Vis innlegg
Sider:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • ...
  • 35
  • 16  Helse & Velvære / Helse og Livsstil / SV: Mariatistel (Leverebeskyttelse) på: 07. november 2006, 23:01
    Må over grensa for å få tak i det ja? Hvordan er det å bestille i posten fra utlandet?
    17  Helse & Velvære / Helse og Livsstil / SV: Mariatistel (Leverebeskyttelse) på: 07. november 2006, 22:49
    "Jeg går på fylla stort sett hver helg, å slutte å drikke er helt uaktuelt"


    - meget fornuftig, og saklig sagt !


    Hva er usaklig med det? Jeg er en gutt på 21 år og jeg er ute på byen stort sett hver helg. I min vennekrets er ikke det så veldig unormalt.

    Sitat
    At du får noe skrumplever av helgefyll, - tvilsomt, dette er en fenomen som hører under gruppen alkoholikere til, eller folk som lider under en eller annen slags leversykdom. Men jeg mener heller ikke å bagatellisere skadevirkningen av alkohol ! Og der er også andre ting en leverskader du utsetter deg selv for.


    "Alkoholskader handler ikke bare om leverskader, men om et helt spekter av potensielle helseskader beroende på hvem man er, og hvor mye og ofte man drikker. Individuelle forskjeller er store – noen skades lett.

    En alkoholenhet regnes som en halv flaske pils eller et glass vin eller en drink. Alkohol opptas raskt i kroppen og kan måles som promille i blodet. Vanligvis regnes man som beruset ved 0,5 – 1 promille, sterkt beruset ved 1,5 – 2 promille og døddrukken ved 2,5 – 3 promille. Dødelig regnes som 4 promille.

    - Er det ”sunnere” å drikke et glass vin hver dag enn å drikke seg beruset en gang i uken?

    - Det er mer ”fornuftig” å drikke et glass alkoholholdig hver dag enn å drikke seg beruset en gang i uken, sier Jørg Mørland, divisjonsdirektør for rettstoksikologi og rusmiddelforskning ved Nasjonalt folkehelseinstitutt i Oslo.

    - Har øl, vin og brennevin samme virkning, eller er noen typer alkohol mindre helseskadelig enn andre?

    - Nei, det ser ikke ut til å være forskjeller mellom øl, vin og brennevin når det gjelder helsepåvirking.

    Individuelle forskjeller
    Alkoholrus er avhengig av hvem du er (arvelige egenskaper, kjønn, alder), når på døgnet du drikker, hva slags stemning du er i, hvem du drikker sammen med og hvor mye du drikker.

    - De individuelle forskjellene med hensyn til akutt- og langtidsvirkninger av alkohol er betydelige, sier Jørg Mørland. – Noen skades lett, andre knapt i det hele tatt, mens noen kanskje har helsefordeler av samme konsum. Vi vet ikke nok om årsakene til disse forskjellene, derfor har vi heller ikke grunnlag for å anbefale alkohol i noen spesiell form eller dose. Ca. nitti prosent av den norske befolkningen bruker alkohol, og ca. ti prosent av den voksne befolkningen vil oppleve å være alkoholavhengige i en periode av sitt liv.

    - Hvem er mest utsatt for å bli alkoholavhengig?

    - I prinsippet er alle som drikker alkohol utsatte for å bli alkoholavhengige.

    Forandringer i lever og hjerne
    - Hvilke organer er mest utsatt for alkoholskader?

    - Alle organer kan skades ved høyt alkoholkonsum. Hjerne og lever er kanskje de mest følsomme organene. Det finnes et spektrum av skader fra de helt lette til de mer alvorlige - fra forbigående til varige. Stort sett er det slik at jo mer man drikker, jo mer alvorlige og langvarige skader kan man få.

    Vold og ulykker
    - Hvordan kan alkohol øke risikoen for vold og ulykker?

    - Dette kan skje på mange måter. Viktigst er kanskje at den kritiske sansen og feilkontrollen reduseres. I tillegg kommer at alkohol påvirker koordinasjon og balanse, og svekker oppmerksomheten og evnen til å tenke fornuftig og bedømme farlige situasjoner.

    Fedme og stress
    - Øker alkohol risikoen for fedme?

