1
Peer Reviewed Studies Discussion / Re: Hormones, supercompensation and over-reaching
« on: April 13, 2012, 12:57:53 pm »
For the avg. Joe, nothing too exciting. For the elite lifter, it may show some insight.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Peer Reviewed Studies Discussion / Re: Hormones, supercompensation and over-reaching
« on: April 12, 2012, 10:06:42 pm »
Hartman M, Clark B, Bemben D, Kilgore J, Bemben M. Comparisons Between Twice-Daily and Once-Daily Training Sessions in Male Weight Lifters. International Journal Of Sports Physiology & Performance [serial online]. June 2007;2(2):159-169.
Can you say testosterone!! And double the EMG? Talk about creating potential for some serious jump improvements!
Quote
EMG (+20.3% vs +9.1%), testosterone (+ 10.5% vs +6.4%), and testosterone:cortisol ratio (-10.5% vs +1.3%) than did the once-daily training group. Conclusions: There were no additional benefits from increased daily training frequency in national-level male weightlifters, but the increase in ISO and EMG activity for the twice-daily group might provide some rationale for dividing training load in an attempt to reduce the risk of overtraining
Can you say testosterone!! And double the EMG? Talk about creating potential for some serious jump improvements!
3
Peer Reviewed Studies Discussion / Re: Static stretch training and muscle strength
« on: April 12, 2012, 09:16:33 pm »
There are 3 different studies. The first two reports were on stretching protocols, Vag was correct on the third.
4
Peer Reviewed Studies Discussion / Re: Static stretch training and muscle strength
« on: April 12, 2012, 06:10:19 pm »
Hmmm....
Both studies specifically tested untrained athletes.
The strength transfer is interesting, but not uncommon with many other methods of training.
My thoughts are that this supports the reciprocal inhibition hypothesis that suggests a muscle moving in a foreign ROM will exhibit less than optimal performance. Once the body became more familiar with the range of motion, it was more comfortable performing.
Now a "trained" individual usually has greater flexibility already and may not exhibit the same response.
Interesting articles to say the least!
Both studies specifically tested untrained athletes.
The strength transfer is interesting, but not uncommon with many other methods of training.
My thoughts are that this supports the reciprocal inhibition hypothesis that suggests a muscle moving in a foreign ROM will exhibit less than optimal performance. Once the body became more familiar with the range of motion, it was more comfortable performing.
Now a "trained" individual usually has greater flexibility already and may not exhibit the same response.
Interesting articles to say the least!
Pages: [1]