intenzita, volume, frekvencia & company

[saty]

Toto su asi najzakladnejsie ukazatele treninku. Teraz nejake definicie

intenzita: percento z maximalneho vykonu (ked mam najlepsi drep 200kg a poviem ze idem intenzitu 80% tak tym myslim ze drepujem 160kg).

volume (pracovny objem): pocet serii*pocet opakovani (niekto pocita aj rozcvicovacie serie, napr Boris Sheiko, niekto len pracovne serie napr Sergej Ivanov)

frekvencia: ako casto trenujem danu partiu.


Kedze telo sa postupne prisposobuje treninku a prestava nan reagovat, tak toto su zakladne "premenne" ktore treba nejak hybat aby sme sa vyhli stagnacii.

Vseobecne najpodcenovanjsi a nejmenej pochopeny prvok je ferkvencia. Dneskaj hlavne vdaka Muscle&Fitness je popularne trenovat partu 1krat do tyzdna. PICOVINA

Sval raste nie dlhsie ako 48hodin po treninku. Aj ked sa rozkrajam a budem mat svalovicu 4 tyzdne ten sval bude rast IBA 48 hodin, nie dlhsie.

To nehovorim o tom ze vela cvicencov si ani neuvedomuje ze trenuju niektoru partu viac ako raz tyzdenne.

napr klasicky rozpis: hrudnik+biceps, chrbat+triceps, nohy+ramena precvici ramena 3krat, triceps a biceps 2krat a hrudnik, chrbat a nohy IBA RAZ.

Dalej intezita. Problem je ze vela ludi si vobec ale vobec neuvedomuje ze ako cvicime tak aj silnieme a prisposobujeme sa danej zatazi. Takze ked budem 10 rokov cvicit s rovnakymi zavaziami tak budem 10 rokov vyzera ROVNAKO.

Co sa tyka volume tak je to trocha individualna vec. Ludia sa delia na ekto-, meso- a endo morfov, alebo aj fast a hard gainerov. Zatal co fast gainerovi staci jedna seria, hardgainer potrebuje 6 (podla studii hatfielda, stratil som link treba pokukat).

Takze asi tolko nauvod, este su zaujimave veci ako volba cvikov a obmena cvikov, ale k tomu sa dostanem neskor. Studie k vacsine veci nahadzem v priebehu dneska.

A KED MI NIEKTO POVIE ZE, STUDIE SU HLUPOSTI, TAK SI TO KLUDNE MOZE MYSLET. lEN BY MA ZAUJIMALO JAK BY SA TVARIL V SVETE BEZ STUDII, TEDA V SVETE BEZ PROTEINAKOV, CREATINU A TO NEHOVORIM O STEROIDOCH. TOTO BY BEZ STUDII NEBOLO.

[saty]

Na uvod o Bryana Hycocka rozprava o tom ako zaobchadzat s volume a intezitou, da sa tam vela vycitat. Resume po slovensky pride neskor

What is the most efficient way to overload:
- increase weight or
- increase volume?
By that I mean, if I want to do the same damage to the muscle, which one has the least consequence in terms of CNS stress and muscle resistance increase during recovery?

Well, that is a difficult question to answer. It isn't one or the other, assuming a given amount of load is applied to begin with. If you don’t have enough weight, increasing the volume does not increase hypertrophy, it only increases endurance.

Again, as the weight gets heavier, the ability to achieve sufficient time under tension diminishes. It’s simply too heavy to support long enough.

On the other hand, increasing volume will quickly diminish the amount of weight you can use. Not only that, but as you increase volume or begin to train to failure, you also increase the amount of time it takes the CNS to recover (see Int J Sports Med. 2003 Aug;24(6):410-8). But don't forget that the CNS does adapt to different levels of volume. This is what traditional “Periodization” is all about. (NOTE: HST does not use “periodization”. HST uses simple “progression”) So even if a high volume workout kicks your butt in the beginning, that doesn't mean that 3 weeks later it still will. Your tolerance for long workouts will increase if you do it reasonably.

There is also injury potential. As the weight gets heavier and heavier, the potential for injury goes up. This is simply because you will begin to approach the physical/mechanical limits of the tissue (see below for further comments on this). This is the reason that most BIG guys using HST methods and AAS don't go any lower than 8-10 reps during their cycles, and they don’t train to failure.

Let's not forget frequency. Let's say a guy has been growing pretty well hitting each body part once per week. Without increasing the weight, he would probably experience an increase in gains if he bumped it up to twice per week. So, no change in workloads, no change in volume per session, but simply increasing the frequency.

Now don't confuse this with "changing it up" or muscle confusion. This is nothing of the sort. It is simply increasing the frequency of the growth stimulus.

Now that I've rambled on and on, let me finish by saying this. Start out deconditioned. This ensures that your options for increasing the stimulus are wide open as you progress along. Research has led many of us to believe that a single set is sufficient for a deconditioned individual to grow just as much as with 2 sets. This is because the one set initiated the signal to the point of diminishing returns with more than 1 set.

If you do not start out deconditioned, in my experience 1 set isn't usually sufficient UNLESS you train a body part every day. So over the course of 6 days, you do 6 sets. If you can’t hit it every day, you will most likely need 2 sets per workout every other day.

Beware however of training everyday with heavy loads. What happens is there are neural changes that happen immediately after a workout (see Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003 Apr;89(2):115-21). This is part of the RBE. What this does is prevents as much neural activation during the following bout, thereby reducing the potential for injury. However, what it also does is places more load on the mechanical (i.e. passive) structures of the tissue rather than the contractile structures. In essence it greatly reduces the elastic activity during loading and places more load on fewer fibers and more load on the tendons and other connective tissue. This is how injury happens with frequent heavy loads. Unfortunately, it can also lead to significant gains.

When you get into the 10s I have almost always seen 2 “work sets” following a sufficient warmup, to be sufficient. Remember that during the 15s, 2 sets of 15 is 30 reps and it is usually strength-endurance that gives out. During the 10s the weight has increased sufficiently that although you might get another set, 2 sets will have worked the muscle just enough to grow.

During the 5s experienced lifters will then need to reduce the number of exercise and increase the number of sets to 3 (or 4). Yes, the loads used during the 5s should normally be heavy enough to stimulate growth, even with 1 or 2 sets. However, we have just progressed over the last 6-8 weeks up to this point. Our level of resistance to the load has increased to the point where two sets (10 reps) isn’t sufficient.

Bear in mind that the manner in which you perform each rep will have an impact on the effectiveness of the set. Emphasize the negative and use speed (NOT momentum) for the concentric portion.

Ok, this is getting pretty long. But I hope I was able to make some sense…

[Jasme]

perfektní

-každý povinně přečíst,než se bude ptát na všechny ty krávoviny tady na fóru.....

[saty]

takze kratke zhrnutie tamtoho clanku od Hycocka.

Otazka aka je najlepsia cesta k overloadu?
- zvysenie intenzity
- zvysenie volume


pan Hycock tam odpoveda v zmysle, ze zvysovanie volume dlhodobo vedie iba k zvyseniu odolnosti voci unave. Preto treba zvysovat postupne intenzitu. Dotyka sa v niektorych castiach aj otazky frekvencie, pricom tvrdi ze samotne zvysenie frekvencie vedie k novym prirastkom ako sily tak aj objemu. Spomina dalej ze caste treninky s vysokou intenzitou mozu viest k zranenia, bohuzial ale aj vedu k vybornym vysledkom.

Dotyka sa aj otazky volume, pricom voli skor nizke volume (1-3 serie), s tvrdenim ze dalsie serie iba zvysuju odolnost voci unave. (tuto musim s panom nesuhlasit, kedze na obhajobu tohoto pouziva iba jednu trocha hlupu studiu).

Kto chce vediet viac a presnejsie, tak sa to dozvie v samotnom clanku.

[herza]

souhlasím se satym, je vydět že o treninku neco ví.

[herza]

každopádně musím podotknout že s treninky Bryana Haycocka, jsem nebyl úplně spokojen, tím nechci říc že jsou na ho.., Hayckocka považuji za jednoho nejlepčího z odborníků na trenink.
s treninky na podobnym principu např: Chada Weterburyho jsem byl víc než spokojen.

[slayter]

a nazor od tebe si cenim,pac nedavno jsme vedli na podobne tema dialog

aj ja na waterburyho nedam dopustit

[saty]

každopádně musím podotknout že s treninky Bryana Haycocka, jsem nebyl úplně spokojen, tím nechci říc že jsou na ho.., Hayckocka považuji za jednoho nejlepčího z odborníků na trenink.
s treninky na podobnym principu např: Chada Weterburyho jsem byl víc než spokojen.

Tez som viac spokojny s waterburyho principami, to som ale inak vylozil uz hore trocha, rozdelenie podla toho kto kolko serii potrebuje, co pan Hycock trochu opomina. Nejake Waterburyho veci sem tez nahodim, ked si na to najdem cas.

