Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Training > Other

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-01-2011, 07:21 PM   #1
Jay Guindon
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 49
Default 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?
Jay Guindon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 07:59 AM   #2
Steven Low
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,091
Default

Not sure why you want this reviewed.. I think there's more updated stuff that may prove better?
__________________
Posts NOT intended as professional medical, training or nutrition advice.
Site // Bodyweight Strength Training Article // Overcoming Gravity Bodyweight Book
Steven Low is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 09:30 AM   #3
Donald Lee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646
Default

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.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 09:57 AM   #4
Jay Guindon
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 49
Default

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.
Jay Guindon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 10:25 AM   #5
Donald Lee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646
Default

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.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 03:41 PM   #6
Jay Guindon
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 49
Default

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)
Jay Guindon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.