Reply
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 221
  1. #1
    Registered User Richard99's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Age: 62
    Posts: 502
    Rep Power: 0
    Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100)
    Richard99 is offline

    Low reps vs High reps

    In a recent research study(1) a group of researchers set out to explore the impact of lighter weight / higher rep training on muscle mass and function. They designed the study "to compare the adaptive changes in muscle size, contractile strength, and MHC (fiber type) composition evoked by resistance training performed at either low or high contraction intensity (i.e. low or high reps) while equalized for total loading volume"

    Specifically, this study compared 10 sets x 36 reps using 15.5% 1RM to 10 sets x 8 reps using 70% 1RM.

    The study ran 12 weeks, with 3 workouts each week. The results of the study are quite interesting.

    How did the 10x8 program do? It produced a 7.6% increase in muscle size (hypertrophy) and a 35% increase in 1RM (one rep maximum).

    Not bad. Not bad at all. And, not in the least bit surprising. Heavy weights and low reps has long been the accepted way to maximize strength and size.

    How about the 10x36 reps program? Many would predict that such a "high" rep range would build endurance and, if it didn't cause an outright decline in strength and size, would surely not increase strength and/or size.

    Anyone who would predict that would be wrong.

    The 10x36 program produced a 19% increase in 1RM and a 2.6% increase in muscle size.

    Pretty impressive for a program many would likely call "endurance training".

    There are a couple of things to be learned from this study.

    First, this study obviously shows that a program consisting exclusively of heavy weight/low reps produces greater increases in strength and size than a program consisting exclusively of lighter weights/higher reps. This isn't any sort of surprise - research over the past 80 years has very consistently shown this same thing.

    But, there is more to the story than just heavy weights/low reps wins.

    The most glaring point to consider is that "high" reps clearly did increase strength levels significantly (19%) along with size. Remember, standard physiological and training wisdom is that more than 20 reps is endurance training and endurance training will not increase strength and size. A poster stated this belief in another thread and it is a fair representation of the conventional thinking on this matter - "anything beyond 20 reps is high, and not good for strength gains"

    Is this the only study that has shown "high" reps increases strength/size? Not by a long shot. There are multiple studies that have shown the same thing. "High" reps do increase strength, just not as much as as lower rep schemes.

    There is no getting around the fact that a program of only heavy weights/low reps builds significantly more strength/size than a program of only lighter weight/higher reps. So, if you are trying to decide what reps you should exclusively be doing, pick reps less than 20.

    But, this study also clearly shows that that conventional strength/physiology wisdom is inaccurate to some degree. Higher reps do increase strength/size.

    There might be some useful training reason in figuring out what that inaccuracy is.

    What logical explanation can we come up with to explain these results? By what mechanism could high reps build strength?

    Well, the most logical answer is that what conventional strength physiological/training wisdom calls "high" and "endurance" really isn't particularly "high", nor is it "endurance". It appears that "high" and "endurance" start somewhere far beyond 20 reps. Other studies have shown increases in strength with reps up to 150.

    What the study didn't reveal is why higher reps built strength/size. Is the physiological mechanism by which strength/size increases with lower reps different than the physiological mechanism by which higher reps do the same thing?

    If there are different physiological reasons for how low reps build strength and how higher reps build strength, then it raises a fascinating question.

    What if you combined low reps with higher reps? What would the results be? If there are different physiological mechanisms responsible for the increases in strength/size at different reps, would combining different reps result in better results than single rep programs?

    Clearly, higher reps do increase strength/size, and if they build strength due to a different mechanism than lower reps, might there be some advantage in combining some lower rep training with higher rep training?

    This study doesn't answer the question but another one does.

    Reference: Holm L, et al, Changes in muscle size and MHC composition in response to resistance exercise with heavy and light loading intensity, Journal of Applied Physiology, Nov 2008, 105:1454-1461
    Rich
    www.trainingscience.net
    Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    Registered User muladesigns's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2007
    Location: United States
    Posts: 934
    Rep Power: 269
    muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    muladesigns is offline
    Why are you reposting this. it was just on yesterday.
    thread/ fail!
    Going to the gym and lifting heavy weights is the easy part. Nutrition. now thats where the hard work starts.
    Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    Registered User Richard99's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Age: 62
    Posts: 502
    Rep Power: 0
    Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100)
    Richard99 is offline
    Originally Posted by muladesigns View Post
    Why are you reposting this. it was just on yesterday.
    thread/ fail!
    Only part of the study was posted yesterday, not the entire thing, nor was there a discussion of it due to the thread being closed. IMO, it's deserving of being posted and discussed in its own thread.
    Rich
    www.trainingscience.net
    Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    Powerbuilder all pro's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2003
    Location: New York, United States
    Age: 68
    Posts: 19,925
    Rep Power: 10375
    all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    all pro is offline
    Originally Posted by Richard99 View Post
    Only part of the study was posted yesterday, not the entire thing, nor was there a discussion of it due to the thread being closed. IMO, it's deserving of being posted and discussed in its own thread.
    WRONG
    It was shot full of holes and dismissed.
    Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    Registered User muladesigns's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2007
    Location: United States
    Posts: 934
    Rep Power: 269
    muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50) muladesigns will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    muladesigns is offline
    If it was shut yesterday then it will be shut today as well.
    the point was proven yesterday. There is no reason for a body Builder to do as hi a reps as you are saying.
    i'm still curious though. you say this system is so great, yet you do not have a pic of yourself to back it up. hmmmm.

    thread/FAIL!!
    Going to the gym and lifting heavy weights is the easy part. Nutrition. now thats where the hard work starts.
    Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    Powerbuilder all pro's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2003
    Location: New York, United States
    Age: 68
    Posts: 19,925
    Rep Power: 10375
    all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    all pro is offline
    Last edited by all pro; 01-17-2009 at 07:30 AM.
    Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    Registered User Richard99's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Age: 62
    Posts: 502
    Rep Power: 0
    Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100)
    Richard99 is offline
    Thanks for posting those. I got an error when I clicked on the 2nd link, but the first one worked.

    From the first study you linked:

    "The mean fibre areas of types I, IIa and IIb increased after the training both in S (p<0.05 and 0.01) and SE (p<0.05 and p<0.01)....

    Translation - hypertrophy occurred in both groups, i.e. both the strength and the strength/endurance groups muscles got bigger

    "The present data do not support the concept of the universal nature of the interference effect in strength development and muscle hypertrophy when strength training is performed concurrently with endurance training..."

    Translation - the results of this study show that endurance training did not interfere with strength and size gains. Those that trained strength and endurance got both bigger and stronger.
    Rich
    www.trainingscience.net
    Reply With Quote

  8. #8
    Powerbuilder all pro's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2003
    Location: New York, United States
    Age: 68
    Posts: 19,925
    Rep Power: 10375
    all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    all pro is offline
    Originally Posted by Richard99 View Post
    Thanks for posting those. I got an error when I clicked on the 2nd link, but the first one worked.

    From the first study you linked:

    "The mean fibre areas of types I, IIa and IIb increased after the training both in S (p<0.05 and 0.01) and SE (p<0.05 and p<0.01)....

    Translation - hypertrophy occurred in both groups, i.e. both the strength and the strength/endurance groups muscles got bigger

    "The present data do not support the concept of the universal nature of the interference effect in strength development and muscle hypertrophy when strength training is performed concurrently with endurance training..."

    Translation - the results of this study show that endurance training did not interfere with strength and size gains. Those that trained strength and endurance got both bigger and stronger.
    The resistance training program addressed both maximal and explosive strength components
    AND
    However, the present results suggest that even the low-frequency concurrent strength and endurance training leads to interference in explosive strength development mediated in part by the limitations of rapid voluntary neural activation of the trained muscles.
    Reply With Quote

  9. #9
    Hellwishin' Crew momofo's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2008
    Location: Connecticut, United States
    Age: 45
    Posts: 3,264
    Rep Power: 2312
    momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000)
    momofo is offline
    Any Muscle Factor Model testing yet? No? OK, I'll check back later.
    Reply With Quote

  10. #10
    Registered User Richard99's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Age: 62
    Posts: 502
    Rep Power: 0
    Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100)
    Richard99 is offline
    Originally Posted by richard
    the results of this study show that endurance training did not interfere with strength and size gains. Those that trained strength and endurance got both bigger and stronger.
    Originally Posted by all pro View Post
    However, the present results suggest that even the low-frequency concurrent strength and endurance training leads to interference in explosive strength development mediated in part by the limitations of rapid voluntary neural activation of the trained muscles.