[herza]

ono s tima seriema máš pravdu,
nic méně Hycock nic neopomíná jeho metedo př: HST využívá "kruhového (prot ten nízký počet serií)" treninku za učel sval stimulovat vícekrát do týdne, to se shoduje s Waterburym,
ale rozdíl že Weterbery má základnu max. ve třech cvikách na den
(např: uvedu 1 den
DEN1:
10x3 opakování, int. 80% - 60s odpočinek
Benč-press + Přítahy v předklonu)

, díky tomu může nastavit větší prostor pro více serií. Určitě se shodnem na tom, že jeho metoda je promakanější a lépe konfigurovatelná.

Jinak na tvé příspěvky se rád podívám a něčemu novému se rád přiučím.

[herza]

Cus slayer
díky za uznání, já si na náš dialog vzpomínám,
ale to neznamená že uznávám jednu stranu mince tu druhou opomínám. Samozřejmě že za tím co jsem řekl minule si stojím. Tréninkky nejdou jednoznačně paušalizovat a každý trénink má své pro a proti. Tím mám na mysli že M&F my v mých začátcích byl velkou oporou a mnohé mě naučil, samozřejmě že některé tréninky co uvídí jsou šílenost (např: 2,5cm za den, to už bylo moc i na mě a to jsem hodně přístupný člověk).
Tím chci říc že každý trénink má svě pro a proti. (to není slovo do pranice)
Samozřejmě to co uvadl Saty, o metodách svalové hypertrofie je poznatek klíčoví a revoluční.

[saty]

Neco k frekvencii

Training Frequency

Training frequency is a much debated and apparently, variable part of training. Multiple aspects of recovery and adaptation are blended together, such as rest, sleep, mental state, nutrition, age, and immune function. Prescribing a fixed and/or perfect frequency is thus very difficult. What is usually needed is a conditional prescription. i.e. If a person pays close attention to all controllable factors, rest, sleep, diet, etc. a general recommendation can be made.

Another point of consideration is optimal vs. workable. It's obvious that more equally productive sessions per time period will result in faster progress. Adjustments in the program may also be considered as a variable. A trainee may choose to alter the intensity and/or duration of training sessions while keeping a fixed frequency, or, they may adjust frequency while keeping a fixed intensity and/or duration. Both sides have 'logical' reasoning for each action. What is superior has not been proven.

What science has to say

Busso (1) compared training frequencies of 3d vs 5d per week. The conclusions were that 5d per week led to a higher level of fatigue and thus a longer recovery time. Obviously, the subjects were not recovering between sessions. If one is training in a 'single factor' model, the goal is to replicate a 'stimulation -> rest -> recover -> adapt' scenario before a subsequent stimulation is induced.

DeMichele (2) Tested rotational torso strength gains between 1d, 2d, and 3d per week subjects. No difference between 2d or 3d per week were found, but both 2d and 3d were superior to 1d per week.

Carroll (3) tested strength and MHC gains in the leg muscles for 2d vs. 3d per week training. In this study, results were similar but higher strength gains were seen in the 2d per week subjects. Other work (4) by some of the same researches earlier had shown that 3X week training for 12 weeks increased increased arm girth (5%) and forearm extensor strength (39%), associated with the triceps brachii muscle.

Significant changes in hypertrophy have been seen using various training frequencies. Abe (6) used a 3X weekly protocol, Staron (5,7) used 2X weekly both training programs produced significant increases in mass. Hakkinen (8) also used a 3X weekly approach but divided the daily volume into two daily sessions. No systematic changes took place in the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the quadriceps femoris muscle or in maximal voluntary isometric strength of the leg extensor muscles over training period I with one daily sessions. However, a significant (p < 0.05) enlargement in the cross-sectional area of the muscle occurred during period II. Both phases where 3 weeks in length and this could account for not seeing changes in the initial phase simply too short of a duration to see any change but we will discuss this in our “Duration” section.

Looking at exercise frequency in older adults, Taafe(9) shows that training more frequently than one time per week had little impact compared to higher frequencies (2 or 3 times per week). Using three sets of eight exercises targeting major muscle groups of the upper and lower body, at 80% of one-repetition maximum (1-RM) for eight repetitions, muscle strength and lean body mass increased in the exercise groups relative to control, with no difference among frequency groups at any measurement interval.

Too much, too little too late?

One last consideration is recognizing over training. There are two ways the term 'over training' appears to be used.

Training more often than optimal, with no ill effect

Training more often than optimal, with ill effects (over training syndrome)

The latter is usually seen in high caliber athletes, and over a longer period of training time. The common ground being, the former will or could lead to the latter. Many researchers are looking at the over training syndrome and some new light is being shed on it. Smith (10) puts forth a hypothesis that over training compromises immune function, leading to a signaling of the CNS. This signaling generally leaves one feeling lack luster, depressed, or other feelings of malaise.

The 'take home' message

If one is willing, and/or able, to adjust the factors needed for proper recovery, and are a healthy adult, twice weekly training per muscle or muscle group appears to be the optimal prescription. Superior results have not been found for higher frequencies of stimulation (in longer term situations), but lesser results have been found for lower frequencies.

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, and results are the final proof of a program. Intelligent trainees will note progress, and adjust factors such as sleep, nutrition, and the like, so that recovery and adaptation may take place at the fastest pace. If a factor is unalterable, and progress cannot be made with an optimal frequency, the trainee must then, decide to either adjust the amount of work or the training frequency (11-13).

Dan and Ron

(1.)Busso, T. Effects of training frequency on the dynamics of performance response to a single training bout. J Appl Physiol. 2002 Feb;92(2):572-80.

(2.)DeMichele, PL.Isometric torso rotation strength: effect of training frequency on its development.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997 Jan;78(1):64-9.

(3.)Carroll, TJ. Resistance training frequency: strength and myosin heavy chain responses to two and three bouts per week.Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1998 Aug;78(3):270-5.

(4.)Jurimae, J. Changes in the myosin heavy chain isoform profile of the triceps brachii muscle following 12 weeks of resistance training.Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1996;74(3):287-92.

(5.)STARON, R. S., Skeletalmuscle adaptations during early phase of heavy-resistance training in men and women. J. Appl. Physiol. 76:1247–1255, 1994.

(6.) ABE, T. Whole body muscle hypertrophy from resistance training: distribution and total mass Br J Sports Med 2003;37:543-545

(7.)STARON, R. S. Muscle hypertrophy and fast fiber type conversions in heavy resistance-trained women. Eur.J. Appl. Physiol. 60:71–79, 1989.

(8.)HAKKINEN, K. Distribution of strength training volume into one or two daily sessions and neuromuscular adaptations in female athletes. Electromyogr. Clin. Neurophysiol.34:117–124, 1994.

(9.)Taafe, D. Once-weekly resistance exercise improves muscle strength and neuromuscular performance in older adults.J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999 Oct;47(10):1208-14.

(10.)SMITH, L. L. Cytokine hypothesis of overtraining: a physiological adaptation to excessive stress? Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 317-331, 2000

(11.)Cronin, J. Training volume and strength and power development. J Sci Med Sport. 2004 Jun;7(2):144-55.

(12.) American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Feb;34(2):364-80. Review.

(13.)Halson, SL. Does overtraining exist? An analysis of overreaching and overtraining research. Sports Med. 2004;34(14):967-81. Review.

Toto je vlastne zlepena zbierka jednotlivych studii, vo vysledku z kazdej jednotlivej studie je vidno za trenovat partiu 2 krat tyzdenne prinasa ovela vacsie svalove prirastky ako trenink partie 1 krat tyzdenne. Dalej porvnanie 2 oproti 3 a viac krat uz neprinieslo ziadne markantne zlepsenie.

Otazna ovsem je urovne jednotlivhych probantov tychto studii, kedze telo si na stres pomerne slusne zvyka a ako vyplyvalo z clanku vyssie, samotne zvysenie frekvencie treninku vedie k novym prirastkom.

Teda moje zaver je asi taky ze cvicenci by mali postupne prechadzat od nizko frekvencnych treninkov k vysoko frekvencnym.

[Beebop]

asi dost dolezite. clovek sem pride po tyzdni a forum je zasrate picovinami - cest vynimkam

[saty]

hali halo ...

takze dalse pokracovanie, dneska sa pozreme na fenomen zlyhania (failure)

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF STRENGTH TRAINING LEADING TO FAILURE VERSUS NOT TO FAILURE ON HORMONAL RESPONSES, STRENGTH AND MUSCLE POWER GAINS.

Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Hakkinen K, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, French DN, Eslava J, Altadill A, Asiain X, Gorostiaga EM.

Studies, Research and Sport Medicine Center, Government of Navarra, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain.

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of 11 weeks of resistance training to failure vs. non-failure, followed by an identical 5- week peaking period of maximal strength and power training for both groups as well as to examine the underlying physiological changes in basal circulating anabolic/catabolic hormones. Forty-two physically-active men were matched and then randomly assigned to either a training to failure (RF; n=14), non-failure (NRF; n=15) or control groups (C;n=13). Muscular and power testing and blood draws to determine basal hormonal concentrations were conducted before the initiation of training (T0), after 6 wk of training (T1), after 11 wk of training (T2), and after 16 wk of training (T3).

