4 ms·
From the actual study: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6/10812.3.4 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6/10812.3.4. Resistance Training Program After the 7-da
by Nifty3929 2y ago
From the actual study:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6/10812.3.4 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6/10812.3.4. Resistance Training Program
After the 7-day wash-in, both groups followed the same RT program that comprising 3 full-body sessions a week for 12 weeks (Supplementary Materials, Table S1). All sessions were supervised by tertiary qualified exercise physiologists and commenced with a standardised warm-up of dynamic flexibility exercises. Each session consisted of 5 exercises: 2 compound movements each for the upper and lower body, and 1 isolation movement for the upper body. Four sets were prescribed for all movements to ensure an adequate weekly training volume for hypertrophy [32]. Training intensities were 6 to 12 repetition maximums (RM) with 60 and 120 s of rest between sets and exercises, respectively. To adhere to the prescribed RM, an individual’s rating of perceived exertion (RPE) on a Likert scale of 1–10 was recorded. RPE corresponds to the number of repetitions an individual perceives they will be able to perform after the set is complete, where an RPE 5 equates to 5 reps more, RPE 6 is 4 reps more, RPE 7 is 3 reps more, and so on [33]. When a RPE of 8 or lower was recorded, the external load (kg) was adjusted on successive sets to ensure that subjects achieved the target RM. The RM method was used to ensure that training intensities were relative to the individual’s abilities while also standardising the training intensity across all participants [34].
I'm not quite sure this is clear enough for me, though it does somehow suggest that they were pushing the participants to do as much as they could. But like I say, unclear.
Small N as well - only a few dozen people.
- n4r9 2y ago> it does somehow suggest that they were pushing the participants to do as much as they could I have the same impression. Possibly it could be made less subjective by literally repping to failure, but I'd guess that has potential ethical implications.
- Frost1x 2y agoRepping to failure has potential ethical implications? Reps to failure can be done pretty darn safely with machines and incredibly low risk of injury if done on the higher rep ranges (say 20 per set). You’re not going to get rid or risk of injury but in order to even do this study, my opinion is you have to be at a normal level of injury risk or the study is pretty much flawed by design.
- n4r9 2y agoWhilst safer in the short term, 20-rep machine sets are not a great way to build muscle. Perhaps something in the middle like a smith machine is best.
- leereeves 2y ago> When a RPE of 8 or lower was recorded, the external load (kg) was adjusted on successive sets to ensure that subjects achieved the target RM. The wording is a little technical. They're saying that, if the subject thought they could do at least 2 more reps at the end of this set, they increased the weight on the next set. So if creatine does allow people to do more reps at a given weight, subjects on creatine should have lifted heavier weights. (To me, that doesn't seem like the right way to adjust for creatine, which is thought to provide extra energy, not the ability to lift heavier.)
- RealityVoid 2y agoIf you can lift more reps, you can go to the next weight level. It's basically linear progression with a self-reported knob. My experience is that everytime I use creatine and start training after not training for like 3 weeks, I put on about 3 kg in a very short time. The rate of progression is deff connected to the quality of my sleep and the amount of protein I consume I did not follow as closely how much creatine impacts, but I think if it does, it does marginally compared to the others. Still, this cohort might suffer from the issue of lack of awareness about _how exertive_ the actual workout is. I feel this is also something you should learn.
- zzbzq 2y agoThey say you always gain a bunch of weight on creatine just from the higher water retention in the muscles
- TomHenderson3 2y agoThe paper says and shows this...
- laszlojamf 2y agoSo they were asking beginner lifters to rate how many they would have left in the tank? I've been lifting for maybe half a year and I still find it pretty hard to estimate >.< It's good that it's studied, but it does sound that they've "conclusively" proven something, and I'm not so sure. Small sample size too, like you said.
- TomHenderson3 2y agoThey are asking beginners in both the control and test arm, so it sounds like they have "proven" something (or at least given good evidence).
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y agoThis is something that can be heavily skewed by the small N. If the people in both groups happen to closely match in their distributions of accuracy for this self-assessment then this would be correct. Larger N would make both groups much more likely to match the real distribution, which would in turn make them more likely to match each other.
- moe_sc 2y agoAdded to that, creatine could influence how close you feel to failure. I'd like to see some data, for participants training until failure. That would still be somewhat subjective, but i'd argue, less so.
- TomHenderson3 2y agoThat is clearly something that they would be finding given the design of their experiment, no?
- TomHenderson3 2y agoCan you explain the stats to give me the proper N for when this experiment would be properly powered?