    - Alkoholholdige drikker er ganske kaloririke, ca. 100 kalorier per alkoholenhet, og mer hvis sprit er blandet med søtt blandevann. I tillegg spiser man gjerne kaloririke snacks (chips og lignende) til drinken. Overvekt øker i sin tur risikoen for flere sykdommer som høyt blodtrykk og diabetes.

    - Men virker ikke alkohol avstressende og får blodtrykket til å gå ned?

    - Det er en vanlig oppfattning at alkohol virker avslappende, og det har vært gjort flere studier på dette, men konklusjonene er motstridende. Forskerne er imidlertid enige om at det er en klar årsakssammenheng mellom moderat alkoholinntak og høyt blodtrykk, og at blodtrykket synker om man slutter å bruke alkohol. Alkoholbruk kan øke risikoen for kariomyopati (forandring i selve hjertet).

    Angst og depresjon
    - Øker alkoholbruk risikoen for angst og depresjon?

    - Sannsynligvis ikke hos personer med moderat forbruk, men det er overhyppighet av disse lidelsene blant alkoholmisbrukere. Når det gjelder angst, kan akutte symptomer dempes med alkohol, mens langvarig alkoholforbruk kan forsterke plagene pga. abstinenseffekten. Dermed er det lett å ende i en ond sirkel der man fortsetter å drikke for å dempe angsten som kommer fordi man drikker.

    Alkohol er dårlig sovemedisin
    - Mange bruker alkohol (”nightcup”) som sovemedisin, er det lurt?

    - Selv små mengder alkohol kan forstyrre nattesøvnen, bl.a. ved å hemme den viktige drømmefasen, og ved at man våkner mange ganger utpå morgenkvisten.

    Har man vansker med nattesøvnen, vil alkohol som oftest bare forsterke problemene."



    Joda, er veldig klar over de potensielle skadene ved høyt alkoholinntak. Men spørsmålet mitt gikk egentlig på diverse leverbeskyttende produkter.
    18  Helse & Velvære / Helse og Livsstil / SV: Mariatistel (Leverebeskyttelse) på: 07. november 2006, 22:23
    Å slutte å drikke er uaktuelt og gidder ikke å diskutere det. Var ute etter saklige innspill angående produktet. Har det noen særlig effekt eller vet noen om noen lignende bedre produkter?
    19  Helse & Velvære / Helse og Livsstil / SV: Mariatistel (Leverebeskyttelse) på: 07. november 2006, 22:16
    Njaa, det skjer nok neppe med det første.
    20  Helse & Velvære / Helse og Livsstil / Mariatistel (Leverebeskyttelse) på: 07. november 2006, 22:11
    Jeg har vært på fylla stort sett hver helg de 2-3 siste årene og har et relativt høyt inntak av alkohol. I tilegg er jeg også på roaccutane. Dette må jo være ganske så skadelig for kroppen og tenker da spesielt på leverskader (skrumplever)? Vet ikke så mye om dette eller hvor mye som skal til for å få det, men tenkte å være litt føre var. Derfor lurte jeg på om noen har erfaring med diverse leverbeskyttelse? Lest litt om mariatistel og vet det bla blir brukt som leverbeskyttelse under kurer med orale steroider.

