Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Study showing lack of repeated bout effect in chronically trained lifters.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default Study showing lack of repeated bout effect in chronically trained lifters.

    A prior bout of exercise is well known to confer protection from subsequent eccentric bouts (i.e. repeated bout effect; RBE), which may be fostered through neural adaptations, specifically a shift in the frequency content of the surface electromyogram (EMG). It is currently not clear whether chronically resistance trained men are capable of a RBE driven by neural adaptations. Eleven resistance trained men (23.5 3.4 yrs) performed 100 eccentric actions of the barbell bench press exercise, followed by an equivalent bout 14 days later. Indirect markers of muscle damage (i.e. force production, soreness) along with surface EMG were measured before and through 48 h of recovery. Median frequency and maximal isometric force demonstrated time main effects (p > 0.05), but no RBE. A prior bout of eccentric exercise does not confer a RBE for indirect markers of muscle injury or elicit changes in the frequency content of the EMG signal in resistance trained men.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2783719/


    This seems to hint at a threshold (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22688830)that simply cannot be reached in trained persons - how do we reconcile this data in regards to practical training outcomes and it's relevance on the need to include SD?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    423

    Default

    Ummm...if anything, this shows that strategic deconditioning has validity. The bouts were separated by 2 weeks. Also, they measured EMG signals, CK and soreness, isometric force and RFD - none of which have much relevance to what HST implements SD for.

    Another weakness of the study was the protocol, which they even admit was novel - 10 sets of 10 eccentric reps.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blade View Post
    Ummm...if anything, this shows that strategic deconditioning has validity. The bouts were separated by 2 weeks. Also, they measured EMG signals, CK and soreness, isometric force and RFD - none of which have much relevance to what HST implements SD for.

    Another weakness of the study was the protocol, which they even admit was novel - 10 sets of 10 eccentric reps.
    Thanks for the reply, Blade.

    Do you feel the measures taken can prove or disprove RBE in chronically trained lifters - obviously muscle soreness is a really rough marker, but how about the EMG recordings?

    Great points about SD.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    423

    Default

    I don’t think the study provides data to answer any of those questions.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,069

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blade View Post
    Ummm...if anything, this shows that strategic deconditioning has validity. The bouts were separated by 2 weeks. Also, they measured EMG signals, CK and soreness, isometric force and RFD - none of which have much relevance to what HST implements SD for.
    Exactly Borge, as usual they are looking for signs of protection from the damaging effects of unaccustomed exercise, not the reduction in anabolic potential. Which is the rationale for SD.
    Dan
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •