Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«2 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Tots
Sep 2, 2007



I've wanted to make a thread dedicated to sports/nutrition/exercise science for a while, so now I'm doing it. Hopefully there's enough interest to keep it going and hopefully everyone behaves like a civilized person. This will provide a place that people can refer to instead of clogging up other threads with nerdy pedantic science based debates about macros and carbs and whether or not jerking off will affect your workout.

Some basic general groundrules:
Science is about uncertainty. This thread should reflect that. A few phrases that will be helpful in being successful here are, "More research is needed.", "We're not really sure.", "There is a general consensus.", and "I don't know.". Learn these. Love these.
Anecdotes are not good data.
This thread is not here to tell you the ~one true path~ to fitness. Respect the human element. If someone is exercising then that should be good enough (unless it's objectively dangerous). Do whatever, live life, be happy.

I will try to keep a sort of index of common topics with relevant studies, consensus if there is any, and keywords in the OP.

How to post in this thread
If you want to contribute (please contribute someone please) then try to follow a format similar to:

Topic
-
Keywords
-
Abstract
-
Link to Relevant Research
-
Your Own Input
-

This will make organizing things a lot easier for me and finding things a lot easier for other people.

If you just want to ask a question about the science behind a particular subject then ask in the thread and I (and hopefully others) will try to find relevant research about the question and provide some sort of answer.

As a final note, although I have a strong interest in science, I don't have a strong background in reading and interpreting studies. I'm hoping that this will be a learning experience for me and I ask the any goons with stronger skills in this area can lend a hand. That's all. Get learnt fuckers.




Resources
I will keep this updated by adding good resources and removing ones that maybe are not so good. Suggestions always welcome.

Primary Resources
These are places to look for original research and interpret it yourself

(Free)
Google Scholar - General Research

NCBI (pubmed in particular) PubMed - General Research

(Paid - Can usually get access if you're a student)
SPORTDiscus - Exercise/Kinesiology/Nutrition specific

Secondary Resources
This is research that has already been interpreted for you. It's easier to understand, but you're giving away reliability in exchange for confidence in the interpreter. These will ideally link to the original research

(Free)
http://www.examine.com - Supplementation and Nutrition

(Paid)
Alan Aragon's Research Review
http://weightology.net/

Books
Obviously not going to read every book that goes here. If you have read a book here and think it's bullshit then talk about it in the thread.

Which Comes First, Cardio or Weights?: Fitness Myths, Training Truths, and Other Surprising Discoveries from the Science of Exercise

Practical Programming for Strength Training

Encyclopedia of Sports Medicine (Probably just get this online if you're a student.)

Other stuff
Be wary, just because the writer is smart doesn't mean they are right.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/


~THE GOOD STUFF~
Find the evidence-based answer to your question here! (Hint: Try using Ctrl+f and a keyword.)
If you can't find the answer to your question then ask in the thread!

[[[Index]]]

--Exercise--

Can exercise make me happier?
Keywords: exercise, depression, depressive, quality of life

The most recent research says probably yes. The effect isn't huge and I believe there is still some debate about whether or not the effect is due primarily to the meditative qualities of exercise. Regardless, it's promising as part of a program to combat depression, but should NOT be used as a substitute for professional help.
Current Research:
Effect of Exercise Training on Depressive Symptoms Among Patients With a Chronic Illness
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Self-help interventions for symptoms of depression, anxiety and psychological distress in patients with physical illnesses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Exercise for depression

--Nutrition--

Is there anything to low-carb diets for weight loss?
Keywords: Carbohydrate, low-carbohydrate, high-fat, diet, ketogenic

There appears to be at least a short term effect. More research is needed long term (>1 year).
Efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets: a systematic review.
A low-carbohydrate as compared with a low-fat diet in severe obesity.
Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of low-carbohydrate vs. low-fat/low-calorie diets in the management of obesity and its comorbidities.

