yeah unless you use the AK model
Random health and exercise thoughts - Page 1676
...imo, keep your training the same and if recovery/progress in the gym becomes an issue, reduce volume by dropping a set from some of your lifts. don't change too many things at once; if what you're doing is working, then stick with it. if it stops working, then you can make changes.
I might be wrong on this, but low carb diets makes you tired and easily fatigued, which can make high volume workouts difficult. You would be better off by trying to keep the strength (read: weight) and dropping a set or a couple of reps if you feel weaker / do not recover well. Dropping the weight on the compounds, on the other hand, might actually make you weaker.
Sound like broscience, but I read it on Leangains and I prefer that method too.
Bro do you even PC game with good posture and mobilize at same time?
Yup, i am turning into a min i knucks. Would recomend dietition.
This is actually a pretty complicated issue. Yes there have been a number of studies done that return less-than-stellar results, but careful examination of them reveals some reasons to be skeptical. Most of these are correlation studies, and often forego even basic common sense regarding biomechanics. For example, one of the more recent studies I read recruited long distance runners (people who ran more than 15 miles per week). They were split into two groups. One group spent 20-30 minutes stretching before their runs, the other group did no stretching. The researchers tracked these athletes for a few months, and found no meaningful differences between the two groups in terms of either performance or injury rates. A very narrow reading of these results would have been fine, but instead the researchers exclaimed surprise and concluded that maybe stretching just wasn't that important for athletes.
While I have a lot of faith in the data collected in this study, the conclusions drawn by the researchers leave something to be desired. As a question, "does stretching reduce injuries" is too broad to be useful. Many in this forum have already pointed out that "stretching" is a broad term - that there are a number of ways to stretch, some of which may be more effective than others. While this is true, I'd posit that the real problem is that "injuries" is too broad a term. There are a number of different classes of injuries, caused by very different problems, and many of which bare no causal relationship to mobility. No one should be surprised, for instance, that stretching does almost nothing to reduce injury rates among high volume runners. The most common injuries among high volume runners are repetitive stress injuries to the feet, ankles, shins, knees, and hips, either in the form of persistent soft tissue inflammation or in the form of stress fractures to bones. These injuries represent the overwhelming majority of those suffered by endurance runners. Stretching doesn't reduce the rate at which runners pick up these injuries because these injuries are caused by impact stress, not by immobility.
That does not mean that stretching/mobility work won't reduce injury rates for other athletes. Rather than doing random correlation studies, it helps to put this in the context of causation. Proper stretching leads to greater mobility, which can reduce injury rates for some athletes both directly and indirectly. Directly, increased mobility decreases the likelihood of pulling/tearing a muscle that is accidentally forced into rapid extension. These sorts of injuries are most common in explosive athletes (sprinters, olympic lifters, etc.). In this context, it's important to remember that there's a healthy range for mobility. More is not always better. Athletes with too much mobility run the risk of soft tissue or skeletal injury if a joint is allowed to go into rapid hyperextension.
Indirectly, and most importantly for the readers of this thread, stretching can help reduce injury rates by allowing an athlete to achieve biomechanically optimal form. In the context of lifting weights, the two main causes of poor form are a lack of mobility and/or a lack of strength. An athlete who cannot achieve full depth on a squat without significant lumbar flexion is at a high risk of injury if he attempts to squat heavy weights. In this context, the athlete should be doing a significant amount of mobility work in order to be able to get into a safe position at the bottom of the squat.
Less clear, however, is how much benefit an already mobile athlete gets from "maintenance stretching." An athlete who can squat ass-to-ground with perfect form must posses a great deal of mobility. Once this is achieved, will static stretching do much to help prevent injuries for this athlete? Probably not. Here I tend to follow the Bulgarian lifting point of view that the best way to maintain that mobility is to squat as often as possible.
I know this is a long post, but I think it's important for people to remember to think about things in context. The question is not "will stretching prevent injuries." The question is "will this specific mobilization help me get into a better position for the movement I am about to perform."If the answer to that second question is yes, then it's probably worth taking the time to stretch.