Trazione/Spinta 3:1

[goku77]

Stavo leggendo proprio ieri sera un bell'articolo su Pure Power( la nuova rivista integrata in Olympian's News dove vengoo affrontati i temi per quanto riguarda il powerlifting, proprio per veri strongman), che praticamnte parlava della salute e dei test per capire se le spalle sono in salute.
Ora un fattore forza, per poter normalmente bilanciare il volume di lavoro per quanto riguarda petto e dorso è stato dichiarato con un 3:1, ovvero che le serie per la schiena alta devono essere con un rapporto di 3:1 rispetto agli esercizi del petto.
In pratica se faccio 3 serie di petto ne dovrei fare circa 9 per i dorsali.
Ora personalmente non sono molto d'accordo con questa affermazione che può essere valida, ma volevo appunto sollevare la questione.
Ciao

[noldor's]

stronzate....
molto piu' credibile e' un 3:2 se si intende rapporto schiena altaettorali......
invece 2:1 se intendiamo schiena in generale: pettorali

[donpablo]

Quindi 4 esercizi per la schiena e 2 per il petto... oppure 2 per la schiena e uno solo per il petto...
La maggior parte di noi non segue questa regola

Io ad esempio faccio 2 esercizi per il petto e 3 per la schiena... dovrei portare a 4 gli esercizi della schiena, o eliminare un esercizio per il petto...

P.S. Ma il lento e' considerato esercizio "per il petto" da bilanciare?

[Punk84]

io mi trovo daccordo invece.

[MISTER X]

mi sembra eccessivo.
poi non si può generalizzare così,dipende molto dalla situazione di ogni singola persona(gruppi migliori,geuppi carenti,problemi vari..)

[Punk84]

Originally posted by MISTER X
mi sembra eccessivo.
poi non si può generalizzare così,dipende molto dalla situazione di ogni singola persona(gruppi migliori,geuppi carenti,problemi vari..)

chiaro, infatti io esprimevo un parere personale che deriva soprattutto dalla mia esperienza di allenamento

[Nandroboy]

mi potete togliere un dubbio....... ma quando si parla di spinta e trazione, si intende fare una serie per il petto e subito dopo una per il dorso..... oppure fare tutti gli esercizi per il petto e poi attaccare con il dorso...........

[multipower]

Se alleni petto e dorso nella stessa seduta è meglio alternare una serie (o al limite un esercizio) per il dorso e poi una per il petto... con la dovuta pausa.

Ti copio-incollo una risposta di Ian King su t-mag.com in cui spiega i benefici nell'alternare esercizi agonisti/antagonisti nella stessa seduta:

"This is an interesting topic that’s been bandied about for decades in the iron culture. Historically, this was one of the reasons proposed to support the "benefits" of supersetting opposite muscle groups. Before I go any further, let’s look at the potential benefits of antagonistic training which include:

1) Superior hypertrophy adaptations
2) Superior strength adaptations
3) Superior muscle balance

Let’s break each down:

Superior hypertrophy adaptations
I suspect this potential benefit has received historically the most focus, at least in the States. Does supersetting antagonist muscles produce superior hypertrophy (growth) adaptations? Esteemed minds over time such as Peary Rader, founder and long time owner of Ironman, certainly believed that it was the most effective system for building the arms. Perhaps some body parts respond more favorably to antagonist training with regard to hypertrophy. If this is the case, there’s a strong argument that the arms may be up toward the top of the list.

My feeling is that there may be hypertrophy benefits from this method, but the exact mechanism or reasons why aren’t clear. It may be as simple as the fact that equal focus is given to "both sides" of the body in that area, like the biceps and triceps, ensuring optimal increase in circumference through balanced training.

This isn’t to suggest that supersetting of antagonist muscle groups in the best or only way to produce superior hypertrophy results. Rather, there’s adequate reason to dedicate some of your training year to this method.

Superior strength gains
As I see it, the base rationale proposed for superior strength adaptations from antagonist superset training is this: increasing the neural activation of the antagonist muscle may reduce the inhibition it may be causing in the firing of the primary muscle.

If this does work in this manner, its potential effectiveness may be reduced by using too short a rest period between the two opposing exercises. Even though opposite muscle groups are being used (and initially the thinking may have been this is enough rest because they’re different muscles), inadequate time between each exercise may prevent the central nervous system from fully recovering, therefore negating potential strength or neuromuscular adaptations.

The solution found in strength training literature that recognizes the role of the CNS has been to use what I call a full recovery alternated set. This means you’re doing the sequence of an antagonist superset, but using longer rest periods between each opposite exercise, two to three minutes minimum.

