- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What studies do you want and how would you set it up?
Posted on 7/24/19 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 7/24/19 at 1:32 pm
I want a study on what percentage leverage, muscle, and CNS have on a powerlifting move. This will tell me how pound for pound is a poor parameter to judge off of.
This could also show how newbie gains are achieved. I think the average new lifter will not gain much muscle at all. The muscle will fire better because of an adapted CNS and leverages improve on technique.
I would take the top three records for each weight class and do a chart based on weight/height v weight lifted, weight v weight lifted, height v weight lifted and see if there are any correlations we can conclude. I would theorize that as height increases a significant amount of muscle must be added to obtain the same height vs weight lifted as the shorter lifters. So that would disprove pound v pound as a reliable parameter for judgement and leverages play a MUCH larger role than size.
This data could also show what a technically sound average lifter could hopefully achieve at certain body weights.
Easily could get more information than that but that is what was on the top of my head.
This could also show how newbie gains are achieved. I think the average new lifter will not gain much muscle at all. The muscle will fire better because of an adapted CNS and leverages improve on technique.
I would take the top three records for each weight class and do a chart based on weight/height v weight lifted, weight v weight lifted, height v weight lifted and see if there are any correlations we can conclude. I would theorize that as height increases a significant amount of muscle must be added to obtain the same height vs weight lifted as the shorter lifters. So that would disprove pound v pound as a reliable parameter for judgement and leverages play a MUCH larger role than size.
This data could also show what a technically sound average lifter could hopefully achieve at certain body weights.
Easily could get more information than that but that is what was on the top of my head.
3
Posted on 7/24/19 at 1:37 pm to Hu_Flung_Pu
I also think there are some other parameters that are effected by chemical and biological make up of a person. I am 5'11 and 226lbs currently and around 16-18% BF. If I eat more than 3000 calories, I will gain weight. I eat around 1800 calories to lose weight and 2000 to maintain while lifting at a high level.
Every single TDEE calculator has me way above 3000 calories and says I should be losing at 3000 calories. Am I just that more efficient at nutrient partitioning than the average person or is there something else in play.
Every single TDEE calculator has me way above 3000 calories and says I should be losing at 3000 calories. Am I just that more efficient at nutrient partitioning than the average person or is there something else in play.
This post was edited on 7/24/19 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 7/24/19 at 2:51 pm to Hu_Flung_Pu
1. Studying intermediate lifters and assessing the impact of 3 variables in programming. Volume, intensity and frequency.
With beginners, anything works. With intermediates, those are the three biggest variables to manipulate, and I think a lot of people stall at this transition. Understanding more here would help people avoid the plateus when newbie gains stop.
2. Solid analysis on major and side effects of different steroids, anabolic and androgenic. This is an area dominated by individual experiences and abuse extrapolated into sides. I'd like to see someone have a legit study with controlled doses.
With beginners, anything works. With intermediates, those are the three biggest variables to manipulate, and I think a lot of people stall at this transition. Understanding more here would help people avoid the plateus when newbie gains stop.
2. Solid analysis on major and side effects of different steroids, anabolic and androgenic. This is an area dominated by individual experiences and abuse extrapolated into sides. I'd like to see someone have a legit study with controlled doses.
Posted on 7/24/19 at 3:12 pm to Rep520
quote:
With beginners, anything works.
Yeah but why? Is it really only technique and CNS adaptation or is there truly an increased amount of muscle gained relative to an intermediate lifter?
If I were to guess, intensity and frequency would benefit a new lifter over volume. I think volume is important for hypertrophy after CNS and muscle adaptation has peaked in it's mesocycle.
So CNS training (intensity) with technique (frequency) until a plateau has occured. Then a period of hypertrophy (volume) to increase the peak CNS and muscle efficiency until a given period. After that, go back to intensity and frequency to get to peak capacity.
With intermediates, I would think that CNS adaptation is nearing 75%+ at all times and the mesocycles in intensity will be shorter while volume for hypertrophy will need to be longer due to muscle mass taking such a long time to create.
This post was edited on 7/24/19 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 7/24/19 at 3:27 pm to Hu_Flung_Pu
quote:
I would theorize that as height increases a significant amount of muscle must be added to obtain the same height vs weight lifted as the shorter lifters
I agree with this theory. I'm 6'0 and weigh 180, and am amazed at how much more some of these shorter lifters can lift. Leverage is important and ROM plays a huge role in lift numbers. I feel for me my range of motion is a lot larger, and its a detriment in my overall numbers.
Posted on 7/24/19 at 3:48 pm to Hu_Flung_Pu
quote:
Yeah but why? Is it really only technique and CNS adaptation or is there truly an increased amount of muscle gained relative to an intermediate lifter?
I'd suspect CNS has a faster improvement rate than muscle development. CNS and muscle memory are capable of more rapid improvements than muscle size.
Since both variables are starting from a relative zero, you'd think the rate of gain would match the potential.
The aspect of CNS recurs in my first study. An intermediate is probably at least at a decent place with CNS demands from lifting, and the bigger obstacle is less CNS development and more CNS fatigue.
How to manipulate training variables to minimize fatigue and maximize development is a huge trick once you're past that newbie stage.
Edit: I'm not sure I think intensity is only regulated by CNS adaptation vs physical. Maybe that's from running peaking programs where the tapering gives practice, but the physical capability for 10's or 8's is different for me from singles or doubles.
This post was edited on 7/24/19 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 7/24/19 at 4:00 pm to Rep520
quote:
I'm not sure I think intensity is only regulated by CNS adaptation vs physical. Maybe that's from running peaking programs where the tapering gives practice, but the physical capability for 10's or 8's is different for me from singles or doubles.
My interpretation of CNS adaptation is being able to handle higher weights with a minimum improvement in muscle mass. So a program like the Bulgarian method would help get your number high but after the specificity and high weight, the max lift dramatically drops back down to only 10-20% of the previous max on program.
Posted on 7/24/19 at 10:20 pm to Hu_Flung_Pu
I'll bite.
I want to see a study set up where we have normal Americans SAD'ing it up. Document normal intake of foods consumed - hell, provide whatever they want from the study's cafeteria. Document blood test beforehand for lipids, glucose, whatever. Now, the control keeps chugging along while the experiment group only eats a determined amount of vegetables - say 3-500 extra calories worth for the next 3-6 months. They keep eating their SAD plus some vegetables.
Let's see if vegetables put their money where their mouth is on health increases.
I have other ideas, but this one intrigues me currently.
I want to see a study set up where we have normal Americans SAD'ing it up. Document normal intake of foods consumed - hell, provide whatever they want from the study's cafeteria. Document blood test beforehand for lipids, glucose, whatever. Now, the control keeps chugging along while the experiment group only eats a determined amount of vegetables - say 3-500 extra calories worth for the next 3-6 months. They keep eating their SAD plus some vegetables.
Let's see if vegetables put their money where their mouth is on health increases.
I have other ideas, but this one intrigues me currently.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 2:02 pm to Junky
But wouldn't that increase the weight in the vegetable eaters anyway leading to worse numbers? Maybe replace 300 calories worth of vegetables instead of adding.
Posted on 7/26/19 at 2:35 pm to Hu_Flung_Pu
quote:
But wouldn't that increase the weight in the vegetable eaters anyway leading to worse numbers? Maybe replace 300 calories worth of vegetables instead of adding.
A good point. Maybe two experimental groups and a control group would be an option. Either way, I get sick of people saying veggies, veggies, veggies, when the studies "proving" the power of veggies don't account for the lifestyle and exercise changes. Just that - veggies changed them.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News