éine studie zur trainingsintensität, vielleicht ein paar worte dazu,bevor jemand auf schräge gedanken kommt
:
ich würd aus der studie nicht schliessen,das ein konventionelles trainingsprogramm besser zur kraftsteigerung geeignet is als ein hochintensives,sondern schlicht und einfach,das man mit trainingsintensitäten zwischen 90 und 100% sehr vorsichtig sein sollte. jeder,der schon mal in der richtung trainiert hat weiss,das man bei 2x1 mit 95% und 3x1 mit 90% das gefühl hat,nix wesentliches gemacht zu haben...selbst wenn man das 3x/w durchzieht sinds ja nur 6wh mit 95% und 9wh mit 90%...subjektiv betrachtet ein scherz,aber trotzdem zuviel!(deswegn würd ich nicht mehr als 3-5wh im bereich von 90-100% pro woche machen):
Impaired Performances with Excessive High-Intensity Free-Weight Training
ANDREW C. FRY, JESSE M. WEBBER, LAWRENCE W. WEISS, MARY D. FRY, and YUHUA LI
Human Performance Laboratories, The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee 38152.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine if 3 weeks of high relative intensity (percent one repetition maximum [1RM]) free-weight resistance training using the parallel barbell squat results in overtraining and to determine what types of performance would be affected. Six weight-trained males ( ± SD; age = 27.5 ± 5.4 year) trained 2 d·wk1 for 4 weeks with a normal protocol (Monday, 3 × 10 repetition maximum [RM]; Thursday, 3 × 5 RM), followed by 3 weeks of high-intensity training 3 d·wk1 (Monday, Wednesday, Friday) using 2 × 1 95% 1RM and 3 × 1 90% 1RM. A time-series study design was utilized, with each subject serving as his own control (pretest <pre> test 1 = normal training; tests 1–4 = high-intensity training; test 4 posttest [Post] = recovery). One repetition maximum increased (p < 0.05) during normal training but did not change during high-intensity or recovery training (Pre = 139.5 ± 29.9 kg; test 1 = 154.6 ± 27.7 kg; test 2 = 160.3 ± 26.9 kg; test 3 = 163.7 ± 27.9 kg; test 4 = 161.0 ± 27.2 kg; Post = 161.7 ± 33.3 kg). Muscular and joint pain and soreness were not evident according to self-report training questionnaires. Also during the high-intensity phase, sprint times for 9.1 m increased (test 1 = 1.75 ± 0.12 seconds; test 4 = 1.86 ± 0.12 seconds) and peak isokinetic squat force at 0.20 m·s1 decreased (test 1 = 2,473.2 ± 685.6 N; test 4 = 2,193.3 ± 534.5 N). In general, no changes were observed for body composition, flexibility, lower body reaction time, vertical jumps, 36.6-m sprints, lateral agility, isokinetic squat force at 0.82 and 1.43 m·s1, or isokinetic back extension at 0.17 and 1.05 rad·s1. Although use of single repetitions at a high relative intensity is often used to increase 1RM, this was not observed in the present study. While 1RM performance did not decrease, other performance measures were adversely affected, suggestive of an excessive use of high relative intensity resistance exercise.
cheers,klaus
ich würd aus der studie nicht schliessen,das ein konventionelles trainingsprogramm besser zur kraftsteigerung geeignet is als ein hochintensives,sondern schlicht und einfach,das man mit trainingsintensitäten zwischen 90 und 100% sehr vorsichtig sein sollte. jeder,der schon mal in der richtung trainiert hat weiss,das man bei 2x1 mit 95% und 3x1 mit 90% das gefühl hat,nix wesentliches gemacht zu haben...selbst wenn man das 3x/w durchzieht sinds ja nur 6wh mit 95% und 9wh mit 90%...subjektiv betrachtet ein scherz,aber trotzdem zuviel!(deswegn würd ich nicht mehr als 3-5wh im bereich von 90-100% pro woche machen):
Impaired Performances with Excessive High-Intensity Free-Weight Training
ANDREW C. FRY, JESSE M. WEBBER, LAWRENCE W. WEISS, MARY D. FRY, and YUHUA LI
Human Performance Laboratories, The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee 38152.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine if 3 weeks of high relative intensity (percent one repetition maximum [1RM]) free-weight resistance training using the parallel barbell squat results in overtraining and to determine what types of performance would be affected. Six weight-trained males ( ± SD; age = 27.5 ± 5.4 year) trained 2 d·wk1 for 4 weeks with a normal protocol (Monday, 3 × 10 repetition maximum [RM]; Thursday, 3 × 5 RM), followed by 3 weeks of high-intensity training 3 d·wk1 (Monday, Wednesday, Friday) using 2 × 1 95% 1RM and 3 × 1 90% 1RM. A time-series study design was utilized, with each subject serving as his own control (pretest <pre> test 1 = normal training; tests 1–4 = high-intensity training; test 4 posttest [Post] = recovery). One repetition maximum increased (p < 0.05) during normal training but did not change during high-intensity or recovery training (Pre = 139.5 ± 29.9 kg; test 1 = 154.6 ± 27.7 kg; test 2 = 160.3 ± 26.9 kg; test 3 = 163.7 ± 27.9 kg; test 4 = 161.0 ± 27.2 kg; Post = 161.7 ± 33.3 kg). Muscular and joint pain and soreness were not evident according to self-report training questionnaires. Also during the high-intensity phase, sprint times for 9.1 m increased (test 1 = 1.75 ± 0.12 seconds; test 4 = 1.86 ± 0.12 seconds) and peak isokinetic squat force at 0.20 m·s1 decreased (test 1 = 2,473.2 ± 685.6 N; test 4 = 2,193.3 ± 534.5 N). In general, no changes were observed for body composition, flexibility, lower body reaction time, vertical jumps, 36.6-m sprints, lateral agility, isokinetic squat force at 0.82 and 1.43 m·s1, or isokinetic back extension at 0.17 and 1.05 rad·s1. Although use of single repetitions at a high relative intensity is often used to increase 1RM, this was not observed in the present study. While 1RM performance did not decrease, other performance measures were adversely affected, suggestive of an excessive use of high relative intensity resistance exercise.
cheers,klaus