Applications of the dose-response for muscular strength development - ABCbodybuilding

Go Back   ABCbodybuilding > Scientist Department > Article Review and Discussion

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 11-04-2008, 06:06 AM
dashforce dashforce is offline
dashforce should change his/her status!
Lightweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 329
Default Applications of the dose-response for muscular strength development

I've been away for a while, but I thought yall would like this one.

EDIT: Note that when it says 2x / week, it means per muscle group. Lyle McDonald's routines (for natties, of course) are pretty spot on here.

Quote:
Applications of the dose-response for muscular strength development: a review of meta-analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription.Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA.
Department of Exercise and Wellness, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287, USA. mdpeterz@hotmail.com

There has been a proliferation in recent scholarly discussion regarding the scientific validity of single vs. multiple sets of resistance training (dose) to optimize muscular strength development (response). Recent meta-analytical research indicates that there exist distinct muscular adaptations, and dose-response relationships, that correspond to certain populations. It seems that training status influences the requisite doses as well as the potential magnitude of response. Specifically, for individuals seeking to experience muscular strength development beyond that of general health, an increase in resistance-training dosage must accompany increases in training experience. The purpose of this document is to analyze and apply the findings of 2 meta-analytical investigations that identified dose-response relationships for 3 populations: previously untrained, recreationally trained, and athlete; and thereby reveal distinct, quantified, dose-response trends for each population segment. Two meta-analytical investigations, consisting of 177 studies and 1,803 effect sizes (ES) were examined to extract the dose-response continuums for intensity, frequency, volume of training, and the resultant strength increases, specific to each population. ES data demonstrate unique dose-response relationships per population. For untrained individuals, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 3 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 4 sets per muscle group. Recreationally trained nonathletes exhibit maximal strength gains with a mean training intensity of 80% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and a mean volume of 4 sets. For athlete populations, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group. These meta-analyses demonstrate that the effort-to-benefit ratio is different for untrained, recreationally trained, and athlete populations; thus, emphasizing the necessity of appropriate exercise prescription to optimize training effect. Exercise professionals may apply these dose-response trends to prescribe appropriate, goal-oriented training programs.

PMID: 16287373 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Last edited by dashforce; 11-04-2008 at 06:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-12-2008, 05:28 PM
klosey's Avatar
klosey klosey is offline
klosey should change his/her status!
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Eggborough UK
Posts: 8,097
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dashforce View Post
I've been away for a while, but I thought yall would like this one.

EDIT: Note that when it says 2x / week, it means per muscle group. Lyle McDonald's routines (for natties, of course) are pretty spot on here.
this is ok but not many people want to follow a seven day program as a rule of thumb if strength only training i find 72hours max between working the muscle so a max of 3 days
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-12-2008, 11:24 PM
President Wilson's Avatar
President Wilson President Wilson is offline
President Wilson is hard at work
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: California
Posts: 11,582
Default

Really great paper by Rhea and colleagues. I spoke a lot about this this month in these articles

http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/acute...variables.html

Referred to these scientists because their meta analysis was extremely helpful, outstanding work on their part!

Its interesting though how with training comes a need for greater intensities, and finally volumes. Its also interesting how highly trained individuals can tollerate 3 days of frequency with high intensity training but that moderately trained drastically decline in strength gains. It appears that as we advance our bodies either become more resistant to damaging protocols, or simply have greater regenerative powers. I think it is a combination of the two. Curious to hear other peoples thoughts
__________________
Dr. Jacob Wilson, Ph.D, CSCS
President Abcbodybuilding.com
Professor of Exercise Science, University of Tampa Bay

About me --> http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/presidentprofile.html

Last edited by President Wilson; 11-12-2008 at 11:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-13-2008, 08:33 AM
klosey's Avatar
klosey klosey is offline
klosey should change his/her status!
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Eggborough UK
Posts: 8,097
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by President Wilson View Post
Really great paper by Rhea and colleagues. I spoke a lot about this this month in these articles

http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/acute...variables.html

Referred to these scientists because their meta analysis was extremely helpful, outstanding work on their part!

Its interesting though how with training comes a need for greater intensities, and finally volumes. Its also interesting how highly trained individuals can tollerate 3 days of frequency with high intensity training but that moderately trained drastically decline in strength gains. It appears that as we advance our bodies either become more resistant to damaging protocols, or simply have greater regenerative powers. I think it is a combination of the two. Curious to hear other peoples thoughts
hmmmm i'm thinking the hightened resillience of the muscles you are trying to break down means as you advance you are not regenerating quicker but breaking down less muscle fibres. kind of like the house is up but keep messing round with the extension. could be that the years of building muscle have set a certain amount of muscle that is solid almost as if changed muscle fibre types so that the exercises wont break them down
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-14-2008, 12:18 AM
President Wilson's Avatar
President Wilson President Wilson is offline
President Wilson is hard at work
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: California
Posts: 11,582
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by klosey View Post
hmmmm i'm thinking the hightened resillience of the muscles you are trying to break down means as you advance you are not regenerating quicker but breaking down less muscle fibres. kind of like the house is up but keep messing round with the extension. could be that the years of building muscle have set a certain amount of muscle that is solid almost as if changed muscle fibre types so that the exercises wont break them down
Good point. I agree with you
__________________
Dr. Jacob Wilson, Ph.D, CSCS
President Abcbodybuilding.com
Professor of Exercise Science, University of Tampa Bay

About me --> http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/presidentprofile.html
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-14-2008, 08:19 AM
klosey's Avatar
klosey klosey is offline
klosey should change his/her status!
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Eggborough UK
Posts: 8,097
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by President Wilson View Post
Good point. I agree with you
my thought is runners for example train mainly slow twitch muscle fibres and have a low amount of fast twitch muscle fibres, some studies show that it could be possible some of the fast twitch have be modified by the body to form slow twitch to help with the stress of running.
some believe muscle fibre types can be modified 11b to IIa to I by calcium signaling pathways that involves calcineurin.
so my thought is could it go the other way? after a muscle is repeativly trained could this modify the fibre type to be stronger and therefore resistant to damage leaving only newer muscle growth available to break down?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-05-2009, 11:11 PM
dashforce dashforce is offline
dashforce should change his/her status!
Lightweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by klosey View Post
this is ok but not many people want to follow a seven day program as a rule of thumb if strength only training i find 72hours max between working the muscle so a max of 3 days
7 day program? I think the suggestion is more for a 4 day program, a split like 2 upper/lower or 2 push/pull, as suggested by Lyle McD, Kelly B, many others.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.