Training spill over & background levels

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Chris Malcolm, Feb 11, 2005.

  1. I'm wondering about the best background exercise context while
    training a set of muscles. There are two scenarios. The first is
    during days of training sessions. Is it beneficial to raise the
    general background level of activity of those muscles outside the
    training sessions, e.g. by doing say an easy 10% or 20% of 1RM rep of
    the training exercise now and then?

    The second scenario is during a regular training holiday in which a
    few non-training days are allowed for strain to subside and muscle
    growth etc. to occur, e.g. taking weekends off. In this time is it
    beneficial to perform occasional light (say 20% of 1RM) reps rather
    than taking a complete rest? Is it also beneficial in this time to
    exercise other muscle groups, e.g. legs when arms are taking a rest?
    In other words, would there be a spill-over benefit to arm development
    from doing leg training while the arms are in a recuperation training
    holiday?

    I've noticed the suggestion that there can be a symmetry spill-over in
    training effect, e.g., training one arm will cause a slight benefit to
    the other untrained arm. Is this a general spill-over from any trained
    muscle set to another untrained set, or it specifically symmetrical?
    If it's specifically symmetrical, it raises the interesting question
    of whether it might be useful to train the two sides in different
    interleaved regimes, so that one side, say one arm, was in
    recuperation, while the other was being trained.

    --
    Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Tags:


  2. Hobbes

    Hobbes Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Chris Malcolm
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I'm wondering about the best background exercise context while
    > training a set of muscles. There are two scenarios. The first is
    > during days of training sessions. Is it beneficial to raise the
    > general background level of activity of those muscles outside the
    > training sessions, e.g. by doing say an easy 10% or 20% of 1RM rep of
    > the training exercise now and then?
    >
    > The second scenario is during a regular training holiday in which a
    > few non-training days are allowed for strain to subside and muscle
    > growth etc. to occur, e.g. taking weekends off. In this time is it
    > beneficial to perform occasional light (say 20% of 1RM) reps rather
    > than taking a complete rest? Is it also beneficial in this time to
    > exercise other muscle groups, e.g. legs when arms are taking a rest?
    > In other words, would there be a spill-over benefit to arm development
    > from doing leg training while the arms are in a recuperation training
    > holiday?
    >
    > I've noticed the suggestion that there can be a symmetry spill-over in
    > training effect, e.g., training one arm will cause a slight benefit to
    > the other untrained arm. Is this a general spill-over from any trained
    > muscle set to another untrained set, or it specifically symmetrical?
    > If it's specifically symmetrical, it raises the interesting question
    > of whether it might be useful to train the two sides in different
    > interleaved regimes, so that one side, say one arm, was in
    > recuperation, while the other was being trained.


    Trained muscles to another set? I dunno about that as I tend to think in
    terms of athletic training, where you think in terms of movement instead
    of muscles.

    If you want to look at it another way - training qualities of speed,
    strength and endurance in one movement invariably affects those qualities
    both within that movement and in other movements. IOW - if I train
    endurance I affect speed and strength. OTOH, if I train speed and strength
    in a squat/jump type of movement the effect on a push/press type of
    movement is less direct. (I'm deliberately avoiding using descriptions
    such as 'hip extension/knee extension/plantar flexion' here, but hopefully
    you'll get the idea)

    As Elzi pointed out in another post training adaptations are multifactoral
    and complex. You are affecting structure (protein synthesis -
    hypertrophy), but you all also affecting neural factors, motor factors,
    metabolic factors, etc.

    So your idea of interleaved regimes is reductionist and completely ignores
    multifactoral inputs to training. It can be done and it has been done. The
    bodybuilding type of 'split' training is an example of this. But I would
    question why you would want to do this when your goals are not muscle
    mass.

    Even for bodybuilders there is a recognition that systematic recuperation
    is also necessary and their splits reflect this need.

    If I were you I'd quit thinking in terms of 'muscle' and start thinking in
    more athletic terms. As the old Russian coach once said, "If you vant to
    press more, then press more." Frequency, intensity, volume and
    restoration.
     
Loading...
Loading...