|
|
Post by brendann on Apr 27, 2017 12:05:58 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by climbnkev on Apr 27, 2017 14:45:01 GMT -7
Unfortunately this is another of those "Chalk seems to help with maximum grip" type of studies. First they were testing a pure endurance and a power endurance(hypertrophy) rep range, not a strength/power rep range. It is pretty standard practice to focus in the 3-6 rep/set range while working on absolute strength vs the 8-12 rep range. Also I would like to see the athlete that can do 8-12 reps at 85% their 1RM. This is pretty much impossible in any trained athlete.
While this is not the first study that has questioned the hormonal response to resistance training, neither of those protocols they used would be ideal for eliciting a hormonal response anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by srossabi42 on Apr 28, 2017 7:58:55 GMT -7
What protocol would be ideal for eliciting a hormonal response?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonfrisby on Apr 28, 2017 9:00:37 GMT -7
What protocol would be ideal for eliciting a hormonal response? Sets in the 2-5 rep range. Total of ~ 10 hard reps. According to Steve Bechtel on a Power Company podcast. |
|
|
|
Post by tetrault on Apr 28, 2017 14:28:05 GMT -7
What protocol would be ideal for eliciting a hormonal response? Sets in the 2-5 rep range. Total of ~ 10 hard reps. According to Steve Bechtel on a Power Company podcast. But not according to this experiment: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15831061Either way, wouldn't the real question be: "what level of xyz hormone stimulates maximum increase in sending grade level?" 
Another one to reinforce what has already been talked about: power is a quality thing that need not be trained to failure, unlike power endurance: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16410373 |
|
|
|
Post by jonfrisby on Apr 28, 2017 14:32:18 GMT -7
The other thing worth thinking about is return on investment. If I can get 85% (random number pulled out of my ass) the efficacy in 1/3 the time, it means I'm also going to do 3 other lifts, because I'm not sacrificing climbing time for anything over 1 hour of lifting per week
|
|
|
|
Post by daustin on Apr 28, 2017 22:36:53 GMT -7
Unfortunately this is another of those "Chalk seems to help with maximum grip" type of studies. First they were testing a pure endurance and a power endurance(hypertrophy) rep range, not a strength/power rep range. It is pretty standard practice to focus in the 3-6 rep/set range while working on absolute strength vs the 8-12 rep range. Also I would like to see the athlete that can do 8-12 reps at 85% their 1RM. This is pretty much impossible in any trained athlete. While this is not the first study that has questioned the hormonal response to resistance training, neither of those protocols they used would be ideal for eliciting a hormonal response anyways. Agree re: the rep range, but even if these are suboptimal protocols for eliciting a hormonal response, wouldn't you still expect to see a correlation between hormone concentration and strength/hypertrophy? The bigger problem for us climbers is that the study isn't designed to answer the hormonal question we care about, i.e. does eliciting a hormonal response via large muscle exercises result in improved gains if you work smaller muscles (forearms) afterward. For that, it would be less interesting to know the correlation of absolute hormone concentration with workout effect, and more interesting to somehow look at the relative increase in hormone concentration vs. baseline following large muscle exercise and see if there's a correlation with forearm workout effect. |
|
|
|
Post by tetrault on Apr 29, 2017 6:12:50 GMT -7
And the highly specific nature of, and small muscle groups that are key to climbing performance may outweigh or negate any potential benefits realized through seeking exercise to maximize hormonal responses. As in, choosing exercises and protocols based on sport specificity may be more beneficial than looking to manipulate the endocrine system.  |
|
|
|
Post by daustin on Apr 29, 2017 8:36:29 GMT -7
And the highly specific nature of, and small muscle groups that are key to climbing performance may outweigh or negate any potential benefits realized through seeking exercise to maximize hormonal responses. As in, choosing exercises and protocols based on sport specificity may be more beneficial than looking to manipulate the endocrine system. View Attachment Hm, I'm not sure I understand how that picture is relevant to your text? I don't think anyone would advocate choosing exercises that elicit hormonal responses instead of climbing-specific exercises. The hypothesis is that doing the former before the latter may increase the efficacy of the latter. Fwiw I don't put too much credence into this hypothesis. I seem to remember reading a study that basically negated this hypothesis, though I don't remember the citation... |
|
|
|
Post by tetrault on Apr 29, 2017 11:33:41 GMT -7
One can use the data in the figure if they want to try to design a workout to leverage the endocrine system, but my statement was my opinion on why that might not work, as it seems the biggest hormonal responses are related to working large muscle groups. I am essentially in agreement with what you just said; for example, I am not going to try to increase my testosterone by doing squats in an attempt to improve my Hangboard performance. But, also as you said previously, it would be interesting to see a study related to climbing testing such a hypothesis. And, if average climbers end up turning into crushers in the study, I will happily be wrong and give it a try |
|
|
|
Post by climbnkev on May 1, 2017 21:22:39 GMT -7
Agree re: the rep range, but even if these are suboptimal protocols for eliciting a hormonal response, wouldn't you still expect to see a correlation between hormone concentration and strength/hypertrophy? I guess I look at it like I would a study of Hypertrophy using ARC and PE circuits as the workouts for the test groups. Hormonal response is a bit of a hot topic these days, and there have been some studies that have shown that it is effects are negligible. Yet there is 50+ years of empirical data from strength and conditioning coaches worldwide that support heavy multi-joint exercises having a big impact on both strength development and hypertrophy in both the primary movers and also other muscle groups trained concurrently. I guess I am more prone to believe the S&C coach over the scientist testing unfit individuals and drawing conclusions based on those findings. As it relates specifically to climbers hypertrophy in the forearm flexors.....my guess is that it's negligible. I do think it is important to look at the possible effects to the whole system though and the climber as an athlete. If you can tweak your training to maximize hormonal response you have to spend less time maintaining/gaining strength in the primary movers. This means you have more time to practice climbing. |
|