Irrespective of the validity of the neural disinhibtion from antagonistic muscles theory, this method has merit if you respect the theory of limited window of opportunity in strength training relative to an anabolic or catabolic response. This theory suggests that somewhere between 20 to 40 minutes of strength training, you may experience a decrease in anabolic hormone (Testosterone) and a concurrent and opposite increase in catabolic hormone (cortisol). Using the full recovery alternated set method allows you to get more sets in the same time period without really compromising CNS recovery than does the more traditional standard setting.

For example, if you did a bench press, rested two minutes, did a bicep curl set that took a minute to do, and rested another two minutes, you’d be coming back to the bench press five minutes after the last bench rep. This may be similar in recovery to a standard set protocol of four minutes, yet you’ve done two sets. In short, more sets can be done effectively in a shorter period of time.

A word of caution here. Many misinterpret the basis of this concept and mix two exercises of large metabolic and neural demand, like the squat and deadlift for example. This is an extreme example, but the message I bring is that your exercise selection can negate the longer recovery impact on the CNS. Give thought to the exercises you pair up!

Superior muscle balance
This influence has been evident in strength training literature for ages — the old "push-pull" program — but I believe it’s given more lip service than action. More recently, the physical therapy influence has reinforced the need to balance antagonist muscles, and supersetting is one way to ensure this. Not the only way, however.

A point to make here: if you were to always sequence an antagonist pairing in the same order (bicep curl and then tricep press) you’re still maintaining an imbalance from exercise sequence. More appropriate for muscle balance would be to rotate the order in subsequent supersetting programs. For example, start with the tricep exercise just as often as you start with the bicep exercise.

Having muscle balance in the long term does make a significant contribution to muscle strength, so don’t look at this factor from a short term perspective where it may have less to offer.

So would there be any growth or strength benefit from antagonistic training? Yes, I believe so, but not such that this training method should be done exclusively. There’ll be a time and place to perform other methods, including the old stand-by of standard sets (set, rest, same exercise set, rest etc.)

I believe that antagonist superset training has some superior size and strength advantages to offer. The only question is to quantify how much more superior they may be and relative to what other training method. "


Per quanto riguarda il rapporto 3:1 potrei trovarmi anche d'accordo, in fondo il petto è 1/3 del dorso (per dorso intendo tutti i muscoli della schiena, non solo i gran dorsali eh.. ) in termini di grandezza..

[FABRY]

Scusa goku, pure power è una sorta di allegato di olympian's compreso nel prezzo?

[bear]

E' dentro la rivista.D'altro canto Olympian's e' la traduzione di diverse rivistae americane(Iron Man, Hard Gainer....) tra cui ora anche Pure power

[FABRY]

grazie dell'info bear

[goku77]

Originally posted by FABRY
Scusa goku, pure power è una sorta di allegato di olympian's compreso nel prezzo?

Si, certo.
Pure power è una rivista tradotta in italiano come Ironman ed entrambe sono inserite in Olympian's News ecco perché questo mese la rivista conta ben 320 pagine.
Ciao

[FABRY]

Ho comprato olympian's, e ho letto pure power. In questo numero hanno parlato + che altro dell'elevata percentuale di grasso corporeo d molti pesisti, la relazione con la forza e dei rischi per la salute. speriamo che ci sia prossimamente qualcosa dedicato all'allenamento di powerlifting, weightlifting strongman etc.
Ciao

[arabafenice]

Originally posted by multipower

A word of caution here. Many misinterpret the basis of this concept and mix two exercises of large metabolic and neural demand, like the squat and deadlift for example. This is an extreme example, but the message I bring is that your exercise selection can negate the longer recovery impact on the CNS. Give thought to the exercises you pair up!

---------------------------------------------
So would there be any growth or strength benefit from antagonistic training? Yes, I believe so, but not such that this training method should be done exclusively. There’ll be a time and place to perform other methods, including the old stand-by of standard sets (set, rest, same exercise set, rest etc.)


I believe that antagonist superset training has some superior size and strength advantages to offer. The only question is to quantify how much more superior they may be and relative to what other training method. "

Qui sopra i punti per me interessanti, in particolar modo il primo.
Indica infatti di non fare squat e stacchi diciamo in ss in quanto l'alta richiesta neurale inficia il riposo tra i set a discapito quindi del sistema di allenamento che prevede in ss un esercizio base e un monoarticolare.
Ma allora petto e schiena vanno bene? Si perchè sono antagonisti ma se uno fa parallele e rematore insomma il sistema ne risente un po'...allora forse meglio i jump set?
Che dite?

Ciao
A

[porfido]

Forse un rapporto di 3:2 potrebbe andare contando le serie dei dorsali più quelle per i deltoidi posteriori ma 3:1 mi sembra troppo diversa come proporzione