Noen generelle kommentarer til innleggene så langt:
Trening basert på hormonrespons (testosterone/kortisol/veksthormon etc): Her snakker vi om små endringer i nivåene over korte tidsrom. Betydningen av dette er nok betydelig overdrevet av mange. Det blir omtrent som å ta 10 mg hurtigvirkende testosteron 3 ganger i uka og så forvente at dette skal utgjøre noen vesentlig effekt. Såvidt jeg vet så finnes det ikke noe forskning som viser at man bør basere treningen på hormonresponsen.
Intensitet vs Volum:
Her er det lett å begynne å diskutere intensitet ELLER volum, men det er selvsagt en kombinasjon av optimal intensitet OG volum som er interessant.
Failure for styrke:
Hvis vi snakker kun om styrke, og ikke om muskelvekst, så er det helt klart den gamle østblokken, spesielt i Sovjet, hvor man har gjort mest studier, og hvor man har mest kunnskaper og erfaring med dette. Vektløftere trener meget sjelden til failure, og det samme gjelder styrkeløftere. Hvis failure trening var den beste metoden for maksimal styrke, så ville de ha gjort dette oftere. For at vektløftere skal bli bedre så må de øke både intensitet OG volum over tid. Erfaringen fra vektløfting viser også at det er mer optimalt å øke volumet først, og dermed øke arbeidskapasiteten, før man øker intensiteten.
Studier:
Et problem med de fleste studier er at de ofte bruker utrenede subjekter, studiene er for korte, og de bruker metoder som ikke er relevante i den virkelige verden (f.eks trener bare den konsentriske delen av en øvelse). Jeg har sett mange diskusjoner på studiene for ett sett kontra flere sett når det gjelder styrke. Her er en interessant analyse som er gjort av disse studiene:
Abstract from the Research Quarterly for Exercise &
Sport Supplement, 73(1), March 2002.
Single Versus Multiple Sets for strength: a meta-analysis to resolve the
controversy. Rhea, Alvar & Burkett
The debate regarding the efficacy of single set strength training to
elicit similar strength improvements as multiple set protocols has
continued in recent years. While a number of studies have provided data
to support this efficacy, the mean statistical power of all studies
comparing single and triple sets of training was estimated to be 0.56.
The lack of statistical power among this research may result in the
inability to identify a significant difference bewteen treatments
despite its existence. Therefore, a meta-analysis was performed to
examine single and multiple sets of weight training for strength.
Studies comparing single and three sets of training were analysed and
effect sizes (ES) were calculated by training status, length of training
program, and control for training intensity and variation. Significant
ESs were measured for both trained (0.46) and untrained (0.19)
participants at all lengths of training programs.
Those studies that controlled training variables such as intensity and
periodization were found to elicit a significantly greater ES (0.70) than
those who failed to control these variables (0.25).
Thus, multiple sets elicit greater strength gains than single set protocols
with the magnitude of the effect being influenced by training status of the
participants, length of training program, and methodological control.
Her er et annet interessant studie vedrørende "fatigue" og styrkeøkninger:
Fatigue is not a necessary stimulus for strength gains during resistance training.
Folland JP, Irish CS, Roberts JC, Tarr JE, Jones DA.
BACKGROUND: High resistance training enhances muscular strength, and recent work has
suggested an important role for metabolite accumulation in this process.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of fatigue and metabolite accumulation in strength gains
by comparing highly fatiguing and non-fatiguing isotonic training protocols. METHODS: Twenty
three healthy adults (18-29 years of age; eight women) were assigned to either a high fatigue
protocol (HF: four sets of 10 repetitions with 30 seconds rest between sets) to maximise
metabolic stress or a low fatigue protocol (LF: 40 repetitions with 30 seconds between each
repetition) to minimise changes. Subjects lifted on average 73% of their 1 repetition
maximum through the full range of knee extension with both legs, three times a week.
Quadriceps isometric strength of each leg was measured at a knee joint angle of 1.57 rad
(90 degrees ), and a Cybex 340 isokinetic dynamometer was used to measure the
angle-torque and torque-velocity relations of the non-dominant leg.
RESULTS: At the mid-point of the training, the HF group had 50% greater gains in isometric
strength, although this was not significant (4.5 weeks: HF, 13.3 (4.4)%; LF, 8.9 (3.6)%).
This rate of increase was not sustained by the HF group, and after nine weeks of training all the
strength measurements showed similar improvements for both groups (isometric strength:
HF, 18.2 (3.9)%; LF, 14.5 (4.0)%). The strength gains were limited to the longer muscle
lengths despite training over the full range of movement.
CONCLUSIONS: Fatigue and metabolite accumulation do not appear to be critical stimuli for
strength gain, and resistance training can be effective without the severe discomfort and
acute physical effort associated with fatiguing contractions.
