In article from the most recent T-Mag (http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/272real.jsp0, they provide abstacts from presentations at the recent American College of Sports Medicine annual meeting in San Francisco. Just a quick scan had several that were of interest to me and I've further excerpted some bits from their abstracts:
THE EFFECTS OF STATIC STRETCHING ON POWER AND VELOCITY DURING THE BENCH PRESS EXERCISE
Results: The static stretching prior to benching decreased both power and velocity by nearly 25%!
This study just adds to the evidence that it’s a bad idea to stretch statically before training. Stick to dynamic warm-ups if you want the best performance and injury prevention. Or better yet, stretch the antagonist instead! (6)
6) A.C. Fry, E. McLellan, L.W. Weiss,F.D. Rosato
Since stretching has been a fairly common topic here, I thought this might be of interest. By the way, since no journals were listed in their references, I'm assuming that these are taken from the proceedings of the conference.
EFFECTS OF SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SETS RESISTANCE TRAINING ON STRENGTH GAINS OF PREVIOUSLY EXPERIENCED ADULTS
Surprisingly, there’s quite a bit of evidence suggesting that three sets of an exercise are not superior to a single set for strength gains.
While this training style won’t apply to many people interested in optimal athletic performance or muscle hypertrophy, one set per exercise probably isn’t a bad idea for people adopting this kind of frequency and set scheme (i.e. whole body workouts). In other words, it’s mostly for the "health crowd." (9)
9) PSC Gomes; AM de Paula; CEO Diogo; M de Freitas; F Rodrigues; MIR Pereira
I just thought this was interesting.
EFFECT OF RESISTANCE TRAINING ON CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE RISK FACTORS AND MUSCLE STRENGTH IN MALES
Ultimately, resting blood pressure was slightly reduced, as were triglyceride levels (by nearly 17%!). There was no effect of resistance training on body fat percentage or total cholesterol levels.
Here’s evidence that resistance training may actually be beneficial at reducing some of the risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Unfortunately, only the reduction in triglyceride levels was really significant, thus ensuring that cardio is still the number one type of exercise for preventing heart disease. Weight training alone just won’t do it. This backs up what Cassandra shared in Part I. (7)
7) D.F. Edwards, D. Phelan
This was THE MOST interesting to me. Being an "older guy" and hearing the pro's and con's of the "cardio" [sorry Bill] debate for some time now, the reactionary part of my being is saying "GO BACK TO WHAT YOU USED TO DO" which was more of a balanced approach. Since my body fat has gone up despite continuing regular exercise, I'm thinking that the heavy reliance on weight training may be a mistake.
... just got a call from the realtor so gotta go get the house ready!
[Bill frantically searches deep in his closet to find his running shoes in fear of suffering a heart attack ]
As I have previously stated, it is not what type of exercise you do that is cardio protective. It is how much exercise you do.
They are making an invalid comparison between "the C-word" and weight training. They did not make a comparison of cardio protective health markers after equal caloric expenditure in both types of exercise. If you look at equal time, you will most likely expend more calories per minute doing some form of continuous activity (assuming sufficient intensity) vs. weight traingin because of the rest periods involved due to working at a higher intensity.
Your body composition issue is easily solved. If you made a significant shift of activity from more cyclic, continuous activity to more weight training but kept total time exercising constant you are now burning fewer calories than before.
You can decide to burn more total calories or adjust your eating plan.
I thought you'd like to jump on that one! (DAMN, there goes my HARTMAN certification!)
The part that I didn't post but that made me curious was the length of the study and that there was no description of the type of training they were doing. It surprises me that, after six weeks, there was no change in body fat % if they had a decent weight training program. Of course, they didn't complicate it further by adding diet as a variable (apparently) but I'm also surprised that there was NO significant impact on cholesterol, either.
There's very little info in the T-Mag article and much less in my excerpt but still, from what I read, it doesn't sound right.
Bill, you are, of course, right and I know it. I have both not been burning quite as much but, more importantly, have had way too many of these "special occasions" lately where the food selection was not of my choosing... but they were all enjoyable! This Friday, it's off to Cozumel with the kids again!
Originally posted by Bill Hartman: Cozumel AGAIN!!!!
Hey, at $299/person for four day/three nights of all you can eat+drink (including air fare) on the Carribean, it's just become the family routine vacation! Everybody is certified except the youngest and she's recently expressed interest so maybe we'll do some diving... but we often just snorkel since you can still see plenty.
