Timeline for Effects on muscle growth of not taking rest days
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2020 at 6:00 | history | edited | Andy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 744 characters in body
|
| May 21, 2020 at 5:52 | comment | added | Andy | @POD: Yes I agree. The super-compensation model is generally more useful. It visually illustrates what an athlete must know: you must allow for sufficient time to recover after training. On the other hand you must repeat training sufficiently soon before the super-compensation fades. The fitness-fatigue model is probably best suited for a really curious person or a research scientist. The problem with this model is that it still is not complex enough. It seems like but a stepping stone on the way to an even more complex model. | |
| May 21, 2020 at 5:46 | history | edited | Andy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| May 21, 2020 at 0:40 | comment | added | POD | Yes, the fitness-fatigue model is more complex, but the question I have is whether it really adds anything to our understanding. It is a matter of personal judgement, of course, but I find it rather contrived—you are fitter, but your fitness is masked by fatigue? Well, yes, but are you really fitter then? In the way that most people would understand fitness, I would argue not. All of this said, neither model is wrong; if they help us plan and balance our training to improve, they are useful. | |
| May 21, 2020 at 0:21 | comment | added | POD | But the history of the model of super-compensation is just that, and it is now used as a general description of the observable phenomena associated with stimulus and recovery. It is important to understand that yes, it is conceptual, but yes, so is the fitness-fatigue model. And it is important to understand, also, that the fitness-fatigue and super-compensation models are not mutually exclusive; indeed, the former is just a modern adaptation of the latter. Both are useful if they are interpreted correctly, and both can be deleterious or dangerous if they are not. | |
| May 21, 2020 at 0:15 | comment | added | POD | Yes, Yakovlev's study on glycogen was where the term was coined. However, he subsequently did a huge amount of research on the biochemical mechanisms of stimulus, fatigue, and recovery, encouraged largely by the early work of Hans Selye. The general model of super-compensation was essentially based on Selye's General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) model, and on the general principles of stimulus, fatigue, and recovery described by Georgy Vladimirovich Folbort. (We could arguably accredit the model to Selye or Folbort, too.) | |
| May 20, 2020 at 20:34 | history | edited | Andy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| May 20, 2020 at 20:24 | comment | added | user33290 | Never met anyone who gets tired from 5 sets of 5 reps up to the next day and I always trained in public gyms... | |
| May 20, 2020 at 20:17 | history | edited | Andy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 475 characters in body
|
| May 20, 2020 at 20:10 | history | edited | Andy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 475 characters in body
|
| May 20, 2020 at 19:57 | history | answered | Andy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |