Supertraining

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Prof.Dr.Hakan Gur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> FORCE-VELOCITY, IMPULSE-MOMENTUM RELATIONSHIPS: IMPLICATIONS FOR 
EFFICACY OF
> PURPOSEFULLY SLOW RESISTANCE TRAINING
> 
> Brian K. Schilling, Michael J. Falvo and Loren Z.F. Chiu
> http://www.jssm.org/vol7/n2/16/v7n2-16abst.php
> 

***
The above is an excellent paper.  See excerpts: 

Abstract
The purpose of this brief review is to explain the mechanical 
relationship between impulse and momentum when resistance exercise is 
performed in a purposefully slow manner (PS). PS is recognized by 
~10s concentric and ~4-10s eccentric actions. While several papers 
have reviewed the effects of PS, none has yet explained such 
resistance training in the context of the impulse-momentum 
relationship. A case study of normal versus PS back squats was also 
performed. An 85kg man performed both normal speed (3 sec eccentric 
action and maximal acceleration concentric action) and PS back squats 
over a several loads. Normal speed back squats produced both greater 
peak and mean propulsive forces than PS action when measured across 
all loads. However, TUT was greatly increased in the PS condition, 
with values fourfold greater than maximal acceleration repetitions. 

The data and explanation herein point to superior forces produced by 
the neuromuscular system via traditional speed training indicating a 
superior modality for inducing neuromuscular adaptation. 

Excerpts:
It is unlikely that a single program or method will be effective in 
realizing all of the possible benefits of resistance training 
equally... 

Training programs have been developed that aim to regulate repetition 
speed, specifically recommending purposefully slow actions (~10s for 
the concentric and ~4-10s for eccentric portions). Much of the 
support for such programs exists only in lay media (Brzycki, 1995; 
Hutchins, 2001; Wescott, 1999), with little empirical evidence 
(Greer, 2005). The arguments for prescribing such training programs 
often use terminology that is not soundly based in classical physics, 
or is derived from other resistance training/testing modalities 
uncommon to that of question (i.e. isokinetic, in vitro or in situ 
studies). For instance, protocols such as this have been confusingly 
called "low force" (Hutchins, 2001) while at the same time touted as 
having "more muscle tension" (Wescott et al., 2001), "more muscle 
force" and "less momentum" (Wescott, 1999)....

An attempt to reduce the speed of motion subsequently reduces the 
force expressed (Keogh et al., 1999)...

A potential caveat of increased TUT is that the load must be 
decreased to perform a successful 10-s concentric contraction as 
compared to a maximal acceleration repetition (i.e. decreased TUT)...

..Increasing TUT for an exercise session can be accomplished by 
simply increasing the number of total repetitions of maximal-
acceleration exercises (increased volume-load; Tran and Docherty, 
2006). This would ultimately increase the time that the muscle has 
been under tension for that session, but the force output of the 
muscle will have been greater due to the relatively larger loads....

    
CONCLUSION   
The exercise professional must be aware of basic mechanical features 
of all styles of resistance training in order to render an educated 
prescription. While lay literature has suggested that forces are 
optimal with PS, the data herein along with reviewed studies and an 
examination of the impulse-momentum relationship suggests otherwise. 
The inferior propulsive forces accompanying PS suggest other methods 
of resistance training have the potential for superior neuromuscular 
adaptation. While it is reckless to suggest one universal style of 
training to all individuals, one must be careful in selecting a mode 
and designing a training program in order to achieve appropriate 
goals.  

==================
Jamie Carruthers
Wakefield, UK