Bodynet informatie database.

**Aldo Raine** · 12-01-2015, 20:56

Voeding:

Meal timing maakt weinig/niets uit
Compared with nibbling, neithe... [Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI
Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrie... [Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991] - PubMed - NCBI
Meal frequency and energy balance. [Br J Nutr. 1997] - PubMed - NCBI
Decreased thermic effect of fo... [Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
Effect of the pattern of food intake on human ener... [Br J Nutr. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI
Frequency of feeding, weight r... [Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI
The effect of eating frequency on appetite control an... [J Nutr. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
Increased meal frequency does not promote greater ... [Br J Nutr. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
Meal Frequency and Energy Balance | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

Whey na training kan helpen
http://www.phoenixbarbell.com/PDF_Files/060809C.pdf
Whey and casein labeled with L... [Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
Ingestion of casein and whey proteins r... [Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
Postexercise protein intake enhances wh... [Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI
EFFECTS OF PROTEIN AND AMINO-ACID SUPPLEMENTATION ON PERFORMANCE
Maar niet extreem veel
Effect of protein-supplement ti... [Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Protein supplementation before and after exer... [Am J Clin Nutr. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Enhanced amino acid sensitivity of myofibrillar prote... [J Nutr. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
Long-term synthesis rates of skeletal muscle DNA and... [FASEB J. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

Vet maakt je niet dik, en verhoogt anabole hormoonspiegels
Fat intake and energy-balance effects. [Physiol Behav. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
Effects of dietary fat and fiber on plasma an... [Am J Clin Nutr. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI
Influence of dietary fatty acids composition, le... [Reprod Biol. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI
Diet and serum sex hormones in healthy men. [J Steroid Biochem. 1984] - PubMed - NCBI
Decrease of serum total and free testoster... [J Steroid Biochem. 1983] - PubMed - NCBI

Het eten van veel eiwit is geen probleem, echter in potentie toxisch (bij extreem lage KH inname)
Metabolic responses to high protein di... [J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
Effects of exercise on dietary protein requ... [Int J Sport Nutr. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI
Dietary protein intake and renal function. [Nutr Metab (Lond). 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Do regular high protein diets h... [Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI
Dietary protein intake and renal function. [Nutr Metab (Lond). 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

Efficiente eiwitinname ~2g / kg bw
Effects of exercise on dietary protein requ... [Int J Sport Nutr. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI
The importance of protein for athletes. [Sports Med. 1984 Nov-Dec] - PubMed - NCBI
Increased protein intake reduces lean b... [Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
Protein quantity and quality at levels above ... [J Am Coll Nutr. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
Dietary protein for athletes: from requirements... [J Sports Sci. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
EFFECTS OF PROTEIN AND AMINO-ACID SUPPLEMENTATION ON PERFORMANCE

Eiwit helpt met vet verlies en geeft je een vol gevoel
High protein diets decrease total ... [Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Protein, weight management, and satiety. [Am J Clin Nutr. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
The significance of protein i... [Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

Focus op grammen en niet op % kcal (macro's)
Protein intake and energy balance. [Regul Pept. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

Groenten zijn goed voor je
The Okinawan diet: health implications of a l... [J Am Coll Nutr. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
An overview of the effects of dietary fiber on ga... [Pediatrics. 1995] - PubMed - NCBI

Eet onbewerkt, gezond eten
Nutrition and health. The issue is not fo... [Public Health Nutr. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Origins and evolution of the Western diet: he... [Am J Clin Nutr. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

Gewichtstoename/verlies is enkel een kwestie van kcal in vs out, maak je niet te druk om methodes.
Global calorie counting: a fitting ex... [Annu Rev Public Health. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
Fat loss depends on energy deficit only, inde... [Ann Nutr Metab. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI
Diet - Caloric Excess
What should I eat for weight loss? | Examine.com FAQ

Keto heeft geen 'bonus-effect'
Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets
Ketogenic Low-Carbohydrate Diets have no Metabolic Advantage over Nonketogenic Low-carbohydrate diets | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
JAMA Network | JAMA | Efficacy and Safety of Low-Carbohydrate Diets: A Systematic Review

