficient approach. As stated by Pipes, “Speed of limb movement has little to do with intensity. If anything there is an inverse relationship… you can have speed or you can have intensity; you cannot have both” (31).
Studies by Palmieri (30) and Wenzel et al. (37) measured training speed and power development with no significant differences being found at slow, fast or a combination of slow and fast speeds. The relevance of these studies is in the conclusion of each that fast training speeds are not needed for power improvements. If controlled speed is at least as effective (if not more so) and safer than faster speed, wouldn’t the controlled movement speed be the more judicious option? More importantly, if the safety and welfare of the athletes entrusted to you truly superseded any personal preference or commercial bias in training techniques, then the choice should be quite obvious.
“Movement specifity” is a term that has long been misinterpreted by some explosive training proponents. To say that “the snatch and clean are very similar to other athletic movements such as “jumping”, is to contradict many of the basic principles of motor learning.
First of all, a clear definition of “specificity” is in order. The *encoding principle of specificity* states that the closer the influence of the practice on the test context characteristics (i.e., the competition situation), the better the practiced movements will be recalled during the test (1,2,28). Simply put, your practise drills, situations, etc., should mirror the conditions under which you will be tested. Performing a certain type of lifting movement with the hope that it will transfer to a sport-specific or position-specific task is *useless*. The central nervous system acquires, stores and uses only meaningful information when movement is required (28).
As once stated by Dr. Lyle Micheli, “…strength training has the potential to improve size and strength; skill development is something different” (25). That brief, candid statement says it all.
Perspective On Proper Strength Training
Strength training programs should be comprehensive in nature with the emphasis placed on exercising the major muscle complexes throughout their fullest range of functional motion. The selected movements should include a variety of multi-joint and single-joint exercises, utilizing a good mix of machines and free weights whenever possible, and be safe and relatively easy to perform in terms of technique.
Set and repetition schemes can be varied, but the program should strive for intense efforts, accurate record keeping, a system for progressive overload and time efficiency. Movements requiring excessive momentum for the execution and/or completion of the lift should be avoided.
Conclusion
This article was not written for individuals who are firmly entrenched in their thinking one way or another, but rather for those who are seeking to compare training information in order to make a rational, educated decision. It must be repeated and emphasized that any type of progressive overload strength training will elicit gains in muscular size and strength with concurrent enhancement in the contractile properties of muscle tissue. However, I caution the reader not to fall prey to the notion that there is a distinct advantage in producing “explosive” athletes by training them with ballistic weight movements. This erroneous proposition continues to be force-fed to the coaching community by organizations and individuals who, because of prejudiced thinking based on their backgrounds or vested interests, are married to this close-minded philosophy.
It is my personal opinion that many of the articles written by explosive training proponents are rife with ambiguous suggestions, one-sided half-truths, and incomplete misinterpretations of the scientific literature. If accepted as doctrine by those in the coaching ranks who are searching for training information, it could contribute to a higher incidence of weight room injuries – a situation that is totally unacceptable, both professionally and ethically.
References
1Adams, J.A., Historical Review and Appraisal of Research on the Learning, Retention, and Transfer of Human Motor Skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 41-74, 1987.
2Adler, J. Stages of Skill Acquisition: A Guide for Teachers. Motor Skills: Theory Into Practice, 1981.
3Aggrawal, N.D., Kaur, R., Kumar, S., Mathur, D. A Study of Changes in Weight Lifters and Other Athletes. British Journal of Sportsmedicine, 13, 58-61, 1979.
4Alexander, M.J.L. Biomechanical Aspects of Lumbar Spine Injuries in Athletes: A Review. Canadian Journal of Applied Sports Sciences. 10: (1), 1-20, 1985.
5American Academy of Pediatrics. Weight Training and Weight Lifting: Information for the Pediatrician. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 11: (3), 157-161, 1983.
6American College of Sports Medicine. Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription: 4th Edition. Lea and Febiger, 1991.
7Bell, G.J., Wenger, H.A. Physiological Adaptations to Velocity-Controlled Resistance Training. Sports Medicine, 13: (4), 234-244, 1992.
8Birk, T., Assistant Professor Departments of Medicine and Rehabilitation Medicine. The Medical College of Ohio, Conversation and Correspondence, 1992.
9Brady, T., Cahill, B.R., Bodnar, L.M. Weight Training Related Injuries in the High School Athlete. American Journal of Sportsmedicine, 10: (1), 1-5, 1982.
10Brown, T., Yost, R., McCarron, R.F. Lumbar Ring Apophyseal Fracture in an Adolescent Weightlifter. The American Journal of Sportsmedicine, 18: (5), 1990.
11Brzychi, M., A Practical Approach to Strength Training. Masters Press, 2nd Edition, 1991.
12Costill, D., Coyle, E., Fink, W., Lesmes, G., Witzmann, F. Adaptations in Skeletal Muscle Following Strength Training. Journal of Applied Physiology, 46: (1), 96-99, 1979.
13Drowatsky, J.N., Chairman & Professor, Health Promotion and Human Performance, The University of Toledo, Conversation, 1992.
14Duda, M. Elite Lifters at Risk of Spondylolysis. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 5: (9), 61-67, 1977.
15Enoka, R.M. Muscle Strength and Its Development. Sports Medicine, 6: 146-168, 1988.
16Ferguson, R.J., McMaster, J.H., Stanitski, C.L. Low Back Pain in College Football Linemen. Journal of Sportsmedicine, 2: (2), 63-69, 1974.
17Hall, S. Effect of Attempted Lifting Speed on Forces and Torque Exerted on the Lumbar Spine. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 17: (4), 1985.
18Hoshina, H., Spondylolysis in Athletes. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 3: 75-78, 1980.
19Jackson, D.W. Low Back Pain in Young Athletes: Evaluation of Stress Reaction and Discogenic Problems. American Journal of Sportsmedicine, 7: (6), 364-366, 1979.
20Jackson, D.W., Wiltse, L.L. Low Back Pain in Young Athletes. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 2: 53-60, 1974.
21Jesse, J.P. Olympic Lifting Movements Endanger Adolescents. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 5: (9), 61-67, 1977.
22Kotani, P.T., Ichikawa, N., Wakabayaski, W., Yoshii, T., Koshimuni, M. Studies of Spondylolysis Found Among Weightlifters. British Journal of Sportsmedicine, 6: 4-8, 1971.
23Kuland, D.H. The Injured Athlete. J.B. Lippencott Co., Philadelphia, pp. 158-159, 1982.
24Kulund, D.N., Dewey, J.B., Brubaker, C.E., Roberts, J. Olympic Weightlifting Injuries. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 111-119, 1978.
25Lambrinides, T. Strength Training and Athletic Performance. High Intensity Training Newsletter, Spring/Summer, 1989.
26Leistner, K. Strength Training Injuries (Parts 1 and 2). High Intensity Training Newsletter, Spring/Summer, 1989.
27Lesmes, G.R., Benham, D.W., Costill, D.L., Fink, W.J. Glycogen Utilization in Fast and Slow Twitch Muscle Fibres During Maximal Isokinetic Exercise. Annals of Sports Medicine, 1: 105-108, 1983.
28Magill, R.A. Motor Learning: Concepts and Applications, 3rd Edition. Wm. C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, 1989.
29Mazur, L.J., Yetman, R.J., Risser, W.L. Weight Training Injuries: Common Injuries and Preventative Methods. Sports Medicine, 16(1): 57-63, 1993.
30Palmieri, G.A. Weight Training and Repetition Speed. Journal of Applied Sports Science Research. 1: (2), 36-38, 1987.
31Pipes, T.V. High Intensity, Not High Speed. Athletic Journal, 59: (5), 60-62, 1979.
32Riley, D. Strength Training by the Experts. Human Kinetics Publishing, Champaign, Illinois, 1982.
33Risser, W. Weight Training Injuries in Children and Adolescents. American Family Physician, 44: (6), 1991.
34Risser, W., Risser J., Preston, D. Weight Training Injuries in Adolescents. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 144, 1990.
35Stone, M.H. Literature Review: Explosive Exercises and Training (Position Statement). NSCA Journal, 15: (3), 1993.
36Watkins, R.G., Dillin, W.H. Lumbar Spine Injury in the Athlete. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 9: (2), 1990.
37Wenzel, R., Perfetto, E. The Effects of Speed Versus Non-Speed Training in Power Development. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research, 6: (2), 1992.
38Westcott, W. Strength Fitness: Physiological Principles and Training Techniques, 2nd Edition. Allyn and Bacon, Newton, Mass., 1987.
39Winter, D.A. The Biomechanics of Human Movement. Wiley and Sons Publishers, Chapter 7, pp. 165-189, 1990.
40Zemper, E.D. Four-Year Study of Weightroom Injuries in a National Sample of College Football Teams. NSCA Journal, 12: (3), 1990.
Explosive Training | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
It is also suggested by some that explosive weight training movements prepare the body for the exorbitant, potentially traumatic forces of competition more so than other strength training techniques.
For the purpose of this article, only the explosive lifts will be discussed. These include-but are not solely restricted to-the Olympic lifts (i.e., the snatch and clean and jerk), power clean, speed-squats, push jerks and any variations of these movements. Basically any movement performed in a rapid, jerky manner where momentum plays a key role in the execution and or completion of the movement would be included.
The intent of this article is three-fold:
to elucidate the fact that ballistic weight training movements carry with them the highest injury potential of any resistance exercises performed in the weight room setting;
to dispute the erroneous notion that there exists a definitive physiological or biomechanical mechanism by which ballistic weight training movements result in a distinct and irrefutable advantage over controlled, high tension resistance exercises in producing and/or enhancing speed, power or athletic skill development; and
to offer safer more efficient and more productive training alternatives.
The Risk Factor
It is a an accepted premise that all types of resistance modes and/or ideologies will have a certain degree of risk attached to them. This is why instruction and supervision are paramount in resistance training programs, regardless of the lifting movements being performed. There will also be contradictions regarding exercise prescription in isolated cases due to past injuries, structural abnormalities and other physical impediments. As with any physical activity, there exists an assumption of risk with strength training and this is why the participants must be well-schooled regarding lifting/spotting techniques and the myriad of safety guidelines which are of utmost importance in the weight room setting. With judicious care, the majority of the environmental risks associated with the weight room can be effectively controlled.
However, the aforementioned ballistic lifts are immersed in inherent dangers even when supervision and correct techniques are evident. There exists a prepoderance of evidence (4,5,8,9,10,14,17,21,22,23,29,33,34,38) indicating that so-called explosive weight training movements carry a high risk of injury, both acutely and cumulatively, to muscle tissue, fascia, connective tissue and bony structures. Westcott (38) states that the acceleration and deceleration forces placed on involved tendons, ligaments, muscle fascia and bone create both initial and terminal stresses on these structures which are likely to produce training injuries.
Several of the lifts being examined here – primarily the Olympic lifts, power cleans and their analogs – cause repetitive forced hyperextensions of the lumbar spine. This forced hyperextension can lead to any number of physical anomalies and injury defects including lumbar sprain, strain, disc injury or a condition known as spondyloysis which consists of a fracture of the pars interarticularis (an area between the superior and inferior articulating facet on a single vertebra). Dangles et al. (3) noted a 44% incidence of spondolysis in a group of 47 Olympic lifters, while Kotani et al. (22) identified the condition in 30.7% of 26 male lifters. It is important to note that these were *experienced lifters*.
Dr. Lyle Micheli, past president of The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has also indicated that ballistic weight training contributes to spondolysis (14).
While the low back region is a major concern with regard to the injury potential of these lifts, their nature embodies concern for other areas of the body as well. Dr. Fred Allman, another past president of the ACSM, has commented on numerous occasions on the danger in performing Olympic lifts, as well as the hazards of introducing speed to weight lifting movements. Dr. Allman has also stated that the performance of the Olympic lifts provides little benefit to athletes in their training programs for any sport other than Olympic lifting (9).
Kulund (23) has mentioned injuries to the wrist, elbow and shoulder while performing Olympic lifts – injuries which were obviously related to the acceleration and/or deceleration forces imposed on these areas.
Hall (17) concluded from her study on the clean and jerk that fast lifting speeds generate dramatic increases in compressive force, shear force, torque and myoelectric activity in the lumbar region.
Matt Brzycki, the Strength and Conditioning Coach at Princeton University, offers this perspective:
“Using momentum to lift a weight increases the internal forces encountered by a given joint: the faster a weight is lifted, the greater these forces are amplified – especially at the points of acceleration and deceleration. When these forces exceed the structural limits of a joint, an injury occurs in the muscles, bones or connective tissue. No one knows what the exact tensile strength of ligaments and tendons are at any given moment. The only way to ascertain tensile strength is when the structural limits are surpassed” (11).
Dr. Ken Leistner who has long excoriated ballistic lifting in training programs, points out that the inclusion of these movements in strength programs may, in fact be the genesis of injuries incurred later in practise in games. As Dr. Leistner states, “…the continuous exposure to acceleration/deceleration forces present when doing cleans, snatches and jerks can produce tissue damage which literally is an *accident waiting to happen*” (26). In younger athletes, the risks of damage to the epiphyseal are on the bones is also a cause for concern, as complete ossification may not take place until the late teens or older.