I guess that's one plus of living in Texas (proximity). We'll be sure to have a round for the folks back at JPFitness.
Here's a picture from the 2001 trip... I was a bit larger then! EEEEUUWWWW!
Originally posted by Bill Hartman: [Bill frantically searches deep in his closet to find his running shoes in fear of suffering a heart attack ]
As I have previously stated, it is not what type of exercise you do that is cardio protective. It is how much exercise you do.
They are making an invalid comparison between "the C-word" and weight training. They did not make a comparison of cardio protective health markers after equal caloric expenditure in both types of exercise. If you look at equal time, you will most likely expend more calories per minute doing some form of continuous activity (assuming sufficient intensity) vs. weight traingin because of the rest periods involved due to working at a higher intensity.
Your body composition issue is easily solved. If you made a significant shift of activity from more cyclic, continuous activity to more weight training but kept total time exercising constant you are now burning fewer calories than before.
You can decide to burn more total calories or adjust your eating plan.
Bill Hartman
At the risk of permanently losing any hope of ever achieving my Hartman Certification, I think I need to add more "cardio" into my workout for the sole reason of burning more calories. I eat a pretty good/steady diet and rarely ever skip workouts (that's the best part of the day!) but the fat has been creeping up (up to 15% which is in the "ideal" range but not ideal for me). The main difference is that I've been doing more of a strength training routine and less riding/running/walking.
I prefer to burn more vs. count calories and I think I can do it with more riding/running/walking and a more streamlined weight routine that focuses on squats, deads, bench, dips, rows and my favorite... pull-ups.
I hope it works for you. Try to make it purposeful. Don't just burn calories. Improve something for some reason. You're an athlete right? Train the appropriate energy systems by arranging your energy system training (not the "C-word")appropriately.
Hey, what if instead of hoping on the road to no-where or the bike that won't move, you hit the gym floor for repeat suicides (I hated those in basketball practice but what a conditioning tool)under 30 seconds. You could also do a shoot around and pass the ball, recover it, and shoot then repeat til you puke (okay maybe not puke). Run forwards, backwards, and sideways. Beat your kids repeatedly but be sure to use both arms to prevent any asymmetrical development.
Now if there are pretty girls on the stair-monster be sure to grab the strategically placed stationary bike for all energy system training as this would be the exception to all rules pertaining to the quality and quantity of training.
Have you considered rearranging your training routine a bit. Alwyn will agree with this...he uses some cool protocols a la Chales Poliquin, Charles Staley, and Craig Ballantyne (the creator of Tubulence Training...maybe the coolest trademarked nick-name in all of sports training) which will burn the fat off your from between your toes!
CB was very helpful to me when I was a MH regular but I haven't tried to communicate with him lately. However, I think Bill is right that I first just need to change my routine (duh!). I've been on it for over two months. I'm reading up on the turbulence training and will start that... once I get a better handle on exactly how to do it!
The first question I have is where he says to "pair non-competing exercises in supersets." I'm not sure what he means by that... ones that involve different muscles? Also, how crucial are the supersets? I have a hard time doing supersets at my gym during lunch time. Lastly, I don't recall seeing specifics on interval training. Any kind of HIIT okay?
Bill, I don't think of myself as an athlete and the only sport I'm participating in right now is racquetball one day a week. I never went back to hoops.
Off to the gym! Repeat after me: energy system training... energy system training... energy system training...
Originally posted by Quercus:
The first question I have is where he says to "pair non-competing exercises in supersets." I'm not sure what he means by that... ones that involve different muscles? Also, how crucial are the supersets? I have a hard time doing supersets at my gym during lunch time. Lastly, I don't recall seeing specifics on interval training. Any kind of HIIT okay?
Bill, I don't think of myself as an athlete and the only sport I'm participating in right now is racquetball one day a week. I never went back to hoops.
Q
Non competing supersets could be anatgonistic muscle groups (a push exercises followed by a pull exercise) or that involve muscles distant from one anothe so that the accumulated fatigue does not effect performance during the set. I think Craig has an example workout on his site. I've use several variations such as pairing larger bodyparts (legs, back, chest)with smaller (bi's, tri's, delts, calves, abs) or training antagonistic body parts (chest + back, bi + tri) or press overhead with pulldown variations and the like. I've also varied the rest periods between exerices from none to up to 1 minute (try supersetting anything with heavy squats ). Working large with small may give you the opportunity to work in superset fashion.
