New study

Discussion in 'Strength-Specific Training (SST)' started by Heavy Duty dude, Feb 12, 2006.

  1. Heavy Duty dude

    Heavy Duty dude New Member

    I read in a magazine about a new study that has just been done that is quite interesting.

    The researchers did a meta-analysis of 177 studies to determine what were the best protocols for strength training and came to the following conclusions:
    - the optimum protocol for a beginner is 4 sets per muscle group at 60% of 1 RM 3 times a week.
    - the optimum for a trained athlete is 4 sets per muscle group at 80% of 1 RM twice a week.
    - the optimum for an advanced trainee is 4 sets per muscle group at 85% of 1RM twice a week.

    It's really remarkable isn't it? It goes against the usual belief that the volume has to increase as the trainee becomes more advanced. Frequency should decrease somewhat after the beginner's stage but not much.

    Do you have any opinion on that? Do you think we can trust that kind of study? Does it correlate to your experience? etc..
  2. colby2152

    colby2152 New Member

    The volume may not go up, but the load does.. that should be good enough? (or am I stuck on hypertrophy thoughts here)
  3. dkm1987

    dkm1987 New Member

    Whoever wrote that article you are referring too got their info a little whacked.
    There are referring to the Peterson, Rhea analysis ( I am assuming) and in it the concensus was, when looking at 170+ studies with an effect size of 1800+in two metas, untrained 3X week-4 sets at 60%, trained 2X week-4 sets at 80% and athletes 2X week-8 sets at 85%.
    Also these are sets per muscle group and not per movement.
  4. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    well lookie, its letting me post again

    I like Rhea's latest paper, its interesting and his charts are fantastic and creates an excellent visual of the effects.

    But some of the volumes appear to be a bit skewed by the low population numbers within some of the data.

    basically in the May 04 review, he provides three main effects

    Days per week has similar numbers per group, so its more than likely the true effect.

    Volume of training - (table 2) shows variable results, but mainly because the actual numbers included in some sections are very small like 6people in the 1set and 8set groups, while 119people in the 4 set group. I just dont think there is enough data to say that 8 sets is the best, as the larger groups either side (6sets = 26subjects and 12sets had 46) did not get as large of an effect. The bump at 14 sets seems a similar thing.

    A similar thing happens with intensity, but not as bad really. there is an odd effect at 65-75% range, where the subject numbers are lower than the likes of 80-85% numbers.

    His smoothed out charts in his November 2004 J Strength Cond Res paper, and provides his theroetical dose response on volume.

    but like anything, optimal volume per session relies on a bazillion other factors. I did 12 sets yesterday of high intensity work, but thats my high volume week, I couldnt manage that every week at all. The feeling of a truck running over you is just not that much fun.
  5. dkm1987

    dkm1987 New Member

    Hey Aaron,

    I think you sent the 05 Rhea analysis but I can't seem to locate it [​IMG]. What was their inclusion criteria? I don't remember.

    BTW good to see ya being able to post again.
  6. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    it should be winging its way around the world shortly
  7. Bryan Haycock

    Bryan Haycock Administrator Staff Member

    Sorry about that Aaron. Not sure what happened. I'm having some work done on the board to ensure that it continues to work into the future.

    There may be some ups and downs over the next several days, but after that, it will work better than ever. [​IMG]

Share This Page