Is aspartame safe?
Keywords: Artificial, sweetner, aspartame, sugar, diet

Yes, it's gone far beyond the required safety testing for a food additive.
Current Research:
Aspartame: review of safety

--Supplementation--

Is creatine effective?
Keywords: creatine, monohydrate

Link to Relevant Research
Creatine supplementation increases intramuscular creatine concentration at 5g or more per day, but only if the muscle is exercised; there are no side effects
Creatine can increase lifting volume in trained subjects by up to 26%, mostly by increasing number of reps per set
Creatine is best for repeated, short bursts of strength (e.g., lifting) and does not increase overall strength or aerobic performance by itself
3g/day of creatine increases intramuscular stores by 20%; 20g/day does the same (e.g., don't take 20g/day)
In fact, you don't need a "loading phase" at all
Several studies imply that creatine may have neuroprotective effects in humans and animal subjects
Though some people are "nonresponders" and may not benefit from creatine supplementation
Creatine monohydrate is the most popular and cheapest type, though there are at least a few other types: creatine ethyl ester (CEE), creatine gluconate, creatine hydrate, buffered creatine, and creatine hydrochloride. Several (strong and knowledgeable) people on SA get really pissy about this, but there are no studies that confirm any of these to be superior to plain ol' creatine mono.

I don't currently supplement with creatine. I did for a while -- maybe 6 months or so -- but the effects are not so significant that you'll feel blown away. Additionally, whereas you'll feel tingles when you take beta alanine, or taste it when you take BCAAs (especially unflavored), creatine feels like nothing and tastes like nothing. So when my supply ran out I just didn't buy any more. (It's also possible I'm a non-responder).

However, based on the brief research I've collected here, I'm thinking I'll probably get some for the following reasons:
It's cheap
It tastes like nothing and is water-soluble (easily added to pre-workout BCAAs)
It may slightly increase my overall work capacity in the gym
It has the benefit of peer-review to confirm its effects
It is potentially neuroprotective

Contributed by nocal

Tots fucked around with this message at Mar 25, 2014 around 20:55

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

evilskillit
Jan 7, 2014


Maybe some suggested reading of the more science based books on fitness? I picked up a copy of Which Comes First Cardio or weights? which seems to be nothing but a synopsis of studies about what forms of training are effective, what causes DOMS and what if anything has shown to have any effect at reducing it, etc.

So far it's the first and only book of it's type I've read but I'd highly recommend it for people who just want scientific research backed information and not things that worked for me, or things I heard in the gym locker room.

Tots
Sep 2, 2007



evilskillit posted:

Maybe some suggested reading of the more science based books on fitness? I picked up a copy of Which Comes First Cardio or weights? which seems to be nothing but a synopsis of studies about what forms of training are effective, what causes DOMS and what if anything has shown to have any effect at reducing it, etc.

So far it's the first and only book of it's type I've read but I'd highly recommend it for people who just want scientific research backed information and not things that worked for me, or things I heard in the gym locker room.

That's a great idea and I'm going to update the OP with a list of suggested resources. Databases, reliable websites, books, etc... I didn't do any updating last night because I fell asleep almost immediately after I posted and finding good meta-analytics in exercise science isn't as easy as I thought. I was going to start with what I thought was easy-pickings e.g. exercising to reduce depression but there's not actually a consensus on that that I found. I then went to squat depth in relation to injury, but there's no good meta-analysis (or any) on that and the number and quality of studies seems to be not good as well.

Regardless I'm gonna march on because ~science~.

E: Switching to Google instead of the journals available through my school gave me at least two good meta-analyses that support exercising to reduce depression . Will make actual updates when I'm at my computer instead of my phone.

Tots fucked around with this message at Mar 20, 2014 around 03:24

Rogue
May 10, 2002



evilskillit posted:

Maybe some suggested reading of the more science based books on fitness? I picked up a copy of Which Comes First Cardio or weights? which seems to be nothing but a synopsis of studies about what forms of training are effective, what causes DOMS and what if anything has shown to have any effect at reducing it, etc.

So far it's the first and only book of it's type I've read but I'd highly recommend it for people who just want scientific research backed information and not things that worked for me, or things I heard in the gym locker room.

Rippetoe and Kilgore's "Practical Programming" has some pretty good science in it, from some initial discussion about muscle fiber types, adaptation, and rep ranges to periodized programming. Kilgore's "Anatomy Without a Scalpel" is a good basic anatomy book for lifters which also has some interesting discussion in the first few chapters about the evolution of shoe design in human history and stuff like that. Kilgore's "Fit" was also pretty good, with the theme of fitness being a combination of strength, endurance, and mobility and how to develop each of these. Then of course there's Lyle McDonald. I've read "The Protein Book" which I thought was good, and a lot of people like his books on the ultimate diet and rapid fat loss.