    OMTALE
    Mariatistel virker avgiftende på leveren, både forebyggende og terapeutisk, og kan med stor fordel benyttes til behandling av akutt og subakutt leverbetennelse. Planten brukes i dag primært til behandling av hepatitt og gulsott, samt tilstander der leveren er under belastning, enten fra infeksjon, for stort alkoholinntak eller fra kjemoterapi i forbindelse med sykdommer som kreft. Mariatistel kan avhjelpe de skader leveren har vært utsatt for ved kjemoterapi, og fremskynder rekonvalesensen etter behandlingen. Alkoholiserte personer må bruke silymarin i fire til åtte uker før man kan forvente å se tegn til reversering av leverskadene.
    Ekstrakter av mariatistel har vært brukt som en antidote etter at folk ved uhell har spist fluesopp eller andre giftige sopper. Studier utført i nyere tid, sammen med erfaringer fra tradisjonell bruk av mariatistel gjennom lange tider i Europa, tilsier at stoffet silymarin i frøene kan spille en vesentlig rolle i å beskytte mot akutte leverskader på grunn av giftpåvirkninger. Etter at man de siste 40 årene har anvendt mariatistelpreparat ved forgiftninger av hvit fluesopp, har dødeligheten av slike forgiftninger blitt redusert med 80%. Det finnes ikke noen gode skolemedisinske alternativer som virker leverbeskyttende eller leveravgiftende, så bruk av mariatistel ved leversykdommer anbefales, i alle fall ved livstruende situasjoner.
    Mariatistelekstrakt beskytter levercellene både direkte og indirekte. Det besitter også evnen til å regenerere leverceller som har blitt skadet, og til å beskytte mot fibrosis (bindevevsomdannelse). Silymarin, og mer spesifikt silibinin, støtter levercellene direkte ved å binde seg til utsiden av cellene og blokkerer inngangen for spesielle giftstoffer. Silymarin beskytter også levercellene ved å styrke deres antiokisdant-aktivitet. Alkoholmisbruk og virusbetinget hepatitt kan føre til skader på leverceller. Under slike forhold vil silymarin hjelpe cellene til å lage nye proteiner som er i stand til å regenerere skadede leverceller. Og det fine er at silymarinets regenerative evne virker bare på normale leverceller, og det vil på den måten ikke stimulere veksten av kreftceller.
    Folk som er sensitive for mange kjemiske stoffer og arbeidere som blir utsatt for giftstoffer i sitt daglige virke, kan ha nytte av å inkludere silymarin i sitt daglige inntak av kosttilskudd. Det er også registrert bedringer hos psoriasispasienter, men denne observasjonen er bare basert på enkelttilfeller. Psoriasisen hos disse pasientene syntes å være forbundet med svekket leverfunksjon etter en historie som alkoholmisbrukere, og for dem kan mariatistelekstrakt være til hjelp.
    Silymarin er effektiv som hjelp til å forhindre eller lindre gallestein. Mariatistelfrø inneholder også åtte betennelseshemmende forbindelser som kan være til hjelp for å lette hudinfeksjoner og forstyrrelser som psoriasis. Nylig er det vist at stoffet silymarin har gitt lovende resultater som en diabetes-bekjemper. Silymarin er ugiftig.
    Da silymarin er svært tungtoppløselig i vann kan man ikke bruke frøene til urtete, men de kan spises som de er (2-3 teskjeer tygges grundig 3 ganger daglig). Ellers anvendes de som alkoholisk tinktur eller tørr alkoholisk ekstrakt som lett lar seg standardisere. Det finnes flere ferdigpreparater på markedet. Man kan også fremstille mariatisteltinktur selv: Knust droge dekkes med 60% alkohol og står lunt i 2-3 uker, rystes en gang iblant. Siles gjennom filtrerpapir eller kaffefilter.
    Mariatistel er mest brukt i Europa, men mye av frøet som omsettes kommersielt kommer fra Argentina. Planter som dyrkes langt sør inneholder mer silymarin enn planter som dyrkes i nord. Dette er vist ved å sammenligne silymarin-innholdet i planter dyrket i Tyrkia og Tyskland. Faktorer som nedbør, temperatur og den genetiske opprinnelsen av plantematerialet influerer også på innholdet av silymarin. Jo modnere frøene er desto høyere er silymarininnholdet. Av planten er det bare frøene og frøstanden som inneholder silymarin (4-6%).
    Mariatistel er nå anerkjent som en kraftig antioksidant. I følge James A. Duke er den antioksidative virkningen av silymarin 10 ganger kraftigere enn av vitamin E.
    For personer med leversykdommer eller for de som søker ekstra leverbeskyttelse på grunn av alkohol, medisiner eller kjemiske stoffer, bør det daglige inntaket av silymarin tilsvare 420 mg, fordelt på tre inntak gjennom dagen.
     