    The practical application of the results of this study are:

    It is not universally true that endurance training interferes with strength/size increases. It is possible to train for strength and endurance without the endurance training slowing/stopping gains in strength and size.

    If you are an athlete whose sport requires explosive strength, then endurance training may cause gains in explosive strength to be less.
    Rich
    www.trainingscience.net
    Reply With Quote

  11. #11
    Powerbuilder all pro's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2003
    Location: New York, United States
    Age: 68
    Posts: 19,925
    Rep Power: 10375
    all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    all pro is offline
    Originally Posted by Richard99 View Post
    The practical application of the results of this study are:

    It is not universally true that endurance training interferes with strength/size increases. It is possible to train for strength and endurance without the endurance training slowing/stopping gains in strength and size.

    If you are an athlete whose sport requires explosive strength, then endurance training may cause gains in explosive strength to be less.
    That's not what the study says. The study says You're lying again
    The study clearly states that training for strength and anaerobic endurance concurrently adversely affects size, strength and power.
    STOP LYING!
    Reply With Quote

  12. #12
    Registered User RickRolld's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Age: 37
    Posts: 389
    Rep Power: 214
    RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    RickRolld is offline
    Originally Posted by all pro View Post
    That's not what the study says. The study says You're lying again
    The study clearly states that training for strength and anaerobic endurance concurrently adversely affects size, strength and power.
    STOP LYING!
    How about you stop calling people liars and yelling at them and actually show them how they made a mistake rather than making an even bigger ass of yourself.
    Reply With Quote

  13. #13
    Hellwishin' Crew momofo's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2008
    Location: Connecticut, United States
    Age: 45
    Posts: 3,264
    Rep Power: 2312
    momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000)
    momofo is offline
    Originally Posted by RickRolld View Post
    How about you stop calling people liars and yelling at them and actually show them how they made a mistake rather than making an even bigger ass of yourself.
    LOL!
    Well sir if you have been following the ongoing debate between Richard99 and various others including AllPro, you would know that AllPro (as well as myself and many others) have already told Richard99 which mistakes he has made but he refuses to listen and avoids the facts. I recommend you go back through the threads that Richard99 has posted in and read the various debates - then come back and start telling ANY of us who have been unsuccessfully trying to get through to him that we need to "show him and not yell at him".
    Reply With Quote

  14. #14
    Nimbus Nutrition Rep leonidas300's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2006
    Posts: 6,771
    Rep Power: 15634
    leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    leonidas300 is offline
    Originally Posted by all pro View Post
    That's not what the study says. The study says You're lying again
    The study clearly states that training for strength and anaerobic endurance concurrently adversely affects size, strength and power.
    STOP LYING!
    Calm down and rationally debate the man before you get negged. Why are you being so damn hostile?
    Certitude is the enemy of wisdom.
    "We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another." Johnathan Swift.

    Remember this principle: if you have to chew something, it ain't anabolic. Alan Aragon

    NIMBUS NUTRITION "When Performance is Everything!"
    POSEIDON
    clay@nimbusnutrition.com
    Reply With Quote

  15. #15
    Nimbus Nutrition Rep leonidas300's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2006
    Posts: 6,771
    Rep Power: 15634
    leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    leonidas300 is offline
    However, the present results suggest that even the low-frequency concurrent strength and endurance training leads to interference in explosive strength development mediated in part by the limitations of rapid voluntary neural activation of the trained muscles.
    Where are you pulling this from?
    Certitude is the enemy of wisdom.
    "We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another." Johnathan Swift.

    Remember this principle: if you have to chew something, it ain't anabolic. Alan Aragon

    NIMBUS NUTRITION "When Performance is Everything!"
    POSEIDON
    clay@nimbusnutrition.com
    Reply With Quote

  16. #16
    Powerbuilder all pro's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2003
    Location: New York, United States
    Age: 68
    Posts: 19,925
    Rep Power: 10375
    all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    all pro is offline
    Originally Posted by leonidas300 View Post
    Where are you pulling this from?
    From this link http://www.springerlink.com/content/uufl8l50ctpe5971/

    This is a small part of Richards history.
    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=108261521

    and

    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=112773431

    Self explanatory.
    Last edited by all pro; 01-17-2009 at 01:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  17. #17
    Registered User Richard99's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Age: 62
    Posts: 502
    Rep Power: 0
    Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100)
    Richard99 is offline
    Originally Posted by leonidas300 View Post
    Where are you pulling this from?
    Leonidas300,

    Here is pulling it from the abstract of the study he cited.

    Neuromuscular adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance training versus strength

    The full quote is, "The present data do not support the concept of the universal nature of the interference effect in strength development and muscle hypertrophy when strength training is performed concurrently with endurance training, and the training volume is diluted by a longer period of time with a low frequency of training. However, the present results suggest that even the low-frequency concurrent strength and endurance training leads to interference in explosive strength development mediated in part by the limitations of rapid voluntary neural activation of the trained muscles."

    The best I can tell, the link was posted in order to contradict the points I made in this thread. It seems the poster did not understand when he posted it that instead of contradicting my points the study reinforced my points. The quote from the abstract clearly indicates that the addition of endurance training to the strength training program did not cause negatively affect strength/size gains. Only explosive strength was negatively affected by the endurance training.
    Last edited by Richard99; 01-17-2009 at 01:08 PM.
    Rich
    www.trainingscience.net
    Reply With Quote

  18. #18
    Nimbus Nutrition Rep leonidas300's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2006
    Posts: 6,771
    Rep Power: 15634
    leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) leonidas300 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    leonidas300 is offline
    Originally Posted by Richard99 View Post
    Leonidas300,

    Here is pulling it from the abstract of the study he cited.

    Neuromuscular adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance training versus strength

    The full quote is, "The present data do not support the concept of the universal nature of the interference effect in strength development and muscle hypertrophy when strength training is performed concurrently with endurance training, and the training volume is diluted by a longer period of time with a low frequency of training. However, the present results suggest that even the low-frequency concurrent strength and endurance training leads to interference in explosive strength development mediated in part by the limitations of rapid voluntary neural activation of the trained muscles."
    Yes but the exercise protocols are completely different from the ones posted in the study you presented. Of course if one substantially changes the study variables the results are going to be different. His study is a concurrent strength + endurance program vs solely a strength based program. Your study is just examining a difference in rep ranges. One is not able to accurately compare the studies as the variables are too different to make any relevant comparisons.
    Certitude is the enemy of wisdom.
    "We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another." Johnathan Swift.

    Remember this principle: if you have to chew something, it ain't anabolic. Alan Aragon

    NIMBUS NUTRITION "When Performance is Everything!"
    POSEIDON
    clay@nimbusnutrition.com
    Reply With Quote

  19. #19
    Registered User Richard99's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Age: 62
    Posts: 502
    Rep Power: 0
    Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100)
    Richard99 is offline
    Originally Posted by leonidas300 View Post
    Yes but the exercise protocols are completely different from the ones posted in the study you presented. Of course if one substantially changes the study variables the results are going to be different. His study is a concurrent strength + endurance program vs solely a strength based program. Your study is just examining a difference in rep ranges. One is not able to accurately compare the studies as the variables are too different to make any relevant comparisons.
    Agreed. That's why I didn't cite or reference this study in support of my original points.

    Conventional physiological and training wisdom holds that endurance training a) does not build strength/size and b) that it negatively affects increases in size and strength. It is this generally held belief that both studies address.

    The study I cited contradicts the belief that reps that are generally believed by the strength training community to be high reps and, therefore, endurance training, and therefore produce no strength/size benefit. In fact, the study showed strength and size increases from so-called "high reps" aka "endurance training". i.e. it contradicts the first part of the above premise.

    The other study cites contradicts the belief that endurance training universally negatively affects strength/size development. i.e. it contradicts the second part of the above premise.
    Rich
    www.trainingscience.net
    Reply With Quote

  20. #20
    Powerbuilder all pro's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2003
    Location: New York, United States
    Age: 68
    Posts: 19,925
    Rep Power: 10375
    all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    all pro is offline
    Reply With Quote

  21. #21
    Registered User ThiZzNation925's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2007
    Location: Brentwood, California, United States
    Age: 34
    Posts: 2,472
    Rep Power: 353
    ThiZzNation925 will become famous soon enough. (+50) ThiZzNation925 will become famous soon enough. (+50) ThiZzNation925 will become famous soon enough. (+50) ThiZzNation925 will become famous soon enough. (+50) ThiZzNation925 will become famous soon enough. (+50) ThiZzNation925 will become famous soon enough. (+50) ThiZzNation925 will become famous soon enough. (+50) ThiZzNation925 will become famous soon enough. (+50) ThiZzNation925 will become famous soon enough. (+50) ThiZzNation925 will become famous soon enough. (+50) ThiZzNation925 will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    ThiZzNation925 is offline
    Reply With Quote

  22. #22
    Registered User Richard99's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Age: 62
    Posts: 502
    Rep Power: 0
    Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100)
    Richard99 is offline
    All Pro,

    Thanks for citing these studies. I particularly liked the summary discusion in for the last one you cited.

    "...in some situations when strength and endurance training are performed simultaneously, a potential interference in strength development takes place, making such a combination seemingly incompatible. The phenomenon of concurrent training, or simultaneously training for strength and endurance, was first described in the scientific literature in 1980 by Robert C. Hickson, and although work that followed provided evidence for and against it, the interference effect seems to hold true in specific situations."


    Of significance to our discussion is this - "...work that followed provided evidence for and against it.." As noted, there is both evidence for and against the interference effect of endurance training on changes in strength/size. In other words, one cannot state categorically that any endurance training will cause a decrease in the rate of strength/size gains.

    Also of significant is "...the interference effect seems to hold true in specific situations." In other words, in some cases endurance training will decrease the rate of strength/size gain but not in others.

    Thanks again for posting these as they put to rest the belief that any endurance training will always slow the rate of growth in strength and size.
    Rich
    www.trainingscience.net
    Reply With Quote

  23. #23
    Powerbuilder all pro's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2003
    Location: New York, United States
    Age: 68
    Posts: 19,925
    Rep Power: 10375
    all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) all pro is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    all pro is offline
    Originally Posted by Richard99 View Post
    All Pro,

    Thanks for citing these studies. I particularly liked the summary discusion in for the last one you cited.

    "...in some situations when strength and endurance training are performed simultaneously, a potential interference in strength development takes place, making such a combination seemingly incompatible. The phenomenon of concurrent training, or simultaneously training for strength and endurance, was first described in the scientific literature in 1980 by Robert C. Hickson, and although work that followed provided evidence for and against it, the interference effect seems to hold true in specific situations."


    Of significance to our discussion is this - "...work that followed provided evidence for and against it.." As noted, there is both evidence for and against the interference effect of endurance training on changes in strength/size. In other words, one cannot state categorically that any endurance training will cause a decrease in the rate of strength/size gains.

    Also of significant is "...the interference effect seems to hold true in specific situations." In other words, in some cases endurance training will decrease the rate of strength/size gain but not in others.

    Thanks again for posting these as they put to rest the belief that any endurance training will always slow the rate of growth in strength and size.
    I disagree. I think this statement says it all,
    "the interference effect seems to hold true in specific situations"
    I train for and train others for sports Richard and I've been doing it for over a quarter of a century. I know what I can get away with in an effort to build a better athlete. I know the effects of concurrent training because I've experienced it.
    Anaerobic endurance + strength = no problem
    Aerobic endurance + strength = PROBLEM
    The studies I've found are short term and on small groups. My own have been long term with a lot of athletes.
    Reply With Quote

  24. #24
    Registered User GuyJin's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Location: Japan
    Age: 62
    Posts: 15,671
    Rep Power: 67720
    GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    GuyJin is offline
    Read the links provided; very interesting.

    Richard, before you're negged into eternity again, it might be wise to think about what you're writing. Referring to the Japanese study, the time frame mentioned is relatively short--12 weeks and it was done on sedentary men, NOT athletes who'd been trained in various anaerobic sports. While the maximal strength outputs may not be adversely affected in those time periods, that is, IMHO, too short to see the FULL effects of ultra-high rep training you advocate.

    My best bet is that if the studies were carried on a lot longer, you'd see drops in maximal strength and power exertion. Remember SAID; the body wants stasis and will instinctively change over to the path of least resistance--in this case, lower weight, higher reps, and more endurance leading to developing more endurance fibres at the expense of the fast-twitch ones.
    "Don't call me Miss Kitty. Just...don't."--Catnip. Check out the Catnip Trilogy on Amazon.com

    "Chivalry isn't dead. It just wears a skirt."--Twisted, the YA gender bender deal of the century!

    Check out my links to Mr. Taxi, Star Maps, and other fine YA Action/Romance novels at http://www.amazon.com/J.S.-Frankel/e/B004XUUTB8/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1
    Reply With Quote

  25. #25
    Hellwishin' Crew momofo's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2008
    Location: Connecticut, United States
    Age: 45
    Posts: 3,264
    Rep Power: 2312
    momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000) momofo is just really nice. (+1000)
    momofo is offline
    Originally Posted by all pro View Post
    The studies I've found are short term and on small groups. My own have been long term with a lot of athletes.
    Precisely.
    Reply With Quote

  26. #26
    Registered User Richard99's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Age: 62
    Posts: 502
    Rep Power: 0
    Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100) Richard99 is not very well liked. (-100)
    Richard99 is offline
    A very recent study using well-conditioned college athletes (elite level athletes) sheds some additional light on the so-called interference effect of endurance training.

    Quotes from the study:

    "The compatability of different exercise modes, particularly strength and endurance exercise, has been investigated for nearly 3 decades. Several investigators report that combined or concurrent exercise (CE), in which strength and aerobic endurance training are included in the same training sessions or progam, interferes with the development of muscle strength or power."

    "In contrast to interference, several investigators report compatability of strength and endurance training, i.e. no reduction in strength adaptations from concurrent strength and aerobic endurance training. On the contrary, some have found a positive rather than a neutral or negative effect of CE on muscle strength, muscle endurance, and maximal aerobic capacity."

    "Clarifying the necessary and sufficient conditions for interference would have implications for medicine, science, sports, and recreational exercise."

    "Interference is also significant...because the possibility has created ambiguity in exercise prescription. Some experts have de-emphasized aerobics in resistance training programs, for example, or recommended performing aerobics last..."

    "Bodybuilders have potrayed aerobics as counterproductive to resistance training adaptations."

    "conversely, however, several United States national certifying, training, and medical organizations recommend CE to maximize the benefits of exercise at all levels, including the American College of Sports Medicine...and the National Strength and Conditioning Association."

    "We therefore tested aspects of the interference hypothesis..."

    Here are the results:

    "...the strength gains produced here by serial CE exceed the mean published strength gains from strength training alone in athletes by 42% (upper body) to 109% (lower body).

    This means that the strength gains from serial strength + endurance training exceed the published strength gains from strength only programs.

    "The strength gains produced here by integrated CE exceed mean published gains from strength training alone in athletes by 33.8% (upper body) to 184.1% (lower body). This finding suggests that integrated CE amplifies muscle strength gains in comparison with strength training alone, i.e. that integrated CE has synergistic effects on muscle strength adaptations."

    This means that the strength gains from integrated strength + endurance training were even higher than those from serial CE.

    In short, this study suggests that strength+endurance training can actually produce greater increases in strength than a strength only program due to a synergist effect on muscle strength changes.

    I would also point out that the results of this study are perfectly in line with the predictions of the muscle factor model.

    It appears that I need to let the researchers know about the muscle factor model. They wrote, "Although this study suggests synergy between strength and aerobic endurance training under the integrated CE training protocol, the physiological mechanism(s) underlying this synergy are unknown"

    Reference: Davis et al, Concurrent Training Enhances Athletes' Strength, Muscle Endurance, and Other Measures, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2008, 22(5), 1487-1502
    Last edited by Richard99; 01-17-2009 at 09:46 PM.
    Rich
    www.trainingscience.net
    Reply With Quote

  27. #27
    Lifelong Nattie N@tural1's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2007
    Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
    Posts: 4,824
    Rep Power: 4689
    N@tural1 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) N@tural1 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) N@tural1 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) N@tural1 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) N@tural1 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) N@tural1 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) N@tural1 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) N@tural1 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) N@tural1 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) N@tural1 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) N@tural1 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    N@tural1 is offline
    Richard.

