BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > General training questions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 05-13-2015, 12:29 AM
Jackedtastic Jackedtastic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 205
Default schoenfeld's new study. I don't get it.

So first off, I'll say I don't have access to the full text so maybe I'm missinterpreting things. But, if you're trying to determine if training a muscle 1 vs 3 times per week is superior for hypertrophy, why on earth would you measure the forearm extensors and flexors The forearms are like the only muscle that gets hit at every session practically regardless of what you do. And the abstract doesn't mention the vastus lateralis (the only muscle that would have actually told us anything) so I'm assuming there was no difference there, and then concludes that "the findings suggest a potentially superior hypertrophic benefit to higher weekly resistance training frequencies". I don't get it

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25932981
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 05-13-2015, 01:31 AM
Jackedtastic Jackedtastic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 205
Default

Unless forearm flexors and extensors means biceps and triceps...but I always thought those were commonly called elbow flexors and extensors.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 05-13-2015, 03:21 AM
Destiny23 Destiny23 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 296
Default

I swear I thought I saw a Facebook status explains that from Brad but can't find it on my phone right now.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 05-13-2015, 06:53 AM
YYKK YYKK is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 14
Default

Yes he's talking about biceps and triceps and yes he did a Facebook post about it.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 05-13-2015, 06:53 AM
FistOfFury FistOfFury is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 78
Default

Full text can be downloaded here -

http://www.researchgate.net/publicat...ll-Trained_Men
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 05-13-2015, 09:44 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Weird wording, he measured biceps and triceps but the reviewers made him put forearms.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 05-17-2015, 01:44 AM
Jackedtastic Jackedtastic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 205
Default

Thanks for the replies.

I read the full text (thanks for that, FistOfFury), It says that they trained to failure, and rested 90 seconds between sets, and the weights were adjusted to account for fatigue. I wonder if that means they only rested 90 seconds between exercises as well? If it does, it makes you wonder if the sharp reduction in weight, that would have inevitably occured on the latter exercises in the SPLIT group, had much to do with the results? I wonder if the results would have been different if they rested a little longer between sets/exercises?

EDIT- For the most part, nevermind I just looked at the actual routine and it's a chest and back/legs/shoulders and arms split. Not a push/pull/legs split like I had assumed. Which makes my above point a bit less valid, at least for the biceps and triceps.

Last edited by Jackedtastic : 05-17-2015 at 02:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 05-17-2015, 08:55 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Who cares. The results are what they are.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 05-17-2015, 11:20 PM
Jackedtastic Jackedtastic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
Who cares. The results are what they are.
Well...by my estimation, the results are only as good as the meaning they provide, and the meaning they provide is entirely dependent on the particulars of the study design, no? So to answer your question, I would have to say- Anyone who cares about the meaning of the results, should care. Would you agree?

But anyhoo, If I had designed the study, I think I would have used a push/pull/legs split. I would have had longer rests between exercises (like at least 3 minutes), but the short rests between sets would have still been fine. And I would have had an even longer rest (like at least 5 mins) between the compound torso exercises and the isolation arm exercises, so that the arms weren't completely dead after being hit with like 9 sets of compound exercises. I think that would have given us a slightly better idea of whether 1 vs 3 times per week frequency was best.

In fairness, the authors did hypothesize that the higher metabolic stress of the SPLIT routine would result in more growth, and the more frequent neural stimulation of the TOTAL body routine would result in more strength gains, so in that sense the study design kinda made decent sense. But IMO, it would have been more interesting to keep all the variables as separate as possible, and have one study testing metabolic stress vs tension, and another study testing 1 vs 3 times per week frequency. JMO. I don't know the first thing about study design though...I'm just some dude that likes to lift weights
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 05-18-2015, 08:49 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

You can't ever keep all the variables separate. That's not how you do science. And he is trying to mimick real world training. And in the real world, rest intervals change tiwht workout setup
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.