Does this work?

[stubby]

http://www.fitnessbeans.com/2012/cro...o-beat-injury/

is this true?

anyone tried it while injured?

[XADO]

http://www.fitnessbeans.com/2012/cro...o-beat-injury/

is this true?

anyone tried it while injured?

Bro-science at the level of science-fact )....

I trained for specific strength for sports, and got imballance.....

What will happen if i train only one leg, and the other is broken? Take the cast off and try leg press with double the weight of your trained leg...see how it feels?

In any case, if an part is injured, it will always be less functional (strength, mobility) than the uninjured one.... Even after recovery for a period of time, and that part is likely to get injured faster than the one that was never injured ....

[GinjaNinja85]

It's the first time I've heard of it.

So it's basically saying that if you injure a limb, you can unilaterally train your uninjured limb and your injured limb will maintain its strength and even increase in strength by 50% of the rate of increase in the uninjured limb being trained.

So on this basis, if you injure your left shoulder with a DB OHP max of 100lbs and you then train your right shoulder unilaterally with DB OHP up to a max of 110lb, then once your left shoulder has healed you could press 105lbs with it, despite having not trained it at all. That doesn't make any sense at all.

After saying that the reasons for this are still 'cloudy', it goes on to suggest this theory - even when training a limb unilaterally, our brain sends signals to the nerve endings at our muscles as if we are training both limbs bi laterally, maintaining and even increasing muscle fiber recruitment, even in the injured limb. I mean, really?

This only ecplains neural strength improvement. What about loss of muscle mass? And anyway, how can our brains possibly be sending the same signals to both limbs when we're only using one? If I drive a manual car I operate both the clutch and accelerator in different ways. My legs operate completely individually of one another. If I try to write with my left instead of my right I can't write a single legible word. Based on their theory shouldn't my brain have trained these motor pathways in both hands?

I'd be very interested to hear the opinion of neural experts on this but my BS radar is going off on this one.

[stubby]

It's the first time I've heard of it.

So it's basically saying that if you injure a limb, you can unilaterally train your uninjured limb and your injured limb will maintain its strength and even increase in strength by 50% of the rate of increase in the uninjured limb being trained.

So on this basis, if you injure your left shoulder with a DB OHP max of 100lbs and you then train your right shoulder unilaterally with DB OHP up to a max of 110lb, then once your left shoulder has healed you could press 105lbs with it, despite having not trained it at all. That doesn't make any sense at all.

After saying that the reasons for this are still 'cloudy', it goes on to suggest this theory - even when training a limb unilaterally, our brain sends signals to the nerve endings at our muscles as if we are training both limbs bi laterally, maintaining and even increasing muscle fiber recruitment, even in the injured limb. I mean, really?

This only ecplains neural strength improvement. What about loss of muscle mass? And anyway, how can our brains possibly be sending the same signals to both limbs when we're only using one? If I drive a manual car I operate both the clutch and accelerator in different ways. My legs operate completely individually of one another. If I try to write with my left instead of my right I can't write a single legible word. Based on their theory shouldn't my brain have trained these motor pathways in both hands?

I'd be very interested to hear the opinion of neural experts on this but my BS radar is going off on this one.

i think it's saying that by training the uninjured limb, the injured limb retains 50% of its muscle

[GinjaNinja85]

i think it's saying that by training the uninjured limb, the injured limb retains 50% of its muscle

No, it's claiming it will increase at 50% of the rate of the uninjured limb. Retaining 50% of it's muscle will result in a performance loss and it's basically claiming the opposite of that.

Edit:

Previous research has demonstrated that this technique of exercising whilst injured results in the inactive limb becoming enhanced by approximately 50% compared to increments within the active limb.

[chazzy1864]

I've heard of stuff along these lines in the past. Your opposite side would net some results even if it didn't get trained. It wouldn't be the same as if you directly trained it, but it would help to lessen the blow of inactivity on that side, by being active on the other.

[GinjaNinja85]

I've heard of stuff along these lines in the past. Your opposite side would net some results even if it didn't get trained. It wouldn't be the same as if you directly trained it, but it would help to lessen the blow of inactivity on that side, by being active on the other.

But to the point of showing improved performance?

[chazzy1864]

But to the point of showing improved performance?

I can't really elaborate more as I have only briefly read about it. I have no personal experience with it.

[-Lucifer]

No, it's claiming it will increase at 50% of the rate of the uninjured limb. Retaining 50% of it's muscle will result in a performance loss and it's basically claiming the opposite of that.

Sounds silly to me, but I'll try that out if I ever get injured. (fat chance)

[adamdavidson47]

Complete BS. Ask anyone who's had any type of extensive knee surgery. I'm almost a year from having ACL recon, and my injured leg STILL isn't caught up to my healthier one.

[CookAndrewB]

I've heard of stuff along these lines in the past. Your opposite side would net some results even if it didn't get trained. It wouldn't be the same as if you directly trained it, but it would help to lessen the blow of inactivity on that side, by being active on the other.

All I can imagine is that this will increase the gap in performance between your left and right sides, and I can't see how that is beneficial at all. Muscle memory being what it is, I would rather see someone keep the left/right imbalances to a minimum and work back up to where they were, rather than coming out of the healing process with some inflated sense of how far along they should be and rush back into things.

I also have doubts that maintaining strength is nearly as important as maintaining motor patterns and coordination. I would be curious to see someone run a study about what practicing unloaded movement might buy you in terms of recovering performance after an injury. Coming from an untrained state, most people lack the ability to express the strength that they have because their movement is junk and all the coordination of supporting/stabilizing muscles isn't there. The muscle they intend to work is strong, but they can't properly put that force into action.