    Innspill?
    21  Generelt / Kjøp og salg / SV: 800 stk B5 kapsler selges. på: 05. november 2006, 17:24
    Stenger denne 22:00 i kveld ca.
    22  Generelt / Kjøp og salg / SV: 800 stk B5 kapsler selges. på: 05. november 2006, 16:36
    510 mg per tabbis
    23  Generelt / Kjøp og salg / SV: 800 stk B5 kapsler selges. på: 05. november 2006, 14:58
    350 kr føøøøøøøøøøørste gaaaaaaaang....................................
    24  Generelt / Kjøp og salg / 800 stk B5 kapsler selges. på: 03. november 2006, 13:15
    Selger 800 kapsler vitamin B5. 2 bokser på 400+ stk som er uåpnet. Selges til høystbydende over 300 kr. Kjøpt på vilantae.com. Originalpris 530 kr.
    25  Generelt / Diskutèr artikler / SV: Friske skuldre - del1 på: 18. september 2006, 15:43
    Benkpress fucker ihvertfall skulderen min. Men hantelpress, det går greit.
    26  Trening / Kroppsbygging og Fitness / SV: Dorian Yates treningsfilosofi. på: 18. september 2006, 12:17
    Fin studie denne her da. Les:


    New Evidence On Sets Controversy


    The ink was barely dry on last month's "One Set Or Many?" article when thought provoking comments across the spectrum began to arrive. What's more, newly released research answers the two main criticisms of studies showing no significant difference in strength or size gains as a result of doing one set compared to multiple sets.
    One man scoffed that the "one-set-to failure" theory was devised by Arthur Jones to sell his expensive Nautilus machines to gym owners who had to have a high turnover of members to make any money. "[They] could not have someone using a $2000 pullover machine for 5 sets of 10 reps," he contends. According to this man, "The bottom line ... rationale for short workouts was $$$$$."
    From the other side, a fellow wrote that abbreviated workouts have been "especially helpful" to him, because they "allow time for other pursuits while sacrificing nothing in effectiveness."
    A third man, obviously a skeptic, complained: "The one set wonders don't think to mention their warm-up sets."
    The same man recommended that I read Arthur Drechsler's discussion of the sets controversy in The Weightlifting Encyclopedia (see our Products section under Recommended Books). I did. Artie makes some sophisticated points that we all would be well advised to keep in mind.
    Drechsler observes that whether one set or multiple sets are optimal often depends on what you're trying to accomplish. For instance, if you are training for an event that requires repeated bouts of effort, multiple sets may be indicated.
    Another approach, however, would be to rely on sports specific training - and not weights - to develop endurance. If you're training for football, wind sprints or scrimmaging is prNew Evidence On Sets Controversy
    The ink was barely dry on last month's "One Set Or Many?" article when thought provoking comments across the spectrum began to arrive. What's more, newly released research answers the two main criticisms of studies showing no significant difference in strength or size gains as a result of doing one set compared to multiple sets.
    One man scoffed that the "one-set-to failure" theory was devised by Arthur Jones to sell his expensive Nautilus machines to gym owners who had to have a high turnover of members to make any money. "[They] could not have someone using a $2000 pullover machine for 5 sets of 10 reps," he contends. According to this man, "The bottom line ... rationale for short workouts was $$$$$."
    From the other side, a fellow wrote that abbreviated workouts have been "especially helpful" to him, because they "allow time for other pursuits while sacrificing nothing in effectiveness."
    A third man, obviously a skeptic, complained: "The one set wonders don't think to mention their warm-up sets."
    The same man recommended that I read Arthur Drechsler's discussion of the sets controversy in The Weightlifting Encyclopedia (see our Products section under Recommended Books). I did. Artie makes some sophisticated points that we all would be well advised to keep in mind.
    Drechsler observes that whether one set or multiple sets are optimal often depends on what you're trying to accomplish. For instance, if you are training for an event that requires repeated bouts of effort, multiple sets may be indicated.
    Another approach, however, would be to rely on sports specific training - and not weights - to develop endurance. If you're training for football, wind sprints or scrimmaging is probably the best way to develop the stamina to play hard in the fourth quarter. Remember that specificity is the guiding principle in all athletic training.
    Artie Drechsler also reminds us that individual differences come into play. "...Some athletes may benefit from a greater training stimulus [more sets] that other athletes," says Drechsler.
    I agree. Another e-mail made essentially the same point. It read: "Maybe [the fact that] Bill Pearl and Arnold Schwarznegger could do more volume and continue to get stronger and bigger is [the reason] why they left most of the rest in the dust."
    Drechsler goes on: "Obviously there is a point where more training does not increase the training stimulus." Right, and that may be one all-out set for some and 3 or 4 work sets for others. "Know thyself," as the Oracles preached.
    The number of reps in a set also has a bearing on the appropriate number of sets. Artie explains: "Since weightlifters need to perform relatively low reps in training (and especially in competition) they will typically need to employ more set to achieve their ends than someone who is performing five, ten, or twenty reps in a set." Explaining further, Drechsler says, "There is now scientific evidence that more muscle fibers are activated on a maximum set of five reps than on a maximum single. From this it follows that a maximum set of high reps is more likely to stimulate a maximal training effect than a maximum single."
    Right again. I've often said, if you want to do a second maximum set of 20 reps in the squat, there's something wrong. You either didn't go hard enough in the first set, or you're nuts.
    New Studies Answer Critics
    Artie Drechsler's points may help to explain why research on the set question is inconclusive. As my earlier article said, a review of literature by Carpinelli and Otto found that 33 out of 35 strength-training studies showed no significant difference in strength or size gains as a result of doing one set or multiple sets. (Sports Medicine. 25(7): 1998) The two main criticisms of these studies, according to Dr. Carpinelli, are that they were too short, and that the participants were often untrained. The suggestion is that seasoned trainers might benefit from doing more sets.
    Dr. Carpinelli now reports in the October 1998 Master Trainer that those "valid criticisms" are addressed in a series of studies by Michael Pollock, M.D., and his colleagues at the University of Florida, and another research group.
    Five studies by Dr. Pollock's group were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine. Four of them address the duration issue; they extend for six months compared to only six to 12 weeks in the earlier studies.
    Two of the studies (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5); 116 & 165, 1998) examine strength and size increases as a result of one set or three sets of 8-12 repetitions to muscular failure three days a week. Strength was assessed for both one rep max and reps at 75% of pretraining max, in the bench press, row, arm curl, leg extension and leg curl. Muscle thickness increases were measured by ultrasound in eight locations covering the upper and lower body.
    The researchers found almost identical increases in upper and lower body thickness for both the one-set (13.6%) and three-set (13.12%) groups. Increases in one rep maximum were also essentially the same, for all five exercises, but the principle of specificity asserted itself on one exercise when it came to maximum reps or endurance. Both groups showed significant across-the- board increases in endurance, but the 3-set group showed significantly greater improvement in the bench press. At 25 weeks, the one-set group averaged 22 reps in the bench press compared to 27 for those doing 3-sets.
    The third 6-month study by the Pollock group (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5): S163, 1998) focused on increases in knee-extension strength in three different modes: one-rep max, isometric peak torque and training weight. Again, there was no significant difference between the one-set and three-set groups. One-rep max increased 33.3% and 31.6% for 1 set and 3 sets, respectively; isometric increases were 35.4% versus 32.1%; and training weight increases were 25.6% compared to 14.7%
    Even though the researchers apparently didn't find it significant, note that the one-set group gained slightly more strength in the first two modes and substantially more in training weight (25.6% versus 14.7%). It seems to me that specificity is at work again. When you do only one set there's nothing to keep you from doing your absolute best; but when you plan to do three sets it's natural to hold back and pace yourself. I believe that's probably why the one-set group gained more strength. They triggered more muscle fibers than the 3-set group, where pacing probably reduced intensity somewhat.
    The fourth study by the Pollock group (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5): S274, 1998), also 6 months long, showed significant increases in circulating insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) in both one-set (34%) and three-set (30%) groups. Dr. Carpinelli, who teaches the neuromuscular aspects of strength training at Adelphi University (Long Island, New York), says, "IGFs are multifunctional protein hormones, whose production in the liver and other tissues is stimulated by growth hormones." They are important because, "They stimulate glucose and amino acid uptake, protein and DNA synthesis, and growth of bones, cartilage, and soft tissue."
    The researchers concluded: "The elevation of IGFs is no greater with high- than low-volume resistance training." That's noteworthy, because it's generally believed that high-set training results in more growth hormone secretion. (See Growth Hormone Synergism by Douglas M. Crist, Ph.D., 2nd Edition, 1991.
    (Unfortunately this book is no longer in print.)
    The final study by the Pollock group (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5): S115, 1998) addresses the training experience issue. As you'll recall, some have suggested that experienced trainers might benefit from higher volume. In other words, after you've been training for a while, you need increased volume to continue progressing - more is better. According to this study, those people should think anew.
    The researchers recruited 40 adults who had been performing one set to muscular fatigue, using nine exercises, for a minimum of one year; average training time was six years. The participants were randomly assigned to either a one-set or three-set group; both groups did 8-12 reps to failure three days per week for 13 weeks.
    Both groups significantly increased their one-rep maximum strength and endurance. There was no significant difference in the gains made by the two groups in the leg extension, leg curl, bench press, overhead press and arm curl. The researchers concluded: "These data indicate that 1 set of [resistance training] is equally as beneficial as 3 sets in experienced resistance trained adults."
    Another research group, K.L. Ostrowski and colleagues, tested "the effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function" in experienced trainers. (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 11(3): 148-154, 1997) Thirty-five males, with one to four years weight-training experience, were assigned to one of three training groups: one-set, two-sets, or four sets. All participants did what I would call a periodized routine; they changed the rep range every few weeks. They did free-weight exercises four times a week for ten weeks using 12 reps maximum (week 1-4), 7 reps max (week 5-7) and 9 reps (week 8-10). All sets were performed to muscular fatigue with three minutes rest between sets. The only difference between the three programs was the number of sets.
    As in the Pollock group studies, no significant differences in results were found. The authors concluded: "...A low volume program ... [one set of each exercise] ... results in increases in muscle size and function similar to programs with two to four times as much volume."
    Significantly, regarding hormone output, they concluded: "High volume [four sets of each exercise] may result in a shift in the testosterone/cortisol (anabolic/catabolic) ratio in some individuals, suggesting the possibility of overtraining." In other words, high-volume training not only doesn't produce better results, it may also lead to overtraining.
    The Bottom Line
    After considering this new evidence, Dr. Ralph Carpinelli sums-up: "The lack of scientific evidence that multiple sets...produce a greater increase in strength or size, in itself, provides a rationale for following a single set training protocol."
    That seems to be where we are today based on the latest peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Unless you're training to accomplish a task that must be repeated over and over, there appears to be no good reason for most people to spend hours in the gym doing set after set. Volume training works, as my last article concluded, but in most cases the strength and size gains are no better than result from warming-up and performing one hard set.
    The choice is yours.

    Ripped Enterprises, 528 Chama, N.E., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108, Phone (505) 266-5858, e-mail: cncbass@aol.com. FAX (505) 266-9123. Office hours: Monday-Friday, 8-5, Mountain time.
    obably the best way to develop the stamina to play hard in the fourth quarter. Remember that specificity is the guiding principle in all athletic training.
    Artie Drechsler also reminds us that individual differences come into play. "...Some athletes may benefit from a greater training stimulus [more sets] that other athletes," says Drechsler.
    I agree. Another e-mail made essentially the same point. It read: "Maybe [the fact that] Bill Pearl and Arnold Schwarznegger could do more volume and continue to get stronger and bigger is [the reason] why they left most of the rest in the dust."
    Drechsler goes on: "Obviously there is a point where more training does not increase the training stimulus." Right, and that may be one all-out set for some and 3 or 4 work sets for others. "Know thyself," as the Oracles preached.
    The number of reps in a set also has a bearing on the appropriate number of sets. Artie explains: "Since weightlifters need to perform relatively low reps in training (and especially in competition) they will typically need to employ more set to achieve their ends than someone who is performing five, ten, or twenty reps in a set." Explaining further, Drechsler says, "There is now scientific evidence that more muscle fibers are activated on a maximum set of five reps than on a maximum single. From this it follows that a maximum set of high reps is more likely to stimulate a maximal training effect than a maximum single."
    Right again. I've often said, if you want to do a second maximum set of 20 reps in the squat, there's something wrong. You either didn't go hard enough in the first set, or you're nuts.
    New Studies Answer Critics
    Artie Drechsler's points may help to explain why research on the set question is inconclusive. As my earlier article said, a review of literature by Carpinelli and Otto found that 33 out of 35 strength-training studies showed no significant difference in strength or size gains as a result of doing one set or multiple sets. (Sports Medicine. 25(7): 1998) The two main criticisms of these studies, according to Dr. Carpinelli, are that they were too short, and that the participants were often untrained. The suggestion is that seasoned trainers might benefit from doing more sets.
    Dr. Carpinelli now reports in the October 1998 Master Trainer that those "valid criticisms" are addressed in a series of studies by Michael Pollock, M.D., and his colleagues at the University of Florida, and another research group.
    Five studies by Dr. Pollock's group were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine. Four of them address the duration issue; they extend for six months compared to only six to 12 weeks in the earlier studies.
    Two of the studies (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5); 116 & 165, 1998) examine strength and size increases as a result of one set or three sets of 8-12 repetitions to muscular failure three days a week. Strength was assessed for both one rep max and reps at 75% of pretraining max, in the bench press, row, arm curl, leg extension and leg curl. Muscle thickness increases were measured by ultrasound in eight locations covering the upper and lower body.
    The researchers found almost identical increases in upper and lower body thickness for both the one-set (13.6%) and three-set (13.12%) groups. Increases in one rep maximum were also essentially the same, for all five exercises, but the principle of specificity asserted itself on one exercise when it came to maximum reps or endurance. Both groups showed significant across-the- board increases in endurance, but the 3-set group showed significantly greater improvement in the bench press. At 25 weeks, the one-set group averaged 22 reps in the bench press compared to 27 for those doing 3-sets.
    The third 6-month study by the Pollock group (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5): S163, 1998) focused on increases in knee-extension strength in three different modes: one-rep max, isometric peak torque and training weight. Again, there was no significant difference between the one-set and three-set groups. One-rep max increased 33.3% and 31.6% for 1 set and 3 sets, respectively; isometric increases were 35.4% versus 32.1%; and training weight increases were 25.6% compared to 14.7%
    Even though the researchers apparently didn't find it significant, note that the one-set group gained slightly more strength in the first two modes and substantially more in training weight (25.6% versus 14.7%). It seems to me that specificity is at work again. When you do only one set there's nothing to keep you from doing your absolute best; but when you plan to do three sets it's natural to hold back and pace yourself. I believe that's probably why the one-set group gained more strength. They triggered more muscle fibers than the 3-set group, where pacing probably reduced intensity somewhat.
    The fourth study by the Pollock group (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5): S274, 1998), also 6 months long, showed significant increases in circulating insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) in both one-set (34%) and three-set (30%) groups. Dr. Carpinelli, who teaches the neuromuscular aspects of strength training at Adelphi University (Long Island, New York), says, "IGFs are multifunctional protein hormones, whose production in the liver and other tissues is stimulated by growth hormones." They are important because, "They stimulate glucose and amino acid uptake, protein and DNA synthesis, and growth of bones, cartilage, and soft tissue."
    The researchers concluded: "The elevation of IGFs is no greater with high- than low-volume resistance training." That's noteworthy, because it's generally believed that high-set training results in more growth hormone secretion. (See Growth Hormone Synergism by Douglas M. Crist, Ph.D., 2nd Edition, 1991.
    (Unfortunately this book is no longer in print.)
    The final study by the Pollock group (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5): S115, 1998) addresses the training experience issue. As you'll recall, some have suggested that experienced trainers might benefit from higher volume. In other words, after you've been training for a while, you need increased volume to continue progressing - more is better. According to this study, those people should think anew.
    The researchers recruited 40 adults who had been performing one set to muscular fatigue, using nine exercises, for a minimum of one year; average training time was six years. The participants were randomly assigned to either a one-set or three-set group; both groups did 8-12 reps to failure three days per week for 13 weeks.
    Both groups significantly increased their one-rep maximum strength and endurance. There was no significant difference in the gains made by the two groups in the leg extension, leg curl, bench press, overhead press and arm curl. The researchers concluded: "These data indicate that 1 set of [resistance training] is equally as beneficial as 3 sets in experienced resistance trained adults."
    Another research group, K.L. Ostrowski and colleagues, tested "the effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function" in experienced trainers. (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 11(3): 148-154, 1997) Thirty-five males, with one to four years weight-training experience, were assigned to one of three training groups: one-set, two-sets, or four sets. All participants did what I would call a periodized routine; they changed the rep range every few weeks. They did free-weight exercises four times a week for ten weeks using 12 reps maximum (week 1-4), 7 reps max (week 5-7) and 9 reps (week 8-10). All sets were performed to muscular fatigue with three minutes rest between sets. The only difference between the three programs was the number of sets.
    As in the Pollock group studies, no significant differences in results were found. The authors concluded: "...A low volume program ... [one set of each exercise] ... results in increases in muscle size and function similar to programs with two to four times as much volume."
    Significantly, regarding hormone output, they concluded: "High volume [four sets of each exercise] may result in a shift in the testosterone/cortisol (anabolic/catabolic) ratio in some individuals, suggesting the possibility of overtraining." In other words, high-volume training not only doesn't produce better results, it may also lead to overtraining.
    The Bottom Line
    After considering this new evidence, Dr. Ralph Carpinelli sums-up: "The lack of scientific evidence that multiple sets...produce a greater increase in strength or size, in itself, provides a rationale for following a single set training protocol."
    That seems to be where we are today based on the latest peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Unless you're training to accomplish a task that must be repeated over and over, there appears to be no good reason for most people to spend hours in the gym doing set after set. Volume training works, as my last article concluded, but in most cases the strength and size gains are no better than result from warming-up and performing one hard set.
    The choice is yours.

    Ripped Enterprises, 528 Chama, N.E., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108, Phone (505) 266-5858, e-mail: cncbass@aol.com. FAX (505) 266-9123. Office hours: Monday-Friday, 8-5, Mountain time.
    __________________
    27  Trening / Kroppsbygging og Fitness / SV: Drareimer på: 18. september 2006, 12:04
    Enig. Disse er helt hinsides: http://www.norkost.no/product_info.php?cPath=17&products_id=445
    28  Generelt / Antidoping / SV: Strongman og doping på: 18. august 2006, 18:13
    Progresjon er jo uansett stikkordet innenfor trening, om det er styrkeløft, bygging eller strongman.

    Vil tro de fleste strongmen trener disse øvelsene gjevnlig. Så ja, jeg tror det er vikitg for strongmen å være sterk i de tre store.

    En del av strongmanøvelsene er jo nesten som markløft, bare at de bytter ut stanga med vekter, med bildekk eller noe...

    Ja, dekkvelting er jo nesten akkurat det samme som markløft. Og farmers walk blir jo nesten akkurat det samme som knebøy. Bra du har peiling ihvertfall. Fatt at styrkeløft _kun_ trener for å makse mest mulig i bøy, mark og benk (de fleste trener vel stort sett kun disse øvelsene tre ganger i uken minst). Strongmen og kroppsbyggere har en del andre mål med treningen sin. Gidder ikke dra den diskusjonen noe lenger.
    Slett meldingSlett
    29  Generelt / Antidoping / SV: Strongman og doping på: 18. august 2006, 18:00
    Er det mange styrkeløftere som sammenligner løftene sine med byggere slogum?  Snu litt på det da slogum; tror du ikke det er irriterende for en som driver rent og trener hardt som styrkeløfter skal hele tida forsvare styrken sin fremfor dopede byggere som sammenligner sine løft i knebøy (kvarte bøy) og benk( uten stopp med sprett i kassa og rompa i været!) med styrkeløftere?

    Ja det er mange som gjør det, og ja, det er sikkert like irriterende når det går andre veien.

    Slett meldingSlett
    30  Generelt / Antidoping / SV: Strongman og doping på: 18. august 2006, 17:58
    Hvorfor misliker du dette? Det er vell ingenting bedre som gir større muskler og styrke en bøy, mark og benk? Desutten er jo styrkeløft en MYE renere sport, ergo styrkeløftere ER større atleter.

    ... i mine øyne Smiley

    Skjønner du ikke at kroppsbyggere og strongmen har et helt annet mål med treningen sin enn å makse mest mulig i benk, mark og bøy? Derfor blir det en helt latterlig sammenligning. Hvis du synes styrkeløftere er større atleter. Ok, syns det.
    Slett meldingSlett
    Sider:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • ...
  • 35
  • Disse kosttilskuddene er glemt for mange, men som alle bør ta.

    5 digge middager med cottage cheese

    Kosthold09.08.2021270

    Cottage cheese er blitt en svært populær matvare!
    Det er en risiko forbundet med treningen og løftene man utfører
    Det finnes så mange gode varianter av middagskaker enn bare karbonadekaker.

    5 fordeler med stående leggpress

    Trening28.06.202153

    Det er mange fordeler med å trene leggene dine. Se her!