Resistance training guidelines for everyone

bwardrop

Thought I would throw this out there. It is freely available to everyone and forms the basis of what all fitness instructors (worldwide) are taught re: weight training.

It should be invaluable reading to anyone who lifts weights.

http://www.acsm-msse.org/pt/pt-core/template-journal/msse/media/0202.pdf

Reyman

Well I read it all but I'm not sure I'm any the wiser! These research papers are usually like this - it's very hard to get hard facts from them.

I liked the way the reference pages were nearly as long as the article itself.

bwardrop

The reference list is so long because this is THE paper on resistance training - they have cited all the relevant work taken into account to back up what they are saying.

That is the problem with much of the information out there - it is just someone's opinion and not based on fact. Unless someone can back up their claims, don't believe it. "It worked for me / it worked for this guy I know" are not should not legitimize a claim...

If you are finding it difficult to decipher the information in the paper, look through the sections after the sub-heading 'Trainable Characteristics'. From this point, the paper goes through Strength, Hypertrophy, Power and Endurance. It explains the different factors that can affect each type of training. At the end of each section there is a summary, in italics, that gives the fundamental recommendations.

If there is any particular aspect of the paper which is causing anyone difficulty, please just contact me and I will do my best to clarify for you.

Education is the key!!

bwardrop

Read it!!

BobbyOLeary

I just had a glance through it, I read the summary/abstract and the conclusion (I don't have time at the moment to properly read it.) Honestly it just seems like any other review article I've ever read, nothing new, just all the existing facts in a nice package.

One thing to note, while this article may be accurate insofar as it is using data obtained from previous studies, the reliability of these studies may be in question. Fitness studies are notoriously bad for their experimental method, making results obtained from some of them completely useless.

This is not to say that this study is wrong but I don't put a lot of faith in something that is branded as THE paper on resistance training.

bwardrop

Oh dear god...

I don't know why I bother. Honestly... I try to help by posting up the American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand on resistance training and you guys still don't get it.

Everything you read in magazines and on the 'net is a variation of the guidelines in here.

It is not "just another" research paper.

I'm not one for blowing my own trumpet, but I have a honours degree in Sports Science and a Masters Degree in Exercise Physiology. I have over 10 years experience working in the fitness industry. I presently work in a 3rd level education institution as an exercise physiologist and also work with some of the country's top athletes. In the last year, I have been involved in advising the Irish Sports Council on the set up of the new Irish Institute of Sport. I have completed numerous research projects and advised on others.

I know my sh*t - do you? Really? Can you tell me exactly where the problem is with this paper? Or the papers it is based on? Get back to me with specifics and I'll deal with it - otherwise, keep it to yourself. You are only hampering your own progress and that of those around you.

Apologies for the rant - but it is just so frustrating to hear generic b*ull**** comments like the above post.

Your body has been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years. The way it responds to exercise has not changed much in that time. The guidelines presented in the paper above will allow the creation of the perfect training program for you, if correctly applied.

Education is key. Trust the science, not the manufacturers.

BobbyOLeary

Thanks for that, it always warms my heart to see such a nice response to a simple comment.

I was going to go into what I said but looking at the emotional reaction my last one drew I don't think it'll have any use.

bwardrop

I invited you to go into what you said in the above post... probably not very obvious, as it was hidden in the rant.

If you have something valuable to contribute then please do.

The emotional response was down to the fact that this is my profession. The paper I presented is accepted by all exercise professionals world-wide - yet you saw fit to dismiss it without even reading it fully.

If you read the other posts I have made you will see that I am only more than willing to answer questions and help people out.

BossArky

bwardrop, thanks for the doc - will try to read through in in the next day or so.

Group hug everyone.

bwardrop

Group hug

BobbyOLeary

bwardrop wrote: »

- yet you saw fit to dismiss it without even reading it fully.

I don't think I ever dismissed it, I just don't embrace it as much as you do. If my words about doubting the references were taken the wrong way I'm sorry you misunderstood me. Maybe I've more knowledge than the average joe but nothing in the article (I just finished reading it) seems anything other than common sense to me. It could just be that I'm assuming what I know is common knowledge.

Here's an example of what I mean.

A program consisting of movements with high power output using relatively light loads has been shown to be more effective for improving vertical jump ability than traditional strength training

No sh*t, seeing as a vertical jump is closer in physical terms to high power movements with relatively light loads than squatting an unholy amount I'd have thought this was obvious.

Look, this paper and the points it makes probably are right in some regards but it really isn't some groundbreaking achievement.

bwardrop

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

I don't think I ever dismissed it, I just don't embrace it as much as you do. If my words about doubting the references were taken the wrong way I'm sorry you misunderstood me. Maybe I've more knowledge than the average joe but nothing in the article (I just finished reading it) seems anything other than common sense to me. It could just be that I'm assuming what I know is common knowledge.

Here's an example of what I mean.



No sh*t, seeing as a vertical jump is closer in physical terms to high power movements with relatively light loads than squatting an unholy amount I'd have thought this was obvious.

Look, this paper and the points it makes probably are right in some regards but it really isn't some groundbreaking achievement.

Ok - so you have picked out a point that you understood and didn't find groundbreaking. That is fair enough - you are right - there is not much in the paper that would be considered ground breaking. This is because there has been nothing groundbreaking to report in many years. Modern research has established the response of the body to resistance training. We know how muscles will adapt to different training stimuli. What the majority of research is focusing on these days is the mechanisms that control and regulate these responses. I will not delve into that here

Anything that is presented in modern fitness programs is essentially a re-arrangement of these guidelines given in this paper. The purpose of this paper is to present all the guidelines for resistance training in one paper. It explains the (sound) research that lead to these conclusions.

I am sure that there are plenty of people looking to these forums for advice and that many of them do not understand the difference between say, power and strength. In fact plenty of our students come to us with preconceptions such as - "you must have to be strong to jump high, therefore strength training is the best way to make me jump higher". You were aware of this difference, which lead to be unimpressed. Fair enough, but can you not look outside of your own experience and comprehend how this paper may benefit plenty of people? What you deem common sense is a novel concept to someone else.

I would also argue that there had to something in the paper that was new to you - I know the first time I read the paper I thought I knew it all... I was pleasantly surprised.

Anyway - you are entitled to your opinion on the paper - take it or leave it. However, if you want to disregard something, do it in a constructive manner - suggest an alternative that you think is superior and open a debate. That would be more productive for all.

Hanley

Getting stronger will help you to jump higher. But that's only because there's a strong correlation between strength and power. Of course you don't neccessarily HAVE to get stronger to jump higher. You can just work on your RFD with plyo's and dynamic effort work... Power training will probably have MORE of a benefit once a base level of strength is created. You can't have one without the other. I'm sure you'd agree??

Both types of training will help in the long run. Peak power output is going to be somewhat limited by peak strength. Eventually you WILL have to get stronger to jump higher. It might not be an immediate effect (you might need to train up your "power level" to get the full benefit of your new found peak strength levels...

You state that everything presented in modern training is a rearragement of what's in that article, but once could just as easily argue that everything in old training programs has just be combined to create a new encyclopedic article which is back up with real science instead of just empirical results. Does that make it less worthwhile? Of course it doesn't. If I'm reading it right, it was first published in 2002?

I know I might get my head bitten off for this, but I think you're perhaps putting TOO much emphasis on the research aspect of it. Strength and power training has been around for decades. Strength sport coaches have figrued out what works thru trial and error. Science probably lags behind somewhat in this regard. I'm pretty sure I remember a study from somewhere between the 60's and 80's that says anabolic compounds have no effect on muscle growth... Just as well the bodybuilders and athletes using them didn't listen to that one.

Science has given us alot of course, but under the bar experience is still more important in my opinion. Given the choice of someone who knows alot about a sporting discipline thru study and analysis but has never trained or competed at a decent level, and a guy who spend years under the bar or on the field and knows the unique demands of that sport inside out, I know who I'd choose!

bwardrop

Hanley wrote: »

You state that everything presented in modern training is a rearragement of what's in that article, but once could just as easily argue that everything in old training programs has just be combined to create a new encyclopedic article which is back up with real science instead of just empirical results. Does that make it less worthwhile? Of course it doesn't. If I'm reading it right, it was first published in 2002?

This is exactly right Hanley - and this is the exact reason I posted the paper. It IS an encyclopedic article backed up with all the relevant science. It cuts out all the bull**** and presents what is correct and true in a straightforward manner. Pretty useful for the majority, I would have thought. It is not a combination of old training programs - it is a combination of the work done around old training programs.

Hanley wrote: »

I know I might get my head bitten off for this, but I think you're perhaps putting TOO much emphasis on the research aspect of it. Strength and power training has been around for decades. Strength sport coaches have figrued out what works thru trial and error. Science probably lags behind somewhat in this regard. I'm pretty sure I remember a study from somewhere between the 60's and 80's that says anabolic compounds have no effect on muscle growth... Just as well the bodybuilders and athletes using them didn't listen to that one.

Yes, you are going to get your head bitten off. How can too much emphasis be placed on the research, which has been designed (fundamentally with your best interests at heart) to sort out what works and what doesn't? It is there to clear up the misconceptions. You do not seem to grasp how what you do in the gym has been devised. Yes there were coaches using trial and error - but these were the amateurs. Much of the fundamental research on strength and conditioning came from the Eastern Bloc countries in the 60's, 70's and 90's. Here, proper scientists and coaches together, used research (structured trial and error) to determine what worked best and implemented that in the their training programs. And sure, some papers have got it wrong in the past (and will in the future), but sound review articles - such as this one - serve to distinguish between the good and the bad research.

Hanley wrote: »

Science has given us alot of course, but under the bar experience is still more important in my opinion. Given the choice of someone who knows alot about a sporting discipline thru study and analysis but has never trained or competed at a decent level, and a guy who spend years under the bar or on the field and knows the unique demands of that sport inside out, I know who I'd choose!

I agree with you in principle here - and it is how I was taught & how we teach in my Institution. You have to understand the rationale for something and experience it first hand to fully appreciate it. Some (not all) of the best coaches and trainers out there have never competed at a decent level - does that make them any less of a coach? Absolutely not. In fact many elite athletes went on to coach as this was the only career path open to them. Modern education allows athletes to pursue other career options and can generally go into what ever profession they choose. Equally, will every athlete who made it be a good coach? Certainly not a guarantee. Think about this analogy to your argument - Is a doctor any less able to treat a disease if they have never had the disease themselves? Of course not, but they can study the etiology and pathology of a disease, determine the best treatment and make a prognosis. The same is true for most subjects - of course you can become expert without necessarily experiencing what you are studying.

In this day and age, for someone to know and understand the demands of a sport inside and out, they will have to have studied it and read the research. Best practice in the modern competitive environment is based on research, whether you choose to buy in or not.

smashey

Hey bwardrop, you're new here so I'll be gentle.

This is a discussion forum and is open to all points of view.

If you wish to continue posting here, please have some respect for the regulars and their opinions. If I see anymore rants or baiting of regulars, I won't hesitate in banning you.

g'em

bwardrop, I realise that you are new to this forum so I'm going to keep this simple. Your attitude sucks.

I'm delighted you've decided to share some of your knowledge with us here but please don't assume that just because it's teh intarweb and it's a forum that none of us here knows what we're talking about. We don't allow for, or agree with, calling people out - on this board everyone is an equal.

I don't care who you are but a condescending manner and an arrogant tone doesn't bode very well round these parts. You will find there are very varying degrees of abilities that range from the casual gym go-er to internationally competitive athletes so while your experience is fantastic, it's not exclusive.

Please treat your fellow posters with the respect that they deserve - it's a discussion forum, not a teaching platform and there will always be people who challenge, question and disagree with your views. If you can't handle that and respond with a degree of self-control then perhaps you need to re-think your communication style.

For what it's worth, as a fellow member of the scientific community, I'd argue that there's no such thing as THE paper, simply one that is in fashion and encapsulates the thoughts of a generation. I'm not disputing the content of it at all, I haven't yet had time to read it, but when someone tries to convince me to read something which is the be-all-and-end-all of a branch of science I tend to be more than a little sceptical. Having said that I am looking forward to digesting it, and thank you for bringing it to the table.

bwardrop

Let me get this straight - I place a post with everyone's best interest at heart. Someone disagree with the post and I argue back - and I am the one who is out of line? I have invited debate and provided sound arguments to back up my posts. The responses (in my opinion) have been poorly thought out - that is why I argued back. They are also not conducive to debate as they do not provide alternatives. Is anyone is out of line here it is the people who make frivolous posts which may detract from the intention of the original post. People come to these forums looking for advice - I feel I am qualified to give advice and so thought I would help out. Look to some of my other posts - an I condescending and arrogant there? Or is it obvious that I was just trying to help?

g'em

bwardrop wrote: »

Let me get this straight - I place a post with everyone's best interest at heart. Someone disagree with the post and I argue back - and I am the one who is out of line? I have invited debate and provided sound arguments to back up my posts. The responses (in my opinion) have been poorly thought out - that is why I argued back.

welcome to the internet

bwardrop wrote:

Look to some of my other posts - an I condescending and arrogant there? Or is it obvious that I was just trying to help?

You've been extremely helpful, no-one is disputing that. But being helpful isn't a license to treat other people with disdain. We're simply requesting that no matter how much people's opinions pi$$ you off (and they will!!) you refrain from being condescending and patronising.

While in RL you may have a gazillion qualifications, here you're just another user and we expect everyone to treat everyone else with respect regardless of their background.

smashey

bwardrop wrote: »

Let me get this straight - I place a post with everyone's best interest at heart. Someone disagree with the post and I argue back - and I am the one who is out of line? I have invited debate and provided sound arguments to back up my posts. The responses (in my opinion) have been poorly thought out - that is why I argued back. They are also not conducive to debate as they do not provide alternatives. Is anyone is out of line here it is the people who make frivolous posts which may detract from the intention of the original post. People come to these forums looking for advice - I feel I am qualified to give advice and so thought I would help out. Look to some of my other posts - an I condescending and arrogant there? Or is it obvious that I was just trying to help?

You place a post and when it is disputed, you go on a rant. That's discussion fora for you.

While you say it has everybody's best interest at heart, it still remains your opinion of what everybody's best interest is, based on the paper you linked to.

Just what right do you have to say that the responses have been poorly thought out?

Hanley

bwardrop wrote: »

Let me get this straight - I place a post with everyone's best interest at heart. Someone disagree with the post and I argue back - and I am the one who is out of line? I have invited debate and provided sound arguments to back up my posts. The responses (in my opinion) have been poorly thought out - that is why I argued back. They are also not conducive to debate as they do not provide alternatives. Is anyone is out of line here it is the people who make frivolous posts which may detract from the intention of the original post. People come to these forums looking for advice - I feel I am qualified to give advice and so thought I would help out. Look to some of my other posts - an I condescending and arrogant there? Or is it obvious that I was just trying to help?

You arrogance and condascension comes out when someone disagrees or criticises your love for your science and research articles (or at least the conclusions you draw from them and the importance you put on them).

No body is saying they're worthless, but you become immediately dismissive if people don't respond favourably to any of your posts.

You seem to think that because of your studies and qualifications you're in the best position to give people advice here. Maybe it's because you're new and don't know peoples back stories, but there's ALOT of people here with great under the bar experience who've walked the walk and talked the talk.

For example, I can produce tangible recorded results from my last 2 years of training, I've logs stemming back another 2 years that show my progress. I know strength. I know it inside out. I know how to make people strong. I didn't spend years in college studying it, I spent years under the bar learning it.

I can transfer my knowledge and learning to others. I've helped several members here hit PR lifts within months of me helping them, some of them never surpassed them again without my council. My own girlfriend who had NEVER lifted a weight in her life until last summer is only weeks away from a double bodyweight deadlift (she's 5'10 and 60kg, so far from your typical lifter).

If you think things like that are worthless because I don't have studies and large sample groups to back them up with then that's fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. But don't be so quick to dismiss others because they don't agree with your own.

bwardrop

Look - the last thing I wanted to do was piss anyone off in here. I actually wanted to help. I may have been a bit quick to dismiss - perhaps due to being involved in education where I have to have the answers. I'm not an arrogant guy - very approachable in fact!

Fresh start everyone...

g'em

bwardrop wrote: »

perhaps due to being involved in education where I have to have the answers.

Yup, me too. And have you ever noticed that the people who'll teach you the most in return are the students' themselves? The same applies here. Keep an open mind and question other opinions, but don't dismiss them on sight. It's a great board, there's some great folk, and your contribution is very welcome.

bwardrop wrote:

Fresh start everyone...

bwardrop

g'em wrote: »

Yup, me too. And have you ever noticed that the people who'll teach you the most in return are the students' themselves?

Nope - unfortunately not!!! I wish that was the case... However, the athletes I work with teach me a lot.

g'em wrote: »

The same applies here. Keep an open mind and question other opinions

I will, provided I get the same in return.

g'em

Cool, and should the occasion arise that there's a post you feel steps over the line from "heated debate" to "personal and abusive" then just click the report post button and it will be brought to the Moderator's attention.

bwardrop

I missed this post earlier and just want to add a few points...

Hanley wrote: »

You seem to think that because of your studies and qualifications you're in the best position to give people advice here. Maybe it's because you're new and don't know peoples back stories, but there's ALOT of people here with great under the bar experience who've walked the walk and talked the talk.

Sort of - not the best position, but a good position.

Hanley wrote: »

For example, I can produce tangible recorded results from my last 2 years of training, I've logs stemming back another 2 years that show my progress. I know strength. I know it inside out. I know how to make people strong. I didn't spend years in college studying it, I spent years under the bar learning it.

This is partly what is bugging me. There is no one in here who just decided to start lifting weights and figured it all out for themselves completely unaided. That is unless Milo of Croton is still alive and well and reading boards.ie

All of you will have researched resistance training at some stage - through others in the gym, magazines, websites, etc etc. It is more than likely whey you are on this forum now / visited it in the first place. All of this information that you gained through these sources will have been drawn from the research articles reviews and presented in the paper in the original post. Now, whether the message that eventually reached you was true or not (it is like Chinese whispers) is another matter. The fact is, this article presents all the facts neatly and succinctly in one article that is relatively easy to read. It should be of use to everyone particularly those starting out.

Hanley wrote: »

If you think things like that are worthless because I don't have studies and large sample groups to back them up with then that's fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. But don't be so quick to dismiss others because they don't agree with your own.

I don't think it is worthless and I agreed with you in a previous post on this matter. The posts I dismissed quickly were the ones that contained frivolous comments which may be off putting to others - such as poster making negative comments, while concomitantly stating that they haven't read the article fully.

I am actually enjoying this argument / debate - I knew I would ruffle a few feathers, but didn't intend to offend anyone. Apologies to you Hanley if I offended you. I have read many of your other posts and they are all spot on, and we have agreed with each other else where!!

Also - nearly this post has been viewed 500 times. If is getting people thinking and aware of what is out there for them, I am happy!!

Dragan

bwardrop wrote: »

That is unless Milo of Croton is still alive and well and reading boards.ie

I'll give you points for that one.

Hanley

bwardrop wrote: »

I missed this post earlier and just want to add a few points...



Sort of - not the best position, but a good position.



This is partly what is bugging me. There is no one in here who just decided to start lifting weights and figured it all out for themselves completely unaided. That is unless Milo of Croton is still alive and well and reading boards.ie

All of you will have researched resistance training at some stage - through others in the gym, magazines, websites, etc etc. It is more than likely whey you are on this forum now / visited it in the first place. All of this information that you gained through these sources will have been drawn from the research articles reviews and presented in the paper in the original post. Now, whether the message that eventually reached you was true or not (it is like Chinese whispers) is another matter. The fact is, this article presents all the facts neatly and succinctly in one article that is relatively easy to read. It should be of use to everyone particularly those starting out.



I don't think it is worthless and I agreed with you in a previous post on this matter. The posts I dismissed quickly were the ones that contained frivolous comments which may be off putting to others - such as poster making negative comments, while concomitantly stating that they haven't read the article fully.

