Muscle Recovery vs. Neurologic Recovery

C

celc5

New Member
I'm looking for literature to support the HST principles of muscle recovery vs. neurologic recovery. Abstracts would suffice as I could get access to a local university reference library if needed.

I'm not looking to put HST on trial in any way. I'm genuinely intrigued by this particular topic.

If this is posted in the wrong subforum, mods feel free to move the thread.
 
A good place to start is by clicking on the "HST" tab on the top right of this page, read the article and the sources sited at the end. There are also lots of newer tests cited throughout this forum. Check out the two research forums on the HST Forum Home site.
 
Thanks for the reply.

Regarding the "top right" link, I'm sure there's plenty of info in the repeated bout effect studies. Unfortunately, none are clearly cited in that particular article to support 48 hours of muscle recovery vs. 7 days of neurologic recovery when training to failure. Also, the introductory article doesn't go into recovery as in depth as in the FAQ pdf. So I wouldn't expect what I'm looking for to be in that section anyhow.

I'm seeing plenty of evidence in the hypertrophy research subforums that supports higher frequency to maximize anabolic activity, eccentric loads, etc. But, I must still be overlooking the studies to explain recovery periods.

There are no related topics in the performance research subforum.

I'm not giving up. This is a cool topic and I want to learn more
smile.gif
 
Do a search at pubmed using authors Komi PV, Enoka RM, Bigland-Ritchie B, Gandevia SC, Vøllestad NK, Noakes TD, Westerbland H, Sahlin K, Lambert CP
with any of the keywords, force recovery, fatigue, maximal voluntary contraction and so forth.

That should give you a pretty good laundry list to start.
 
Good suggestion. I spent a few hours sifting through Pubmed over the weekend but still haven't found evidence to support recovery timeframes.

I personally find Pubmed serches to be more productive in terms of brainstorming and looking for random new ideas. Honestly, when I'm looking for a specific topic, I rarely find Pubmed to be a useful source especially after doing tons of research in grad school.

To make my quetion more specific, is there a specific source that was used in the FAQ pdf to support 36-48 hours muscle recovery vs. 5-7 days neurologic recovery? The references are there but the citations are vague. Not complaining about the citations at all. But it's necessary to mention to illustrate that I'm not just fishing for a freebie answer without attempting to find the sources myself.
 
<div>
(celc5 @ Nov. 18 2008,12:13)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">is there a specific source that was used in the FAQ pdf to support 36-48 hours muscle recovery vs. 5-7 days neurologic recovery?</div>
It's been a long time since I've read the faq but I don't recall this being said (perhaps I'm wrong). What I do recall is 36-48 hours before PS is reverted back to baseline but this is hardly the same as regeneration or repair (days to weeks). It certaintly doesn't fall under the realm of glycogen resythesis either as that time is much shorter.

Also even when looking solely at muscle tissue what recovery aspect as we speaking about. The times seen before SR function is returned to normal versus the time seen when EC is restored are vastly different.

So if you'll point to the specific location where this is said I may be able to clarify and discuss a little more in depth.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I personally find Pubmed serches to be more productive in terms of brainstorming and looking for random new ideas. Honestly, when I'm looking for a specific topic, I rarely find Pubmed to be a useful source especially after doing tons of research in grad school.</div>Which is why I gave you some specific authors who have looked at the vast array of aspects on contraction recovery. This brief list includes some fantastic reviews on metabolic, neural, contraction coupling, and structural recovery topics.
 
Thanks for an awesome reply.  I'll get back to the faq again asap so I can specifically site what I'm talking about.

I completely goofed with the authors. I ran the searches for the keywords but somehow missed the authors list.  Back to Pubmed
smile.gif


Again, much appreciated bro!
 
Please give a summary of your findings for those of us who are too lazy to put forth the effort you are willing to do.
cool.gif
 
I too would be interested in discussing this so as O&amp;G said, get back to us and let's open up a line of discussion.
 
After rereading the FAQ, I have to correct my assumption that there is a specific statement that deliniates recovery periods.

A much better description would be that it's IMPLIED that muscle recovery occurs in the 2 day time period while neurologic recovery when training to failure requires 5-7 days rest.