    You seem to keep "missing" this question.

    I have given you 3 examples of others who have already designed combination training programs to target specific fiber types, it's OLD NEWS. Here they are again. READ THEM:
    It's nothing new or revolutionary yet you refuse to respond.

    Claiming something as new and revolutionary when it's already been done is dishonest and outright plain wrong

    Are you going to do the decent thing and remove any claims of your program being revolutionary now that you're aware that combination programs have already been done by several people and is already within the realms of "normal training"?

    Please respond.
    Last edited by Natural2; 01-17-2009 at 09:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  28. #28
    Registered User GuyJin's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Location: Japan
    Age: 62
    Posts: 15,671
    Rep Power: 67720
    GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GuyJin has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    GuyJin is offline
    Richard,

    This study proves...what? (The study by Davis et.al.).

    For one thing, we don't know what kind of weight-training these women--not men--were doing. We don't know what kind of set and rep protocol they used, and we don't know what rep range they used. It also says nothing about dietary alterations which could have induced greater weight loss. ALL we know is that they used endurance activities during their weight-training.

    If these women athletes were involved in power sports, then that might be of some significance; for all I know, they might have been long-distance track athletes or swimmers. Again, you've used figures out of context just to underline your "success" of your Muscle Factor concept. I also notice that there was no mention of "ultra-high" reps which you kept shilling in your old, now-locked-tight-as-a-drum thread. I wonder why.

    I'm sorry, but this is old news. And, as Natural2 pointed out, there are more than a few "combination-type" programmes out there, many of which have been in use for a number of years.

    Nothing new here, Richard. Better luck finding another study to fit your paradigm...
    "Don't call me Miss Kitty. Just...don't."--Catnip. Check out the Catnip Trilogy on Amazon.com

    "Chivalry isn't dead. It just wears a skirt."--Twisted, the YA gender bender deal of the century!

    Check out my links to Mr. Taxi, Star Maps, and other fine YA Action/Romance novels at http://www.amazon.com/J.S.-Frankel/e/B004XUUTB8/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1
    Reply With Quote

  29. #29
    Registered User RickRolld's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Age: 37
    Posts: 389
    Rep Power: 214
    RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10) RickRolld is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    RickRolld is offline
    Originally Posted by momofo View Post
    LOL!
    Well sir if you have been following the ongoing debate between Richard99 and various others including AllPro, you would know that AllPro (as well as myself and many others) have already told Richard99 which mistakes he has made but he refuses to listen and avoids the facts. I recommend you go back through the threads that Richard99 has posted in and read the various debates - then come back and start telling ANY of us who have been unsuccessfully trying to get through to him that we need to "show him and not yell at him".
    I have done what you recommended and see that you are correct.

    In all honestly I would like to extend my apologies to any of you whom I may have offended by not realizing the situation.

    Thank you very much for letting me know though. This will definitely save time and frustration in the future.
    Reply With Quote

  30. #30
    delicious dogg crapp buddymander's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2007
    Location: United States
    Age: 38
    Posts: 487
    Rep Power: 257
    buddymander will become famous soon enough. (+50) buddymander will become famous soon enough. (+50) buddymander will become famous soon enough. (+50) buddymander will become famous soon enough. (+50) buddymander will become famous soon enough. (+50) buddymander will become famous soon enough. (+50) buddymander will become famous soon enough. (+50) buddymander will become famous soon enough. (+50) buddymander will become famous soon enough. (+50) buddymander will become famous soon enough. (+50) buddymander will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    buddymander is offline
    God these study's are stupid.

    These people are totally untrained and so training them with vary high reps for 12 weeks will of course build some muscle and strength.

    Good luck trying to do that for 6 months much less a year.
    my body is an army and my minds a general. I keep the body in shape and it does what I tell it to do. An army needs discipline, just like a man does. Herschel Walker
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts