Catalyst Athletics Forums

Catalyst Athletics Forums (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/index.php)
-   Other (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   ACSM Weight Training Critique (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6366)

Jay Guindon 10-01-2011 06:21 PM

ACSM Weight Training Critique
 
Carpinelli, Ralph N.; Otto, Robert M.; Winett, Richard; (2004-06). "A critical analysis of the ACSM position stand on resistance training: Insufficient evidence to support recommended training". Journal of Exercise Physiology online 7 (3). ISSN 1097-9751. Retrieved 2007-07-01

Anyone else read this? Thoughts?

Steven Low 10-02-2011 06:59 AM

Not sure why you want this reviewed.. I think there's more updated stuff that may prove better?

Donald Lee 10-02-2011 08:30 AM

Carpinelli is the leading HIT-proponent/researcher. I am not going to read it, but there are 3 meta-analyses I can think of that indicate that multiple sets are better than a single set. FYI, Carpinelli's application of the size principle is also wrong.

Jay Guindon 10-02-2011 08:57 AM

I didn't necessarily want it reviewed, I just wondered if others had read it and what they thought. I do however appreciate Donald pointing out the HIT bias. I did not know that, and the review doesn't necessarily promote HIT however. Some components do like number of sets but repetition duration and frequency do not. Anyways, no need to read it and review, but if you have already read it then feel free to comment.

Donald Lee 10-02-2011 09:25 AM

Jay, why don't you post some stuff you gleaned from it, and then some of us can discuss those points. You could also post quotes from the article.

Jay Guindon 10-02-2011 02:41 PM

From the recommendations section:
I guess the assertion that one set was enough was surprising, but that has been talked about.
The other was that any range of repetitions from 3-15 would give the same strength gains. I was under the impression lower reps and heavier weights were better for strength.
And the last was that strength gains are the same from machines as free weights. I understood free weights required more muscles to be activated, including stabilizers, and that greater strength transfer happened with free weights (better for creating everyday strength)

Donald Lee 10-02-2011 03:02 PM

Quote:

Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship.
Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA.
Source

Department of Exercise and Wellness, Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona 85212, USA. mdpeterz@hotmail.com
Abstract

The efficiency, safety, and effectiveness of strength training programs are paramount for sport conditioning. Therefore, identifying optimal doses of the training variables allows for maximal gains in muscular strength to be elicited per unit of time and also for the reduction in risk of overtraining and/or overuse injuries. A quantified dose-response relationship for the continuum of training intensities, frequencies, and volumes has been identified for recreationally trained populations but has yet to be identified for competitive athletes. The purpose of this analysis was to identify this relationship in collegiate, professional, and elite athletes. A meta-analysis of 37 studies with a total of 370 effect sizes was performed to identify the dose-response relationship among competitive athletes. Criteria for study inclusion were (a) participants must have been competitive athletes at the collegiate or professional level, (b) the study must have employed a strength training intervention, and (c) the study must have included necessary data to calculate effect sizes. Effect size data demonstrate that maximal strength gains are elicited among athletes who train at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group. The current data exhibit different dose-response trends than previous meta-analytical investigations with trained and untrained nonathletes. These results demonstrate explicit dose-response trends for maximal strength gains in athletes and may be directly used in strength and conditioning venues to optimize training efficiency and effectiveness.
Quote:

The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans.
Wernbom M, Augustsson J, Thomeé R.
Source

mLundberg Laboratory for Human Muscle Function and Movement Analysis, Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden. mathias.vernbom@orthop.gu.se
Abstract

Strength training is an important component in sports training and rehabilitation. Quantification of the dose-response relationships between training variables and the outcome is fundamental for the proper prescription of resistance training. The purpose of this comprehensive review was to identify dose-response relationships for the development of muscle hypertrophy by calculating the magnitudes and rates of increases in muscle cross-sectional area induced by varying levels of frequency, intensity and volume, as well as by different modes of strength training. Computer searches in the databases MEDLINE, SportDiscus and CINAHL were performed as well as hand searches of relevant journals, books and reference lists. The analysis was limited to the quadriceps femoris and the elbow flexors, since these were the only muscle groups that allowed for evaluations of dose-response trends. The modes of strength training were classified as dynamic external resistance (including free weights and weight machines), accommodating resistance (e.g. isokinetic and semi-isokinetic devices) and isometric resistance. The subcategories related to the types of muscle actions used. The results demonstrate that given sufficient frequency, intensity and volume of work, all three types of muscle actions can induce significant hypertrophy at an impressive rate and that, at present, there is insufficient evidence for the superiority of any mode and/or type of muscle action over other modes and types of training. Tentative dose-response relationships for each variable are outlined, based on the available evidence, and interactions between variables are discussed. In addition, recommendations for training and suggestions for further research are given.
You should find and read the Wernbom article. It's not available for free, so either pay for it, go to the library and get access, or use somebody's proxy server to access it.

Jay Guindon 10-04-2011 03:47 PM

Donald, thanks so much for those, they were super informative. The article was expensive but the information was incredible. Well worth it.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.