A study shows that "better" fitness program?
Good coaches SNC - which there are many - have known for decades that strength training linear periodized programs are not a terrible way forward in strength and muscle mass or time, however, that is exactly the way most people create their programs. That is, go to the gym, do 8-10 repetitions (for example) to X number of games, and make that month after month, year after year. In fact, it is actually the classical Western bodybuilding training process. This is also the worst way to make steady progress in the gym.
Block coaches experienced these programs were a bad way to force increases with time, especially for intermediate and advanced athletes. A recent study examined three groups using three different protocols. It is essential to note that study, unlike many athletes trained force used ,. This is an important difference from other studies and a credit for the researchers. So many studies out there that deal with this subject make the mistake of using untrained individuals, often making valuable results if the studio is looking specifically the effects of the X protocol in People who have never exercised, but I digress ... These researchers examined the effects of three different protocols, 27 strength athletes over a period of 12 weeks. In each group were instructed to complete as many representatives as possible in the rep range allocated
Each group formed his upper body and lower body twice a week - with 3 sets per exercise - we were in the gym four days a week.
Group One: followed what would be your classic / typical program that most of the following persons as mentioned above: non-linear periodized routine (NP). They have from 8 to Series 10 repetitions of the whole experience for 12 weeks.
Group Two: follow a linear periodization routine (LP): first four weeks of the study participants did sets of 12-15 repetitions, four weeks sets of 8-10 repetitions, and the last four weeks 4-5 series reps per set.
Group Three: nonlinear periodization is a (NLP). The program looked like this:
Week 1: sets of 12-15 repetitions
Week 2: 4-5 repetitions
Week 3: 8-10 reps
Week 4: Repeat Week 1
This was done 3 times = 12 weeks.
The results were that only the PNL group made significant progress in strength during the test, which was the leg press and bench press. Interesting - but not surprising - there was no statistically significant change in body composition between the groups. The reason is not surprising to me is; Experienced lifters are not usually big changes in bodycomp a simple change in the program if other variables (ie, total caloric intake, macro nutrient ratios, other activities, etc.) remain the same, and increases the strength often followed changes in bodycomp experienced strength athletes. 12 weeks is not long for a top athlete with experience to make significant changes in bodycomp from a simple change in the program, but can make significant improvements in strength, which ultimately leads to changes in bodycomp.
Remember, even the most sensitive methods to test changes bodycomp has its limits of sensitivity and strength athletes experienced progress measured in years, versus months, so 12 weeks is pretty small studio window ...
The Bottom Line:
The researchers concluded that "... Our data clearly demonstrate that NLP is more effective than the NP models to increase strength combined with workout routines and Split LP. Therefore, people looking to improve their fitness should use NLP using split routines. "
So far so good, and really expected.
Generally not recommended nonlinear periodized programs coaches celebrities, but that does not mean nonlinear periodized routines are worthless to everyone. While this is interesting from the standpoint of confirmation, is old news to one of SNC good coaches out there, and really old news for East Block coaches, 8-10 repetitions (or other), week after week, month after month, year after year, is a quick way to validate progress.
However, it is also much more complicated than a simple change agent hovers around randomly every week. Some programs have very specific goals and can be designed for specific athletes with specific results, so that it can be in a range of replicates per time X, that exceed a week, and so on. Beginners can benefit from nonlinear periodized routines so that nobody should see results above "written in stone" which is the best way to approach a strength training program.
In this study, looking at these groups under the specific circumstances set, etc., NLP was superior to increase strength.
The real take-off home here is type programs NLP - which there are many - are important to the continued progress of intermediate to advanced athletes, and get beyond the conventional nonlinear periodized strength training routines Western produce results oriented higher in most long-term strength coaches.
Programs Charles Staley, Charles Poliquin, Lou Simmons, Jim Wendler, Dave Tate, Rippetoe, Ross Enamait, to name but a few trainers out programs of interest.
Good coaches SNC - which there are many - have known for decades that strength training linear periodized programs are not a terrible way forward in strength and muscle mass or time, however, that is exactly the way most people create their programs. That is, go to the gym, do 8-10 repetitions (for example) to X number of games, and make that month after month, year after year. In fact, it is actually the classical Western bodybuilding training process. This is also the worst way to make steady progress in the gym.
Block coaches experienced these programs were a bad way to force increases with time, especially for intermediate and advanced athletes. A recent study examined three groups using three different protocols. It is essential to note that study, unlike many athletes trained force used ,. This is an important difference from other studies and a credit for the researchers. So many studies out there that deal with this subject make the mistake of using untrained individuals, often making valuable results if the studio is looking specifically the effects of the X protocol in People who have never exercised, but I digress ... These researchers examined the effects of three different protocols, 27 strength athletes over a period of 12 weeks. In each group were instructed to complete as many representatives as possible in the rep range allocated
Each group formed his upper body and lower body twice a week - with 3 sets per exercise - we were in the gym four days a week.
Group One: followed what would be your classic / typical program that most of the following persons as mentioned above: non-linear periodized routine (NP). They have from 8 to Series 10 repetitions of the whole experience for 12 weeks.
Group Two: follow a linear periodization routine (LP): first four weeks of the study participants did sets of 12-15 repetitions, four weeks sets of 8-10 repetitions, and the last four weeks 4-5 series reps per set.
Group Three: nonlinear periodization is a (NLP). The program looked like this:
Week 1: sets of 12-15 repetitions
Week 2: 4-5 repetitions
Week 3: 8-10 reps
Week 4: Repeat Week 1
This was done 3 times = 12 weeks.
The results were that only the PNL group made significant progress in strength during the test, which was the leg press and bench press. Interesting - but not surprising - there was no statistically significant change in body composition between the groups. The reason is not surprising to me is; Experienced lifters are not usually big changes in bodycomp a simple change in the program if other variables (ie, total caloric intake, macro nutrient ratios, other activities, etc.) remain the same, and increases the strength often followed changes in bodycomp experienced strength athletes. 12 weeks is not long for a top athlete with experience to make significant changes in bodycomp from a simple change in the program, but can make significant improvements in strength, which ultimately leads to changes in bodycomp.
Remember, even the most sensitive methods to test changes bodycomp has its limits of sensitivity and strength athletes experienced progress measured in years, versus months, so 12 weeks is pretty small studio window ...
The Bottom Line:
The researchers concluded that "... Our data clearly demonstrate that NLP is more effective than the NP models to increase strength combined with workout routines and Split LP. Therefore, people looking to improve their fitness should use NLP using split routines. "
So far so good, and really expected.
Generally not recommended nonlinear periodized programs coaches celebrities, but that does not mean nonlinear periodized routines are worthless to everyone. While this is interesting from the standpoint of confirmation, is old news to one of SNC good coaches out there, and really old news for East Block coaches, 8-10 repetitions (or other), week after week, month after month, year after year, is a quick way to validate progress.
However, it is also much more complicated than a simple change agent hovers around randomly every week. Some programs have very specific goals and can be designed for specific athletes with specific results, so that it can be in a range of replicates per time X, that exceed a week, and so on. Beginners can benefit from nonlinear periodized routines so that nobody should see results above "written in stone" which is the best way to approach a strength training program.
In this study, looking at these groups under the specific circumstances set, etc., NLP was superior to increase strength.
The real take-off home here is type programs NLP - which there are many - are important to the continued progress of intermediate to advanced athletes, and get beyond the conventional nonlinear periodized strength training routines Western produce results oriented higher in most long-term strength coaches.
Programs Charles Staley, Charles Poliquin, Lou Simmons, Jim Wendler, Dave Tate, Rippetoe, Ross Enamait, to name but a few trainers out programs of interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment