Treningsforum

Generelt => Studier og Forskninger => Emne startet av: Disiplin på 13. juni 2010, 23:18



Tittel: Failure = Fail?
Skrevet av: Disiplin13. juni 2010, 23:18
Ikke akkurat revolusjonerende nyheter, men dette kan kanskje være interessant lesning for dere som trener til failure hver trening:

Som et lite sammendrag kan man si at forskerne fant ut at det å ikke trene til failure skaper et bedre "miljø" for økning av styrke og "power" (1, 2) (Blant annet grunnet lave nivåer av kortisol og høye nivåer av testosteron under hvile). Det å trene til failure er forbundet med større økninger i muskulær utholdenhet (2).





Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Jun;42(6):1191-9.
1) Concurrent endurance and strength training not to failure optimizes performance gains.

Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of 8 wk of resistance training to failure versus not to failure training regimens at both moderate and low volumes for increasing upper-body strength and power as well as cardiovascular parameters into a combined resistance and endurance periodized training scheme. METHODS: Forty-three trained male rowers were matched and then randomly assigned to four groups that performed the same endurance training but differed on their resistance training regimen: four exercises leading to repetition failure (4RF; n = 14), four exercises not leading to failure (4NRF; n = 15), two exercises not to failure (2NRF; n = 6), and control group (C; n = 8). One-repetition maximum strength and maximal muscle power output during prone bench pull (BP), average power during a 20-min all-out row test (W 20 min), average row power output eliciting a blood lactate concentration of 4 mmol x L(-1) (W 4 mmol x L(-1)), and power output in 10 maximal strokes (W 10 strokes) were assessed before and after 8 wk of periodized training. RESULTS: 4NRF group experienced larger gains in one- repetition maximum strength and muscle power output (4.6% and 6.4%, respectively) in BP compared with both 4RF (2.1% and j1.2%) and 2NRF (0.6% and -0.6%). 4NRF and 2NRF groups experienced larger gains in W 10 strokes (3.6% and 5%) and in W 20 min (7.6% and 9%) compared with those found after 4RF (-0.1% and 4.6%), whereas no significant differences between groups were observed in the magnitude of changes in W 4 mmol x L(-1) (4NRF = 6.2%, 4RF = 5.3%, 2NRF = 6.8%, and C = 4.5%). CONCLUSIONS: An 8-wk linear periodized concurrent strength and endurance training program using a moderate number of repetitions not to failure (4NRF group) provides a favorable environment for achieving greater enhancements in strength, muscle power, and rowing performance when compared with higher training volumes of repetitions to failure in experienced highly trained rowers.


J Appl Physiol. 2006 May;100(5):1647-56. Epub 2006 Jan 12.
2) Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains.

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of 11 wk of resistance training to failure vs. nonfailure, followed by an identical 5-wk peaking period of maximal strength and power training for both groups as well as to examine the underlying physiological changes in basal circulating anabolic and catabolic hormones. Forty-two physically active men were matched and then randomly assigned to either a training to failure (RF; n = 14), nonfailure (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). Both RF and NRF resulted in similar gains in 1-repetition maximum 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) after NRF resulted in larger gains in muscle power output of the lower extremities, whereas after RF it 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 after resistance training may have been compensatory to accommodate the reduction in IGF-1 to preserve IGF availability.


Tittel: Sv: Failure = Fail?
Skrevet av: bergskills21. august 2010, 21:19
bra innlegg :D :D :D
honnør :bow:


Tittel: Sv: Failure = Fail?
Skrevet av: Kengdal25. august 2010, 07:33
Heldigvis har noen glemt å fortelle han her dette :-)
(http://contests.flexonline.com/images/contests/large/52281.jpg)


Søker man på pubmed, kan man finne forskning som støtter alt. Dette betyr ingen ting. Men må kunne også se bak resultatene.


Tittel: Sv: Failure = Fail?
Skrevet av: Disiplin25. august 2010, 20:17
Søker man på pubmed, kan man finne forskning som støtter alt. Dette betyr ingen ting. Men må kunne også se bak resultatene.

Jepp. Ganske enig. To primærstudier betyr lite. Men samtidig kan det være interessant å se for personer som tror at en treningsøkt har vært bortkastet om man ikke er helt utslitt på slutten av dagen.



Tittel: Sv: Failure = Fail?
Skrevet av: HHHH25. august 2010, 20:25
Jepp. Ganske enig. To primærstudier betyr lite. Men samtidig kan det være interessant å se for personer som tror at en treningsøkt har vært bortkastet om man ikke er helt utslitt på slutten av dagen.



Må si meg enig her, og honnør for manglende ego-masturbasjon fra din side.

Dette var et godt innlegg (altså det første). Du er tydeligvis mer reflektert enn pubmed-cowboyene som blir kåt av et abstract og setter du strek under enhver p-verdi under 0,05 uten å vite bak fram på seg selv.


Tittel: Sv: Failure = Fail?
Skrevet av: Ryū25. august 2010, 20:31
 :read: :uhm: :pushups:


Tittel: Sv: Failure = Fail?
Skrevet av: Disiplin26. august 2010, 09:17
Må si meg enig her, og honnør for manglende ego-masturbasjon fra din side.

Dette var et godt innlegg (altså det første). Du er tydeligvis mer reflektert enn pubmed-cowboyene som blir kåt av et abstract og setter du strek under enhver p-verdi under 0,05 uten å vite bak fram på seg selv.

Men jeg vil jo også være cowboy :(

Men takk for tilbakemelding !