Everyone is an athlete!
Bill Hartman, athlete [somewhat crippled but an athlete none the less]
Bill Hartman, athlete [somewhat crippled but an athlete none the less] [/QB]
When you said "limping into August," I thought maybe you were starting an Ian King workout!
When I was showering at the gym a few minutes ago, there was this guy who looked pretty lean and had what were obviously running shoes. I struck up a conversation with the guy and said, "Are you a runner?" He said he was and I continued the chat by telling him that I had just come from the track (after the weight room) and was doing a little interval training (in our 100+ degree heat!). We got to talking about burning calories and he started telling me, "what you need to do is some steady state cardio for 30 minutes, five times a week." I hope I concealed my smirk well enough while I was thinking that Bill should be hearing this!
Bill, you've got a long row to hoe to convert everyone! Talk about JOB SECURITY!
I was at ACSM this spring. I even presented =). ASCM conferences are like boxes of cheap chocolates. You never know what you're going to get, but usually, it's crap. Hmm..I shouldn't say that. What I meant to say was that more often than not, people tend to try to take their research results more applicable than they really are (whether researchers who should know better, or media types who should know better). So, while the studies are generally fine when interpreted within their scope, something mysterious happens between the speaker's mouth and the listener's brain (or sometimes, between the speaker's brain and the speaker's mouth) that causes people to jump to weird conclusions that generally have very little to do with the study itself.
How does that saying go...Restraint is the better part of valor?
I haven't figured out my turbulence routine quite yet (when I get back from VACATION!) but today I did superset deads and heavy lat pulls (in lieu of pull-ups which I did Monday). Talk about sweating! I tried to not leave too much time in beween but it took me a little while to recover to go again.
Then I went outside to the track to attempt my HIIT routine. Maybe it was the 100 degree heat or the fact that I'd already popped the cork in the weight room but I didn't have enough gas to finish. I started thinking that maybe this old fart better get his a$$ back in the AC before the buzzards start circling! It was a great workout!
Oh, yeah, since tomorrow is racquetball day, I did my three days in the weight room on Mon, Tues, and Wed just so I could get them all in before I leave on Friday so that probably slowed me down today, too. Still, I'm sure it's definitely going to burn something!
Try starting with a timed rest period between your exercises and progressively reduce it over several weeks rather than trying to kill yourself all at once.
For instance, after heavy deads you may need 60-75 seconds to start (keep poundages up) and then reduce it by 15 seconds over 2-3 weeks.
CB says to change the routine every three weeks. Is this a case where about the time you would start getting to where you can tolerate shorter rest periods, you completely change things up and start over?
<or>
Will the endurance carry over? If it's the latter, then it seems as though it would take quite a while but it would prevent acclimating to any one routine. I'm not just starting out with workin' out and there were the other caveats (heat, three days in a row) but it did wear me out quickly!
Well Quercus, I pulled out the abstracts from this year's ACSM, and wrote a long response, but apparently, accidentally hitting CNTL-R instead of SHFT-R, clears the respose box. So here's the short version:
1) Stretching and lifts:
Not a bad study, but difficult to say whether its results go past their study population which was high school students. Also, I'm not sure the differences in power and velocity they observed are actually _that_ relevant, except in elite competition, but I had trouble trying to figure out what the weight lifted was in this study, because power and velocity are expressed in watts and meters per second.
2) Single sets vs multiples
This study looked OK, with a few academic issues that I wouldn't want to bore you with.
3) Resistance training and cardiovascular disease
This study had nothing new to add to the literature. We already knew that resistance exercise was good for lots of things, but not necesarily cardiovascular outcomes. It's not even as though they did a better study than the ones already published.
Methodology is never simply a boring academic problem =). But the abstract had some statistical issues that I would want cleared up by the authors. The problem is that you don't get the published abstracts until you arrive in San Francisco, so it's virtually impossible to go through the 2000+ abstracts to see what it is you _really_ want to delve into.
Q,
I think Craig is trying to prevent any form of stagnation. In three weeks, depending on your training age, you are probably reaching a point where you're adapting to the routine (even with a progressive reduction in rest periods).
The change provides a new stimulus for adaptation. You may get some carry-over in endurance if the new exercises are similar to the previous exercises, but you'll probably want to increase rest times and then progressively shorten again. In doing so, you'll allow for the training effects from the first cycle to maximize.
]
[img]smile.gif[/img]
Linear Mode