The specific statements are more geared toward a 48 hour window of anabolic effect (on multiple levels) and how COMPLETE muscular recovery isn't necessary to retrain the muscles and enduce further anabolic effect.

I haven't explored any further with the Pubmed authors. I plan to do so at some point, but can't put the time in at the moment.
 
A fascinating subject to be sure - I wonder how valid any &quot;general&quot; finding can be considering the difference in muscular and neurological impact generated by a novice vs. an intermediate vs. an advanced vs. an elite lifter.
Not to disparage anything - just expressing my opinion . Not sure if this makes sense to anyone else but when you look at an elite numbers guy who was lifting in the upper percentile of 1RM like say Dorian Yates and examine his routine and how it &quot;evolved&quot; over his lifting career- you see how frequency and volume tapered over his career to accommodate the increased trauma he was able to generate.
I recall &quot;training age threads&quot; from a year or so ago - that also touched on this . As I said it's a fascinating subject with many implications for routine design/programming and I'll be following this thread in hopes someone better at &quot;translating&quot; science speak will be able to distill some concrete maxim(s) from the available abstracts .
smile.gif
 
Russ,

I am assuming in your post just above regarding Dorian Yates' tapering his frequency and volume as his career progressed, that you're implying that the more advanced you are, the more recovery you need.

I've always wondered about that: Do advanced lifters need more recovery time than beginners? (A lot of my reading has indicated the answer to this question is &quot;Yes&quot;. It seems to me that a more advanced, or more conditioned, lifter would at least recover more quickly in the CNS department.

I'm a firm believer in the &quot;frequency is inversely proportionate to volume&quot; way of training, and that frequency should take precedent over volume (in terms of muscle recovery). But when one is advanced, should they cut back on frequency as well?

Would love anyone's thoughts. And if anyone has any links to research on this topic, that would be great too!
 
Yes ,  If your 85%1RM is 380 Lbs. and you perform a 5x5 at that load, you will make larger inroads into the CNS's recovery ability compared to doing a 5x5 with the same percentage  when your 85%1RM was 180 Lbs.

The CNS can be and is developed over time BUT unfortunately the ability to generate intensity has a larger capacity for development .


Different lifters will thrive on different variable emphasis. Dorian Yates obviously thrived on an  approach where volume and frequency was subordinate to  intensity.


I think the responsibility falls to each lifter (at some point- usually in the intermediate stage) to begin to manipulate the variables of frequency, volume, and intensity to find THEIR &quot;sweet-spot&quot; (which may change over time).


Leaving out the issue of dual factor training theory would  make this subject appear more hopeless than it in fact is...
smile.gif
 
The problem I see with this line of thought is &quot;we are talking relative numbers&quot; IE % 1RM. So novice or elite the loads being used are relative to ones own ability, which naturally changes over time.

So truly would 80% of Dorian's 1RM be any more demanding than 80% of mine or anyone elses?

I think the difference being is the workout approach. Repeated failure sets vs. non failure sets, multitude of intensity enhancers (drops, forced, etc) versus simple rep count sets. So would a Dorina Yates type set kill me, probably? But not, IMOO, because of the relative % of load.

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 Nov;98(4):402-10. Epub 2006 Sep 13. Links
The effects of varying time under tension and volume load on acute neuromuscular responses.Tran QT, Docherty D, Behm D.
University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of different methods of measuring training volume, controlled in different ways, on selected variables that reflect acute neuromuscular responses. Eighteen resistance-trained males performed three fatiguing protocols of dynamic constant external resistance exercise, involving elbow flexors, that manipulated either time-under-tension (TUT) or volume load (VL), defined as the product of training load and repetitions. Protocol A provided a standard for TUT and VL. Protocol B involved the same VL as Protocol A but only 40% concentric TUT; Protocol C was equated to Protocol A for TUT but only involved 50% VL. Fatigue was assessed by changes in maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), interpolated doublet (ID), muscle twitch characteristics (peak twitch, time to peak twitch, 0.5 relaxation time, and mean rates of force development and twitch relaxation). All protocols produced significant changes (P &lt;or= 0.05) in the measures considered to reflect neuromuscular fatigue, with the exception of ID. Fatigue was related to an increase in either TUT or VL with greater fatigue, as reflected by MVIC and peripheral measures, being associated with differences in TUT. The lack of change in ID suggests that fatigue was more related to peripheral than central mechanisms. It was concluded that the load and contraction velocities of the repetitions have different effects on acute neuromuscular responses and should, therefore, be clearly calculated when describing training volume for dynamic constant external resistance exercise training.

