So I mentioned the other day that critical bit of research which should have profound effects on your training?
Well I wanted to dwell a bit more on this for your benefit, why?
Because the conclusion on this goes against the way the vast, vast majority of people and personal trainers apply strength training
For years at Leicester Tigers, me and my former colleagues had a determined belief that strength training above a certain intensity caused vastly superior results…
We argued this from the roof tops with various scientist and coaches across the globe
Let me explain this with an analogy…
- 50% structural (the size of the muscle)
- And 50% neurological (ability for nerves to turn on the muscle)
For years most researchers and coaches have thought the intensity you could get optimal gains in strength from was very broad, and the change in muscle size between methods was not that much. BUT…
They ignored half of the story…
What about the neurological?
This is even more pressing as in physical performance, this neurological part is the most trainable and influential if you’re not wanting to put on significant muscle mass (endurance runner, cyclist, wanting to not ‘bulk’)
What most of our team members at CP want, maybe like you, is strength which has a purpose, a function…
Not just ‘size’, but to be quicker, most robust to injury, agile, pain free, fitter, greater performing physical and mentally
This study supports the belief we have had for all of these years because when you strength train below this key intensity, you get:
- Poorer improvements in the qualities which make you more athletic, more toned without being bulky, fitter, robust.
So in general, unless you’re completely new to strength training, elderly, or a youth, if you’re doing moderate-high reps and exercise you can’t overload safely, then you’re hugely limiting the gains and results in things you likely to want from your training
Dave ‘vindicated’ Cripps