We should also get a few major topics that always come up reviewed in the OP, such as: how BCAAs work and why/how you should/shouldn't take them, creatine supplementation, the origin of DOMS and why it isn't always an indicator of progress, energy systems in exercise (phosphagenic, glycolytic, oxidative), how caffeine works, biomechanics, importance of slow eccentric phase lifting for size gains,...

Great idea for a thread

disheveled
Jun 6, 2001



Thanks for taking the initiative! It's a lot of work. This is going to be a pretty contentious thread from start-to-finish but I'm definitely interested in keeping up with it.

Dem Bones
Feb 25, 2005
Listen, I didn't face ten long tours against the goddamn 'bots to come back home and lift baby weights.


evilskillit posted:

Maybe some suggested reading of the more science based books on fitness? I picked up a copy of Which Comes First Cardio or weights? which seems to be nothing but a synopsis of studies about what forms of training are effective, what causes DOMS and what if anything has shown to have any effect at reducing it, etc.

So far it's the first and only book of it's type I've read but I'd highly recommend it for people who just want scientific research backed information and not things that worked for me, or things I heard in the gym locker room.

Recently published study on exactly this subject: https://www.jyu.fi/en/news/archive/...09-27-40-886894

MomJeans420
Mar 19, 2007

r-r-r-rape?

A good resource for learning how to examine studies for strengths and weaknesses is Alan Aragon's research review. It's $10/month, but you can pay for one month and download years worth of newsletters then quit if you'd like. I let my subscription lapse so I haven't seen the past couple of months, but it's usually pretty good at covering new research in exercise science, then explaining what made a particular study strong or weak.

Another good resource is Lyle McDonald's site. He's definitely a sperglord, but the earlier articles have a lot of good information on the physiology of fat loss, muscle growth, etc. He has some good books that go into more detail than you'd ever want to know about various things.

Eat Bum Zen
Jul 19, 2013

*mumbles*
Rated T for Teen


MomJeans420 posted:

A good resource for learning how to examine studies for strengths and weaknesses is Alan Aragon's research review. It's $10/month, but you can pay for one month and download years worth of newsletters then quit if you'd like. I let my subscription lapse so I haven't seen the past couple of months, but it's usually pretty good at covering new research in exercise science, then explaining what made a particular study strong or weak.

Another good resource is Lyle McDonald's site. He's definitely a sperglord, but the earlier articles have a lot of good information on the physiology of fat loss, muscle growth, etc. He has some good books that go into more detail than you'd ever want to know about various things.

In all honesty has Aragon released anything that's been a significant change to the current dogma? I really enjoy reading his free stuff and other people like him, but I've yet to ever see anything that's convinced me to switch up the way I train.

Mr. Excitement!
Nov 4, 2008

Ask me how much I like shaved monkeys


Examine.com is an excellent synopsis of studies regarding BCAA's, creatine, supplements and other nutritional questions. All studies are vetted and I find it a great resource.

Mufasa Nigel
Jul 8, 2005



Eat Bum Zen posted:

In all honesty has Aragon released anything that's been a significant change to the current dogma? I really enjoy reading his free stuff and other people like him, but I've yet to ever see anything that's convinced me to switch up the way I train.


Alans' main appeal for me is how he disproves/calls into question all the God drat Bro science out there.

As someone who only got into this 5 months ago, his articles, along with Lyles, have really cleared up alot of the stupid misconceptions you're fed from the rest of the Internet/people in the gym.

I'd be eating nothing but chicken and brown rice, while worried about going catabolic if I spend longer than 59 minutes in the gym if it weren't for the stuff I've read from them.

Let alone the fact that nearly all supplements have questionable, or even no, benefits to training. Saved me a fortune of trial and error placebo effect crap.

Of course this forum cleared up alot of that too, but it's not as well known.

So maybe to people who have the general right idea when it comes to training, he's just preaching to the choir. To people like me who don't know what's total bullshit and what isn't it's a welcome breath of fresh air, that has science backing it up.