J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Jun 12.
Strength Athletes Are Capable to Produce Greater Muscle Activation and Neural Fatigue During High-Intensity Resistance Exercise Than Nonathletes.

Ahtiainen JP, Häkkinen K.
Department of Biology of Physical Activity and Neuromuscular Research Center, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.

Acute neuromuscular responses to maximum versus forced repetition (FR) knee extension resistance exercises (4 sets of 12 repetitions [reps] with a 2-minute recovery between the sets) were examined in 4 male strength athletes (SAs) and 4 nonathletes. Maximum repetition (MR) sets were performed to voluntary exhaustion (12 repetition maximum [RM]), whereas in the FR sets, the load was greater (8RM) and the set was continued after voluntary fatigue with 4 additional assisted reps. Maximal isometric force and electromyogram (EMG) activity of the knee extensors were measured before and after the exercise, as well as 2 recovery days after the exercise. Electromyogram activity was also measured during the actual concentric phases of the knee extensions. Both loading protocols in both groups led to decreases in isometric force, but no significant changes were observed in EMG activity during isometric actions at any time points. However, the difference between the 2 loading protocols and experimental groups was observed in muscle activity during the concentric phases of the knee extensions. As expected, EMG activity increased in both groups throughout the MR sets when compared with the first repetitions of the sets. Only in SAs, EMG activity decreased significantly at the end of the FR sets. The results suggest that experienced SAs were capable to activate their muscles to a greater extent than their non-strength-trained counterparts indicated by neural fatigue during the FR exercise. Greater motor unit activation in SAs than in nonathletes may be due to training-induced neural adaptation, which manifested during fatiguing exercise. The present study suggests that FRs are an efficient training protocol to overload the neuromuscular system especially in SAs.

Int J Sports Med. 2009 Apr 20.
Neuromuscular Fatigue after Resistance Training.

Izquierdo M, Ibañez J, Calbet JA, González-Izal M, Navarro-Amézqueta I, Granados C, Malanda A, Idoate F, González-Badillo JJ, Häkkinen K, Kraemer WJ, Tirapu I, Gorostiaga EM.
1Studies, Research and Sport Medicine Center, Government of Navarre, Spain.

This study examined the effects of heavy resistance training on dynamic exercise-induced fatigue task (5x10RM leg-press) after two loading protocols with the same relative intensity (%) (5x10RM (Rel)) and the same absolute load (kg) (5x10RM (Abs)) as in pretraining in men (n=12). Maximal strength and muscle power, surface EMG changes [amplitude and spectral indices of muscle fatigue], and metabolic responses (i.e.blood lactate and ammonia concentrations) were measured before and after exercise. After training, when the relative intensity of the fatiguing dynamic protocol was kept the same, the magnitude of exercise-induced loss in maximal strength was greater than that observed before training. The peak power lost after 5x10RM (Rel) (58-62%, pre-post training) was greater than the corresponding exercise-induced decline observed in isometric strength (12-17%). Similar neural adjustments, but higher accumulated fatigue and metabolic demand were observed after 5x10RM (Rel). This study therefore supports the notion that similar changes are observable in the EMG signal pre- and post-training at fatigue when exercising with the same relative load. However, after training the muscle is relatively able to work more and accumulate more metabolites before task failure. This result may indicate that rate of fatigue development (i.e. power and MVC) was faster and more profound after training despite using the same relative intensity.
 
Thanks, Russ and Dan, for your replies on this subject.

I am not very good at interpreting scientific studies, so I will look at those more closely over the weekend, and post some questions if I have them.

