The S&C-related Studies Thread | Page 6

Discussion in 'Strength & Conditioning Discussion' started by miaou, Dec 11, 2011.

  1. selfcritical Brown Belt

    selfcritical
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,435
    Likes Received:
    511
  2. miaou barely keeping it together

    miaou
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    421
    This is a good example why I no longer pay attention to studies coming from the "sports science field":

    [​IMG]

    You can take a look at the comments if you're curious:




    TL;DR:

    Study conclusions: strength fully recovers 24 hours after heavy training, even if you still subjectively feel tired.

    The graph shows a 13% decrease (but it is statistically non-significant due to the very small n=8 sample size and researchers concluded there is no drop).

    Meanwhile, 13% decrease means that the first day you had a 200 kg (405 lbs) squat and the next day you could only squat 175 kg (350 lbs).

    Published in a scientific journal.
     
    #102
    Noodles03 and Badger67 like this.
  3. Badger67 Taxidea taxus

    Badger67
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages:
    4,198
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Location:
    Canada
    Comments aren't loading for some reason.

    Clinical vs statistical significance is monumentally different. Good critique Miaou
     
    #103
    miaou likes this.
  4. miaou barely keeping it together

    miaou
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    421
    Yep.

    The only thing one can conclusively deduce from that study is that every person involved (the researchers, the supervising professors, the people who vetted the professor, the peer-reviewers, etc) are scientifically illiterate.

    Unfortunately, terrible methodological quality and utter lack of scientific scrutiny and academic rigour is the rule, rather than the exception, in the sports science field.
     
    #104
    Sano and Badger67 like this.
  5. NurseKnuckles My Mom's stronger than you belt

    NurseKnuckles
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    9,285
    Likes Received:
    987
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario
    You know someone is taking this and doing full body every day, right?
     
    #105
    corpse and Badger67 like this.
  6. LatFlare EADC

    LatFlare
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    2,064
    Did you get that from Chris Beardsley's instagram? I just dropped in here to see what ppl thought of the studies he posts.
     
    #106
  7. miaou barely keeping it together

    miaou
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    421
    @LatFlare From some Facebook page, if you open the spoiler you'll the the post and my discussion with him in the comments.
     
    #107
  8. Noodles03 Blue Belt

    Noodles03
    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    263
    Location:
    Southern California
  9. Sano Brown Belt

    Sano
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,914
    Likes Received:
    5,884
    Location:
    Denmark
    Pretty poor and biased article using a study, from 1994, that have some interesting yet not conclusive findings. Most studies are quite poor. Even well done RCT studies have to be contextualized and give guidelines rather than truths.

    Best practice is always a summarizing of clinical experience, scientifical evidence, individual patient/client response and your own judgement.
     
    #109
  10. selfcritical Brown Belt

    selfcritical
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,435
    Likes Received:
    511
    Also relatively untrained/weak population. The idea that weak people gain max acceleration from strength training compared to strong people is not exactly revolutionary. If we used collegiate Div 1 athletes with 4-8 years of weightlifting, I would be not surprised to see the group using throws/speed work improve more.
     
    #110
  11. Sano Brown Belt

    Sano
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,914
    Likes Received:
    5,884
    Location:
    Denmark
    Yeah I didn't want to go into the specifics of it, but small sample size, untrained/weak individuals, young age, exercise selection, exercise protocol and conflicting evidence from other citations, included in the discussion in the study, means it definitely should be viewed in context.

    It just tells us that these few young kids who had never lifted weights before got a slight improvement in their pitching speed compared to a med ball group. However the whole point of the med ball group, theoretically, was to improve the SSC reflex, improve contractile velocity and motor patterns. If they didn't do the exercises correctly (too slow, too heavy or too light resistance), didn't choose the right exercises (little carryover, too unspecific to the task you're trying to improve) then even something that might have worked, and have in other studies, wouldn't.

    Add to that, that they were untrained as you touched on. If they already had a decent base of strength, or were simply older, the results might have looked different as well. And so on.
     
    #111
    selfcritical likes this.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "fd5733925866a04e50edd70f38dfaa35"
monitoring_string = "603ac9fff68f23709f2a42bf5e29272b"