Mufasa Nigel fucked around with this message at Mar 21, 2014 around 06:44

Donald Kimball
Sep 2, 2011

PROUD FATHER OF THIS TURD ------>


Speaking of supplements, which have the greatest body of evidence (both anecdotal and scientific) to support actually using them?

From my limited browsing and experience, creatine has tremendous evidence base, although some people are total non-responders. The use of BCAAs appears to be supported, and some research seems to suggest beta alanine is okay too.

In all of these cases though, I can't imagine the effect size of any of these supplements is that large, but maybe I'm wrong?

Eat Bum Zen
Jul 19, 2013

*mumbles*
Rated T for Teen


Donald Kimball posted:

Speaking of supplements, which have the greatest body of evidence (both anecdotal and scientific) to support actually using them?

From my limited browsing and experience, creatine has tremendous evidence base, although some people are total non-responders. The use of BCAAs appears to be supported, and some research seems to suggest beta alanine is okay too.

In all of these cases though, I can't imagine the effect size of any of these supplements is that large, but maybe I'm wrong?

Ergo log had most of the relevant studies on beta alanine if you're looking at that. Lsv loves that poo poo. Creatine is cheap but honestly you probably won't notice it.

Dr. Pancakes
Aug 12, 2011

Thank you for not eating me without syrup

Donald Kimball posted:

Speaking of supplements, which have the greatest body of evidence (both anecdotal and scientific) to support actually using them?

From my limited browsing and experience, creatine has tremendous evidence base, although some people are total non-responders. The use of BCAAs appears to be supported, and some research seems to suggest beta alanine is okay too.

In all of these cases though, I can't imagine the effect size of any of these supplements is that large, but maybe I'm wrong?

Creatine and fish oil seem to have the most studies on them according to this Though things like caffeine also have a lot. From anecdotal though stimulants are probably #1 since they have been around a long time like caffeine and you will notice the effect quickly.

Tots
Sep 2, 2007



Dr. Pancakes posted:

Creatine and fish oil seem to have the most studies on them according to this Though things like caffeine also have a lot. From anecdotal though stimulants are probably #1 since they have been around a long time like caffeine and you will notice the effect quickly.

Caffeine is pretty well studied in the sports world, so that's not really anecdotal. If you want to talk about "what works for me" supplementation then the supplement thread would probably be a better place.

Tots
Sep 2, 2007



Rogue posted:

Rippetoe and Kilgore's "Practical Programming" has some pretty good science in it, from some initial discussion about muscle fiber types, adaptation, and rep ranges to periodized programming. Kilgore's "Anatomy Without a Scalpel" is a good basic anatomy book for lifters which also has some interesting discussion in the first few chapters about the evolution of shoe design in human history and stuff like that. Kilgore's "Fit" was also pretty good, with the theme of fitness being a combination of strength, endurance, and mobility and how to develop each of these. Then of course there's Lyle McDonald. I've read "The Protein Book" which I thought was good, and a lot of people like his books on the ultimate diet and rapid fat loss.

We should also get a few major topics that always come up reviewed in the OP, such as: how BCAAs work and why/how you should/shouldn't take them, creatine supplementation, the origin of DOMS and why it isn't always an indicator of progress, energy systems in exercise (phosphagenic, glycolytic, oxidative), how caffeine works, biomechanics, importance of slow eccentric phase lifting for size gains,...

Great idea for a thread

Taking these into consideration, also up in the air about how to best format the OP. Currently doing a FAQ type thing where I answer a question based on most updated research and link to that research. If anyone else wants to contribute something in this style (please contribute) then I'll add it to the OP. Also, I encourage people to dissect the answer given for any of the FAQ's given in the OP and correct any mistakes they see.

T. J. Eckleburg
Apr 10, 2007
sorry about the clock.

I would like to contribute!

Nutrition for Runners
Keywords: macros, nutrition, endurance, running
Everyone knows runners need more carbohydrates than non-endurance athletes, but "eat more carbs" isn't the whole picture for staying healthy and performing well. This section is skewed towards female runners because I am a female runner!
Increased intake of calcium, vitamin D, potassium, and protein (ie, drinking milk) reduces stress fracture risk.
Higher fat intake leads to less injury risk in general.
Runners are at higher risk of anemia, and iron supplementation might help you set a PR.

nocal
Mar 7, 2007
surfin' from WebTV

Topic
Oral creatine supplementation

Link to Relevant Research
Creatine supplementation increases intramuscular creatine concentration at 5g or more per day, but only if the muscle is exercised; there are no side effects
Creatine can increase lifting volume in trained subjects by up to 26%, mostly by increasing number of reps per set
Creatine is best for repeated, short bursts of strength (e.g., lifting) and does not increase overall strength or aerobic performance by itself
3g/day of creatine increases intramuscular stores by 20%; 20g/day does the same (e.g., don't take 20g/day)
In fact, you don't need a "loading phase" at all
Several studies imply that creatine may have neuroprotective effects in humans and animal subjects
Though some people are "nonresponders" and may not benefit from creatine supplementation
Creatine monohydrate is the most popular and cheapest type, though there are at least a few other types: creatine ethyl ester (CEE), creatine gluconate, creatine hydrate, buffered creatine, and creatine hydrochloride. Several (strong and knowledgeable) people on SA get really pissy about this, but there are no studies that confirm any of these to be superior to plain ol' creatine mono.


Your Own Input

I don't currently supplement with creatine. I did for a while -- maybe 6 months or so -- but the effects are not so significant that you'll feel blown away. Additionally, whereas you'll feel tingles when you take beta alanine, or taste it when you take BCAAs (especially unflavored), creatine feels like nothing and tastes like nothing. So when my supply ran out I just didn't buy any more. (It's also possible I'm a non-responder).

However, based on the brief research I've collected here, I'm thinking I'll probably get some for the following reasons:
It's cheap
It tastes like nothing and is water-soluble (easily added to pre-workout BCAAs)
It may slightly increase my overall work capacity in the gym
It has the benefit of peer-review to confirm its effects
It is potentially neuroprotective

abgushte badamjan
Apr 4, 2009

for butts??????


Does anyone have any research on creatine and its effects on mood? I only have personal anecdotes from myself and others about it, but I feel like that's not properly weighed as a potential con.

Ekster
Jul 18, 2013



Any articles/books on the interference between anaerobic and aerobic training? I've heard/read from various sources that the two types of training are somewhat antagonistic when it comes to improvement in one or the other area, but I'd like to know why and to what extent.

nocal
Mar 7, 2007
surfin' from WebTV

abgushte badamjan posted:

Does anyone have any research on creatine and its effects on mood? I only have personal anecdotes from myself and others about it, but I feel like that's not properly weighed as a potential con.

Creatine has a positive effect on mood in sleep-deprived subjects...
but this apparent follow-up finds no significant effect on mood.
Creatine improves mood in Parkinson's patients

So, maybe it improves mood slightly? Though probably not to the point where you'd notice. Anecdotally I never expected this effect and never felt an effect on my mood.

Tots
Sep 2, 2007



T. J. Eckleburg posted:

I would like to contribute!

Nutrition for Runners
Keywords: macros, nutrition, endurance, running
Everyone knows runners need more carbohydrates than non-endurance athletes, but "eat more carbs" isn't the whole picture for staying healthy and performing well. This section is skewed towards female runners because I am a female runner!
Increased intake of calcium, vitamin D, potassium, and protein (ie, drinking milk) reduces stress fracture risk.
Higher fat intake leads to less injury risk in general.
Runners are at higher risk of anemia, and iron supplementation might help you set a PR.

I'm starting to think this thread would be better off in some kind of wiki format because idk where I'd even put this or how to format it in the OP.

Shine
Feb 26, 2007

No Muscles For The Majority


IMO, don't worry about making some kind of Super Saiyan OP Index. People can just follow and read the thread.

Tots
Sep 2, 2007



Ekster posted:

Any articles/books on the interference between anaerobic and aerobic training? I've heard/read from various sources that the two types of training are somewhat antagonistic when it comes to improvement in one or the other area, but I'd like to know why and to what extent.

I'm sure there'd be some studies on the relationships between the two, I don't know of any really broad overviews of the subject though. Can you give a more specific example so I could try to find some research? Are you talking about running the day before weightlifting? The day of? Long term studies are always a bit harder to find, IE results of running the two types of training concurrently for long periods of time. I think it's safe to infer though that if one is immediately detrimental to the other in the short term then it will also be detrimental in the long term if you follow the same pattern.

Here's a small study showing that strength training may increase short-term endurance, but has essentially no effect on VO2Max

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/7453510/reload=0;jsessionid=69Lfohfr1DQrfNKpWpxw.16

Here's a small study showing that aerobic activity doesn't increase muscle strength (but has no information about running a strength program along with it). Also this is with elderly people and is using low intensity aerobic training in sedentary individuals, so it probably doesn't apply. HERE YOU GO ANYWAY.

http://journals.lww.com/nursingresearchonline/Abstract/1994/07000/The_Effect_of_Low_Intensity_Aerobic_Exercise_on.4.aspx

Here's a good one (and the most recent) that shows that aerobic exercise probably has an impact on muscle strength for up to an 8 hour period, but the effect seems to be localized.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14636098

Hopefully that can get you started

Tots fucked around with this message at Mar 25, 2014 around 18:24

Shine
Feb 26, 2007

No Muscles For The Majority


I haven't looked at it, but James Krieger of weightology.net recently did a big research review on how cardio and lifting affect each other.

Tots
Sep 2, 2007



Fourthmeal Fanboy posted:

I haven't looked at it, but James Krieger of weightology.net recently did a big research review on how cardio and lifting affect each other.

Behind a paywall unfortunately. Are you a member there?

I found a pretty good and pretty recent review here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17095931

quote:

Summary
Although hypothetical, it is reasonable to assume that activation of AMPK and inhibition of the eEF2 by endurance exercise and/or too-frequent exercise sessions will impinge on the responses to resistance exercise by affecting training-induced increases in adaptive protein synthesis, because activation/inhibition of these signaling proteins independently or collectively can alter the induction of an anabolic response. The obvious consequence of such antagonism will be a negative impact on long-term strength-training adaptations, perhaps by ameliorating the hypertrophic response. Therefore, this may be one mechanism responsible for the observed detrimental effects of concurrent strength and endurance training on strength development

In summary, when strength and endurance training are performed simultaneously, a potential interference in strength development may occur. Such interference may be caused by alterations in the adaptive protein synthesis changes induced by endurance exercise or by too-frequent training sessions, in addition to several other unknown factors. Novel technologies are allowing us to understand the molecular mechanisms involved in exercise-induced skeletal muscle adaptations (e.g., genome-wide gene-expression analysis). This knowledge is not only improving the way we implement training programs for sports and rehabilitation, it is also important for the correct design of future studies in exercise training and skeletal muscle adaptation, particularly those involving the investigation of mechanisms of signal transduction and gene expression.

Tots fucked around with this message at Mar 25, 2014 around 18:35

Tots
Sep 2, 2007



Was just browsing ACSM and came across this study which I thought was interesting. I know the last time I looked into foam rolling I couldn't find much to support it other than "it probably works just do it".

This is a pretty good overview of its effectiveness.

Keywords: Foam, foamroll, recovery, self-massage, massage

Foam Rolling as a Recovery Tool after an Intense Bout of Physical Activity

quote:

ABSTRACT
Purpose: The objective of this study is to understand the effectiveness of foam rolling (FR) as a recovery tool after exercise-induced muscle damage, analyzing thigh girth, muscle soreness, range of motion (ROM), evoked and voluntary contractile properties, vertical jump, perceived pain while FR, and force placed on the foam roller.

Methods: Twenty male subjects (>=3 yr of strength training experience) were randomly assigned into the control (n = 10) or FR (n = 10) group. All the subjects followed the same testing protocol. The subjects participated in five testing sessions: 1) orientation and one-repetition maximum back squat, 2) pretest measurements, 10 × 10 squat protocol, and POST-0 (posttest 0) measurements, along with measurements at 3) POST-24, 4) POST-48, and 5) POST-72. The only between-group difference was that the FR group performed a 20-min FR exercise protocol at the end of each testing session (POST-0, POST-24, and POST-48).

Results: FR substantially reduced muscle soreness at all time points while substantially improving ROM. FR negatively affected evoked contractile properties with the exception of half relaxation time and electromechanical delay (EMD), with FR substantially improving EMD. Voluntary contractile properties showed no substantial between-group differences for all measurements besides voluntary muscle activation and vertical jump, with FR substantially improving muscle activation at all time points and vertical jump at POST-48. When performing the five FR exercises, measurements of the subjects’ force placed on the foam roller and perceived pain while FR ranged between 26 and 46 kg (32%–55% body weight) and 2.5 and 7.5 points, respectively.

Conclusion: The most important findings of the present study were that FR was beneficial in attenuating muscle soreness while improving vertical jump height, muscle activation, and passive and dynamic ROM in comparison with control. FR negatively affected several evoked contractile properties of the muscle, except for half relaxation time and EMD, indicating that FR benefits are primarily accrued through neural responses and connective tissue.

Also, if anyone could help me translate the very last sentence of that abstract I'd appreciate it.

Foam rolling method used in the study:

quote:

The subjects in the FR group performed five different FR exercises, targeting the major muscle groups of the anterior, lateral, posterior, and medial aspect of the thigh, along with the gluteal muscles. A custom-made foam roller that was constructed of a polyvinyl chloride pipe (10.16-cm outer diameter and 0.5-cm thickness) surrounded by neoprene foam (1-cm thickness) was used for all exercises because greater pressure can be placed on the soft tissues of the body when using a high-density foam roller versus a low-density foam roller (15,25). The subjects performed each of the five exercises on both the right and left legs for two 60-s bouts each. For exercises targeting the thigh (anterior, lateral, posterior, and medial), the subjects were instructed to place their body weight on the foam roller, starting at the proximal aspect of the thigh and rolling down the thigh, using small undulating movements, gradually working their way toward the knee. Once the foam roller reached the distal aspect of the thigh, the subjects were instructed to return the roller to the starting position in one fluid motion and continue the sequence for the remainder of the 60-s trial. For the fifth exercise, targeting the gluteal muscles, the subjects were instructed to sit on top of the foam roller, placing both of their hands on the floor behind the foam roller. The subjects then crossed their right/left leg over their left/right knee, positioning their body so their right/left gluteal muscles were in contact with the roller, and their body weight was placed on the foam roller. The subjects were instructed to undulate back and forth, with the foam roller running inline with the origin to insertion point of the gluteus maximus muscle. The subjects completed all five exercises on one side of the body and then switched to the other side of the body and repeated all five exercises.

Tots fucked around with this message at Mar 25, 2014 around 21:11

disheveled
Jun 6, 2001



Tots posted:

Also, if anyone could help me translate the very last sentence of that abstract I'd appreciate it.

"Foam rolling improves soreness and recovery of performance relative to control, but when we directly measured the ability of the muscle to contract after zapping it with an electrode, we found that most of our measurements were telling us that the muscle is actually performing worse, indicating that rolling may actually be increasing muscle damage.

The most parsimonious explanation is that foam rolling helps by treating connective tissue damage, not muscle damage. A normal response to connective tissue damage is neural inhibition of muscle activation, which prevents further damage. Since the connective tissue is less screwed up after foam rolling, there is less inhibition, so you can voluntarily generate more force with your muscle."

Ekster
Jul 18, 2013



Tots posted:

I'm sure there'd be some studies on the relationships between the two, I don't know of any really broad overviews of the subject though. Can you give a more specific example so I could try to find some research? Are you talking about running the day before weightlifting? The day of? Long term studies are always a bit harder to find, IE results of running the two types of training concurrently for long periods of time. I think it's safe to infer though that if one is immediately detrimental to the other in the short term then it will also be detrimental in the long term if you follow the same pattern.

Yeah, I was kind of hoping for broad overviews/reviews on the subject, particularly on running and weight lifting, and also to what extent. Thanks for the links, I'll see what I can dig up.

Tots
Sep 2, 2007



Ekster posted:

Yeah, I was kind of hoping for broad overviews/reviews on the subject, particularly on running and weight lifting, and also to what extent. Thanks for the links, I'll see what I can dig up.

The one on weightology.net looks like it MIGHT be promising based on the title, but I've never read anything from there and it requires $$$

Outpulse
Feb 11, 2009


Great supplement and exercise science site: http://suppversity.blogspot.com/

Tots
Sep 2, 2007



Outpulse posted:

Great supplement and exercise science site: http://suppversity.blogspot.com/
Gonna get me some dick meds


Free secondary sources/literature reviews like this are extremely helpful. If anyone knows of more then don't be shy post it up.

crazycello
Jul 22, 2009


If you want to keep autism levels high, keep in mind that that though suppversity is looking at peer-reviewed studies (i think), they sure aren't peer-reviewed.

