Strength training research

[Pegasus]

I hope it is just i am not finding the good stuff .

I remember back in the day going to a seminar by Fred (Dr Squat) Hatfield . It blew my mind . That from memory was the late 80's around the same time i got into the work of Tudor Bompa WOW. Both these guys based a lot of their info on the east euro research .

Comparing those guys to what came out of gyms was chalk and cheese .

My question is where is the comparable work today ? I have seen the Westside stuff and am impressed by it but where are the science studies coming out and being interpreted by guys like this . Where is the really insightful scientist/athlete that could take the science and slap you in the face with it like Dr Squat did ? Where is the scientist/coach that despite language difficulities could take the science and show the application over years ?

 

[Paracletus]

Chris Duffin of Kabuki Strength. The man is a god damn library when it comes to mobility and strength-training.

If I knew even half the things I knew back then, I think I would have made larger waves in my weight-class while I was still competing.

 

[Pegasus]

Kubuki what a strange choice of name , isn't that japanese theatre?

Thanks i will have a look.

 

[Paracletus]

That's exactly what I thought when I heard the name Kabuki Strength


Chad Wesley Smith of Juggernaut Training Systems is amazing too. I had a JTS subscription and learned heaps from Chad and his coaches.

Dean Somerset is a local legend in Edmonton and hes considered a rehab guru for injured powerlifters trying to come back.

Elite FTS has a good balance of meatheads and nerds that powerlift.


Of course a lot of the old schoolers will say nothing compares to the golden days to which I sort of agree to a certain extent. My coaches showed me footage of some lifters from the 70s and 80s that barely weighed 175-180 with some insane numbers.

 

[Pegasus]

My initial look at Kabuki strength was positive . I am not a powerlifter though and my interest is more general than lifting . There is obviously a lot of sports where strength /power is crucial as well as general gym junkie stuff .

I remember both Hatfield and Bompa delved deeply into this and eqamined issues like the nature of power and it's relationship to various sports etc.

 

[Pegasus]

Hey Para do you remember this thread ? Did you read it in it's entirity?

 

[ShutOut]

What about Dr. Brad Schonefeld, Greg Nuckols, and Eric Helms? Ever look into their stuff Peg? All have done research and studies related to exercise science in the last few years.

 

[artesuave]

google ACSM, you can find their books online for free if you're not morally against that thing. Everything they publish is backed by research. This is honestly the only place you need to look. The science behind exercise has been thoroughly studied.

 

[Paracletus]

Hey Para do you remember this thread ? Did you read it in it's entirity?

Which one? Was it the one you once sent me on PM a while back? I gotta catch up.

 

[Pegasus]

This is a thread i was trying to use to discuss some research . It got swamped with guys repying offthread about what Arnold did or the like. In general i have been disapointed in the level of discussion onsite re gym training .

https://www.pegym.com/forums/exercise-health-forum/92658-ageing-fast-twitch-fibers.html?highlight=

 

[Pegasus]

Which one? Was it the one you once sent me on PM a while back? I gotta catch up.

Some of my posts on the thread in last post may interest you .

I was trying to discuss research without much success.

 

[Pegasus]

This is of interest . I must say in general I am not impressed with current research though . It is not up to the quality of what the east euro were doing . I have not found anyone of the stature of Hatfeild or Bompa.

https://www.pegym.com/forums/exercise-health-forum/133708-recovery-training.html?highlight=

 

[Pegasus]

This is of interest . I must say in general I am not impressed with current research though . It is not up to the quality of what the east euro were doing . I have not found anyone of the stature of Hatfeild or Bompa.

https://www.pegym.com/forums/exercise-health-forum/133708-recovery-training.html?highlight=

Yeah this .

While I am unworthy to expound on Bompa's method some kindi level stuff I can try to get across .
He pioneered periodisation so anyone speaking on this subject should have a basic understanding of his work . Yet many expound on it who have never heard his name

So he talks even on lifetime periodisation and several years usually as a child are spent in basic conditioning where complex periods are not of much benifit . After that increasing specific training is regarded as of benfit . While periodisation is carried out over a variety of timelines including lifetime the basic unit is a year which is then broken down into periods including pre comp and competition and then further depending on the requirments of the sport . So the physical and technique requirments of the sport are broken down and the best methodology of how to develop them applied . So I first heard of this method from Neil Adams the Judoka who explained to me how it was a superior method to develop the various physical abilities required for high level Judo. Later when I studied sports coaching it was part of the course .
Bompa was a sports coach who applied this method to his athletes with great success . The East euro then studied this method and compared it to others and found it superior . They then applied it to their athletes with great success so it is well proven in the real world .
The studies the east euro did had to take into account a variety of factors in order to be cogent . So firstly those tested under it had to have years of training behind them as the first years of training are not as applicable to this method , there had to be a decent number of subjects and the period had to be 1 year plus long as that is the basic unit . They also had to use a well designed procedure not some random bs . There might be other requirments they used but as I said my knowledge is limited. In any case any study not useing at least this methodology is pretty worthless just on pub level . So I see studies done with small numbers of subjects over very short periods of time with untrained subjects over mere weeks with random workouts and am asked to take them serious phah.
Like I said not impressed .

 

[Physdoc]

I've tried to keep up to date on exercise science over the decades as an amateur just trying to stay in shape and keep a decent muscular build. I work in a scientific field, so reading scientific papers is a my natural go-to for info. My take away has been that there really is no consensus on the "best" routine or method. And some well supported theories completely contradict other well supported theories. I have to agree that some of the more recent studies pointing to "new" methods/routines are sometimes based on pretty thin data. I've tried several different approaches to fitness and lifting over the past decade - from new theory to old school. Alot of my motivation for trying new things was just to mix things up and keep from getting in a rut or bored. Most recently, I moved back to old school and do Body Beast by Sagi Kalev, which has an Israeli/eastern euro influence. My conclusion is - just get in the damn gym regularly, work hard, and results will come. Of course, if my aim was to compete seriously, I might be more keen to be sure I was doing it all right and take a more consistent approach.

 

[Pegasus]

So just an example of how it is used Neil Adams explained that over the course of a yearr he would focus on various physical requirments .

So he would start with puting emphasis on cardio then work more into circuit training and hitt progress to be doing more strength training then coversion to power and finally spped .
Of course different sports have different requirments and would be developed in different ways but this just gives an outline of the general concept .

 

[Pegasus]

Here is an interesting one a study published very recently that struggles to come up with any cogent explaination of the evidence they are seeing .

In part here .
Quote
[h=2]Evidence in Humans That Supports Resistance Training-Induced Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy[/h]Macdougall et al. (1982) published the first study in humans providing good evidence to suggest sarcoplasmic hypertrophy may appreciably contribute to muscle fiber hypertrophy. Around a century earlier, Morpurgo reported results from the first training-induced hypertrophy study in an animal model, and the author believed fiber size increases were primarily related to the expansion of non-myofibrillar components (Morpurgo, 1897). An earlier report of potential sarcoplasmic hypertrophy with resistance training was also reported in humans by Penman who used TEM methods (Penman, 1969). However, Morpurgo’s study was in animals that treadmill trained, and Penman’s study was limited to 2–3 participants which precluded formal statistical evaluations. Macdougall et al. (1982) examined five participants who engaged in 6 months of upper-arm resistance training. Biopsies were obtained from the triceps muscle prior to and following the training intervention. Muscle samples were analyzed for morphology using TEM methods. Type II fCSA values increased as a result of training, and the authors additionally observed ∼3% decrease in the two-dimensional space occupied by myofibrils (p < 0.05) as well as a ∼15% increase in space occupied by the sarcoplasm (p < 0.05). More compelling are data in the same paper from seven participants who possessed years of resistance training experience. These individuals possessed larger type II muscle fibers compared to untrained participants prior to the 6-month training intervention, but showed 30% lower values in the space occupied by myofibrils and two-fold greater values in space occupied by sarcoplasm. Toth et al. (2012) used TEM to report that 18 weeks of resistance training decreased space occupied by myofibrils ∼15% in vastus lateralis muscle fibers from healthy individuals. Meijer et al. (2015) subsequently employed isolated fiber techniques and reported that body-builders, who possessed large vastus lateralis muscle fibers, presented specific tension values that were ∼40% lower than untrained participants. Our group used SDS-PAGE and Coomassie staining to determine 6 weeks of very high volume resistance training reduced relative abundances (per milligram dry tissue) of myosin heavy chain and actin by ∼30% in vastus lateralis muscle from 15 well-trained participants (Haun et al., 2019b). Phalloidin staining was also used to show actin protein density per fiber decreased in these participants from pre- to post-intervention. This study was limited given the post-training biopsy was collected after only 24 h of recovery from the last training bout. Notwithstanding, eight of these participants gave a third biopsy 8 days following the last training bout, and features of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy were still evident. More recently, we published a study in 15 previously trained college-aged men where vastus lateralis biopsies were obtained prior to a 10-week training intervention and 72 h following the last training bout (Vann et al., 2020a). Compared to all of the aforementioned studies, participants performed higher load resistance training where exercises were executed using 3–5 sets of 3–8 repetitions at ∼80–90% maximum strength (1RM). On average, type I fCSA values did not change and type II fCSA values increased 19% (p < 0.05). While SDS-PAGE and Coomassie staining indicated training reduced the relative abundances of myosin heavy chain and actin protein (per milligram dry tissue) by only ∼3%, these pre- to post-training changes were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Notably, these contractile protein decrements per milligram tissue were not nearly as robust as observed in our prior study by Haun et al. (2019b) (i.e., ∼30% decreases). In lieu of the type II fiber hypertrophy observed in our second study, these data suggest appreciable myofibrillar protein accretion likely occurred with short-term higher load training. Notwithstanding, studies from our laboratory suggest sarcoplasmic hypertrophy may be evident with novel training paradigms in previously trained individuals. Additionally, our data imply this mode of hypertrophy occurs more so with higher volume training.
Collectively, the seven human studies mentioned above provide reasonable evidence to suggest sarcoplasmic hypertrophy may occur during resistance training. While all of the studies differed with regard to training duration and load schemes, only our most recent study implemented what would commonly be considered higher-load training (i.e., performing less than five repetitions per set at >85% one repetition maximum)
Unquote

 

[Pegasus]

Now what is interesting here is remember in post 1 I went to a seminar of Fred Hatfield in the late 80's ?

He showed a muscle cell and the parts that make it up . Then he said he had looked at the muscle cells of highly trained athletes under a microscope . What he saw was very interesting ,powerlifters had highly developed myofibriles , bodybuilders had a lot of sarcoplasm and endurance athletes a lot of mitichondria .

He concluded that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occured in response to the sort of training bodybuilders do . Powerlifting developed myofibriles so the part most directly usefull for strength and endurance athletes the parts particularly useful for endurance.

 

[Pegasus]

So this is from a bodybuilding source which I rarely use but it gives an idea of what bb think will produce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Also note it is fairly typical bb style training .

Quote
f you wish to train for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy alone, you should be doing workouts that are high volume, with rest periods at 60 seconds and below. Reps should be in the 8-15 range and sets should be around the 3-4 count.
When you train for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, you’ll most likely find that muscles can recover quickly and workouts aren’t too strenuous on your central nervous system. Therefore, you should aim to train each muscle group at least twice per week. Consider an upper/lower split or a push/pull/legs split.
Unquote

 

[Pegasus]

Anyhow a big new area the "cuting edge" of research is looking into . Sigh

We had a song in aussie awhile back, a line went . My Grandpa told me "We will never see their like again the Tiger and The Don"

 

[Big Al]

So this is from a bodybuilding source which I rarely use but it gives an idea of what bb think will produce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Also note it is fairly typical bb style training .

Quote
f you wish to train for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy alone, you should be doing workouts that are high volume, with rest periods at 60 seconds and below. Reps should be in the 8-15 range and sets should be around the 3-4 count.
When you train for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, you’ll most likely find that muscles can recover quickly and workouts aren’t too strenuous on your central nervous system. Therefore, you should aim to train each muscle group at least twice per week. Consider an upper/lower split or a push/pull/legs split.
Unquote

Dr. Hatfield came up with a particular method for training all 3 main aspects of muscle tissue which involved cycling low, moderate, and high reps. It was very interesting- he even planned out the recommended training frequencies for each round of training.