Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: recovery based training

  1. #11
    Plan is verb, not a noun.
    Planning is a never ending
    task of adjustments and fine tuning.

  2. #12
    Member pakewi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan,Italy
    Posts
    887
    It's been a long seven years...what about a training based recovery,finally?
    Are really " recovery " and "rest" synonymous? Do "high" and "low" intensity still mean what they meant to people on this forum seven years ago?
    How have we all changed over the years?
    Knowledge belongs to the world. (Synapse)

  3. #13
    For me the most interesting question today is how recovery options may actually hinder adaptation. Removing waste products by external means will obviously allow you to train again sooner, but they may also remove the incentive for the body to change.

    I can't find little to point me in the right direction. In the lab there have been just a couple of studies, mainly on cold therapy. In the field, well few coaches (myself included) and athletes would be willing to cut back on recovery work and thus training volume.

  4. #14

    Re: recovery based training

    What ever happened to Clemson?

  5. #15

    Re: recovery based training

    It doesn't seem to be any evidence that recovery type training will make you recover faster.

    Sports Med. 2006;36(9):781-96.
    Using recovery modalities between training sessions in elite athletes: does it help?
    Barnett A.

  6. #16

    Re: recovery based training

    Ah another typical "nothing works" study.

  7. #17

    Re: recovery based training

    Quote Originally Posted by NFS View Post
    It doesn't seem to be any evidence that recovery type training will make you recover faster.

    Sports Med. 2006;36(9):781-96.
    Using recovery modalities between training sessions in elite athletes: does it help?
    Barnett A.

    Supplementation accelerates recovery and there are plenty of studies to support this. I’m going to database search on this, I’ m sure there will be studies supporting differing recovery modalities.

  8. #18
    Administrator Angela Coon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,561

    Re: recovery based training

    You are right NFS. Just because we say it is so does not make it true.
    Did you know that Charlie almost never spoke about his own athletic career? He had an intense dislike talking about his own running.
    Charlie's sprinting career ended before he was 25 years old.
    Charlie was motivated to coach out of the frustrations he had having never done any work that was low intensity or recovery based work. He certainly did not invent this idea but he did learn from trial and error how tempo and shaking and tripling and core body circuits and pool workouts allow people to do more, recover faster from all work and give a person general fitness that is often overlooked.

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,619

    Re: recovery based training

    And don't forget that research has shown us that warming up isn't necessary, massage does not enhance performance or recovery, static stretching is useless, and running on a treadmill is just as effective as running on a track.

    Never let a PhD design your training program.

  10. #20

    Re: recovery based training

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    And don't forget that research has shown us that warming up isn't necessary, massage does not enhance performance or recovery, static stretching is useless, and running on a treadmill is just as effective as running on a track.

    Never let a PhD design your training program.
    The research on warm up was based on stretching and had a number of flaws in the methodology. The studies on static stretching showed miniscule difference between the dynamic group v static group. The size of the sample group was also small. The majority of studies support the use of a warm up.

    The studies on treadmill v normal running showed that biomechanical differences were minor. However minor biomechanical differences are significant. The problem is in the interpretation of results. My view is that 1% is sufficient proof that normal running is preferred over treadmill running.

    To find value in research there is a need to review every study in the field to get the overall picture. One problem I’ve encountered with journalists and track coaches is that they place too much value on one study and don’t interpret results appropriately.

Similar Threads

  1. EMS on hamstrings and glutes only ?
    By Silencer23 in forum Strength Training
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-26-2009, 04:23 PM
  2. Science of Winning
    By kitkat1 in forum Aquatics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-15-2009, 12:00 AM
  3. videos
    By Principles in forum Discussion Suggestions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-14-2003, 06:42 PM
  4. under/overload
    By jalbert in forum Biomechanics and Physiology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-05-2003, 06:14 PM
  5. splits
    By bLiNk_mE in forum Discussion Suggestions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-05-2003, 02:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •