Page 57 of 82 FirstFirst ... 747555657585967 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 570 of 815

Thread: Today's Sally

  1. #561
    Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ambleside
    Posts
    5,502
    Chest to floor press-ups, 8 sets to failure, 5 minutes = set + rest: 20 - 16 - 15 - 14 - 14 - 13 - 11 - 9. Total = 112.

    If slowing down at the end of a set represents benefit - see reference above - I was certainly slowing down.

  2. #562
    Moderator Mossdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Teesdale
    Posts
    2,772
    Dumbbell bicep curls. 2 X 12.5 kg. Simultaneous lifting with both arms.Eccentric lowering. 2 mins break between sets. Curl Reps were to failure, per set.

    23 - 16 - 11 - 11 - 10 - 10 - 10 - 10 - 9
    Am Yisrael Chai

  3. #563
    Moderator Mossdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Teesdale
    Posts
    2,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike T View Post
    From: Myrholt, R. B., Solberg, P., Pettersen, H., Seynnes, O., & Paulsen, G. (2023). Effects of Low-
    Versus High-Velocity-Loss Thresholds With Similar Training Volume on Maximal Strength and Hypertrophy
    in Highly Trained Individuals. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 1(aop), 1-10.
    I'm confused about HVL vs LVL !!! Found this but it's not helped me v much, after a search.

    "In practice, competitive athletes usually have complex training arrangements, especially in competitive seasons. They may have fewer RT sessions and, in turn, a lower maximum strength [15,16]. Therefore, how to maintain and enhance maximum strength with a lower RT volume becomes a valuable research question. Several previous studies on VBT have implied that a lower velocity loss and its higher counterpart may be or similarly effective in maximum strength development, but the lower velocity loss may result in a lower training volume under the same relative intensity [17,18]. In other words, one repetition in a training intervention may lead to a greater gain of maximum strength on average under a lower velocity setting. This topic of training efficiency, however, has only been studied concerning traditional RT [19], while the relationship between velocity loss and training efficiency in VBT is understudied yet. Therefore, we conducted this dose–response meta–analysis aiming to..."
    Am Yisrael Chai

  4. #564
    Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ambleside
    Posts
    5,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Mossdog View Post
    I'm confused about HVL vs LVL !!! Found this but it's not helped me v much, after a search.

    "In practice, competitive athletes usually have complex training arrangements, especially in competitive seasons. They may have fewer RT sessions and, in turn, a lower maximum strength [15,16]. Therefore, how to maintain and enhance maximum strength with a lower RT volume becomes a valuable research question....
    I did not realise that VBT - Velocity Based Training - had such a large research base. It must be difficult to allow for the fact that lower velocity loss in general means a lower volume of work, so presumably adjustments are made in the studies to allow for this. There seems little doubt that some velocity loss is a good thing, but how much? My velocity loss sometimes = 100%. And to get to, say, 60% velocity loss, you have to go through 25% velocity loss - do the extra reps actually do harm?

    I will carry on with either sets to failure = large velocity loss in every set, or volume sets - fewer reps but lots of sets, some of which approach failure.

  5. #565
    Senior Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    490
    This might be relevant to the discussion:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6303131/

    And for those who are time-short, here are the conclusions from it:

    CONCLUSIONS

    The present study shows that marked increases in strength can be attained by resistance-trained individuals with just three 13-min sessions per week, and that gains are similar to that achieved with a substantially greater time commitment when training in a moderate loading range (8–12 repetitions per set). This finding has important implications for those who are time-pressed, allowing the ability to get stronger in an efficient manner, and may help to promote greater exercise adherence in the general public. Alternatively, we show that increases in muscle hypertrophy follow a dose–response relationship, with increasingly greater gains achieved with higher training volumes. Thus, those seeking to maximize muscular growth need to allot a greater amount of weekly time to achieve this goal. Further research is warranted to determine how these findings apply to resistance individuals in other populations, such as women and the elderly. Volume does not appear to have any differential effects on measures of upper-body muscular endurance.

  6. #566
    Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ambleside
    Posts
    5,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    This might be relevant to the discussion:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6303131/

    And for those who are time-short, here are the conclusions from it:

    CONCLUSIONS

    The present study shows that marked increases in strength can be attained by resistance-trained individuals with just three 13-min sessions per week, and that gains are similar to that achieved with a substantially greater time commitment when training in a moderate loading range (8–12 repetitions per set). This finding has important implications for those who are time-pressed, allowing the ability to get stronger in an efficient manner, and may help to promote greater exercise adherence in the general public. Alternatively, we show that increases in muscle hypertrophy follow a dose–response relationship, with increasingly greater gains achieved with higher training volumes. Thus, those seeking to maximize muscular growth need to allot a greater amount of weekly time to achieve this goal. Further research is warranted to determine how these findings apply to resistance individuals in other populations, such as women and the elderly. Volume does not appear to have any differential effects on measures of upper-body muscular endurance.
    Thanks Marco - interesting!

    But don't hypertrophy and strength go together? And surely endurance needs to be assessed with multiple sets, not just one?

    I can vaguely recall at least one other study showing that strength can be increased just as much with a small number of sets vs a larger number, as long as the sets are done to failure. However more sets had a bigger effect on endurance.

  7. #567
    Senior Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike T View Post
    But don't hypertrophy and strength go together?
    "Not necessarily" is my understanding of the research I've studied. Strength isn't just about muscle volume, it's also about the quality of the muscle and how many motor units are used.

    We've had this discussion before, but to recap: competitive weightlifters don't want to increase their muscle mass as it would put them into the next weight category (where they'd have to lift even more to be competitive). Their training is about very small numbers of reps (possibly even one) with huge weights. The principle is that in doing so they will learn to recruit a higher percentage of the motor units they already have, rather than build more muscle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike T View Post
    And surely endurance needs to be assessed with multiple sets, not just one?
    Again, I've read research that implies that this not the case. In very simple terms, that hopefully all of the readers will follow, the logic is that if you are using 60 percent of your motor units in a squat type of exercise, such us uphill running, then they will quickly fatigue. If, however, you have done training that results in the same exercise recruiting 90 percent of your motor units then you will run further up the hill (at the same speed) before they fatigue - without having added any weight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike T View Post
    I can vaguely recall at least one other study showing that strength can be increased just as much with a small number of sets vs a larger number, as long as the sets are done to failure. However more sets had a bigger effect on endurance.
    It is possible that more sets would have a bigger effect on endurance, but this might be because you are creating more muscle motor units, with a greater volume and mass. So the 60 percent I mentioned earlier is of a larger number of motor units.

    All of the above is based on the studies I've read and the weightlifting I did when I was racing. It might not be the same for everyone, and I'm not trying to detract from the good work you and Mossdog are doing.

  8. #568
    Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ambleside
    Posts
    5,502
    Their idea of endurance is not the same as mine - one set of repetitions using 50% of the 1 Rep Max in the bench press - from their illustration this involved 15 to 40 odd reps - speed endurance at best. My idea of endurance, to use a fell running analogy, is the person who runs/power walks/runs/power walks etc up long hills, so more than just a couple of minutes of running.

  9. #569
    Moderator Mossdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Teesdale
    Posts
    2,772
    Press-ups (floor to lock to floor) to failure per set - 1 min recovery intervals between sets.

    28 - 11 - 10 - 10 - 11
    Am Yisrael Chai

  10. #570
    Master mr brightside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Loving it in the Pilates Studio
    Posts
    7,874
    Quote Originally Posted by mr brightside View Post
    It's just very hard to get a benchmark on difficulty when you have nothing to go on; i don't even understand the reference in the thread title. The best yardstick is age and gender...

    I accepted your invite nevertheless and gave it a go, my remaining times were- 48, 48, 48, 48, 48, 48, 48, 48, 47, 47. I'm disappointed about the tailing off at the end, and i wouldn't be able to do it all morning as my tennis elbow was flaring up by number 7.
    48, 48, 49, 49, 48, 48, 48, 48, 48, 48.
    Luke Appleyard (Wharfedale)- quick on the dissent

Posting Permissions

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