Tots
Sep 2, 2007



crazycello posted:

If you want to keep autism levels high, keep in mind that that though suppversity is looking at peer-reviewed studies (i think), they sure aren't peer-reviewed.

All this stuff would go under the "seconday sources" section of the OP. Hopefully anyone interested in this type of research will understand the compromises you make when reading a secondary source.

E: You're point was ab peer review which I didn't mention at all. Same thing though. They're still helpful resources and I'll include these with the assumption that people take that into consideration. (maybe I'll add a note in the OP as well.)

Tots fucked around with this message at Mar 27, 2014 around 01:27

rekamso
Jan 22, 2008


Fourthmeal Fanboy posted:

I haven't looked at it, but James Krieger of weightology.net recently did a big research review on how cardio and lifting affect each other.

Perhaps I'm missing the exact article you are referring to, but his most recent bit mostly just notes that this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22002517 has some flaws which throw the effect sizes off some unknown amount so he cautions giving too much attention to their magnitudes.

Nacho Destroyer
Nov 20, 2013



In regards to Yohimbine HCL specifically: Is it possible to create an insulin/carb depletion in a non-fasted state?

I.E. I eat something small (a couple hundred calories), then spend an hour and a half in the gym, and go run 4 miles, does this create the same effect on the body as being fasted for 5-6 hours or whatever?

evol262
Nov 30, 2010
#!/usr/bin/perl

yeahok posted:

In regards to Yohimbine HCL specifically: Is it possible to create an insulin/carb depletion in a non-fasted state?

I.E. I eat something small (a couple hundred calories), then spend an hour and a half in the gym, and go run 4 miles, does this create the same effect on the body as being fasted for 5-6 hours or whatever?

No. And 5-6 hours isn't generally enough either, given that carbohydrate digestion takes place in the small intestine and starch (along with oats, beans, and other "tough" long-chain carbs) until the large intestine, which takes 6-8 hours to reach in the first place.

What are you hoping to accomplish by taking yohimbine after you exercise? It won't be nearly as effective.

Nacho Destroyer
Nov 20, 2013



evol262 posted:

No. And 5-6 hours isn't generally enough either, given that carbohydrate digestion takes place in the small intestine and starch (along with oats, beans, and other "tough" long-chain carbs) until the large intestine, which takes 6-8 hours to reach in the first place.

What are you hoping to accomplish by taking yohimbine after you exercise? It won't be nearly as effective.
From what I've read it's best took while fasted, then wait an hour and do low intensity stead state cardio. So normally I go to the gym and lift heavy, then go run. then after my run walk 2-4 miles at 4mph on an incline. (treadmill)

nocal
Mar 7, 2007
surfin' from WebTV

yeahok posted:

From what I've read it's best took while fasted, then wait an hour and do low intensity stead state cardio. So normally I go to the gym and lift heavy, then go run. then after my run walk 2-4 miles at 4mph on an incline. (treadmill)

I used it effectively by taking it (with caffeine) in the morning about 15 minutes before a slow run. Then I'd lift in the afternoon/evening. You should be eating after you lift.

evol262
Nov 30, 2010
#!/usr/bin/perl

yeahok posted:

From what I've read it's best took while fasted, then wait an hour and do low intensity stead state cardio. So normally I go to the gym and lift heavy, then go run. then after my run walk 2-4 miles at 4mph on an incline. (treadmill)

Right, because yohimbine is an alpha antagonist, so taking it and doing LISS helps fat mobilization (inhibits glucagon release, keeps the cAMP open, vasodilator). But if you've already lifted and already run, you'd be taking it for what reason?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nacho Destroyer
Nov 20, 2013



evol262 posted:

Right, because yohimbine is an alpha antagonist, so taking it and doing LISS helps fat mobilization (inhibits glucagon release, keeps the cAMP open, vasodilator). But if you've already lifted and already run, you'd be taking it for what reason?
When I lose weight, I tend to lose it in the abdomen last, I've gotten pretty low in lbs before, and I'll have a really gaunt face, arms, legs etc., but still not have visible abs (other than maybe a 4pack). I've read yohimbine is good at mobilizing the fat in the abdomen specifically.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«2 »