PDA

View Full Version : Kraemer et al. 2002








Pages : [1] 2

galois
10/06/2009 10:00am,
Hi, taking advantage of the free access to academic journals I get through my work I read this: Progression Models in Resistance Training for Healthy Adults, Kraemer et al. 2002) from the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport.

It's essentially a summary of the all the major research done in this area. Many of the things mentioned are well known but it's nice to see everything in the same place. Much research in resistance training in the past has been plagued by the use of untrained test subjects but this paper collects results from research supposedly done on subjects of all levels of training. I've not read the references so I can't personally vouch for the validity their methods but I can say that Kraemer and his team are, to my knowledge, respected in the field and will hopefully have done a good job of weeding out the bad science.

For anyone interested I include below a run through of some of the conclusions of the paper with regards to certain common uses of resistance training. This is basically just a copy and pasting of the bits that seemed most relevant to the good people of Bullshido with some alterations to make it hang together and make sense. The italics are the authors' and are used to give their recommendations. Anything in square brackets is there to clarify a reference to something not included in my edited version.

I've tried not to leave anything out that would change the meaning of what I've put in. Apologies for some wonky formatting, this is a result of the pasting. I didn't have the inclination to fix it all, I hope it doesn't affect the readability to greatly. If anyone wants the full version they can PM me their email adress and I'll send them a copy of the pdf (it's 184 kbs). Alternatively, if there is interest, I can rapidshare it.


TRAINABLE CHARACTERISTICS


MUSCULAR STRENGTH
The ability of the neuromuscular system to generate force.
 
LOADING
It is recommended that
novice to intermediate lifters train with loads corresponding to
60–70% of 1 RM for 8–12 repetitions and advanced individuals
use loading ranges of 80–100% of 1 RM in a periodized
fashion to maximize muscular strength. For progression in
those individuals training at a specific RM load (e.g., 8–12
repetitions), it is recommended that a 2–10% increase be
applied on the basis of muscle group size and involvement (i.e.,
greater load increases may be used for large muscle group,
multiple-joint exercises than small muscle group exercises)
when the individual can perform the current intensity for one
to two repetitions over the desired number on two consecutive
training sessions.
 
TRAINING VOLUME
It is recommended that a general resistance
training program (consisting of either single or
multiple sets) should be used by novice individuals initially.
For continued progression in intermediate to advanced individuals,
data from longer term studies indicate that multiple-
set programs should be used with a systematic variation
of training volume and intensity (periodized training)
over time, as this has been shown to be the most effective for
strength improvement. In order to reduce the risk of overtraining,
a dramatic increase in training volume is not
recommended.
 
EXERCISE SELECTION
Multiple-joint exercises (e.g., bench
press, squat) are more neurally complex and have
generally been regarded as most effective for increasing
overall muscular strength because they enable a greater
magnitude of weight to be lifted . Single-joint exercises
(e.g., leg extension, arm and leg curls) have typically
been used to target specific muscle groups, and may pose a
lesser risk of injury because of the reduced level of skill and
technique involved.
It is recommended that both exercise
types be included in a resistance training program with
emphasis on multiple-joint exercises for maximizing muscle
strength and closed kinetic chain movement capabilities in
novice, intermediate, and advanced individuals.
 
FREE WEIGHTS AND MACHINES
In essence, machines help stabilize the body and limit
movement about specific joints involved in synergy and
focus the activation to a specific set of prime movers.
Unlike machines, free weights may result in a pattern of
intra- and intermuscular coordination that mimics the movement
requirements of a specific task.
For novice to intermediate
training, it is recommended that the resistance
training program include free-weight and machine exercises.
For advanced strength training, it is recommended
that emphasis be placed on free-weight exercises, with machine
exercises used to complement the program needs.
 
EXERCISE ORDER
The sequencing of exercises significantly
affects the acute expression of muscular strength.
Considering that multiple-joint exercises have been
shown to be effective for increasing muscular strength,
maximizing performance of these exercises may be necessary
for optimal strength gains. This recommendation includes
performance of these exercises early in the training
session when fatigue is minimal. In addition, the muscle
groups trained each workout may effect the order. Therefore,
recommendations for sequencing exercises for novice,
intermediate, and advanced strength training include:
 
• When training all major muscle groups in a workout:
large muscle group exercises before small muscle
group exercises, multiple-joint exercises before singlejoint
exercises, or rotation of upper and lower body
exercises.
 
• When training upper body muscles on one day and
lower body muscles on a separate day: large muscle
group exercises before small muscle group exercises,
multiple-joint exercises before single-joint exercises,
or rotation of opposing exercises (agonist-antagonist
relationship).
 
• When training individual muscle groups: multiplejoint
exercises before single-joint exercises, higher
intensity exercises before lower intensity exercises.
 
REST PERIODS
For
novice, intermediate, and advanced training, it is recommended
that rest periods of at least 2–3 min be used for
multiple-joint exercises using heavy loads that stress a relatively
large muscle mass (e.g., squat, bench press). For
assistance exercises (those exercises complementary to core
exercise including exercises on machines, e.g., leg extension,
leg curl), a shorter rest period length of 1–2 min may
suffice.
 
VELOCITY OF MUSCLE ACTION
The velocity of muscular
contraction used to perform dynamic muscle actions affects
the neural, hypertrophic, and metabolic responses to resistance exercise.
 
For
untrained individuals, it is recommended that slow and
moderate [1-2 and 1-4 seconds for each repetition for concentric and eccentric exercises respectively] velocities be used initially. For intermediate training,
it is recommended that moderate velocity be used for
strength training. For advanced training, the inclusion of a
continuum of velocities from unintentionally slow to fast
velocities is recommended for maximizing strength. It is
important to note that proper technique is used for any
exercise velocity in order to reduce any risk of injury.
 
FREQUENCY
Optimal training frequency (the number of
workouts per week) depends on several factors such as
training volume, intensity, exercise selection, level of conditioning,
recovery ability, and the number of muscle groups
trained per workout session. Numerous resistance training
studies have used frequencies of 2–3 alternating days per weekin
previously untrained individuals.
 
it is recommended
that novice individuals train the entire body 2–3
days per week
 
It appears that progression to intermediate training does
not necessitate a change in frequency for training each
muscle group.
 
It is recommended that
for progression to intermediate training, a similar frequency
of 2–3 days per weekcontinues to be used for total-body workouts.
For those individuals desiring a change in training structure
(e.g., upper/lower-body split, split workout), an overall
frequency of 3–4 days per weekis recommended such that each
muscle group is trained 1–2 days per weekonly.
 
Optimal frequency necessary for progression during advanced
training varies considerably. Advanced weightlifters and bodybuilders use highfrequency
training (e.g., 4–6 days per week). The frequency for
elite weightlifters and bodybuilders may be even greater.
Double-split routines (two training sessions per day with
emphasis on different muscle groups) are common during
training which may result in 8–12 training
sessions per week. Frequencies as high as 18 sessions per week
have been reported in Olympic weightlifters. The
rationale for this high-frequency training is that frequent
short sessions followed by periods of recovery, supplementation,
and food intake allow for high-intensity training via
maximal energy utilization and reduced fatigue during exercise
performance. Elite power lifters typically train 4–6 days per week. It
is important to note that not all muscle groups are trained per
workout using a high frequency. Rather, each major muscle
group may be trained 2–3 times per weekdespite the large
number of workouts.
It is recommended that advanced
lifters train 4–6 days per week. Elite weightlifters and bodybuilders
may benefit from using very high frequency (e.g., two
workouts in 1 day for 4–5 days per week), so long as appropriate
steps are taken to optimize recovery and minimize the risk of
overtraining.
 
MUSCULAR POWER
By definition, more power is produced when the same
amount of work is completed in a shorter period of time, or
when a greater amount of work is performed during the
same period of time.
 
Neuromuscular contributions to maximal
muscle power include 1) maximal rate of force development
(RFD), 2) muscular strength at slow and fast
contraction velocities, 3) stretch-shortening cycle
(SSC) performance, and 4) coordination of movement
pattern and skill . Several studies have shown
improved power performance following a traditional resistance
training program. Yet, the effectiveness
of traditional resistance training methods for developing
maximal power has been questioned because this type
of training tends to only increase maximal strength at slow
movement velocities rather than improving the other components
contributing to maximal power production.
 
Heavy resistance training may actually decrease power
output unless accompanied by explosive movements.
The inherent problem with traditional weight training is that
the load is decelerated for a considerable proportion (24–
40%) of the concentric movement. Ballistic
resistance exercise (explosive movements that enable
acceleration throughout the full range of motion) has been
shown to limit this problem.
 
Exercise selection and order
The use of predominately multiple-joint exercises
performed with sequencing guidelines similar to strength
training is recommended for novice, intermediate, and advanced
power training.
 
Loading/volume/repetition velocity.
Considering that
resistance training program design has been effective for improving
muscular strength and power in novice- and intermediate-
trained individuals, it is recommended that a power component
consisting of one to three sets per exercise using light
to moderate loading (30–60% of 1 RM) for three to six
repetitions performed not to failure be integrated into the
intermediate strength training program. Progression for power
enhancement uses various loading strategies in a periodized
manner. Heavy loading (85–100% of 1 RM) is necessary for
increasing the force component of the power equation and light
to moderate loading (30–60% of 1 RM) performed at an
explosive velocity is necessary for increasing fast force production.
A multiple-set (three to six sets) power program integrated
into a strength training program consisting of one to six
repetitions in periodized manner is recommended for advanced
power training.
 
Rest periods and frequency.
The recommendations
for rest period length and training frequency for power
training are similar to those for novice, intermediate, and
advanced strength training.
 
LOCAL MUSCULAR ENDURANCE
Traditional resistance training has
been shown to increase absolute muscular endurance (the
maximal number of repetitions performed with a specific
pretraining load), but limited effects are
observed in relative local muscular endurance (endurance
assessed at a specific relative intensity, or percentage of
1 RM). Moderate- to low-resistance training with
high repetitions has been shown to be most effective for
improving absolute and relative local muscular endurance. A relationship exists between increases in
strength and local muscle endurance such that strength
training alone may improve local muscular endurance to
a certain extent. However, specificity of training produces
the greatest improvements. Training to
increase local muscular endurance implies the individual
1) performs high repetitions (long-duration sets) and/or
2) minimizes recovery between sets.
 
Loading and volume.
For novice and intermediate
training, it is recommended that relatively light loads
be used (10–15 repetitions) with moderate to high volume. For
advanced training, it is recommended that various loading
strategies be used for multiple sets per exercise (10–25 repetitions
or more) in periodized manner.
 
Rest periods.
The duration of rest intervals during
resistance exercise appears to affect muscular endurance.
It has been shown that bodybuilders (who typically train
with high volume and short rest periods) demonstrate a
significantly lower fatigue rate in comparison with power
lifters (who typically train with low to moderate volume
and longer rest periods).
 
It is recommended
that short rest periods be used for endurance
training (i.e., 1–2 min for high-repetition sets (15–20
repetitions or more), and less than 1 min for moderate
(10 –15 repetitions) sets.
 
Frequency.
[Similar to strength training.]
 
CONCLUSION
Progression of a resistance training program is dependent
on the development of appropriate and specific training
goals. An overview can be seen in Table 1. It requires the
prioritization of training systems to be used during a specific
training cycle to achieve desired results. Resistance training
progression should be an "individualized" process of exercise
prescription using the appropriate equipment, program
design, and exercise techniques needed for the safe and
effective implementation of a program. Trained and competent
strength and conditioning specialists should be involved
with this process in order to optimize the safety and
design of a training program. Whereas examples and guidelines
can be presented, ultimately the good judgment, experience,
and educational training of the exercise professionals
involved with this process will dictate the amount of
training success. Nevertheless, many exercise prescription
options are available in the progression of resistance training
to attain goals related to health, fitness, and physical
performance.
 

Lights Out
10/06/2009 6:25pm,
Very useful, thank you.

galois
10/06/2009 6:45pm,
You're welcome. When I read papers I like to summarize them anyway so it was just a small extra step to put it up.

TheRuss
10/06/2009 8:34pm,
Good post. I'll have to give the full article a read. Do you think there's anything more recent that's superseded it?

Lights Out
10/07/2009 4:35am,
Good post. I'll have to give the full article a read. Do you think there's anything more recent that's superseded it?

You directed this question to galois, but I'd answer it anyway.

No that I know of.

As galois said, this article summarizes up everything that has been known in the world of strenght training for many decades. I haven't came across anything that contradicts it, or at least, if so, its research protocoals are a bit flawed.

I've read a couple of articles whose testing methods are debatable at best.

Some say that only the first set is effective and performing more than one is wasting time. This relates to training protocols like HIT and Heavy Duty. But I beleive, and some articles seem to point in that direction, that those training protocols produce best results in trained athletes rather than novices or even intermediates.

And recently I've came across an article which conclusion was that multi-joint exercises do not produce that high anabolic response they usually are credited with.

socratic
10/07/2009 6:55am,
Did anyone else go "Wait, what?" when it said in the first paragraph that muscular strength is best trained at the 8-12 rep range? Unless they mean a total number of reps of 8-12 (which would be like 4x3 or something, I'm guessing) then isn't that blatantly incorrect, since 8-12 is the ideal Hypertrophy rep range per set?

galois
10/07/2009 7:19am,
Good post. I'll have to give the full article a read. Do you think there's anything more recent that's superseded it?

I believe this is the most up to date survey paper available, although no doubt relevant individual results have been published more recently.


Did anyone else go "Wait, what?" when it said in the first paragraph that muscular strength is best trained at the 8-12 rep range? Unless they mean a total number of reps of 8-12 (which would be like 4x3 or something, I'm guessing) then isn't that blatantly incorrect, since 8-12 is the ideal Hypertrophy rep range per set?

They mean doing sets of 8-12 reps. The relevant part is that it relates primarily to beginning lifters. While this result is not in line with many beginner strength programs (stronglifts, starting strength etc.) it's not blatantly incorrect in itself. I've not gone through the papers on which the recommendation is based so I can't offer an opinion on whether they're flawed or not, but the fact that this is also the recommended hypertrophy range does not rule it out as the optimal range for beginning strength athletes too.

EDIT: The paper also deals with hypertrophy but I left that out of the condensed version (I won't condone body building on this sight :p), along with a section on strength training for older adults.

socratic
10/07/2009 8:15am,
Beginners tend to make phenomenal gains period, but I wonder if 8-12 reps is still all that effective per set for strength training.

Lights Out
10/07/2009 9:13am,
Beginners tend to make phenomenal gains period, but I wonder if 8-12 reps is still all that effective per set for strength training.

The thing is, beginners can make great gains from almost any protocol.

I've yet to take a deep look at the paper, but my guess is loads of about 60-80% of the RM trained in sets of 8-12 reps allows for gains towards strenght and hypertrophy in beginners while remaining relatively injury risk safe.

I woulnd't recomend loads of about 90% for people who have yet to attain a proper lifting form.

I'll take a deeper look at it, anyway, to see it they really are advocating NOT using certain protocols (like 3x5 or 5x5) for beginners.

Again, I'm guessing, but that apporach (8-12 rep range) seems to be aimed at creating a base for higher intensity programs.

galois
10/07/2009 9:29am,
Beginners tend to make phenomenal gains period, but I wonder if 8-12 reps is still all that effective per set for strength training.

Why are you so attached to the idea that it isn't? I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just curious. The traditional problem with studies in this area is the use of untrained or relatively untrained participants in tests, but this should not be a problem when specifically testing for gains in beginning lifters.

As I said I can't personally guarantee the source material so if you really want to know you'll have to read the thing yourself and chase up the references individually. I read the paper primarily for myself so am only really interested in the advice for more advanced trainers*.

(in the paper the categories are defined as follows:
Individuals who are

“trained” or “intermediate” typically
have approximately 6 months of consistent resistance training
experience.
“Advanced” training referred to those individuals
with years of resistance training experience who also attained
significant improvements in muscular fitness.
“Elite” individuals
are those athletes who are highly trained and achieved a
high level of competition.)


*To me there seems to be an overly large gap between the intermediate and advanced categories in this definition. I've been training properly for around 2 years, although I had about 6 months off altogether in the middle with a shoulder injury, and inconsistently for about 5 years before that. Although I'd hesistate to call myself an advanced trainer, particularly with guys like Emevas around, I don't think I belong with the intermediates by that definition. According to these http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/StrengthStandards.htm (http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/StrengthStandards.htm) I'm a solid intermediate closer to advanced than to novice, but they define the categories differently.

Lights Out
10/07/2009 3:28pm,
Looks like I was teh C0rr3cT, from page 4, bolding mine:


Contrary to early short-term resistance training
studies from the 1960s, where a 6 RM load was indicated, it
now appears that using a variety of training loads is most
conducive to maximizing muscular strength (68,147,238) as
opposed to performing all exercises with the same load. This is
especially true for long-term training. For novice individuals, it
has been recommended that moderate loading (60% of 1 RM)
be used initially, as learning proper form and technique is
paramount (63). However, a variety of loads appears to be most effective for long-term improvements in muscular strength as
one progresses over time (68,241).

Also, I found this quite interesting, same page, bolding mine:



Another aspect of training volume that has received considerable
attention is the comparison of single- and multiple-
set resistance training programs. In most of these studies
to date, one set per exercise performed for 8–12 repetitions
at an intentionally slow velocity has been compared with
both periodized and nonperiodized multiple-set programs. A
common criticism of these investigations is that the number
of sets per exercise was not controlled for other variables
such as intensity, frequency, and repetition velocity. This
concern notwithstanding, comparisons have mostly been
between one popular single-set training program relative to
multiple-set programs of various intensity, and they have
yielded conflicting results. Several studies have reported
similar strength increases between single- and multiple-set
programs (38,130,178,212,227,231), whereas others reported
multiple-set programs superior (20,24,219,237,244)
in previously untrained individuals. These data have
prompted the notion that untrained individuals respond favorably
to both single- and multiple-set programs and
formed the basis for the popularity of single-set training
among general fitness enthusiasts (63). In resistance-trained
individuals, though, multiple-set programs have been shown
to be superior for strength enhancement (147,154,155,222)
in all but one study (114). No study has shown single-set
training to be superior to multiple-set training in either
trained or untrained individuals. It appears that both programs
are effective for increasing strength in untrained
individuals during short-term training (e.g., 3 months).
Long-term progression-oriented studies support the contention
that higher training volume is needed for further improvement

Lights Out
10/07/2009 3:43pm,
BTW, I took the liberty of rapidsharing it:

Click me. (http://rapidshare.com/files/289995453/progression_models_in_resistance_training_for_heal thy_adults.pdf.html)

I don't have a collector's account, so only 10 downloads, sorry.

This is my 3,000 post, yay me!

socratic
10/07/2009 9:47pm,
I bring it up because it's generally held as standard fact that aside from absolute beginners, who as I and others have mentioned, make big gains in everything even if on a terrible program, low reps high weight is generally held as the best protocol for strength gains. I've seen graphs (I forget the authorship) indicating where the "hypertrophy" takes over from "strength" as the reps increase. Between 1-6 is generally, I'm told, where good strength gains lie, whereas 6+ is hypertrophy and decreasing amounts of strength. So by this wisdom "8-12 reps = strength" is by and large wrong, unless we're discussing purely untrained individuals.

TheRuss
10/07/2009 11:02pm,
So by this wisdom "8-12 reps = strength" is by and large wrong, unless we're discussing purely untrained individuals.

It's so they don't hurt themselves.

galois
10/08/2009 7:33am,
It's so they don't hurt themselves.

Also so they work with a full range of motion etc. Another thing to condsider is that maybe optimal hypertrophy and optimal strength gains overlap to a much greater extent in untrained individuals. Not saying they do but I wouldn't want to rule it out. If I get a moment I'll chase down some of the references on this.

Thanks to Lights Out for the rapidsharing. At some point in the near future I should be getting a full account in order to spread the fruits of my musical genius amongst my long suffering friends. When I do I'll put this up on a more permenant basis along with any other related stuff I've aquired.

Lights Out
10/08/2009 9:45am,
Another thing to condsider is that maybe optimal hypertrophy and optimal strength gains overlap to a much greater extent in untrained individuals.

That seems to be the conclusion in the paper. And for the third time, they insist it is also due to acquire proper form.


Thanks to Lights Out for the rapidsharing.

Thanks to you for sharing that paper, I found it quite useful.