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 09-03-2019, 09:25 AM
AlphaOmega AlphaOmega is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 253
Default New frequency study

I saw Venuto recently address this one...

Brigatto, FA, et al. Effect of resistance training frequency on neuromuscular performance and muscle morphology after 8 weeks in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 33(8): 2104-2116, 2019

1x 16 sets in single session vs 2x at 8 sets per session
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 09-04-2019, 02:12 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,364
Default

Sets to 'failure' (technical breakdown) on freaking 60 seconds.

So 8X8-12RM bench press with 60" rest. Same on back squat.

Sure.

I really want to see one of these research groups video the workout. Just to see what it actually looks like.

What were they using, the bar at the end?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 09-04-2019, 02:31 PM
AlphaOmega AlphaOmega is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 253
Default

Exactly. Another crappy study not paying attention to rest periods affecting recruitment in subsequent sets when done too soon. Venuto thinks this actually proves something . I really like Tom, but he's missed an obvious confound here. Beardsley has written quite a bit about this issue. Even Brads studies showed 3 min rests are superior to 1 min rests.

=lylemcdonald;314510]Sets to 'failure' (technical breakdown) on freaking 60 seconds.

So 8X8-12RM bench press with 60" rest. Same on back squat.

Sure.

I really want to see one of these research groups video the workout. Just to see what it actually looks like.

What were they using, the bar at the end?[/quote]
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 09-04-2019, 02:40 PM
AlphaOmega AlphaOmega is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 253
Default

I'm willing to bet that what was accomplished in the twice per week sessions was about 4 to 5 effective sets. And what was accomplished in the 1x /week session was about 8-10 total effective sets at best. It's no surprise that the results would be similar over such a short study. The 8 to 10 effective sets would require about a 5-day recovery. Since you shouldn't see muscle loss over the next two days of additional recovery, it fits.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 09-05-2019, 08:51 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,364
Cool

At least one research group has argued that the minimum length of study to be meaningful is 12 weeks. All of these small, short, poorly done studies don't prove a damn thing.

I just don't get why they are still using these crap workout designs. Brad did it too. Before the crapshow unfolded I asked him 'why did you use 90 seconds when you yourself said 2' is probably minimum

Him: to keep the workout from being too long. Which is the other reason that workout was stupid. 15 work sets for that many exercises = 2.5 hours in the gym if you maintain quality.

For a while there it looked like study designs were becoming more relevant to real world training. And I swear it's backsliding.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 09-05-2019, 10:21 AM
AlphaOmega AlphaOmega is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 253
Default

Well now....I just read the author list. Brad is listed. He should have pointed out the confound of 60sec rests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcdonald View Post
At least one research group has argued that the minimum length of study to be meaningful is 12 weeks. All of these small, short, poorly done studies don't prove a damn thing.

I just don't get why they are still using these crap workout designs. Brad did it too. Before the crapshow unfolded I asked him 'why did you use 90 seconds when you yourself said 2' is probably minimum

Him: to keep the workout from being too long. Which is the other reason that workout was stupid. 15 work sets for that many exercises = 2.5 hours in the gym if you maintain quality.

For a while there it looked like study designs were becoming more relevant to real world training. And I swear it's backsliding.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 09-05-2019, 10:53 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaOmega View Post
Well now....I just read the author list. Brad is listed. He should have pointed out the confound of 60sec rests.
Here's a fun fact: Brad's name appears on like 4 papers per month. Now any good researchers will tell you taht putting out one paper a year is a high frequency.

And the study was done in Brazil, his name has appeared on the same group's papers before.

And what seems to be going on is that researchers are just asking hteir buddies to put hteir name on the paper, probably putting in a semicolon, to bump up their paper count.

You can always tell:
If Brad's name is first, it came out of his lab.
If it's not first, his name is on some paper I promise you he had nothing to do with.

Here's a good example of this:
Robert W Morton,1 Kevin T Murphy,1 Sean R McKellar,1 Brad J Schoenfeld,2 Menno Henselmans,3 Eric Helms,4 Alan A Aragon,5 Michaela C Devries,6 Laura Banfield,7 James W Krieger,8 and Stuart M Phillips1. A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults Br J Sports Med. 2018 Mar; 52(6): 376384.


Look at all the authors beteween McKellar and Phillips. It's the entire crew.

And if you read the paper, they talk about who did what on it and this is what it says:

***
Contributors: RWM, BJS, MH, EH, AAA, MCD, JWK and SMP contributed to the conception and design of the study. RWM, BJS, MH, EH, AAA, MCD, LB, JWK and SMP contributed to the development of the search strategy. LB conducted the systematic search. RWM, KTM and SRM completed the acquisition of data. RWM and SMP performed the data analysis. All authors assisted with the interpretation. RWM and SMP were the principal writers of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the drafting and revision of the final article. All authors approved the final submitted version of the manuscript.
***

Basically the first two and last author did 99% of the work. The others just got their name on it.

In any case, I cna't imagine the the Brazil group isn't aware of the 1 vs 3' data on hypertrophy. And why they choose to ignore it is beyond me. But I'm 99% sure Brad's wasn't involved until the end if he was involved at all.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 09-05-2019, 12:48 PM
AlphaOmega AlphaOmega is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 253
Default

Good grief. Even a cursory scan should've alerted Brad. Proving he likely didn't even READ through the paper? Wow.

It's a paper-mill, then. Total fecal featival
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 09-05-2019, 02:15 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaOmega View Post
Good grief. Even a cursory scan should've alerted Brad. Proving he likely didn't even READ through the paper? Wow.

It's a paper-mill, then. Total fecal featival
I could be wrong but this seems to be a current trend in science. I mean publish or perish has always been a thing. years ago I contacted kraemer about a paper his name was on and he told me he didn't have much to do with it.

Turns out EVERY paper that came out of his lab, whether he had anything to do with it, got his name stamped on it.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 09-05-2019, 05:04 PM
w1cked w1cked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,028
Default

1 paper a year? 45 is better. That's all.
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 08:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.