The strength training program required each subject to perform a combination of free weight and fixed machine-weight exercises in each
session, mainly consisting of 3 sets of 6-8 repetitions, with a relative intensity of 70-80%
of 1RM. The exercises completed in each weight-training session were the supine bench press, shoulder press, lateral pull-down, parallel squat, knee flexion, standing leg curl, abdominal crunch and another exercise for the trunk extensors. The total duration of each strength training session was 35-40 minutes.

In the RF (Failure Group) training group, the load was reduced and the training continued immediately when the load was paused for more than 1 s or if the subject was unable to reach the full extension position of the arms or leg. The training load was reduced 3-4 times in a training session during
RF training, whereas load remained constant in the NRF group.

During the first six weeks of training (from T0 to T1), the RF group trained with 3 sets of 10RM for the bench press and 80% of 10RM for the parallel-squat, whereas the NRF group performed 6 sets of 5 repetitions at a similar intensity (10RM). During the mid 5 weeks of training (from T1 to T2), subjects in the RF group trained at 6RM and 80% of
6RM and performed 3 sets for the bench press and parallel-squat, respectively, whereas the NRF group performed 6 sets of 3 repetitions at a similar intensity. During the final 5 weeks of training (from T2 to T3), both groups trained at 85%-90% of 1RM
(~5RM), 2-4 repetitions per set and performed 3 sets for both upper and lower extremity
exercises and performed the ballistic training.

Both RF and NRF resulted in similar gains in 1RM bench press (23% and 23%) and parallel squat (22% and 23%), muscle power output of the arm (27% and 28%) and leg extensor muscles (26% and 29%) and maximal number of repetitions performed during parallel squat (66% and 69%). RF group experienced larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions performed during the bench press The peaking phase (T2 to T3) followed after NRF resulted in larger gains in muscle power output of the lower extremities, whereas after RF resulted in larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions performed during the bench press. Strength training leading to RF resulted in reductions in resting concentrations of IGF-1 and elevations in IGFBP-3, whereas NRF resulted in reduced resting cortisol concentrations and an elevation in resting serum total testosterone concentration. This investigation demonstrated a potential beneficial stimulus of NRF for improving strength and power, especially during the subsequent peaking training period, whereas performing sets to failure resulted in greater gains in local muscular endurance. Elevation in IGFBP-3 following resistance training may have been compensatory to accommodate the reduction in IGF-1 in order to preserve IGF availability.

nejake zhrnutie:

Takze tuto pani skumali rozdiel medzi treninkom do zlyhania a bez zlyhania. Obe skupiny trenovali 11 tyzdnov s rovnakym volume aj s rovnakou intenzitou, akurat skupina trenujuca do zlyhania mala menej serii a viac opakovani a skupina bez zlyhania naopak. Porovnavali sa silove vysledky a hladina hormonov.

Po tychto 11tich tyzdnoch dosiahli UPLNE ROVNAKE.

dalej trenovali 5 tyzdnov rovnaky silovi trenink (obe skupiny ten isty trenink). Po tychto piatich tyzdnoch dosiahla skupina netrenujuca (tych prvych 11 tyzdnov) do zlyhania lepsie vysledky (boli silnejsi a mali lepsie hladiny hormonov /menej kortizolu/). Zatial co skupina trenujuca predtym do zlyhania bola lepsia v maximalnom pocte opakovani s danou vahou ale mala horsie silove zlepsenie a horsie hladiny hormonov.


Zaver:
Trenink do zlyhania neni v nicom lepsi nez ternink bez zlyhania. Ukazovatele ako volume a intenzita su nadradene zlyhaniu.

[saty]

Nejake moje dodatky:

Treninky do zlyhania sa narocnejsie regeneruju ako bez zlyhania. Dalej Mike Stone napr varuje, ze serie do vycerpania pozaduju ovela dlhsie prestavky medzi nimi (rovnake ako v silovom treningu) a ani tie nemusia stacit na plne zotavenie a tym zabranuju dostatocnemu "loadingu" v dalsej serii, ci dokonca v dalsom cviku. (kedze volume&intenzita su dolezite ukazovatele ako sme si uz vyssie ukazali).

Teda treninky bez zlyhania nam umoznuju trenovat castejsie (dolezitost frekvencie som uz ukazal) a v jednotlivych treninkoch pouzit vyssie volume*intezita. Teda su lepsie ako treninky do zlyhania.

[slayter]

a jak treba s treningem malych partií?

a jejich pripadnym treningem do slehani?