Frequency Project Norwegian Powerlifting

[BendtheBar]

Bump.

[jwood]

I think that my workouts now are basically the same thing as the experiment. When doing westside and other workouts I would lift 4 days a week, now I am lifting 6 days a week with shorter workouts the total volume is approximately the same but this way I can focus on more variety. So far it is working.

4 days-at least 2 hours each- 8 hours
6 days a week-3 days -1 hour each
3 days-1 and half hours
Total- 7 and a half hours

These are only approximations, some workouts I do now are longer than an hour and a half, but I think the total volume is close, and I have not experienced much DOMS.

Right now I am hitting PRs all the time, so I like the new workout.

[BendtheBar]

Casey Butt translated this study:

"The study was conducted in autumn, where a large group of power lifters (27 athletes participated in the pre-testing) were collected on the Sports Academy of the Arts for various pretester before they were divided into two training groups: A group that was training three sessions a week and a that would train six sessions a week - both groups completed identical weekly training volume. After a training period of three months, volunteers gathered again for re-testing - and it is therefore the data from re-tests are now starting to become clear.

Testing athletes went through was twofold:

Strength Tester, where strength was tested equipment freely in the squat, bench press and deadlift. In addition, it was carried isometric (static strength) tests, by allowing the athletes to run in maximum kneekstensjon against a force cell at different knevinkler. Jumping was also tested using a force platform.

Objective anthropometric tests:

* MRI of the thigh (change of cross section of the quadriceps muscle)

* Inbody 720 - Analysis of body composition

* Ultrasound of the m. vastus lateralis - there were changes in the thickness of the muscle and fiber angle (which may indicate the change in muscle length) tested. Some participants tested in a so-called DEXA machine, which is the most reliable analysis of body composition.

In addition to these tests have the athletes also gone through a diet record of 4 days which will be analyzed by nutrition researchers at the Olympic summit.

It was Alexander Church Strip and the NSF that was the initiator of the study, and were joined by Truls Raastad at the Norwegian School of Sport, as project manager. Moreover, Ina Garth from the NIH and the Olympic top with to implement a cost-registration of participants.

Of the results made public at this stage there is little doubt which of the two groups showed the highest growth. Based on all the parameters had six days the group better progress in all tests except the jumping test. At most of the tests was this difference statistically significant.

As an example from the tests, one can look at the overall strength of the athletes in the squat: On startup the 3-day group, 1 kg higher in squat than the 6-day group. After the training intervention, was this relationship reversed, and 6-day group were on average was 10 kg higher in squat than the 3-day group. This despite the fact that 3-day group had an average growth of over 5% during the training period.

Together, both groups increased 275 kg in squat, 217.5 kg in bench press and 235 kg in the deadlift - so strength wise, this is like getting a peak power lift on the team.

With these results as a basis, there is little doubt that this group was most effective to train with a high rate. This can be said with the basis that both groups trained exactly the same amount within a week, but 6-day group had the largest improvement.

In practice, this indicates that if you reduce the amount of each exercise in relation to what is common (for Norwegian power lifters), it appears that muscles recover faster, and you again can stimulate muscle (with training) after a short rest period . It may appear that the main effect is to increase the number of sequences of stimuli (training / degradation) and adaptation (recovery) within a given time period, thus greater success. 6-day group had twice as many training sessions, and has had about twice as much progress in the squat. The groups, in other words, had about equal success rates. workout, but the 6-day group had twice as many practices and hence twice as much progress in the same period of time.

Moreover, a research on how long this effect lasts beyond the three moons that were used in this study, and perhaps the most interesting - how will different exercise frequency affect athletes who are closer to their genetic potential than what these athletes was? Another approach that should be researched, is how much stimulation is actually needed to initiate adaptation (growth) per workout and how often this can be done. If you want to be able to benefit from distributing the training of even more weekly sessions?

It should be noted that all practitioners sent in weekly reports of completed training. These reports were carefully monitored to keep track of, for example, of training. The athlete had follow-up both by mail and phone during the entire training period. Such training should take place in consultation with experienced and competent trainers.

Church Strip hoping to get published the full results of the study in an international journal in the course of this year. All participants in the near future will receive a written summary of their results. NSF and NIH also plans to take him one of results that will be open to participants of the project and all NSF lifts. It will probably be the holding in connection with the Junior Championships in Hamar in June, more information will be published on styrkeloft.no when approaching."

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

When you mentioned volume, do you know if that was total weekly volume, or the same volume per workout?

Bump.

[kitarpyar]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

Bump.

A) IIRC this was being discussed in bb.com as well, and someone clarified it was weekly volume.

B) I would take these/any studies with a pinch of salt. we keep hearing about folks switching to a lower volume higher intensity routines after a spell of high volume routines make rapid gains. The opposite is fairly common as well. The point to be noted is, prior training history is critical. None of the studies look at it, or if they do, don't bother to publish.

On face of it, personally I am inclined to believe in higher frequency workouts, although I won't claim that they are better based on "scientific studies" carried out over short period of time. Experience of strength athletes points high frequency training works. Common sense suggests that as well and I will accept them over any (incomplete) studies any day.

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by kitarpyar

A) IIRC this was being discussed in bb.com as well, and someone clarified it was weekly volume.

Thanks Kit.

I find this more interesting from a bodybuilding standpoint then from a powerlifting standpoint, simply because it hints at the effectiveness of fullbody routines, especially for beginners. I am not trying to read too much into it mind you, but it does align with the fullbody mindset of same weekly volume but increased frequency.

[BendtheBar]

Super bump for Fazc!

[Fazc]

Thanks Btb.

I'm looking for the published paper or details of training done i.e frequency of actual lifts rather than frequency of training days.

[BendtheBar]

Weekly volume was equal. One group trained 3 days per week, one 6 days. Equal weekly volume but frequent training was superior.