But for now, more simply: Do you think an advanced lifter, working with the HST principles (which I have been doing more ON than off, over the last 6 years) should adjust the frequency of training ( i.e., cut it down to twice a week per body part, or once a week), due to what seems to be the fact that advanced lifters need more time to recover. And with that, (especially if it is once a week) should the volume per bodypart be increased? (But then, wouldn't that be going against one of the primary principles of HST...frequency of training?)

OR are you saying that recovery time is based on type of workout (forced reps, or drop sets, or rest pause, or working to fatigue, or any other type of HIT training...which I think is what you are implying, Dan, by saying &quot;So would a Dorina Yates type set kill me, probably? But not, IMOO, because of the relative % of load.&quot;)?

I hope I'm making sense here. Thanks.
 
One more thing I forgot to add to in the above post:

&quot;OR are you saying that recovery time is based on type of workout (forced reps, or drop sets, or rest pause, or working to fatigue, or any other type of HIT training...which I think is what you are implying, Dan, by saying &quot;So would a Dorina Yates type set kill me, probably? But not, IMOO, because of the relative % of load.&quot;)?&quot;

.....but then that wouldn't be HST, would it?
 
What I am saying is............

It is not the level attained that is important it is the workout manner employed.

Dorian Yates was still lifting a weight relative to his max just as you lift relative to yours. It is the intensity (subjective term used to grade effort, not intensity as in load) enhancers that many use which is the issue.

So should one sacrifice frequency of training in order to use intensifiers?

If their goal is to get better at a specific intensifier, yes. If their goal is to grow, no.
 
And what I'm (respectfully) saying is...


A novice can Dead Lift with relative frequency. At this stage , a focused , driven novice can progressively load  this movement with as little as 48 hours between consecutive workouts. The musculature,connective tissue, and Central nervous system will  adapt  to this frequency if the demand is made.


Eventually the novice  finds that this is no longer sustainable and the erector muscles, joints of the thoracic and lumbar spine, and CNS will begin to voice their dissent . This new dynamic is typically dealt with by alternating squat and dead from workout to workout and sustainable progression is resumed.

Eventually THIS begins to get to be &quot;too much&quot; for the lower back and CNS and at this point (typically) the movement is moved to a 1xper/wk schedule.Again sustainable progress resumes.

When I say &quot;typically&quot; I should point out that I mean in a general sense , there are many ways to skin a cat so to speak - and this particular cat has been skinned successfully in too many ways to detail each approach.


It seems logical (to me at least) that one could to a degree use the dead lift and it's effect as a microcosm of the entire body system to come to my earlier stated opinion that:

&quot;Yes ,  If your 85%1RM is 380 Lbs. and you perform a 5x5 at that load, you will make larger inroads into the CNS's recovery ability compared to doing a 5x5 with the same percentage  when your 85%1RM was 180 Lbs.

The CNS can be and is developed over time BUT unfortunately the ability to generate intensity has a larger capacity for development . &quot;



I would clarify that my opinion is not so rigidly held that I would blindly dismiss the findings of science - but as of this moment this is what I believe to be true.


This is ALL of course IMHO and not meant to come off as argumentative or pompous  any way .
smile.gif
 
I'm not very techy when it comes to this stuff (I'm outside of my comfort zone - I need to read a lot more about the subject) but I'm going to ask a few questions and see what you folks think...

Since action potentials are said to be 'all-or-none', does it actually require more electrophysiological activity (in the form of action potentials) to activate the same number of motor units once a lifter is stronger following years of training?

Ie. if a lifter has a squat 5RM of 200lb early in his career and several years later has a squat 5RM of 400lb, does it require more electrophysiological activity to fire those same motor units in the later case? Or, is it just that the force production for each activated fibre is higher (through hypertrophy of the individual fibres) in the later case? In other words, is the CNS activation the same even though the force production is higher because of the additional contractile proteins?

Let's say hyperplasia has also taken place for this same lifter: would the frequency of action potentials need to be higher in order to create enough stimulus to account for any additional fibres in a motor unit?

Obviously, greater force production by hypertrophied fibres would place a greater demand on the body's energy systems (specifically the Phosphogen and Glycolytic systems) for the same number of reps as more work would be done. Would this require more time for recovery or would the trained/stronger body have developed increased ability to replenish these stores (assuming at least maintenance cals consumed in both cases)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top