Some individuals take to task the injury potential of this type of weight training by citing the Zemper et al. study (40), which looks at time-loss injuries incurred in the weight room. These same individuals have interjected, “Many of the exercises used by those players would be considered speed-strength exercises…the average team can expect one time-loss injury from the weight room every three years.” The unanswered questions, however, include:
How many of the injuries incurred were a result of *ballistic* training?;
This survey measured acute injuries; what about cumulative trauma which was *aggravated* on the field and not attributed to the weight room?; and
Is *any* injury in the weight room acceptable?
Many proponents of explosive training ignore the *single most* vulnerable area subected to the compressive and shear forces propagated by the majority of the ballistic lifts – the lower back region.
Some authors have suggested that explosive weight training movements are necessary in increasing the tensile strength of viscoelastic tissue as well as increasing bone density and strength. While it has been shown that progressive resistance training, in general, can accomplish these goals, there exists *no* definitive scientific finding indicating that explosive lifting induces a better adaption than high tension, velocity-controlled repetitions – relative to the parameters of the repetition scheme, safe range of motion, and controlled movement speed will strengthen the aforementioned tissues without the introduction of unnecessary momentum (6,7,11,15,21,25,26,31,32,38). You need not perform ballistic weight training movements for injury prevention purposes ANY MORE THAN YOU NEED TO POUND YOUR HEAD WITH A HAMMER IN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR A CONCUSSION.
Contrary to the suggestions of some individuals, injuries do occur in the weight room and have been documented in the literature (5,9,10,29,33,34). Many of these injuries can be directly contributed to ballistic lifting, not merely the failure of the participants to comply to safety guidelines. Also, it is categorically unacceptable to compare weight room injuries with sports-related injuries and to subsequently state that there are fewer injuries in the weight room. Strength training for athletes is NOT a sport, nor is it an activity where injuries should be commonplace. The comparison is ludicrious.
It should also be noted that certain sports, especially football, place inherent technique stresses on the lumbar spine (16,18,19,26,36). In light of this, performing ballistic lifts which have proven to be traumatic to the same region is hardly the prudent thing to do. For example, the Zemper study noted a total of 18 injuries involving either the lower or upper back. The majority of the total injuries were incurred by defensive linemen and offensive linemen/tight ends (19 total). It would be interesting to note the type of lifting which was being performed when these injuries were sustained, but the study fails to examine those important specifics. Zemper states that the most likely explanation for the higher incidence of injury positions is that “…they spend more time in the weight room and generally are lifting more total weight” (40). Could the actuality that these positions are also the ones most persistently directed by their coaches to perform cleans, snatches, etc., be a factor as well?
The underlying tone of explosive lifting proponents, when discussing injuries, is that they are a part of athletics, therefore the fact that certain lifts may carry inherent risks must be accepted. This thinking represents a negligent haphazard approach in the training of athletes who are not competitive weightlifters.
It is important to note that the American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine, an organization which happens to distinguish between *strength training* and *weightlifting* in it’s position paper, contraindicates the Olympic lifts in training regimens. Also, the ACSM, the world’s foremost authority on training protocol since being founded in 1954, recommends safer movements in their position paper and makes no mention of the inclusion of the Olympic lifts in training (6).
There is no question that the medical community needs to become more actively involved in this controversy. It is my personal belief that, with their continuous input, we will be able to slam the door on this dangerous and unnecessary type of lifting for the general athletic population.
Ballistic Weight Training is Unnecessary
It is the contention of explosive lifting proponents that ballistic lifting movements are necessary in enhancing athletic performance in addition to “simulation movement patterns and velocity and acceleration of many sports movements.” These claims are *not* supported with definitive, conclusive research data. Some individuals make numerous “suggestions” taken from bits and pieces of the scientific literature which fit into their ideology, but the smoking gun is nonexistent. At best, the conflicting data and/or lack of irrefutable findings on these matters render the entire controversy inconclusive.
Some explosive lifting proponents have conceded that, “Slow movement speed does not necessarily mean that an exercise is not explosive. A slow movement may be considered explosive if the athlete applies maximal force as rapidly as possible, although the weight moves slowly due to its great inertia.” If one performs a maximum or near maximum set of an exercise within a given repetition range, this “controlled explosion” will be in effect for the majority of the reps performed.
This type of training can be done with exercise machines, free weights and the various velocity-controlled modes (i.e., isokinetic devices). It is definitely a safer way to train and is a more efficient manner in which to train.
ANY type of progressive strength training will elicit gains in muscle hypertrophy and strength with concurrent enhancement in the contractile properties of muscle tissue (6,8,11,27,39). However, high force/low velocity movements produce longer periods of continuous muscle tensition during both the concentric and eccentric phases, thereby placing heavier demands on the target muscles (7,11,12,15,27,31,32,39).
There exists an inverse relationship between movement speed and muscle force production, which dictates that maximal tension is developed at slow velocities (though the “intent” to move rapidly is evident) and decreases as the speed of contraction increases (7,8,12,15,27,31,32,38,39). Low force/high velocity movements, are therefore less productive with respect to maximal force production and concomitant strength development.
While there exists considerable controversy in the scientific literature on the mechanisms of motor unit recruitment, the most widely accepted precept is the “size principle” of activation (7,12,15,27,32,39,40). Henneman (39) states that the size of the newly recurited motor unit increases with the tension level at which it is recruited. Basically, smaller motor units are recruited first, with successfully larger units firing at increasing tension levels. Slow twitch units (Type I) ten to be smaller and produce less overall force than the intermediate and fast twitch units (Type II A, Type II AB, or Type II B). A major difference in the speed of contraction between the Type I units and the Type II units (including the intermediate Type II fibers) is the fact that they have different degrees of myosin ATPase activity.
Myosin ATPase is intimately involved in the muscle contraction process and the fibers that have more of this activity can contract more rapidly. Also related to contractile speed is the fact that slow twitch fibers have a very poorly developed sarcoplasmic reticulum when compared to fast twitch fibers. This may help explain the response of slow twitch fibers to stimulation, as the sarcoplasmic reticulum is important for the quick release of calcium to trigger contraction. Couple this with the fact that the troponin of Type I fibers has a low affinity for calcium when compared to the continuum of Type II fibers, and a clearer picture of the differences in contraction capabilities surfaces.
There are also numerous metabolic differences between slow twitch and fast twitch units, due to oxidative properties which dictate energy production and endurance capacities (e.g., mitochondria supply, glycogen stores, etc.).
The element most germane to this discussion, however is that of neural innervation. Slow units are innervated by motor neurons that tend to be much smaller – both in the diameter of their axons and in the size of their cell bodies in the spinal cord – than that of fast motor units. In addition, the net conduction velocity is much slower in the nerves of slow motor units. These differences in innervation elicit a lower threshold of activation in the slow motor units as compared to the fast motor units. The net effect of this neural mechanism is that slow units are recruited first for nearly all activities, regardless of movement speed (7,8,11,15,27,32,39,40). It is only when the INTENSITY of activation is very great or when the slow twitch units are fatigued that the larger, more powerful fast motor units are brought into play.
Herein lies much of the controversy regarding fiber recruitment: Is there a preferential recruitment of the fast motor units when fast movement speeds are employed? Again, literature exists where “implications” and/or “suggestions” are made in favor of such an occurence, but the preponderance of currently available data do not support this viewpoint. Lesmes et al. (27) states that both muscle fiber types are actively recruited during maximal muscular contractions, regardless of the movement speed. The entire “size principle” of fiber recruitment is predicated on *muscle force production* NOT the actual *speed of movement*. Slow motor units are quite capable of inititating fast speeds of limb movement if the force requirements are low. Therefore, if the training goal is the recruitment and development of the fast twitch muscle fibers, fast weight training speeds at low intensity
(i.e., high velocity/low resistance movements) represent the *least* efficient approach. As stated by Pipes, “Speed of limb movement has little to do with intensity. If anything there is an inverse relationship… you can have speed or you can have intensity; you cannot have both” (31).
Studies by Palmieri (30) and Wenzel et al. (37) measured training speed and power development with no significant differences being found at slow, fast or a combination of slow and fast speeds. The relevance of these studies is in the conclusion of each that fast training speeds are not needed for power improvements. If controlled speed is at least as effective (if not more so) and safer than faster speed, wouldn’t the controlled movement speed be the more judicious option? More importantly, if the safety and welfare of the athletes entrusted to you truly superseded any personal preference or commercial bias in training techniques, then the choice should be quite obvious.
“Movement specifity” is a term that has long been misinterpreted by some explosive training proponents. To say that “the snatch and clean are very similar to other athletic movements such as “jumping”, is to contradict many of the basic principles of motor learning.
First of all, a clear definition of “specificity” is in order. The *encoding principle of specificity* states that the closer the influence of the practice on the test context characteristics (i.e., the competition situation), the better the practiced movements will be recalled during the test (1,2,28). Simply put, your practise drills, situations, etc., should mirror the conditions under which you will be tested. Performing a certain type of lifting movement with the hope that it will transfer to a sport-specific or position-specific task is *useless*. The central nervous system acquires, stores and uses only meaningful information when movement is required (28).
As once stated by Dr. Lyle Micheli, “…strength training has the potential to improve size and strength; skill development is something different” (25). That brief, candid statement says it all.
Perspective On Proper Strength Training
Strength training programs should be comprehensive in nature with the emphasis placed on exercising the major muscle complexes throughout their fullest range of functional motion. The selected movements should include a variety of multi-joint and single-joint exercises, utilizing a good mix of machines and free weights whenever possible, and be safe and relatively easy to perform in terms of technique.
Set and repetition schemes can be varied, but the program should strive for intense efforts, accurate record keeping, a system for progressive overload and time efficiency. Movements requiring excessive momentum for the execution and/or completion of the lift should be avoided.
Conclusion
This article was not written for individuals who are firmly entrenched in their thinking one way or another, but rather for those who are seeking to compare training information in order to make a rational, educated decision. It must be repeated and emphasized that any type of progressive overload strength training will elicit gains in muscular size and strength with concurrent enhancement in the contractile properties of muscle tissue. However, I caution the reader not to fall prey to the notion that there is a distinct advantage in producing “explosive” athletes by training them with ballistic weight movements. This erroneous proposition continues to be force-fed to the coaching community by organizations and individuals who, because of prejudiced thinking based on their backgrounds or vested interests, are married to this close-minded philosophy.
It is my personal opinion that many of the articles written by explosive training proponents are rife with ambiguous suggestions, one-sided half-truths, and incomplete misinterpretations of the scientific literature. If accepted as doctrine by those in the coaching ranks who are searching for training information, it could contribute to a higher incidence of weight room injuries – a situation that is totally unacceptable, both professionally and ethically.
References
1Adams, J.A., Historical Review and Appraisal of Research on the Learning, Retention, and Transfer of Human Motor Skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 41-74, 1987.
2Adler, J. Stages of Skill Acquisition: A Guide for Teachers. Motor Skills: Theory Into Practice, 1981.
3Aggrawal, N.D., Kaur, R., Kumar, S., Mathur, D. A Study of Changes in Weight Lifters and Other Athletes. British Journal of Sportsmedicine, 13, 58-61, 1979.
4Alexander, M.J.L. Biomechanical Aspects of Lumbar Spine Injuries in Athletes: A Review. Canadian Journal of Applied Sports Sciences. 10: (1), 1-20, 1985.
5American Academy of Pediatrics. Weight Training and Weight Lifting: Information for the Pediatrician. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 11: (3), 157-161, 1983.
6American College of Sports Medicine. Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription: 4th Edition. Lea and Febiger, 1991.
7Bell, G.J., Wenger, H.A. Physiological Adaptations to Velocity-Controlled Resistance Training. Sports Medicine, 13: (4), 234-244, 1992.
8Birk, T., Assistant Professor Departments of Medicine and Rehabilitation Medicine. The Medical College of Ohio, Conversation and Correspondence, 1992.
9Brady, T., Cahill, B.R., Bodnar, L.M. Weight Training Related Injuries in the High School Athlete. American Journal of Sportsmedicine, 10: (1), 1-5, 1982.
10Brown, T., Yost, R., McCarron, R.F. Lumbar Ring Apophyseal Fracture in an Adolescent Weightlifter. The American Journal of Sportsmedicine, 18: (5), 1990.
11Brzychi, M., A Practical Approach to Strength Training. Masters Press, 2nd Edition, 1991.
12Costill, D., Coyle, E., Fink, W., Lesmes, G., Witzmann, F. Adaptations in Skeletal Muscle Following Strength Training. Journal of Applied Physiology, 46: (1), 96-99, 1979.
13Drowatsky, J.N., Chairman & Professor, Health Promotion and Human Performance, The University of Toledo, Conversation, 1992.
14Duda, M. Elite Lifters at Risk of Spondylolysis. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 5: (9), 61-67, 1977.
15Enoka, R.M. Muscle Strength and Its Development. Sports Medicine, 6: 146-168, 1988.
16Ferguson, R.J., McMaster, J.H., Stanitski, C.L. Low Back Pain in College Football Linemen. Journal of Sportsmedicine, 2: (2), 63-69, 1974.
17Hall, S. Effect of Attempted Lifting Speed on Forces and Torque Exerted on the Lumbar Spine. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 17: (4), 1985.
18Hoshina, H., Spondylolysis in Athletes. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 3: 75-78, 1980.
19Jackson, D.W. Low Back Pain in Young Athletes: Evaluation of Stress Reaction and Discogenic Problems. American Journal of Sportsmedicine, 7: (6), 364-366, 1979.
20Jackson, D.W., Wiltse, L.L. Low Back Pain in Young Athletes. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 2: 53-60, 1974.
21Jesse, J.P. Olympic Lifting Movements Endanger Adolescents. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 5: (9), 61-67, 1977.
22Kotani, P.T., Ichikawa, N., Wakabayaski, W., Yoshii, T., Koshimuni, M. Studies of Spondylolysis Found Among Weightlifters. British Journal of Sportsmedicine, 6: 4-8, 1971.
23Kuland, D.H. The Injured Athlete. J.B. Lippencott Co., Philadelphia, pp. 158-159, 1982.
24Kulund, D.N., Dewey, J.B., Brubaker, C.E., Roberts, J. Olympic Weightlifting Injuries. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 111-119, 1978.
25Lambrinides, T. Strength Training and Athletic Performance. High Intensity Training Newsletter, Spring/Summer, 1989.
26Leistner, K. Strength Training Injuries (Parts 1 and 2). High Intensity Training Newsletter, Spring/Summer, 1989.
27Lesmes, G.R., Benham, D.W., Costill, D.L., Fink, W.J. Glycogen Utilization in Fast and Slow Twitch Muscle Fibres During Maximal Isokinetic Exercise. Annals of Sports Medicine, 1: 105-108, 1983.
28Magill, R.A. Motor Learning: Concepts and Applications, 3rd Edition. Wm. C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, 1989.
29Mazur, L.J., Yetman, R.J., Risser, W.L. Weight Training Injuries: Common Injuries and Preventative Methods. Sports Medicine, 16(1): 57-63, 1993.
30Palmieri, G.A. Weight Training and Repetition Speed. Journal of Applied Sports Science Research. 1: (2), 36-38, 1987.
31Pipes, T.V. High Intensity, Not High Speed. Athletic Journal, 59: (5), 60-62, 1979.
32Riley, D. Strength Training by the Experts. Human Kinetics Publishing, Champaign, Illinois, 1982.
33Risser, W. Weight Training Injuries in Children and Adolescents. American Family Physician, 44: (6), 1991.
34Risser, W., Risser J., Preston, D. Weight Training Injuries in Adolescents. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 144, 1990.
35Stone, M.H. Literature Review: Explosive Exercises and Training (Position Statement). NSCA Journal, 15: (3), 1993.
36Watkins, R.G., Dillin, W.H. Lumbar Spine Injury in the Athlete. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 9: (2), 1990.
37Wenzel, R., Perfetto, E. The Effects of Speed Versus Non-Speed Training in Power Development. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research, 6: (2), 1992.
38Westcott, W. Strength Fitness: Physiological Principles and Training Techniques, 2nd Edition. Allyn and Bacon, Newton, Mass., 1987.
39Winter, D.A. The Biomechanics of Human Movement. Wiley and Sons Publishers, Chapter 7, pp. 165-189, 1990.
40Zemper, E.D. Four-Year Study of Weightroom Injuries in a National Sample of College Football Teams. NSCA Journal, 12: (3), 1990.
Explosive Training | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
- Liittynyt
- 27.2.2014
- Viestejä
- 28
This Q&A is a response to several questions I’ve recently received. Since they’re all related I’m going to answer them together.
Since intentionally moving slowly during exercise involves less than a maximum effort wouldn’t it reduce motor unit recruitment and the effectiveness of the exercise?
No. Motor unit recruitment is determined by the amount of force the muscles are required to produce in order of size starting with the smallest motor units with the fewest fibers and ending with the largest with the most fibers. Regardless of the speed of movement if the weight is heavy enough (adequate to cause momentary muscular failure within a minute or two) you will recruit all of the motor units in the muscles being worked within a few reps. After all of the motor units have been recruited and are fatiguing further increases in force production are achieved by increasing rate-coding (the frequency of the signal to the motor units to contract).
Even if you are intentionally moving slowly at first, if the weight is heavy enough you will eventually have to contract as intensely as possible to lift it. Effort is relative to your momentary strength. As fatigue reduces your strength during an exercise the weight requires a larger percentage of your mometary ability which is why it feels progressively heavier. For example, a weight that only requires is 80% of your available strength at the beginning of an exercise will require an 89% effort at the moment fatigue has reduced your strength by 10% (80/90 = 0.89 or 89%) and when fatigue has reduced your strength by 20% you are contracting with 100% of your momentary strength just to hold the weight (80/80 = 1 or 100%). By this point in the exercise every motor unit in the working muscles has already been involved for a while.
My personal trainer told me I have to lift explosively to recruit the high-threshold type IIB motor units which have the greatest potential for hypertrophy and that slow reps only recruit the slow-twitch, type I fibers.
Your trainer doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
The terms “fast” and “slow” in fast and slow twitch muscle fibers refer to the twitch speed - how quickly the fibers can reach maximum tension – not the speed of movement they produce. Fast twitch fibers reach maximum tension between around 50 and 80 milliseconds, slow around 100 to 200 milliseconds. On average this is a difference of only 85 ms – less than one tenth of a second. The biggest difference between fast and slow twitch fibers is the relative fatigue and recovery rates; fast twitch fibers fatigue more rapidly and recover more slowly, slow twitch fibers fatigue more slowly and recover more rapidly.
Contrary to popular misinterpretation of their names, your muscles’ slow twitch fibers are capable of producing very fast movements and your fast twitch fibers will be recruited during even the slowest movements if the resistance is high enough.
For example, an isometric contraction is about as slow as it gets during exercise – you don’t move at all. However, when performing timed static contractions or heavy static holds you will recruit even the high threshold fast twitch motor units because the muscles need to recruit all of their motor units to produce the required amount of force.
Moving fast is neither necessary for recruiting the fast twitch motor units nor more effective for that purpose. The only thing moving faster tends to do is compromise form and increase the risk of injury. The idea one must “train fast to be fast” or that “slow training makes you slow” is nonsense.
My coach said I have to lift explosively to improve power. How am I supposed to increase my power for (football, martial arts, golf, etc.) if I don’t train explosively?
Your coach doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I’m guessing he also told you power cleans were the best way to improve your ability to explode off the line, punch hard, increase the force of your golf swing, and become rich and good looking, which would make him doubly ignorant.
If you want to become more powerful in general you just have to train to become stronger, and you can do that training fast or slow. Power is the amount of work you can perform over a period of time. Work is force x displacement. A stronger muscle can produce more force, meaning you can either move a greater mass over the same distance in the same period of time, move the same mass over more distance in the same period of time, or move the same mass over the same distance in less time.
For example, if the most you can lift in an exercise one time is 200 pounds you won’t be able to lift it very quickly. If you increase your strength so that you can lift 250 pounds in that exercise, you will be able to lift 200 pounds more quickly.
If you want to become more powerful in a specific movement you must also learn and practice the skill of performing that movement in a way that makes efficient use of the strength of the involved muscles. Skill improvement is very specific; to become more skilled at a movement you must practice that movement, not something that somewhat resembles it, not a similar movement while holding a weight or with something heavier than you would normally use, but the exact movement.
Many well-meaning but misinformed coaches and trainers will tell you doing power cleans will result in a transfer of explosiveness to just about any other activity. They’re wrong. The only thing power cleans are good for is improving your ability to perform power cleans. They are relatively ineffective for improving the strength of the involved muscles when compared to other exercises, have a greater risk of injury, and will do nothing at all to improve your skill in any other movement. If you are a competitive Olympic lifter you must perform cleans as part of your training for the clean and jerk, but there is no good reason for anyone else to do them. Q&A: Repetition Speed, Recruitment and Stimulation | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
A reader recently sent me a link to a post on a HIT blog recommending fast repetition speeds and claiming they were necessary to recruit the high threshold, fast twitch motor units. Although I just posted a Q&A on repetition speed, motor unit recruitment and stimulation last week and am probably just repeating myself I figured I would post my responses here for those interested.
The specific statements in his post I responded to were:
Type II muscles fibers are responsible for explosive/ballistic movements and stimulating muscle growth.
and
Every rep you should aim to accelerate it at the greatest velocity possible while still maintaining control of it.
and
You can use moderate weight as long as you keep in mind that acceleration is key. It won’t be until the last few reps, near failing, that those high threshold motor units are really fatigued which will lead to your gains.
Normally I would ignore this since the internet is full of bad training advice and if I tried to address all of it I wouldn’t have time for anything else. However, since this was on a HIT web site I felt compelled to respond. The following was my initial response to the above comments:
I’m surprised and disappointed to see such bad advice on a HIT site.
High levels of acceleration are not necessary to recruit the high threshold IIB fibers. Even with loads as low as 60% of 1RM all the motor units in the primary muscles in an exercise will be recruited within a few reps after which force is maintained despite fatigue by increased rate coding.
Whether you move slowly or quickly, as long as you use at least a moderately heavy weight ALL of the motor units will be recruited.
Also, the type II fibers are not responsible for explosive movements. The “fast” and “slow” in “fast twitch” and “slow twitch” refers to the time in ms it takes a fiber to reach it’s maximum tension, not the speed of movement the fiber is capable of producing. The difference in twitch speed between slow and fast twitch is less than 1/10th of a second. Slow twitch fibers can produce rapid movements and fast twitch fibers will be involved in even extremely slow or isometric movements as long as there is adequate resistance.
He replied,
Drew,
I was advocating higher levels of acceleration when using submaximal weights for the sole reason of generating more total force which would result in the greatest recruitment of type 2 fibers. Type 2 being responsible for the most hypertrophy. Moving more slowly, even though utilizing all fiber types, would create far less total force than a faster concentric pace not fatiguing those HI motor units optimally.
The point of calling them fast twitch is because they contract quicker than do slow twitch. I looked in 2 sources and they say fast contract up to 10x quicker than do slow.
During your entire rant, you neglect to mention anything about the size principle. Making your argument about how slow and fast twitch fibers don’t really differ that much flawed. When talking about weight lifting and producing relatively large forces, we are mainly talking about fast twitch even though slow twitch are still active.
I honestly don’t care if you agree with me or not. Yuri Verkhoshansky, Im sure you know who that is cuz you seem to know everything sees shit the same way I do. Here’s a exerpt from Supertraining:
“Further research reveals that this high intensity is not necessarily dependent on the use of 1RM or near 1RM loads, but the degree to which the relevant muscle fibres are recruited during the effort. In this respect, the terms fast twitch and slow twitch do not necessarily mean that fast movements recruit exclusively FT fibres and slow movements ST fibres. To analyze the involvement of the different fibre types, it is vital to determine the forece that needs to be produced. If large acceleration of the load is involved, Newtown’s Second Law of Motion decrees that the resulting force will be large. This, the maximal force generated during the rapid acceleration of a 100kg bench press easily can exceed the maximal force produced during a slowly accelerated 150kg bench press. Both a small load accelerated rapidly and a heavy load accelerated slowly strongly involve the FT fibres….”
I responded,
Fibre Types in Skeletal MusclesA higher rate of acceleration would result in a greater peak (momentary) force, followed by a proportional decrease in force as result of kinetic energy imparted to the moving bar or weights. The average force would be approximately the same – the difference is, with a slower movement the force is more consistent over the full range of motion.
Additionally, due to greater cross-bridging a muscle is capable of contracting with more force at slower velocities (force/velocity curve) during concentric contraction.
The best way to increase force is not to rapidly accelerate, but to simply use a heavier weight. Doing so increases the tension over the full range of the exercise and not just during the initial acceleration.
The reason they’re called fast “twitch” is because the twitch speed, or time it takes the fiber to reach maximum tension is faster – not the resulting speed of movement. If your sources say otherwise, they’re wrong. In Karla Punkt’s Fibre Types in Skeletal Muscles, on page 10 there is a table which includes the twitch times in ms: 40-90 for fast, 90-140 for slow. On average, this is a difference of about 50 ms, or 0.05 seconds.
Fast twitch motor units within a muscle are larger and as a result capable of producing greater force thus greater acceleration, but this is because of their size not necessarily their physiology. It is not necessary to move quickly to recruit them, however, only to use an adequately heavy weight.
I didn’t mention anything about the size principle because it wasn’t necessary for the point I was making, nor did I say the fibers don’t really differ. I said the speed of movement they are capable of producing does not differ and the average difference in twitch speed or rate of force development is less than most make it out to be (when they make a distinction at all).
As for the quote from Verkhoshansky, while the maximum force generated during a rapid acceleration of a 100kg bench press can exceed the maximum force producing during a slow 150kg bench press, it will only do so briefly and will be followed by a significant reduction in force. The average force over the full range of motion would be higher for the 150.
With the exception of practicing competitive lifts there is no reason to recommend moving quickly during exercise. Fast reps are not necessary to recruit the type IIB fibers, provide no advantage slow reps with adequate resistance, and have the disadvantage of producing an inconsistent level of tension over the range of motion, not to mention an increased risk of injury.
I give him partial credit for qualifying his recommendation to accelerate at the greatest velocity possible with the words “… while still maintaining control of it. ” Although, technically, this is not bad advice if the emphasis is on control, in practice it tends to result in sloppy and relatively ineffective performance. There is no benefit to moving faster during exercise and no disadvantage to moving more slowly so it is best to err on the slow side.
During the first few repetitions of an exercise the attempted speed of movement should be at least moderately slow. Specifically, slow enough that you are able to:
Maintain strict body positioning and alignment.
Reverse direction smoothly with no bouncing, yanking, jerking or heaving.
Focus on intensely contracting the target muscles over the full range of the exercise.
As you fatigue the reps will become progressively slower. At this point you should attempt to gradually increase acceleration, trying to move faster but without altering body positioning and without jerking or heaving the weight. By this point it will be impossible for you to move faster if you maintain proper form and attempting to do so in a controlled manner will increase the intensity of contraction.
You should not, however, attempt to accelerate as much as possible at the beginning of an exercise or when using a weight that would allow you to move very rapidly.
I have not returned to the site after posting my second comment and have no interest in continuing the discussion there. I have too many other projects to work on to be writing on other people’s web sites at the moment. For now I’ll be taking Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones advice:
“The next time somebody suggests that you move suddenly during any form of exercise or testing, smile and walk away, because you are talking to a fool.” More Confusion About Repetition Speed | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
Since intentionally moving slowly during exercise involves less than a maximum effort wouldn’t it reduce motor unit recruitment and the effectiveness of the exercise?
No. Motor unit recruitment is determined by the amount of force the muscles are required to produce in order of size starting with the smallest motor units with the fewest fibers and ending with the largest with the most fibers. Regardless of the speed of movement if the weight is heavy enough (adequate to cause momentary muscular failure within a minute or two) you will recruit all of the motor units in the muscles being worked within a few reps. After all of the motor units have been recruited and are fatiguing further increases in force production are achieved by increasing rate-coding (the frequency of the signal to the motor units to contract).
Even if you are intentionally moving slowly at first, if the weight is heavy enough you will eventually have to contract as intensely as possible to lift it. Effort is relative to your momentary strength. As fatigue reduces your strength during an exercise the weight requires a larger percentage of your mometary ability which is why it feels progressively heavier. For example, a weight that only requires is 80% of your available strength at the beginning of an exercise will require an 89% effort at the moment fatigue has reduced your strength by 10% (80/90 = 0.89 or 89%) and when fatigue has reduced your strength by 20% you are contracting with 100% of your momentary strength just to hold the weight (80/80 = 1 or 100%). By this point in the exercise every motor unit in the working muscles has already been involved for a while.
My personal trainer told me I have to lift explosively to recruit the high-threshold type IIB motor units which have the greatest potential for hypertrophy and that slow reps only recruit the slow-twitch, type I fibers.
Your trainer doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
The terms “fast” and “slow” in fast and slow twitch muscle fibers refer to the twitch speed - how quickly the fibers can reach maximum tension – not the speed of movement they produce. Fast twitch fibers reach maximum tension between around 50 and 80 milliseconds, slow around 100 to 200 milliseconds. On average this is a difference of only 85 ms – less than one tenth of a second. The biggest difference between fast and slow twitch fibers is the relative fatigue and recovery rates; fast twitch fibers fatigue more rapidly and recover more slowly, slow twitch fibers fatigue more slowly and recover more rapidly.
Contrary to popular misinterpretation of their names, your muscles’ slow twitch fibers are capable of producing very fast movements and your fast twitch fibers will be recruited during even the slowest movements if the resistance is high enough.
For example, an isometric contraction is about as slow as it gets during exercise – you don’t move at all. However, when performing timed static contractions or heavy static holds you will recruit even the high threshold fast twitch motor units because the muscles need to recruit all of their motor units to produce the required amount of force.
Moving fast is neither necessary for recruiting the fast twitch motor units nor more effective for that purpose. The only thing moving faster tends to do is compromise form and increase the risk of injury. The idea one must “train fast to be fast” or that “slow training makes you slow” is nonsense.
My coach said I have to lift explosively to improve power. How am I supposed to increase my power for (football, martial arts, golf, etc.) if I don’t train explosively?
Your coach doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I’m guessing he also told you power cleans were the best way to improve your ability to explode off the line, punch hard, increase the force of your golf swing, and become rich and good looking, which would make him doubly ignorant.
If you want to become more powerful in general you just have to train to become stronger, and you can do that training fast or slow. Power is the amount of work you can perform over a period of time. Work is force x displacement. A stronger muscle can produce more force, meaning you can either move a greater mass over the same distance in the same period of time, move the same mass over more distance in the same period of time, or move the same mass over the same distance in less time.
For example, if the most you can lift in an exercise one time is 200 pounds you won’t be able to lift it very quickly. If you increase your strength so that you can lift 250 pounds in that exercise, you will be able to lift 200 pounds more quickly.
If you want to become more powerful in a specific movement you must also learn and practice the skill of performing that movement in a way that makes efficient use of the strength of the involved muscles. Skill improvement is very specific; to become more skilled at a movement you must practice that movement, not something that somewhat resembles it, not a similar movement while holding a weight or with something heavier than you would normally use, but the exact movement.
Many well-meaning but misinformed coaches and trainers will tell you doing power cleans will result in a transfer of explosiveness to just about any other activity. They’re wrong. The only thing power cleans are good for is improving your ability to perform power cleans. They are relatively ineffective for improving the strength of the involved muscles when compared to other exercises, have a greater risk of injury, and will do nothing at all to improve your skill in any other movement. If you are a competitive Olympic lifter you must perform cleans as part of your training for the clean and jerk, but there is no good reason for anyone else to do them. Q&A: Repetition Speed, Recruitment and Stimulation | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
A reader recently sent me a link to a post on a HIT blog recommending fast repetition speeds and claiming they were necessary to recruit the high threshold, fast twitch motor units. Although I just posted a Q&A on repetition speed, motor unit recruitment and stimulation last week and am probably just repeating myself I figured I would post my responses here for those interested.
The specific statements in his post I responded to were:
Type II muscles fibers are responsible for explosive/ballistic movements and stimulating muscle growth.
and
Every rep you should aim to accelerate it at the greatest velocity possible while still maintaining control of it.
and
You can use moderate weight as long as you keep in mind that acceleration is key. It won’t be until the last few reps, near failing, that those high threshold motor units are really fatigued which will lead to your gains.
Normally I would ignore this since the internet is full of bad training advice and if I tried to address all of it I wouldn’t have time for anything else. However, since this was on a HIT web site I felt compelled to respond. The following was my initial response to the above comments:
I’m surprised and disappointed to see such bad advice on a HIT site.
High levels of acceleration are not necessary to recruit the high threshold IIB fibers. Even with loads as low as 60% of 1RM all the motor units in the primary muscles in an exercise will be recruited within a few reps after which force is maintained despite fatigue by increased rate coding.
Whether you move slowly or quickly, as long as you use at least a moderately heavy weight ALL of the motor units will be recruited.
Also, the type II fibers are not responsible for explosive movements. The “fast” and “slow” in “fast twitch” and “slow twitch” refers to the time in ms it takes a fiber to reach it’s maximum tension, not the speed of movement the fiber is capable of producing. The difference in twitch speed between slow and fast twitch is less than 1/10th of a second. Slow twitch fibers can produce rapid movements and fast twitch fibers will be involved in even extremely slow or isometric movements as long as there is adequate resistance.
He replied,
Drew,
I was advocating higher levels of acceleration when using submaximal weights for the sole reason of generating more total force which would result in the greatest recruitment of type 2 fibers. Type 2 being responsible for the most hypertrophy. Moving more slowly, even though utilizing all fiber types, would create far less total force than a faster concentric pace not fatiguing those HI motor units optimally.
The point of calling them fast twitch is because they contract quicker than do slow twitch. I looked in 2 sources and they say fast contract up to 10x quicker than do slow.
During your entire rant, you neglect to mention anything about the size principle. Making your argument about how slow and fast twitch fibers don’t really differ that much flawed. When talking about weight lifting and producing relatively large forces, we are mainly talking about fast twitch even though slow twitch are still active.
I honestly don’t care if you agree with me or not. Yuri Verkhoshansky, Im sure you know who that is cuz you seem to know everything sees shit the same way I do. Here’s a exerpt from Supertraining:
“Further research reveals that this high intensity is not necessarily dependent on the use of 1RM or near 1RM loads, but the degree to which the relevant muscle fibres are recruited during the effort. In this respect, the terms fast twitch and slow twitch do not necessarily mean that fast movements recruit exclusively FT fibres and slow movements ST fibres. To analyze the involvement of the different fibre types, it is vital to determine the forece that needs to be produced. If large acceleration of the load is involved, Newtown’s Second Law of Motion decrees that the resulting force will be large. This, the maximal force generated during the rapid acceleration of a 100kg bench press easily can exceed the maximal force produced during a slowly accelerated 150kg bench press. Both a small load accelerated rapidly and a heavy load accelerated slowly strongly involve the FT fibres….”
I responded,
Fibre Types in Skeletal MusclesA higher rate of acceleration would result in a greater peak (momentary) force, followed by a proportional decrease in force as result of kinetic energy imparted to the moving bar or weights. The average force would be approximately the same – the difference is, with a slower movement the force is more consistent over the full range of motion.
Additionally, due to greater cross-bridging a muscle is capable of contracting with more force at slower velocities (force/velocity curve) during concentric contraction.
The best way to increase force is not to rapidly accelerate, but to simply use a heavier weight. Doing so increases the tension over the full range of the exercise and not just during the initial acceleration.
The reason they’re called fast “twitch” is because the twitch speed, or time it takes the fiber to reach maximum tension is faster – not the resulting speed of movement. If your sources say otherwise, they’re wrong. In Karla Punkt’s Fibre Types in Skeletal Muscles, on page 10 there is a table which includes the twitch times in ms: 40-90 for fast, 90-140 for slow. On average, this is a difference of about 50 ms, or 0.05 seconds.
Fast twitch motor units within a muscle are larger and as a result capable of producing greater force thus greater acceleration, but this is because of their size not necessarily their physiology. It is not necessary to move quickly to recruit them, however, only to use an adequately heavy weight.
I didn’t mention anything about the size principle because it wasn’t necessary for the point I was making, nor did I say the fibers don’t really differ. I said the speed of movement they are capable of producing does not differ and the average difference in twitch speed or rate of force development is less than most make it out to be (when they make a distinction at all).
As for the quote from Verkhoshansky, while the maximum force generated during a rapid acceleration of a 100kg bench press can exceed the maximum force producing during a slow 150kg bench press, it will only do so briefly and will be followed by a significant reduction in force. The average force over the full range of motion would be higher for the 150.
With the exception of practicing competitive lifts there is no reason to recommend moving quickly during exercise. Fast reps are not necessary to recruit the type IIB fibers, provide no advantage slow reps with adequate resistance, and have the disadvantage of producing an inconsistent level of tension over the range of motion, not to mention an increased risk of injury.
I give him partial credit for qualifying his recommendation to accelerate at the greatest velocity possible with the words “… while still maintaining control of it. ” Although, technically, this is not bad advice if the emphasis is on control, in practice it tends to result in sloppy and relatively ineffective performance. There is no benefit to moving faster during exercise and no disadvantage to moving more slowly so it is best to err on the slow side.
During the first few repetitions of an exercise the attempted speed of movement should be at least moderately slow. Specifically, slow enough that you are able to:
Maintain strict body positioning and alignment.
Reverse direction smoothly with no bouncing, yanking, jerking or heaving.
Focus on intensely contracting the target muscles over the full range of the exercise.
As you fatigue the reps will become progressively slower. At this point you should attempt to gradually increase acceleration, trying to move faster but without altering body positioning and without jerking or heaving the weight. By this point it will be impossible for you to move faster if you maintain proper form and attempting to do so in a controlled manner will increase the intensity of contraction.
You should not, however, attempt to accelerate as much as possible at the beginning of an exercise or when using a weight that would allow you to move very rapidly.
I have not returned to the site after posting my second comment and have no interest in continuing the discussion there. I have too many other projects to work on to be writing on other people’s web sites at the moment. For now I’ll be taking Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones advice:
“The next time somebody suggests that you move suddenly during any form of exercise or testing, smile and walk away, because you are talking to a fool.” More Confusion About Repetition Speed | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
- Liittynyt
- 27.2.2014
- Viestejä
- 28
Omasta treenifilosofiasta, kokemuksista ja ohjelmasta.
Tässä vuosien aikana on tullut kokeiltua kaikenlaista treeniä. "Perinteistä" volyymitreeniä, omalla kehonpainolla ähertämistä, 5x5-systeemiä ja ainakin CrossShittiä. Tulosta on tullut joskus hyvin ja joskus vähä huonommin. Jossain vaiheessa vain eksyin HIT:n pariin (Mike Mentzer "Heavy Duty" + Tim Ferris "4H Body"). Kysyin itseltäni, "mikä on treenaamisen tieteellinen pohja".
Noh, tuohon vastaaminen on ainakin minulle erityisen vaikeaa. Hurahdin aikoinani filosofian pariin, ja syntyi kova tiedonjano. Se mielellinen tila mikä minulla nykyään on, on yksinkertaisesti se, että en todellakaan tiedä mikä on totta ja mikä ei. Enkä tarkoita nyt mitään todella syvällistä "Matrix"-ajattelua, vaan esim. sitä konkreettista asiaa, että vaikka näitä tieteellisiä tutkimuksia tulee selailtua, en voi tarkalleen ottaen tietää mikä on oikeasti perusteltua ja mikä ei. Olenhan maallikko siinä mielessä. Tämän kertominen on siksi - minun mielestäni - tärkeää, jotta voidaan ymmärtää miksi tänne ylinpäätään aloin kirjoittamaan. Esitän vaihtoehtoista tietoa miten voidaan treenata tehokkaasti. Se perustuu omiin kokemuksiin (lisäksi olen ohjeistanut muitakin) sekä ainakin jokseenkin tieteelliseen näkökantaan. Siitä voimme riidellä vaikka kuinka paljon, että mikä on tiedettä ja mikä ei. Mielipiteitä ja näkemyksiä on aivan järkyttävän paljon, ja hyvä niin. Ehkä tärkein asia minkä olen Sokrateen kautta oppinut, on se että kaikkea pitää miettiä omista lähtökohdista alkaen, ihan itse. Tämä ei tietenkään tarkoita että olisi oikeassa. Tämä menee vähän ohi aiheen, mutta mainitsemisen arvoista kuitenkin. En kirjoita tänne siksi, että haluan väitellä väittelyn takia, vaan ihan siksi että ihmiset saisivat myös muunlaista informaatiota. Väittelyhän käytännössä - omasta mielestäni - tarkoittaa sitä, että ainakin 2 osapuolta yrittää voittaa toisen mahdollisimman hienoilla sanankikoilla ja argumenteilla (tai "argumenteilla"), eikä kumpikaan (tai useampi osapuoli) osapuoli halua laajentaa omaa maailmankuvaansa. Dialektiikkaan itse pyrin.
Maintaining your health and achieving and maintaining a high level of functional ability should be among your highest priorities. You only live once, and both how long you live and your enjoyment of it are directly affected by your health, your physical capabilities and your appearance.
Proper exercise is a requirement for living the longest, happiest life possible. It is a requirement for self-actualization – realizing your full human potential and necessary for achieving the ideal of a sound mind in a sound body.
While many people have at least some awareness of the potential benefits of exercise relatively few fully realize its importance. I believe at least two of the main reasons for this are failure to associate a lack of exercise with the resulting physical consequences, and underestimation of human physical potential.
It is easier to make cause and effect associations when the cause is one of commission rather than omission and when the time between cause and effect is shorter. The consequences of a lack or omission of exercise are not immediately apparent and in some cases take years. Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones once explained during a seminar:
“If I were to grab you by the throat, and choke off your air supply, it would immediately become apparent to you that oxygen is absolutely essential for life. If I were to lock you in a room with no water, after several hours, the degree of thirst you would experience would indicate to you that water is a requirement for life. If I were to lock you in that room with water, but no food, it would take a little longer, a matter of a couple of days, before you would be ravenously hungry, and there would be no question in your mind that food was absolutely essential for life. However, it often takes years before ones body begins to show the harm done by a lack of proper exercise.”
In the long run, if nothing is done to prevent it, we gradually lose muscle as we age, becoming weaker and more frail and suffering other problems as a result such as decreased basal metabolic rate, decreased insulin sensitivity, increased body fat, decreased cardiovascular and metabolic capacity, increased blood pressure, osteoporosis, increased risk of falling due to reduction in speed and steadiness of movement, etc.
In the meanwhile, if you do not exercise you live with a level of functional ability and a physical appearance far below your potential. Compared to what you can and should be, you are weak, slow, and fragile. If you do exercise, properly, the improvements in strength, speed, durability, and overall health will allow you to do more, do it better, do it longer, and look good while you’re at it. I believe the average, untrained person grossly underestimates their potential, would be surprised at what they are capable of becoming with proper exercise.
Exercise is one of the most important things you can do to improve your life. It deserves the same serious consideration, attention to detail, and effort – both physical and mental – as any other major life goal or achievement of high value. It is not enough to just do exercise, you should strive to master it.
You should perform every exercise and every workout in the safest, most effective, most efficient manner possible. My Philosophy of Exercise | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
Treenin tulee olla tehokasta ja turvallista. Menen salille "rääkkäämään" itseäni oikein huolella, ja sitten kävelen ulos. Salille meneminen ei ole minulle mikään sosiaalinen tapahtuma tai "kivaa". Tai noh, onhan se kivaa kun kehittyy, mutta tarkoitan lähinnä sitä, ettei treenin tulisi olla "hauskaa", vaan erittäin tehokasta (mutta turvallista). Ruokavaliostani ehkä kirjoitan joskus toiseen ketjuun. Tavoittelen "terveyttä". Se mitä "terveys" on, on hyvin mielenkiintoinen kysymys. Siitäkin ehkä jaan ajatuksiani joskus.
Tässä vuosien varrella olen kokeillut kaikenlaisia treenimetodeja, mutta tähän mennessä HIT:llä olen saanut parhaimmat tulokset.
TREENIOHJELMA (TÄLLÄ HETKELLÄ)
Treenaan tällä hetkellä korkealla volyymilla ilman lepotaukoja liikkeiden välissä. Ainoastaan painojen lataaminen ja siirtyminen välissä. Jos salilla ei ole ruuhkaa tai järjestely muuten onnistuu, niin teen mahdollisimman monta liikettä putkeen. Kiristely käynnissä.
Ohjelma jolla nyt teen (muutama viikko takana hyvin tuloksin) on periaatteessa myös kokeilu. Testaan kuinka paljon kehoni kestää.
* Treenijako 2; A) hauikset, olkapäät, selkä, epäkkäät, vatsat ja forkut - B) jalat, ojentajat, rinta ja niska/kaula
** Leposykli 3 päivää; jos esim. 1 treeni maanantaina, niin 2 treeni on perjantaina. Menen lepopäivien mukaan, en viikonpäivien.
*** Kadenssi 4/4
A)
Leuanveto x 6-8 toistoa (lisäpainot)
Hauiskääntö suoralla tangolla x 6-8 toistoa
Keskitetty hauiskääntö koneessa x 6-8 toistoa
Pystypunnerrus niskantakaa x 6-8 toistoa
Vipunosto sivulle kp:lla x 6-8 toistoa
Vipunosto taakse kp:lla x 6-8 toistoa
Maastaveto x 6-8 toistoa (vetoremmit; kadenssi 2/2-3)
Alatalja x 6-8 toistoa
Shrug tangolla x 6-8 toistoa (vetoremmit)
Shrug koneessa x 6-8 toistoa
Jalkojen nosto x 10-20 toistoa
Vatsarutistus lisäpainoilla x 8-12 toistoa
Wrist curl x 8-20 toistoa
Wrist extension x 8-20 toistoa
B)
Reisiojennus x 6-8 toistoa
Jalkaprässi x 6-8 toistoa
Takakyykky x 6-8 toistoa (tupla esiväsytys ennen kyykkyä; brutaalia!)
Reisikoukistus (vaiko rutistus?) istuen x 6-8 toistoa
Reisikoukistus maaten x 6-8 toistoa
Pohjenousu istuen x 6-8 toistoa
Pohjenousu istuen x 6-8 toistoa
Toe press x 6-8 toistoa
Dippi x 6-8 toistoa (lisäpainot)
Ojentajapunnerrus tangolla x 6-8 toistoa
Pushdown taljassa x 6-8 toistoa
Pec-Deck x 6-8 toistoa
Penkki tai chest press x 6-8 toistoa
Neck flexion x 8-12 toistoa
Neck extension x 8-12 toistoa
Tässä vuosien aikana on tullut kokeiltua kaikenlaista treeniä. "Perinteistä" volyymitreeniä, omalla kehonpainolla ähertämistä, 5x5-systeemiä ja ainakin CrossShittiä. Tulosta on tullut joskus hyvin ja joskus vähä huonommin. Jossain vaiheessa vain eksyin HIT:n pariin (Mike Mentzer "Heavy Duty" + Tim Ferris "4H Body"). Kysyin itseltäni, "mikä on treenaamisen tieteellinen pohja".
Noh, tuohon vastaaminen on ainakin minulle erityisen vaikeaa. Hurahdin aikoinani filosofian pariin, ja syntyi kova tiedonjano. Se mielellinen tila mikä minulla nykyään on, on yksinkertaisesti se, että en todellakaan tiedä mikä on totta ja mikä ei. Enkä tarkoita nyt mitään todella syvällistä "Matrix"-ajattelua, vaan esim. sitä konkreettista asiaa, että vaikka näitä tieteellisiä tutkimuksia tulee selailtua, en voi tarkalleen ottaen tietää mikä on oikeasti perusteltua ja mikä ei. Olenhan maallikko siinä mielessä. Tämän kertominen on siksi - minun mielestäni - tärkeää, jotta voidaan ymmärtää miksi tänne ylinpäätään aloin kirjoittamaan. Esitän vaihtoehtoista tietoa miten voidaan treenata tehokkaasti. Se perustuu omiin kokemuksiin (lisäksi olen ohjeistanut muitakin) sekä ainakin jokseenkin tieteelliseen näkökantaan. Siitä voimme riidellä vaikka kuinka paljon, että mikä on tiedettä ja mikä ei. Mielipiteitä ja näkemyksiä on aivan järkyttävän paljon, ja hyvä niin. Ehkä tärkein asia minkä olen Sokrateen kautta oppinut, on se että kaikkea pitää miettiä omista lähtökohdista alkaen, ihan itse. Tämä ei tietenkään tarkoita että olisi oikeassa. Tämä menee vähän ohi aiheen, mutta mainitsemisen arvoista kuitenkin. En kirjoita tänne siksi, että haluan väitellä väittelyn takia, vaan ihan siksi että ihmiset saisivat myös muunlaista informaatiota. Väittelyhän käytännössä - omasta mielestäni - tarkoittaa sitä, että ainakin 2 osapuolta yrittää voittaa toisen mahdollisimman hienoilla sanankikoilla ja argumenteilla (tai "argumenteilla"), eikä kumpikaan (tai useampi osapuoli) osapuoli halua laajentaa omaa maailmankuvaansa. Dialektiikkaan itse pyrin.
Maintaining your health and achieving and maintaining a high level of functional ability should be among your highest priorities. You only live once, and both how long you live and your enjoyment of it are directly affected by your health, your physical capabilities and your appearance.
Proper exercise is a requirement for living the longest, happiest life possible. It is a requirement for self-actualization – realizing your full human potential and necessary for achieving the ideal of a sound mind in a sound body.
While many people have at least some awareness of the potential benefits of exercise relatively few fully realize its importance. I believe at least two of the main reasons for this are failure to associate a lack of exercise with the resulting physical consequences, and underestimation of human physical potential.
It is easier to make cause and effect associations when the cause is one of commission rather than omission and when the time between cause and effect is shorter. The consequences of a lack or omission of exercise are not immediately apparent and in some cases take years. Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones once explained during a seminar:
“If I were to grab you by the throat, and choke off your air supply, it would immediately become apparent to you that oxygen is absolutely essential for life. If I were to lock you in a room with no water, after several hours, the degree of thirst you would experience would indicate to you that water is a requirement for life. If I were to lock you in that room with water, but no food, it would take a little longer, a matter of a couple of days, before you would be ravenously hungry, and there would be no question in your mind that food was absolutely essential for life. However, it often takes years before ones body begins to show the harm done by a lack of proper exercise.”
In the long run, if nothing is done to prevent it, we gradually lose muscle as we age, becoming weaker and more frail and suffering other problems as a result such as decreased basal metabolic rate, decreased insulin sensitivity, increased body fat, decreased cardiovascular and metabolic capacity, increased blood pressure, osteoporosis, increased risk of falling due to reduction in speed and steadiness of movement, etc.
In the meanwhile, if you do not exercise you live with a level of functional ability and a physical appearance far below your potential. Compared to what you can and should be, you are weak, slow, and fragile. If you do exercise, properly, the improvements in strength, speed, durability, and overall health will allow you to do more, do it better, do it longer, and look good while you’re at it. I believe the average, untrained person grossly underestimates their potential, would be surprised at what they are capable of becoming with proper exercise.
Exercise is one of the most important things you can do to improve your life. It deserves the same serious consideration, attention to detail, and effort – both physical and mental – as any other major life goal or achievement of high value. It is not enough to just do exercise, you should strive to master it.
You should perform every exercise and every workout in the safest, most effective, most efficient manner possible. My Philosophy of Exercise | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
Treenin tulee olla tehokasta ja turvallista. Menen salille "rääkkäämään" itseäni oikein huolella, ja sitten kävelen ulos. Salille meneminen ei ole minulle mikään sosiaalinen tapahtuma tai "kivaa". Tai noh, onhan se kivaa kun kehittyy, mutta tarkoitan lähinnä sitä, ettei treenin tulisi olla "hauskaa", vaan erittäin tehokasta (mutta turvallista). Ruokavaliostani ehkä kirjoitan joskus toiseen ketjuun. Tavoittelen "terveyttä". Se mitä "terveys" on, on hyvin mielenkiintoinen kysymys. Siitäkin ehkä jaan ajatuksiani joskus.
Tässä vuosien varrella olen kokeillut kaikenlaisia treenimetodeja, mutta tähän mennessä HIT:llä olen saanut parhaimmat tulokset.
TREENIOHJELMA (TÄLLÄ HETKELLÄ)
Treenaan tällä hetkellä korkealla volyymilla ilman lepotaukoja liikkeiden välissä. Ainoastaan painojen lataaminen ja siirtyminen välissä. Jos salilla ei ole ruuhkaa tai järjestely muuten onnistuu, niin teen mahdollisimman monta liikettä putkeen. Kiristely käynnissä.
Ohjelma jolla nyt teen (muutama viikko takana hyvin tuloksin) on periaatteessa myös kokeilu. Testaan kuinka paljon kehoni kestää.
* Treenijako 2; A) hauikset, olkapäät, selkä, epäkkäät, vatsat ja forkut - B) jalat, ojentajat, rinta ja niska/kaula
** Leposykli 3 päivää; jos esim. 1 treeni maanantaina, niin 2 treeni on perjantaina. Menen lepopäivien mukaan, en viikonpäivien.
*** Kadenssi 4/4
A)
Leuanveto x 6-8 toistoa (lisäpainot)
Hauiskääntö suoralla tangolla x 6-8 toistoa
Keskitetty hauiskääntö koneessa x 6-8 toistoa
Pystypunnerrus niskantakaa x 6-8 toistoa
Vipunosto sivulle kp:lla x 6-8 toistoa
Vipunosto taakse kp:lla x 6-8 toistoa
Maastaveto x 6-8 toistoa (vetoremmit; kadenssi 2/2-3)
Alatalja x 6-8 toistoa
Shrug tangolla x 6-8 toistoa (vetoremmit)
Shrug koneessa x 6-8 toistoa
Jalkojen nosto x 10-20 toistoa
Vatsarutistus lisäpainoilla x 8-12 toistoa
Wrist curl x 8-20 toistoa
Wrist extension x 8-20 toistoa
B)
Reisiojennus x 6-8 toistoa
Jalkaprässi x 6-8 toistoa
Takakyykky x 6-8 toistoa (tupla esiväsytys ennen kyykkyä; brutaalia!)
Reisikoukistus (vaiko rutistus?) istuen x 6-8 toistoa
Reisikoukistus maaten x 6-8 toistoa
Pohjenousu istuen x 6-8 toistoa
Pohjenousu istuen x 6-8 toistoa
Toe press x 6-8 toistoa
Dippi x 6-8 toistoa (lisäpainot)
Ojentajapunnerrus tangolla x 6-8 toistoa
Pushdown taljassa x 6-8 toistoa
Pec-Deck x 6-8 toistoa
Penkki tai chest press x 6-8 toistoa
Neck flexion x 8-12 toistoa
Neck extension x 8-12 toistoa
- Liittynyt
- 27.2.2014
- Viestejä
- 28
I appreciate you sharing this information, but please limit quotes to a few sentences rather than reposting entire articles or large portions of them and just post a link to the articles instead.
Thank you.
No problem. Sometimes it just seems like people ain't that enthusiastic opening links... Maybe not reading them either. But anyways.
- Liittynyt
- 8.3.2014
- Viestejä
- 3
No problem. Sometimes it just seems like people ain't that enthusiastic opening links... Maybe not reading them either. But anyways.
This is true, but some people also will not read very long forum posts. It is probably best to quote just the key statements along with links to the full article. This way people who don't want to read a lot can get the basic points, and those who want more information can follow the links.
If there are specific points here that people disagree with or don't understand or questions I have not addressed in my articles let me know and I will cover them in future posts.
Thanks.
- Liittynyt
- 27.2.2014
- Viestejä
- 28
This is true, but some people also will not read very long forum posts. It is probably best to quote just the key statements along with links to the full article. This way people who don't want to read a lot can get the basic points, and those who want more information can follow the links.
If there are specific points here that people disagree with or don't understand or questions I have not addressed in my articles let me know and I will cover them in future posts.
Thanks.
For sure!
- Liittynyt
- 8.3.2014
- Viestejä
- 3
Well, Drew, there was some confusion about the repetition cadence; some posts saying that slower reps are worse than "normal" speed repetitions. And I already quoted some of your texts, concerning "explosive power" etc. Do you have anything to add?
Any repetition speed can be effective as long as exercises are performed with a high level of effort, but moving too quickly increases risk while decreasing the efficiency of muscular loading, and moving too slowly (slower than necessary to reverse direction smoothly and maintain strict body positioning and proper path of movement) appears to reduce the efficiency of inroading. There is no benefit to moving explosively or moving very, very slowly, and both have their disadvantages, but you're better off moving too slowly than too quickly if you value your long term joint health and mobility.
- Liittynyt
- 26.6.2008
- Viestejä
- 4 543
- Ikä
- 33
Any repetition speed can be effective as long as exercises are performed with a high level of effort, but moving too quickly increases risk while decreasing the efficiency of muscular loading, and moving too slowly (slower than necessary to reverse direction smoothly and maintain strict body positioning and proper path of movement) appears to reduce the efficiency of inroading. There is no benefit to moving explosively or moving very, very slowly, and both have their disadvantages, but you're better off moving too slowly than too quickly if you value your long term joint health and mobility.
Since it's two different things to lift explosively with the effort of max acceleration even with high% weights, and lifting explosively without paying attention to form&tension, your judgement is a bit harsh.
It's anyway kinda hard to lift heavy weights with high effort but still "too quickly" so to say..
- Liittynyt
- 17.9.2008
- Viestejä
- 100
Kiinnostaisi tietää ketjun aloittajan lähtökohdat ennen hitin aloitusta ja nykyisellään? Vähän, jos kertoisit sarjapainoja joistain liikkeistä ja onko luomuna menty aina vai täydet höyryt koneessa?
Alotin ite tänään apinoimalla sun ohjelman, enkä vielä osaa sanoa tykkäsinkö vai en. Tuli vähän liiankin kevyesti aloteltua, kun ei hikeäkään puskenu normaaliin tapaan.
Omista lähtökohdista voin sen verran sanoa, että penkki on n. 150kg paikkeilla ja kyykky n. 190kg, sekä natuna aina puskettu menemään.
Oli sen verran ''erikoinen'' ohjelma, että pitipä laittaa kokeiluun, kun aikasemmat ohjelmat on ollut perus voimabodaus tyylistä runnomista. Voisin vaikka ohjelman lopetettuani pienen arvioinnin antaa toimiko vai ei, jos ketään ylipäätänsä kiinnostaa tietää ja en heti alkuunsa lopeta tätä ohjelmaa niinkuin tapana ei ole yleensä ollut.
Alotin ite tänään apinoimalla sun ohjelman, enkä vielä osaa sanoa tykkäsinkö vai en. Tuli vähän liiankin kevyesti aloteltua, kun ei hikeäkään puskenu normaaliin tapaan.
Omista lähtökohdista voin sen verran sanoa, että penkki on n. 150kg paikkeilla ja kyykky n. 190kg, sekä natuna aina puskettu menemään.
Oli sen verran ''erikoinen'' ohjelma, että pitipä laittaa kokeiluun, kun aikasemmat ohjelmat on ollut perus voimabodaus tyylistä runnomista. Voisin vaikka ohjelman lopetettuani pienen arvioinnin antaa toimiko vai ei, jos ketään ylipäätänsä kiinnostaa tietää ja en heti alkuunsa lopeta tätä ohjelmaa niinkuin tapana ei ole yleensä ollut.
- Liittynyt
- 19.10.2013
- Viestejä
- 61
HIT-advokaatit vetoavat mielellään metodinsa tieteellisyyteen, vaikka todellisuudessa kyse on huteralta teoreettiselta pohjalta tehdystä päättelystä, joka ei kestä kokeellisen tutkimuksen näyttöä eikä kyllä tarkemmassa analyysissa ole edes teoreettisesti kovin kestävää. Esim.:
1) Lähes poikkeuksetta on osoitettu, että lihasryhmän harjoittaminen 2-3 kertaa viikossa on selvästi tehokkaampaa kuin kerran viikossa. Ei ole myöskään mitään näyttöä siitä, että kehoa ei voisi rasittaa kuin maksimissaan 3 kertaa viikossa ilman ylikuntoa.
2) Tieteellinen näyttö tukee vahvasti useiden harjoitussarjojen käyttöä per lihasryhmä yhden sijasta. Vanhemmissa tutkimuksissa on yleensä otos ollut liian pieni niin, että tilastollisesti merkittävää eroa ei ole saatu. Meta-analyysit ja uudemmat tutkimukset tukevat kuitenkin vahvasti ainakin neljän harjoitussarjan käyttöä per lihasryhmä, joissakin tutkimuksissa kokeneilla harjoittelijoilla jopa suurempia määriä. Toki on mahdollista, että käyttämällä useiden suorien sarjojen sijasta sarjanjatkotekniikoita (pudotussarjat, pakkotoistot jne.) kokonaissarjamäärä voidaan pitää pienempänä ja silti saada hyvä harjoitusvaste. Tätä ei vain ole vielä kovin kattavasti tutkittu.
3) TUT (time under tension)/ TUL (time under load) ei näytä olevan niinkään ratkaiseva vaan pikemminkin TUF eli tension under fatigue. Esim. japanilaisessa Kaatsu-harjoittelussa keinotekoinen hapenpuute lyhyntää TUT:a, mutta lisää silti lihaskasvua suuremman väsymyksen/hapenpuutteen vuoksi. Vastaava vaikutus on todettu myös sarjataukojen lyhentämisellä.
1) Lähes poikkeuksetta on osoitettu, että lihasryhmän harjoittaminen 2-3 kertaa viikossa on selvästi tehokkaampaa kuin kerran viikossa. Ei ole myöskään mitään näyttöä siitä, että kehoa ei voisi rasittaa kuin maksimissaan 3 kertaa viikossa ilman ylikuntoa.
2) Tieteellinen näyttö tukee vahvasti useiden harjoitussarjojen käyttöä per lihasryhmä yhden sijasta. Vanhemmissa tutkimuksissa on yleensä otos ollut liian pieni niin, että tilastollisesti merkittävää eroa ei ole saatu. Meta-analyysit ja uudemmat tutkimukset tukevat kuitenkin vahvasti ainakin neljän harjoitussarjan käyttöä per lihasryhmä, joissakin tutkimuksissa kokeneilla harjoittelijoilla jopa suurempia määriä. Toki on mahdollista, että käyttämällä useiden suorien sarjojen sijasta sarjanjatkotekniikoita (pudotussarjat, pakkotoistot jne.) kokonaissarjamäärä voidaan pitää pienempänä ja silti saada hyvä harjoitusvaste. Tätä ei vain ole vielä kovin kattavasti tutkittu.
3) TUT (time under tension)/ TUL (time under load) ei näytä olevan niinkään ratkaiseva vaan pikemminkin TUF eli tension under fatigue. Esim. japanilaisessa Kaatsu-harjoittelussa keinotekoinen hapenpuute lyhyntää TUT:a, mutta lisää silti lihaskasvua suuremman väsymyksen/hapenpuutteen vuoksi. Vastaava vaikutus on todettu myös sarjataukojen lyhentämisellä.
- Liittynyt
- 19.10.2013
- Viestejä
- 61
A)
Leuanveto x 6-8 toistoa (lisäpainot)
Hauiskääntö suoralla tangolla x 6-8 toistoa
Keskitetty hauiskääntö koneessa x 6-8 toistoa
Pystypunnerrus niskantakaa x 6-8 toistoa
Vipunosto sivulle kp:lla x 6-8 toistoa
Vipunosto taakse kp:lla x 6-8 toistoa
Maastaveto x 6-8 toistoa (vetoremmit; kadenssi 2/2-3)
Alatalja x 6-8 toistoa
Shrug tangolla x 6-8 toistoa (vetoremmit)
Shrug koneessa x 6-8 toistoa
Jalkojen nosto x 10-20 toistoa
Vatsarutistus lisäpainoilla x 8-12 toistoa
Wrist curl x 8-20 toistoa
Wrist extension x 8-20 toistoa
B)
Reisiojennus x 6-8 toistoa
Jalkaprässi x 6-8 toistoa
Takakyykky x 6-8 toistoa (tupla esiväsytys ennen kyykkyä; brutaalia!)
Reisikoukistus (vaiko rutistus?) istuen x 6-8 toistoa
Reisikoukistus maaten x 6-8 toistoa
Pohjenousu istuen x 6-8 toistoa
Pohjenousu istuen x 6-8 toistoa
Toe press x 6-8 toistoa
Dippi x 6-8 toistoa (lisäpainot)
Ojentajapunnerrus tangolla x 6-8 toistoa
Pushdown taljassa x 6-8 toistoa
Pec-Deck x 6-8 toistoa
Penkki tai chest press x 6-8 toistoa
Neck flexion x 8-12 toistoa
Neck extension x 8-12 toistoa
Reisien esiväsytys on ideana ihan ok, mutta mikä idea on esiväsyttää hauikset ennen soutuja selälle tai ojentajat ennen punnerruksia rinnalle?
Tokihan tuossakin tulee useimmille lihaksille 2-3 sarjaa, vaikka HIT:ssä yhdestä sarjasta puhutaankin. Noinhan se oli Yatesinkin ohjelmissa. Itse asiassa Mentzerkin alun perin suosi n. 5 sarjaa per lihasryhmä, kunnes keksi tuon yhden sarjan ideologian lähinnä teoreettisten pohdiskelujensa kautta ja aktiiviuransa lopettaneena.
- Liittynyt
- 27.2.2014
- Viestejä
- 28
HIT-advokaatit vetoavat mielellään metodinsa tieteellisyyteen, vaikka todellisuudessa kyse on huteralta teoreettiselta pohjalta tehdystä päättelystä, joka ei kestä kokeellisen tutkimuksen näyttöä eikä kyllä tarkemmassa analyysissa ole edes teoreettisesti kovin kestävää. Esim.:
1) Lähes poikkeuksetta on osoitettu, että lihasryhmän harjoittaminen 2-3 kertaa viikossa on selvästi tehokkaampaa kuin kerran viikossa. Ei ole myöskään mitään näyttöä siitä, että kehoa ei voisi rasittaa kuin maksimissaan 3 kertaa viikossa ilman ylikuntoa.
2) Tieteellinen näyttö tukee vahvasti useiden harjoitussarjojen käyttöä per lihasryhmä yhden sijasta. Vanhemmissa tutkimuksissa on yleensä otos ollut liian pieni niin, että tilastollisesti merkittävää eroa ei ole saatu. Meta-analyysit ja uudemmat tutkimukset tukevat kuitenkin vahvasti ainakin neljän harjoitussarjan käyttöä per lihasryhmä, joissakin tutkimuksissa kokeneilla harjoittelijoilla jopa suurempia määriä. Toki on mahdollista, että käyttämällä useiden suorien sarjojen sijasta sarjanjatkotekniikoita (pudotussarjat, pakkotoistot jne.) kokonaissarjamäärä voidaan pitää pienempänä ja silti saada hyvä harjoitusvaste. Tätä ei vain ole vielä kovin kattavasti tutkittu.
3) TUT (time under tension)/ TUL (time under load) ei näytä olevan niinkään ratkaiseva vaan pikemminkin TUF eli tension under fatigue. Esim. japanilaisessa Kaatsu-harjoittelussa keinotekoinen hapenpuute lyhyntää TUT:a, mutta lisää silti lihaskasvua suuremman väsymyksen/hapenpuutteen vuoksi. Vastaava vaikutus on todettu myös sarjataukojen lyhentämisellä.
Mitä tulee HIT:n tieteellisyyteen niin olen joihinkin lähteisiin vedonnut, mutta ne näköjään sivuutetaan.
1) Kysymys onkin yksilöllisestä palautumiskyvystä jne. Jos henkilö ei palaudu treenistä, niin mitä järkeä on treenata liikaa? Tuosta 2-3 kertaa viikossa treenaamisesta olen nähnyt myös vastaavanlaista HIT:n puolelta, ainakin muistaakseni. Luulenpa, että sillä on paljoltikin tekemistä sen kanssa, että ko. ihmiset (jotka voivat treenata useammin kuin kerran viikossa) kehittyvät nopeammin. Spekuloin vain, eikä minulla ole lähteitäni tässä mukana, eikä ole sinullakaan. Jokainen väite joka tänne on "lennähtänyt", ovat vailla lähdettä. En kyseenalaista sisältöä tämän takia - keskusteluunhan minä pyrin en jonninjoutavaan väittelyyn - mutta olisi kiva saada jotain, mistä voisin itse saada lisää tietoa. Lähteitä esiin, kiitos!
2) Vaihtoehtoisesti:
Q&A: Meta-Analyses Do Not Support Multiple Sets or High Volume Training | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
Muistaakseni Baye on käsitellyt asiaa vähän enemmänkin, katsotaan jos saisin hänet vastaamaan myös tämän asian tiimoilta.
Lähes kaikki HIT-ohjelmat, mitä tiedän, suosittelevat "useampaa sarjaa per lihas". Hauska, että ajatellaan näin, eikä niin kuin sen aiemmin esitin: yksi sarja PER LIIKE. Esim. jos tehdään selkää, niin yleensä ohjelmaan kuuluu ylätalja/leuanveto, alatalja/soutu ja maastaveto/hyperextension. Volyymi (= kuinka monta liikettä) on täysin yksilöllistä.
Kuten jo aiemmin mainitsin, ehkä epäselvästi, niin en luota mihinkään tutkimustietoon - tai "tutkimustietoon" - sinisilmäisesti. Kaikenlaisia tutkimustuloksia on helppo vääntää niin, että tutkimus tehdää siten, ettei tulos voi olla mitään muuta. Perinteisiä "Iltalehti-tutkimuksia", jossa korrelaatio sekoitetaan kausaliteetin kanssa jne. On 'hauskaa', että luotetaan toiseen tutkimustietoon ja toinen sivuutetaan täysin. Tämä anti-HIT-mentaliteetti on kyllä minulle tuttua, tosin en missään vaiheessa väittänytkään olevani aukottomasti oikeassa.
3) Tuohon en juuri mitään osaa sanoa. TUF ei ole tuttua, tutustun aiheeseen. Katson jos saataisiin Bayen vastaus tähänkin.
- Liittynyt
- 27.2.2014
- Viestejä
- 28
Reisien esiväsytys on ideana ihan ok, mutta mikä idea on esiväsyttää hauikset ennen soutuja selälle tai ojentajat ennen punnerruksia rinnalle?
Tokihan tuossakin tulee useimmille lihaksille 2-3 sarjaa, vaikka HIT:ssä yhdestä sarjasta puhutaankin. Noinhan se oli Yatesinkin ohjelmissa. Itse asiassa Mentzerkin alun perin suosi n. 5 sarjaa per lihasryhmä, kunnes keksi tuon yhden sarjan ideologian lähinnä teoreettisten pohdiskelujensa kautta ja aktiiviuransa lopettaneena.
Kyseessä ei ole "hauiksien esiväsyttäminen", vaan 'spesialisointi'. Teen heikoimmat lihakset ensiksi. No oikeastaan jalat eivät ole heikkouteni, mutta haluan keskittyä niihin seuraavat pari kuukautta, toisessa treenissä siis. Ja kädet - erityisesti hauikset - jäävät aina jälkeen. Ojentajat pysyvät tahdissa. Selkä ja rinta kehittyvät vähän liiankin 'helposti'. Siksi näin. Ja kuten sanoin kyseessä on kokeilu, eli ko. ohjelma on käänteinen siitä, miten pitäisi treenata: ei kuinka paljolla vaan kuinka vähällä saa optimaaliset tulokset.
(Leuanvedon teen kapealla otteella, yritän vetää hauiksilla mahdollisimman paljon.)
Korkealla volyymilla ja olemattomilla lepotauoilla saa muitakin hyötyjä, yritänhän nyt kiristellä. Pumppu hakkaa sen verran kovaa, ja hiki valuu oikein urakalla. Treeni ei ole mikään nautinto. Olo sen jälkeen kyllä on.
Ja edelleen... Yksi sarja PER LIIKE. En väittänyt etteikö lihas saisi rasitusta useammasta eri liikkeestä, mainitsin asiasta aiemmassa postissa. Volyymi riippuu siitä, miten keho ottaa treenin vastaan. Tämänhetkinen ohjelmani on sellaista rääkkiä (viides viikko takana) etten sitä - tuskin - pysty kauaa jatkamaan. Kyseessä on kokonaisvaltainen rasitus ja kokeilu. Joku voisi sanoa, että miksi en spesialisoi käsiä esim. 3-4 jakoiseen ohjelmaa tms. Niin aion todennäköisesti tehdäkin (Mentzerin tyyppinen HD), mutta edelleen kyseessä on kokeilu. Parhaimmat tulokset (edelleen olen kehittynyt oikein hyvin) olen saanut ohjelmilla (1-3 jakoinen; ei väliä, mutta leposykli on pienemmillä jaoilla suurempi) joissa tehdään vain 3-6 liikettä.
For example, the optimal frequency for improving metabolic conditioning may be higher than for improving muscular strength and size for some individuals, so one might train with more or less volume or frequency depending on their priorities.
http://baye.com/effective-vs-optimal/
- Liittynyt
- 27.2.2014
- Viestejä
- 28
HIT-advokaatit vetoavat mielellään metodinsa tieteellisyyteen, vaikka todellisuudessa kyse on huteralta teoreettiselta pohjalta tehdystä päättelystä, joka ei kestä kokeellisen tutkimuksen näyttöä eikä kyllä tarkemmassa analyysissa ole edes teoreettisesti kovin kestävää. Esim.:
1) Lähes poikkeuksetta on osoitettu, että lihasryhmän harjoittaminen 2-3 kertaa viikossa on selvästi tehokkaampaa kuin kerran viikossa. Ei ole myöskään mitään näyttöä siitä, että kehoa ei voisi rasittaa kuin maksimissaan 3 kertaa viikossa ilman ylikuntoa.
2) Tieteellinen näyttö tukee vahvasti useiden harjoitussarjojen käyttöä per lihasryhmä yhden sijasta. Vanhemmissa tutkimuksissa on yleensä otos ollut liian pieni niin, että tilastollisesti merkittävää eroa ei ole saatu. Meta-analyysit ja uudemmat tutkimukset tukevat kuitenkin vahvasti ainakin neljän harjoitussarjan käyttöä per lihasryhmä, joissakin tutkimuksissa kokeneilla harjoittelijoilla jopa suurempia määriä. Toki on mahdollista, että käyttämällä useiden suorien sarjojen sijasta sarjanjatkotekniikoita (pudotussarjat, pakkotoistot jne.) kokonaissarjamäärä voidaan pitää pienempänä ja silti saada hyvä harjoitusvaste. Tätä ei vain ole vielä kovin kattavasti tutkittu.
3) TUT (time under tension)/ TUL (time under load) ei näytä olevan niinkään ratkaiseva vaan pikemminkin TUF eli tension under fatigue. Esim. japanilaisessa Kaatsu-harjoittelussa keinotekoinen hapenpuute lyhyntää TUT:a, mutta lisää silti lihaskasvua suuremman väsymyksen/hapenpuutteen vuoksi. Vastaava vaikutus on todettu myös sarjataukojen lyhentämisellä.
Since it's two different things to lift explosively with the effort of max acceleration even with high% weights, and lifting explosively without paying attention to form&tension, your judgement is a bit harsh.
It's anyway kinda hard to lift heavy weights with high effort but still "too quickly" so to say..
I would like to hear Drew's answer.
And here is some questions to you Drew:
1) "It's more productive to train a certain muscle group 2-3 times a week rather than once a week. There is also no proof, that you couldn't train more than 3 times a week without overtraining".
2) "Scientific research supports multiple-sets over single-set per muscle group. [...] Meta-analysis and newer research material supports strongly using at least 4 sets per muscle group, and some research - for advanced trainees - even more. [...] Using set-extension techniques (drop-sets, forced reps etc.) the number of sets can be smaller, and still the training resistance is good enough, but it has not been examined enough."
3) TUT/TUL isn't as important as TUF (= time under fatigue). For example, the artificial oxygen deficiency in japanese Kaatsu-training shortens TUL, but because of higher fatigue/oxygen deficiency it still stimulates muscle growth. Similar effect has been proven by shortening rest between sets."
Pahoitteluni mahdollisista käännösvirheistä, mutta pointti lienee kuitenkin selvä.
- Liittynyt
- 19.10.2013
- Viestejä
- 61
Mitä tulee HIT:n tieteellisyyteen niin olen joihinkin lähteisiin vedonnut, mutta ne näköjään sivuutetaan.
Spekuloin vain, eikä minulla ole lähteitäni tässä mukana, eikä ole sinullakaan. Jokainen väite joka tänne on "lennähtänyt", ovat vailla lähdettä. En kyseenalaista sisältöä tämän takia - keskusteluunhan minä pyrin en jonninjoutavaan väittelyyn - mutta olisi kiva saada jotain, mistä voisin itse saada lisää tietoa. Lähteitä esiin, kiitos!
2) Vaihtoehtoisesti:
Q&A: Meta-Analyses Do Not Support Multiple Sets or High Volume Training | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
Voisin toki laittaa lähteitäkin, mutta tällainen loppujen lopuksi bittiavaruuteen katoava nettikirjoittelu kävisi silloin aika työlääksi. Omat lähteesi ovat aika vanhoja. Luulisi, että olisit itse vaivautunut lukemaan edes tämän: The Influence of Frequency, Intensity,Volume and Mode of Strength Training on Whole Muscle Cross-Sectional Area in Humans. Tämä onkin ehkä relevantein, koska koskee nimenomaan hypertrofiaa. Esimerkin vuoksi, tässä yksi uudempi tutkimus koskien treenivolyymia: Strength and neuromuscular adaptation following one, four, and eight sets of high intensity resistance exercise in trained males Muita saat etsiä itse, en aio tehdä työtä puolestasi, mutta voin kertoa, että olen seurannut alan tutkimuksia 25 vuotta, voimaillut saman aikaa ja työnikin liittyy asiaan.
Muistaakseni Baye on käsitellyt asiaa vähän enemmänkin, katsotaan jos saisin hänet vastaamaan myös tämän asian tiimoilta.
Mikäs jumala tuo Baye nyt sitten tässä asiassa on? Auktoriteettiuskosta luovuin kolmivuotiaana. Kaiken lisäksi, Jos haluaisin keskustella hänen kanssaan, teen sen sitten mieluummin suoraan. Tuo hänen meta-analyysi kritiikkinsä missaa täydellisesti pointin. Meta-analyysin tarkoitus on nimenomaan kerätä yhteen useiden tutkimusten data, koska monet tutkimukset ovat olleet liian pieniä esim. tilastollisesti merkittävän eron saamiseksi ryhmien välille, jos niitä katsotaan yksittäin. Yhteen koottuna viesti on kuitenkin vahvasti suurempaa voluumia tukeva. Kaiken lisäksi eri meta-analyysit ovat päätyneet yllättävänkin yhdenmukaisiin tuloksiin.
Lähes kaikki HIT-ohjelmat, mitä tiedän, suosittelevat "useampaa sarjaa per lihas". Hauska, että ajatellaan näin, eikä niin kuin sen aiemmin esitin: yksi sarja PER LIIKE. Esim. jos tehdään selkää, niin yleensä ohjelmaan kuuluu ylätalja/leuanveto, alatalja/soutu ja maastaveto/hyperextension. Volyymi (= kuinka monta liikettä) on täysin yksilöllistä.
Useimpien lihasten kohdalla monet eri liikkeet kuitenkin rasittavat kohdelihasta pääosin samankaltaisesti, joten miten sitten oleellisesti tuollainen HIT-ohjelma enää eroaa siitä, että perinteisemmässä treenissä tehtäisiin vähemmän liikkeitä, mutta kussakin enemmän sarjoja? Todellisuudessa taitaa olla kyse siitä, että pohjimmiltaan HIT-treenaritkin tajuavat, että yksi sarja ei riitä, mutta sen sijaan että antaisivat periksi filosofiselle yksi sarja per liike-vakaumukselleen tekemällä enemmän sarjoja samassa liikkeessä, he kiertävät ongelman tekemällä lisäsarjat toisissa lihasta kuitenkin samankaltaisesti rasittavissa liikkeissä.
- Liittynyt
- 27.2.2014
- Viestejä
- 28
Voisin toki laittaa lähteitäkin, mutta tällainen loppujen lopuksi bittiavaruuteen katoava nettikirjoittelu kävisi silloin aika työlääksi. Omat lähteesi ovat aika vanhoja. Luulisi, että olisit itse vaivautunut lukemaan edes tämän: The Influence of Frequency, Intensity,Volume and Mode of Strength Training on Whole Muscle Cross-Sectional Area in Humans. Tämä onkin ehkä relevantein, koska koskee nimenomaan hypertrofiaa. Esimerkin vuoksi, tässä yksi uudempi tutkimus koskien treenivolyymia: Strength and neuromuscular adaptation following one, four, and eight sets of high intensity resistance exercise in trained males Muita saat etsiä itse, en aio tehdä työtä puolestasi, mutta voin kertoa, että olen seurannut alan tutkimuksia 25 vuotta, voimaillut saman aikaa ja työnikin liittyy asiaan.
Mikäs jumala tuo Baye nyt sitten tässä asiassa on? Auktoriteettiuskosta luovuin kolmivuotiaana. Kaiken lisäksi, Jos haluaisin keskustella hänen kanssaan, teen sen sitten mieluummin suoraan. Tuo hänen meta-analyysi kritiikkinsä missaa täydellisesti pointin. Meta-analyysin tarkoitus on nimenomaan kerätä yhteen useiden tutkimusten data, koska monet tutkimukset ovat olleet liian pieniä esim. tilastollisesti merkittävän eron saamiseksi ryhmien välille, jos niitä katsotaan yksittäin. Yhteen koottuna viesti on kuitenkin vahvasti suurempaa voluumia tukeva. Kaiken lisäksi eri meta-analyysit ovat päätyneet yllättävänkin yhdenmukaisiin tuloksiin.
Useimpien lihasten kohdalla monet eri liikkeet kuitenkin rasittavat kohdelihasta pääosin samankaltaisesti, joten miten sitten oleellisesti tuollainen HIT-ohjelma enää eroaa siitä, että perinteisemmässä treenissä tehtäisiin vähemmän liikkeitä, mutta kussakin enemmän sarjoja? Todellisuudessa taitaa olla kyse siitä, että pohjimmiltaan HIT-treenaritkin tajuavat, että yksi sarja ei riitä, mutta sen sijaan että antaisivat periksi filosofiselle yksi sarja per liike-vakaumukselleen tekemällä enemmän sarjoja samassa liikkeessä, he kiertävät ongelman tekemällä lisäsarjat toisissa lihasta kuitenkin samankaltaisesti rasittavissa liikkeissä.
Kiitos vastauksesta! Hyvin mielenkiintoinen kannanotto!
Ei minulla mitään auktoriteettiuskoa ole, päinvastoin! Kyseenalaistan omia ajatuksianikin. Tarkoitin vain, että haluaisin nähdä Bayen vastauksen, koska hänkin on tämän aihepiirin parissa pyörinyt aika kauan. Tietotaso hänellä on varmasti toista luokkaa kuin esim. minulla. Siksi vain. Ei sillä, että hän olisi joku jumala. Tuntuu, että tämä auktoriteettiusko on monille hyvinkin tuplastandardin omainen asia (en tarkoita sinua). Huomioidaan omaa näkemystä tukeva materiaali, ja hylätään toinen. Teenkö minä niin? Rehellisesti voin sanoa, etten ole tarpeeksi vielä asiaan paneutun. Miksi sitten kirjoitan tänne? Vastasin tähän aiemmin.
Aion etsiä asiasta tieto itse, siitä ei ollut kysymys. Olen vain oppinut itse kirjoituksissani (lähinnä aikoinaan historiaan ym. liittyen) esittämään lähteitä, erilaisia kannanottoja/näkemyksiä jnejne. Ei sinun tarvitse minulle mitään valmiiksi tehdä, ajattelen kuitenkin ihan itse. Sinulla on varmasti vankka tausta ja kokemusta on karttunut, sitä en lähde kyseenalaistamaan. Toivon vain, ettei tämä ketju menisi "juupas-eipäs"-väittelyksi. Se ei ollut alkuperäinen ideani. Lähinnä tuntuu siltä, että HIT:iä sekoitetaan milloin mihinkin.
Jos huomaan treenaavani väärin ja olevani muutenkin asian suhteen väärässä, niin sitten hyväksyn sen ja siirryn eteenpäin.
Mitä tulee tuohon useamman sarjan ja yhden sarjan eroavaisuuksiin...
HIT-ohjelmia on myös erittäin matalavolyymisina. Esim. dippi/leuanveto/kyykky. Tämänlaisia treenejä olen käyttänyt itsekin, erittäin hyvin tuloksin. Kiertoon kun ottaa vielä vaihtoehtoisiakin treenejä; esim. Mave/pohkeet/pystypunnerrus. Joskus vähän enemmän liikkeitä joissa kuitenkin lihasryhmälle SUORASTI yksi liike; esim. penkki/kulmasoutu/mave/kyykky/pohkeet, ehkä vielä hauiskääntö ja/tai ojentajapunnerrus. Tottakai esim. penkki rasittaa myös ojentajia/olkapäitä, mutta jos ajatellaan mihin suoraan tähdätään, niin tuossakin tulee rinnalle vain yksi liike ja yksi sarja. Oikein toimiva metodi.
Olen joitain ihmisiä ohjeistanut kokeilemaan HIT:iä niillä metodeilla mitä olen täälläkin esittänyt. Yleensä ensimmäisillä kerroilla ei "pystytä" vetämään sarjaa kunnolla loppuun asti (yritän itse aina vielä muutaman sekunni liikuttaa painoa varmistuakseni failuresta) ja yleensä kiihdytetään toistonopeutta kun alkaa tuntumaan pahalta. Väitän, että yksi sarja on riittävä, mutta se pitää tehdä todella kovaa ja huolella. Itselläni pumppu hakkaa pelkästä hauiskäännöstä kun sen tekee kunnolla. Kasvuärsyke on taattu, koska kehitystä tulee joka treenistä. Ulkoinen muodonmuutoskin on ollut suhteellisen kovaa - minun mittakaavassa. Täälläkin joku mainitsi "ettei se kovin rankalta tuntunut". Minä en ole sanomaan, etteikö joku tekisi tarpeeksi kovaa, mutta omiin kokemuksiin perustuen voin sanoa, että sille sarjalle pitää antaa kaikkensa. Jos joku väittää, ettei tule hiki, niin minulla ainakin herää kysymys: mitä teet 'väärin'. Minä en ole järkyttävän voimakas tai lihaksikas, enkä yritä täällä ketään treenaajaa kritisoida. Toisille se on rankempaa, toisille helpompaa, kuitenkin pitäisi tehdä kaikkensa, että sarjasta saadaan vaikeampi - kaikki-irti-periaatteella. Tällä foorumilla on varmasti paljon treenaajia joilla on intohimo lajia kohtaan, ja treenaavat kunnolla, en väitä toisin. Minä en ole missään asemassa väittämään toisin. Olen tavannut ihmisiä, jotka sanovat ettei yksi sarja riitä, mutta näitä tekniikoita kokeiltaessa sanovat sen olevan todella rankkaa. Erityisesti naispuoleiset, joita olen ohjeistanut - eikä mitään naisia vastaan -, meinaavat jättää sarjan aina kesken. Moni lopettaa siinä vaiheessa kun ei "enää ole kivaa". En ole alan ammattilainen, enkä personal trainer tms. Minulla on kuitenkin intohimo treenaamiseen. Liikekohtaiset tekniikat, turvallisuus, tehokkuus jne. ovat minulle tärkeää. En lähde hutkimaan miten sattuu.
Syy miksi teen nyt useampia liikkeitä ("useampia sarjoja") pienillekin lihaksille, on se että testaan potentiaaliani. Se on vastoin perus HIT:n periaatetta, ja tiedän, että tulen vaihtamaan alhaisempaa volyymiin. Ns. "kunto" on noussut lihas- ja voimankasvun ohella tällä metodilla todella hyvin. Lauantain treenissä huomasin (viides viikko nykyistä ohjelmaa), että toinen suora (jossei leuanvetoa lasketa) hauis-liike on liikaa. Jätän sen nyt pois, kuten todennäköisesti myös ojentajan kohdalla. Normaali jalkaohjelma koostuu yhdestä etureiden liikkeestä, yhdestä takareiden liikkeestä ja yhdestä pohjeliikkeestä. Välillä yksi esiväsyttävä liike etureisille; esim. reisiojennus + takakyykky. Yleensä pelkkä kyykky. Jalkani ovat kasvaneet pelkällä kyykyllä (vain 1 sarja per treeni!) aiemmin todella hyvin. Eli en "HITtaajana" epäile yhden sarjan toimivuutta, vaikka lihasryhmää kohden olisi vain yksi liike. Päinvastoin.
- Liittynyt
- 27.2.2014
- Viestejä
- 28
Tutkimuksista ja niiden tuloksista.
Olen tässä vähän selaillut joitain tutkimuksia, mutta varsinaista mielipidettäni en ole vielä muodostanut. Sen sijaan mainitsemisen arvoista on kuitenkin seuraavat asiat:
- HIT:iä vastaan olevat yleensä puhuvat HIT:n olevan epätieteellistä; tutkimukset ovat liian "suppeita" tai tehty liian lyhyissä aikajaksoissa. Tieteellistä dataa esitetään HIT:iä vastaan.
- HIT:n 'puolustajat' taas puhuvat "anti-HIT bias"-mentaliteetista (fitness-teollisuus teettää tutkimustuloksia heidän mukaansa). Tieteellistä dataa esitetään HIT:n puolesta.
Minä en maallikkona pysty sanomaan mitkä tutkimukset ovat kvalitatiivisia. Tosin silmiini kyllä pistää se, että myös tutkimukset joissa puolustetaan useamman sarjan käyttöä (ym.) ovat tehty lyhyissä aikajaksoissa. Tällä argumentilla olen nähnyt HIT:n puolesta puhuvia tutkimuksia arvosteltavan. En pyri tällä osoittamaan mitään, mutta halusinpa vain sanoa tämän.
Kun sanotaan, että HIT ei perustu mihinkään, vaan kyseessä on "filosofinen ilmiö" (eräät jopa väittävät, että lihakset on saatu perinteisellä volyymiharjoittelulla, ja sitten ollaan mm. bisnes-syistä markkinoitu 1-sarja-failureen ideologiaa jne.), niin hyvin vastaavanlaista 'tavaraa' tulee HIT:iä "puolustavien" puolelta. Fitness-teollisuutta arvostelen kyllä itsekin, monestakin syystä, mutta en tähän varsinaisesti ota kantaa. Hieman off-topiciksi meni, mutta olkoon.
Mainittakoon, että vaikka olisikin enemmän tutkimuksia HIT:iä vastaan, ei tämä varsinaisesti ole todiste tutkimusten laadusta. En pyri osoittamaan tässä mitään, mutta oleellista siltikin mainita.
Olen tässä vähän selaillut joitain tutkimuksia, mutta varsinaista mielipidettäni en ole vielä muodostanut. Sen sijaan mainitsemisen arvoista on kuitenkin seuraavat asiat:
- HIT:iä vastaan olevat yleensä puhuvat HIT:n olevan epätieteellistä; tutkimukset ovat liian "suppeita" tai tehty liian lyhyissä aikajaksoissa. Tieteellistä dataa esitetään HIT:iä vastaan.
- HIT:n 'puolustajat' taas puhuvat "anti-HIT bias"-mentaliteetista (fitness-teollisuus teettää tutkimustuloksia heidän mukaansa). Tieteellistä dataa esitetään HIT:n puolesta.
Minä en maallikkona pysty sanomaan mitkä tutkimukset ovat kvalitatiivisia. Tosin silmiini kyllä pistää se, että myös tutkimukset joissa puolustetaan useamman sarjan käyttöä (ym.) ovat tehty lyhyissä aikajaksoissa. Tällä argumentilla olen nähnyt HIT:n puolesta puhuvia tutkimuksia arvosteltavan. En pyri tällä osoittamaan mitään, mutta halusinpa vain sanoa tämän.
Kun sanotaan, että HIT ei perustu mihinkään, vaan kyseessä on "filosofinen ilmiö" (eräät jopa väittävät, että lihakset on saatu perinteisellä volyymiharjoittelulla, ja sitten ollaan mm. bisnes-syistä markkinoitu 1-sarja-failureen ideologiaa jne.), niin hyvin vastaavanlaista 'tavaraa' tulee HIT:iä "puolustavien" puolelta. Fitness-teollisuutta arvostelen kyllä itsekin, monestakin syystä, mutta en tähän varsinaisesti ota kantaa. Hieman off-topiciksi meni, mutta olkoon.
Mainittakoon, että vaikka olisikin enemmän tutkimuksia HIT:iä vastaan, ei tämä varsinaisesti ole todiste tutkimusten laadusta. En pyri osoittamaan tässä mitään, mutta oleellista siltikin mainita.