I am actually enjoying this argument / debate - I knew I would ruffle a few feathers, but didn't intend to offend anyone. Apologies to you Hanley if I offended you. I have read many of your other posts and they are all spot on, and we have agreed with each other else where!!

Also - nearly this post has been viewed 500 times. If is getting people thinking and aware of what is out there for them, I am happy!!

Haha I'm not that easily offended!! I'm only checking here intermidently today as I'm trying to study, but I'll try and get a proper reply up later at some stage!

BobbyOLeary

The posts I dismissed quickly were the ones that contained frivolous comments which may be off putting to others - such as poster making negative comments, while concomitantly stating that they haven't read the article fully.

I'll go out on a limb here and guess this is aimed at me? Look, while I may not be as qualified as you are (I'm a 3rd Year Human Physiology student, so as you so eloquently put it, I probably don't know my respective sh*t) my point still stands. The majority of fitness studies I've read (I can't access any of the ones referenced in your article, UCD hasn't paid for them) have had bad experimental methods (using partial squats, not measuring hip angles for example). This has led me to have a healthy skepticism of any research papers on the subject.

Surely, as a scientist, you can see my point that people should only rely on solid sources of information. It was not to say that the sources of information referenced in this article were bad but rather that they could be and people should be wary. If you take it personally whenever anyone questions your source of information you're going to go mad.

It's a nice paper overall, some good stuff in it and well worth a read.

JJ6000

I havent read the paper yet, so I wont comment on the specifics.

But I would be hesitant to say about ANY paper that it is "THE" paper.

From what I understand it is a good paper on the principles and science of weight training (correct me if I'm wrong, because I havent read it yet). But there are so many ways to implement those principles, and variables in between, that it becomes impossible to claim that any one paper is "the" paper when it comes to weight training.

I could write a 150 page scientific paper on the bodys biological response to progressive overload. That would not, however, explain the specifics of how to apply this information in ways which will produce results.

Like you, I think science and research is of the utmost importance. But I also think that it is wrong to treat it as the be all and end all. (I'm not saying that you do or dont). I think it is equally important to get "in the trenches" and put those principles and scientific info to use and just learn how to get strong.(or fast, explosive etc etc)

The greatest coaches in the world will not only be incredibly knowledgable on the science of their sport, but will also have spent many years perfecting the application of this knowledge "in the trenches". Personally, I would put a lot more trust in a coach who has experience getting people very strong than one who has all the academic qualifications in the world, but little experience.

Roper

I liked the article but there weren't enough pictures.

I don't trust "just science" people because they often lack the experience which will tell you that a lot of athletics is in the head. Something 'should' work, therefore when it doesn't, it's the athletes fault.

I don't trust "just experience" people because they often tend to be good athletic specimens who would have got fit and strong by playing tiddlywinks and smoking 20 Major when it wasn't their turn.

There's a balance to be found somewhere in the middle.

Colm_OReilly

I honestly can't believe I didn't get in on this debate!

thirtyfoot

Roper wrote: »

I liked the article but there weren't enough pictures.

I don't trust "just science" people because they often lack the experience which will tell you that a lot of athletics is in the head. Something 'should' work, therefore when it doesn't, it's the athletes fault.

I don't trust "just experience" people because they often tend to be good athletic specimens who would have got fit and strong by playing tiddlywinks and smoking 20 Major when it wasn't their turn.

There's a balance to be found somewhere in the middle.

Love it, that post is 'The post' when it comes to the best form of training or coaching.

g'em

Colm_OReilly wrote: »

I honestly can't believe I didn't get in on this debate!

Your absence was noted. Not one Rip reference anywhere...

t-ha

I did read the whole paper. That is all.

bwardrop

I think the love is coming back to this thread now...

bwardrop

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Surely, as a scientist, you can see my point that people should only rely on solid sources of information.

I sure do - and that is why I presented this paper - it is a nice solid piece of information!

BobbyOLeary

I never said it wasn't! All I said was that a lot of scientific studies on fitness are performed badly so one should be wary of something toted as THE paper on the subject.