| Fact or Myth? - Click HERE for Original Thread |
| Markis |
From <a href="http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/haycock/hypertrophy-specific-training-02.htm" target="_blank">Think Muscle</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->The results showed that muscle mass increases were greater in the three workout per week group, compared to the one workout per week group. In addition, the strength increases in this group were on average 40% greater! [/b][/quote]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->These researchers found that doing a single set of each exercise was equally effective as doing three sets of the same movements in increasing the subjects one repetition maximum (1RM) on bench press. [/b][/quote]
What do you think??? If the above it ture, I really need to change my workout! |
|
|
| CYA |
| it's not about fact or myth really... there's too many variables. first one that comes to mind is what type of test subject are they using? three workouts vs one workout per week. how can you effectively train your ENTIRE body in one workout which should last no longer than 1-1.5hrs? it takes that long to effectively train ONE body part. if this rather silly experiment these people decided to test were either fact or myth... then why do ALL pro bodybuilders even bother going to the gym more than once a week? as for the single set with one rep past failure... just pause and think of all the possible variables there are. let's say the test subject uses the one set method. he does 8 reps with 200lbs for flat bench press. he can only do 7 on his own but the last rep is a forced rep. now he does 3 sets. but uses 150lbs for each set and 8 reps. which one is more effective? who knows?? you can do the EMG reading to see which has stimulated the muscle more but there's one very big variable that nobody can control. the mind. who's to say the mind muscle link isn't more focused in the person when he or she knows they only get one set to make things work? there's so many more variables... i wouldn't bother with articles like that. |
|
|
| Markis |
| Well so far my current routine has been working. Another thing I hear is that you should rotate your types of exercises rather than doing teh same ones over and over again. Any truth to that? |
|
|
| schlong8 |
Markis, where did u read or hear about this?
Interestingly enough i just got an article in my class that did a specific study on this.
"Comparison of 1 day and 3 days per week of equal-volume resistance training in Experienced subjects"
McLester J., Bishop P., Guilliams M.E.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2000, 14(3) 273-281
Here is MOST of the abstract:
This study compared 1 day vs 3 days of resistance training per week in recreational weight trainers w/ the training volume held constant b/w the treatments. Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: 1 day/week of 3 sets to failure or 3days/week of 1 set to failure. Relative intensity was varied throughout the study in both groups using a periodized rep range of 3-10. Volume (reps x mass) did not differ b/w the groups over the 12 weeks.
1RMs of various upper and lower body exercises were assessed at start, and at week 6 and 12. 1RMs increased sig for the combined groups over time. The 1day group achieved ~62% increases in 1RM obsereved in the 3day group in both upper and lower-body lifts (meaning the 1day group achieved increase in strength, but not to the extent as the 3day group). Larger increases in lean body mass were apparent in the 3day group.
Findings suggest that a higher freqency of resistance training, even when volume is held constant, produces superior gains in 1RM strength. However, training only 1day/week was an effective means of increasing strength, even in experienced recreational weight trainers. From a does response perspective, w/ the toatal volume of exercise held constant, spreading of the training frequency to 3 doses/week produced superior results.
Aight, let's start the debate!! Heh. |
|
|
| schlong8 |
Heh, whoa.
I just read the article that Markis posted.....and the article they are referring to is the SAME article that i quoted! _Except i got it from a different Journal then they did.
It was conducted at the Uni of Alabama, Department of Human Performace Studies.
Also, the other study that they refer to (footnote 5 in the article) is almost the same to another article that i have. _The main difference is instead of using bench, this study used parallel squats w/ similar results.
BTW, the two articles i was refering to are all peer-reviewd studies, meaning that before it is published in a journal, the study must be reviewd by other scientists in the same field. So that no gross errors in procedures and methods were made.
<!--EDIT|schlong8|Mar. 24 2002,23:23--> |
|
|
| Scintillater |
| nice avatar chris. bet it doesn't beat mine. <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://asianet.ca/images/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo--> |
|
|
|
|
|
