My understanding is that it doesnt even do that, because it creates false negatives for the so called skinny fat body type: significant visceral fat mass, which is what we are concerned about, but not much muscle or peripheral fat mass, thereby not being flagged by BMI screens, even though they are at risk.
I guess it's technically cool, but one should be aware that there is no such thing as "good posture" or no accepted definition that lends itself to good science.
slouching isnt bad, remaining in the same posture for a long time is, or at least it can lead to discomfort. people that sit up straight all the time still get back pain. i slouch all the time and i don't. The popular attachment to specific configurationa of your joints that look aeathetically acceptable os orthorexia, not science.
Adhesions are not really a thing as far as i know. Biggest priority is strength and cardiovascular training and maintaining a good body composition and stress level. Then I'd think about stretching.
I spend most of my time at work on a medicine ball switching between switching, kneeling and standing. At home I switch between reclined, semi-reclined, upright and standing. I think its been working great.
Does it? I think strength may be related to pain if you're very weak, and statistically there are big confounders (i.e. people who are weak also have other conditions that exacerbate pain experience). But past a certain point I don't think the evidence suggests that strength itself is protective. Otherwise, competitive lifters would never experience back pain for instance, but they still do. Pain is multifactorial, and strength is not the only determinant by far.
Never said it’s the only factor, and we shouldn’t assume all pain is the same pain
The type of pain people weight train suffer tends to be related to muscle or tendon damage. The type of pain that comes from sedentarism tends to be related to overworked (weak) muscles and bad circulation.
Great, your one of the few. Statistics are pretty clear that most people cannot willpower their way out of their food seeking behaviours. They are to a large extent not under your concious control.
correcting satiety signaling on a chemical level more directly addresses the problem in those folks.
yes, the food environment is the main problem, in a way, but only because it punishes having a certain set of chemical and lifestyle parameters and rewards others.
thats a different thing tho. the term "stretch mediated hypertrophy" is used loosely in many places and i think originally refers to really just hypertrophy caused by the stretch. iirc the lengthened partial gains are not thought to be caused by this mechanism.
You are correct. SMH is used incorrectly in most places, but you explained it well.
But after that people started experimenting and researches started publishing a lot of interesting findings. And found a lot of applicable things that are based on the original SMH research and that is partly/fully explaining new findings.
Like is was found that it having only the partial range of motion, training the one when the muscle is lengthened is clearly better than training in a position of a shortened muscle.
Moreover, some research even found that doing such "lengthened partials" is better that doing the full range of motion.
Therefore, people try to utilize more of the lengthened portion of the movements (especially if it is impossible to work the muscle in both the lengthened and shortened positions, so one has to choose anyway), while some go as far as getting rid of the shortened portion altogether.
akshually theres quite some interesting data on this. it has been shown that stretching alone can indeed produce hypertrophy (in birds and humans), but the required protocols are so intense that you wont want to do them (i think its hours in incredibly uncomfortable positions), so dynamic exercise still wins.
One would also expect it not to do as much for strenght, since adaptations are somewhat specific to the training.
Perfect form isnt a thing, its all a matter of what joint positions you are adapted to produce or reduce force in. So the problem with form breakdown isnt that the position you end up in is dangerous (no, rounding your back some is not bad), but that you are not prepared for the stress in that position.
Its unfortunate that people say deadlifting "wrong" causes injury, while the evidence does not support it. People should not be turned off from lifting heavy by such statements.
It's not about the stimulus. It's about the fact that some exercises are naturally better done within the lower rep range (5-10), while others work and feel better with the higher rep range (20-30). Some are better in the middle.
With DB side raises, take too high of a weight, and you will feel like you can't do anything productive done (can't even raise to an appropriate height). With lower weights you can get a proper range of motion and can really feel the burn and get the target (sic!) muscle exhausted.
Additionally, too high of a weight doesn't feel good on joints.
Similarly with squats (or deadlifts). Squating with 5-10RM is fine. But 30RM?.. Theoretically it gives the same stimulus as doing 5-10RM, but practically everyone who suggests putting such sets to a program should be medicated and put on a suicide watch. The taxationvon all systems of your body is just so huge (especially the more advanced you are).
Heck, mere squating true (!) 20RM (just one set!) is considered a crazy challenge that most will never do. I have done crazy stuff in my life, but I am not embarrassed to admit that this challenge is beyond me. Simply doing 20RM leg extensions is hard enough for me.
These require the practical experience. Take barbell/dumbbells, try yourself and no more explanations will be needed.
My point is that there is nothing a priori about it, its just a question of what your goal is, what you are adapted to do and how the resistance curve of the movement is set up.
If you have a cardiovascular system that can grind through 20RM squat sets and you like it, go off. It'll be hard for most people due to the large amount of muscle mass recruited, but on the other hand, if you can load a lateral raise 5RM with acceptable range of motion, why the hell not. It just doesn't work well with dumbbells in particular.
reply