Advanced Exercise Solutions

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02692155221095484

Does a powerlifting inspired exercise programme better compliment pain education compared to bodyweight exercise for people with chronic low back pain? A multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial - Mitchell T Gibbs, Natalie MV... Background Contemporary management of chronic low back pain involves combined exercise and pain education. Currently, there is a gap in the literature for wheth...

What happens to people with chronic low back pain? New research from Western Sydney University​. If you are keen please follow link https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc6w4bCunAYxUImDAr2x2TrPeAHuidfukvv5tlv3J7dzITc5A/viewform

What happens to people with chronic low back pain? New research from Western Sydney University. If you are keen please follow link https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc6w4bCunAYxUImDAr2x2TrPeAHuidfukvv5tlv3J7dzITc5A/viewform

Very important! Pointless to increase work load without work capacity!

Infographic credit: YLM Sport Science

ATTENTION TRAINERS, EXERCISE SCIENTISTS & COACHES:
Why science, bro?

I've recently been hearing and seeing a lot of talk that is disregarding science for experience and I would like to shed some light on the matter.
Simply - both are important.
Science will never give us all the answers, it is not the nature of science. A way to look at it is science is the starting point. Research gives us an 'average result'. The nature of statistics will show if an intervention has worked for a population. Usually this will be expressed as an average (I.e. Participants put an average of 5kg on their squat). In reality the average is not the end result. Take the above example of an average of 5kg. This may mean some participants increased 5kg, some 1kg and some maybe up to 10kg.
This is where experience comes in.
When you're coaching/training for the most part it is individualised. This is where the coach/trainer is able to determine what response their athlete will harvest from the program and from this draw conclusions. This comes with experience with athletes and different populations.

In sum, science gives you the starting point. It shows what will likely work and from there experience guides the way.

On one final note, just because one study showed positive outcomes, does not mean it is gospel - many other considerations must be taken - one key example being what was the population used - if you're trying to take results for a national powerlifter from a study done on geriatric males, this may prove problematic.

- Mitch
Accredited Exercise Scientist

TODAY'S TOPIC: 'Newbie Gains' and what this means for the trainer and the client

Newbie gains obviously isn't a scientific term, though it is accurate. When resistance training is started by someone, they respond faster initially, this is mainly due to the immense shock to the system. You will notice in this time period that strength increases faster than muscular size - this is due to motor learning and the central nervous system (CNS) experiencing adaptations which increases task efficiency.

What does this mean?
Newbies will respond to pretty much anything! There is extensive research that shows this - as well as that newbies respond great in the 60-90% max range. I do not condone 1RM testing in the novice training stage due to issues with motor learning and the increased danger associated. It is starting to come to light that under higher loadings neural control is altered to lower loads which demonstrated an aspect of specificity for 100% and near loadings.

Also, a take home point for trainers, exercise scientists and anyone who likes to read research. The points on newbie gains enforces why studies with novice populations can not be translated as what will occur in a trained population. When reading a study on RT, look at the population, if they are novice, the results will not apply to a trained population in most cases.

Questions and comments welcome.

Mitch
Accredited Exercise Scientist
Advanced Exercise Solutions

Hi all,
Just checking in to let you know I am still here! Posts have been really infrequent lately and for that, I do apologise. I am in the thick of the first semester of my Master of Research. I will be honest, I'm struggling to find time between uni, clients, study and family commitments to post. This is something I am aiming to correct.

This will start with a post tomorrow! Keep your eyes peeled at 5pm!
As always requests for posts more than welcome, through comment or inbox.

Thanks guys!

Mitch
Accredited Exercise Scientist

Todays topic: MENTALITY for RATE OF FORCE DEVELOPMENT (RFD)

the first point I will make is one of my favourite points that is extremely under utilised. If you want to rapidly develop force (POWER - rate of force development (RFD)), Then you must lift with the intent of high velocity (Behm 1993). This is always refuted by 'but if I'm lifting 200kg plus, it won't be fast'? - What we must remember is velocity is relative. Even if the repetition appears slow, if it is the fastest the individual can move the load, then it is the individuals maximum velocity (Vmax) for THAT SPECIFIC LOAD. The other way to look at this is mathematically. POWER is FORCE x VELOCITY (P=FV). So therefore to increase power we can increase velocity, or our force. When we further break down force we find that FORCE = MASS x ACCELERATION (F=MA). Therefore to increase our FORCE which will increase power, we can increase our acceleration, or mass. Therefore a higher load, moved at the same velocity will ALWAYS have a higher power output.

The study i mentioned before (Behm, 1993) also showed that lifting with the intent for velocity INCREASED athletes RFD compared to 'velocity specific movements'. Velocity specific movements are usually performed with lower loads (e.g. squat jumps with 30%1RM).

One major consideration is the lift that this is applied to, and the proficiency of the individual. For example, if this is told to a novice lifter about the deadlift, where the individual is not neurologically efficient at the movement pattern, and attempts to perform this lift at a high velocity, there is obviously a risk for injury.

Questions or comments as always please comment/inbox/email

- Mitch
BhlthSc(Sp&ExSc) AES ESSAM
Accredited Exercise Scientist
Advanced Exercise Solutions

Everyone should read this

Mitch
Accredited Exercise Scientist

Forget The Gizmos: Exercise Works Best For Lower-Back Pain Ditch the strap-on belts and shoe inserts, and definitely don't rest. Accumulating research shows that the best way to treat and prevent lower-back pain is to get off the couch.

I encourage all to take the time to watch this.
A few key points that stuck out to me:
Low levels of fitness (below 5 METs), accounted for higher rates of mortality than smoking and obesity alone.
Individuals with low fitness (below 5 METs) and no other risk factors had equivalent outcomes to those with high levels of fitness and 2 other risk factors.

Also, smoking, if you are to quit before the age of 30, it is possible to not bear lifetime consequences, though if you continue as a lifetime smoker, on average, you will lose 10-12 years off your life... Is smoking really worth losing over a decade in this beautiful world with your family? Children? Grandchildren? - Food for thought.

- Mitchell Gibbs
Accredited Exercise Scientist
Advanced Exercise Solutions

Exercise is Medicine: The Underfilled Prescription by Barry Franklin