Tegenstrijdig: keto heeft positieve effecten (mijn visie)
Effects of low-carbohydrate vs low-fat diets... [Arch Intern Med. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
Effect on body composition and other parameters in obese young men of carbohydrate level of reduction diet

GI maakt geen flikker uit.
Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in hum... [Obes Rev. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
Is glycemic index of food a fea... [J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaem... [Int J Obes (Lond). 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.alanaragon.com/elements-c...mic-index.html

Maak je niet (te) druk om insuline.
Insulin?an Undeserved Bad Reputation » Weightology Weekly

Verzadigde vetten zijn niet per definitie slecht
http://www.askscooby.com/nutrition-3...saturated-fat/
http://chriskresser.com/5-reasons-no...sterol-numbers

**Aldo Raine** · 12-01-2015, 20:56

Training:

Neem 3-5 minuten rust tussen sets voor de meest optimale krachttoename
Rest interval between sets in strength training. [Sports Med. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
The effect of rest interval length on be... [J Strength Cond Res. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
Effect of two different rest period leng... [J Strength Cond Res. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI
A comparison of 3 different rest interva... [J Strength Cond Res. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
A brief review: factors affecting the le... [J Strength Cond Res. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

Meer volume is niet altijd beter
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16095427
Moderate volume of high relative trainin... [J Strength Cond Res. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
Important role for AMPKalpha1 in limiting skeletal m... [FASEB J. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

Alles draait om progressie
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19204579
ADAPTATION to Progressive Resistance Exercise
Fundamentals of resistance training: pr... [Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

Geen verschil in spiergroei van de latissimus dorsi bij bepaalde grip
Grip width and forearm orientation effec... [J Strength Cond Res. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dave Tate

Squat Mistake #1 – thinking it’s not technical and simple.

Squat Mistake #2 – not setting up TIGHT from head to toe.

Squat Mistake #3 – not arching the bar out of the rack.

Squat Mistake #4 – not starting with an arch and ass back.

Squat Mistake #5 – pulling air into your chest and not your belly.

Squat Mistake #6 – looking up instead of driving head and traps into the bar.

Squat Mistake #7 – not spreading the floor and pushing your knees out.

Squat Mistake #8 – sitting down instead of back.

Squat Mistake #9 – moving hips first out of the hole. The head and chest must move back first.

Squat Mistake #10 – not using compensatory acceleration on the concentric phase.

Squat Mistake #11 – looking down when the lift gets hard. When it gets hard, drive head into the bar.

bron: From the elitefts? Twitter Chat: Twenty Squat Mistakes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUTcYA9daoE

Meer volume is niet altijd beter
Moderate resistance training volume prod... [J Strength Cond Res. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Moderate volume of high relative trainin... [J Strength Cond Res. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
Important role for AMPKalpha1 in limiting skeletal m... [FASEB J. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

Neem 3-5 minuten rust tussen sets voor de meest optimale krachttoename
Rest interval between sets in strength training. [Sports Med. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
The effect of rest interval length on be... [J Strength Cond Res. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
Effect of two different rest period leng... [J Strength Cond Res. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI
A comparison of 3 different rest interva... [J Strength Cond Res. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
A brief review: factors affecting the le... [J Strength Cond Res. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

EXERCISE SCIENCE: WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

It seems like the anti-science backlash is beginning.
(warning: this is a 2100 word post about the scientific process. for a TL;DR, jump to “Is there really a conflict” at the bottom.)
The old-guard of strength coaches sat quiet long enough. For these people, science is useful insofar as it verifies things they already believe, but can be dismissed if it counters their own opinions and observations. Apparently, the relatively new trend of evidence-based coaches and writers questioning their claims and eroding their credibility has made them uncomfortable enough that they feel the need to start pushing back. And each time one of their articles gets published, it gets shared around and praised by a lot of very intelligent lifters and athletes, so clearly their position still broad appeal.
I feel like this position still has such a following because most folks like me suck at explaining how science works and both when it is and isn’t useful. We are stereotyped as nerds who are out of touch with the real world and in-the-trenches coaching, and boy do we deliver in spades.
So, I want to use this article as a defense of exercise science, only insofar as it’s actually defensible. I’ll do this by rebutting the most common anti-science claims made by opponents.

1. The studies done in the exercise science literature don’t have much relevance to the athletic population
Often, this is the case. For every study that gets done about how to further elite athletic performance, 10 are done examining how to help obese people lose weight, or help old people maintain a reasonable standard of living. Why? Because, quite frankly, it ultimately matters a lot more that we reduce our society’s waistline, or that the elderly can live independent, happy lives than it is for you to take your squat from 500 to 600. Therefore, the more valuable studies are the ones that get funded.
You may see a study looking at changes in strength and bone mass due to training on a vibration plate and think “dumb scientists, why not just make the people squat?!” Well, they’re probably more interested in outcomes for people unable to perform traditional strength training programs (i.e. the elderly or diseased), or for women developing osteoporosis. Scientists aren’t idiots. If you see a study and think “the entire premise of this study does not seem to relate to my goals in any meaningful way” then it’s because…. that study probably wasn’t conducted with people like you in mind.
HOWEVER, the fact that a preponderance of studies aren’t relevant to athletic performance does not mean that those studies that ARE performed on trained subjects and ARE relevant to athletic performance don’t have merit.
Rejecting the relevant exercise science literature because the bulk of the literature isn’t aimed at elite athletics is like dismissing mathematics because most of the math textbooks printed are for grade school classes, not Ph.D. level mathematicians.

2. Exercise scientists are dumb and design experiments to answer obvious questions
This critique is based on a misunderstanding of how science works. Something that *seems* self-evident can’t be assumed to be true if it’s a testable hypothesis.
For example, let’s say you see a study that says “hamstring curls increase EMG readings in the hamstrings, and heavier loads increase EMG readings more so than lighter loads.”
Those scientists probably knew they were going to get those results before they performed the experiment. However, if they wanted to do further research on the hamstrings (maybe something related to hypertrophy, strength, sprint performance, etc.), they need to establish the basics first.
It may seem like a tedious process, but it’s the only way to make sure you don’t have faulty assumptions that affect your outcomes and conclusions.
For example – dehydration causes cramping, right? Well, not so fast (example 1 and example 2). That’s an example of something everyone assumed to be true, but was found to be a faulty assumption when it was studied rigorously. One of the strengths of the scientific method is that it doesn’t take anything for granted. Studies about topics that SHOULD be obvious are just part of that process. They may seem pedantic, but they do occasionally find that things we all assumed to be true are, in fact, false assumptions.

3. Too many studies on untrained subjects
Refer to #1. Most people ARE untrained!
A study on untrained subjects is less relevant to the trained population, but it doesn’t affect the relevance of the literature as a whole, or whether applying science to the training process is a worthwhile endeavor.

4. Science says “such and such” is wrong, but we all know it’s true
I love this one (“love” as in, it makes me want to ram my head through a wall).
This criticism carries with it the assumption that you’re more likely to be right than the entirety of the scientific literature.
One of my favorites is hamstring involvement in the squat. Numerous coaches have hailed the squat as a hamstring developer, and have scoffed at scientists who have found (repeatedly) that squats really don’t train the hamstrings very well at all.
Do these coaches have EMG studies they’re hiding? Have they taken MRI or DEXA scans to assess hamstring hypertrophy utilizing squats vs. RDLs/GHRs/etc.
As my mother was fond of saying, “the truth has nothing to hide.”
“The barbell squat exercise causes substantial increases in hamstring activation, strength, and hypertrophy relative to (insert here any hamstring dominant exercise, such as deadlift variations)” is a testable hypothesis. If they think that’s true, they can test it and publish it, and then it will BE a part of the scientific literature. If all they’re saying is that the hamstrings dosomething in the squat, then they’re really not making a statement that’s at odds with the science at all.
Now, in some cases (the original steroid research prior to Bashin et Al comes to mind), science will come to poor conclusions because of poor study design, but that’s a question of context, and the correct response is to critique the methodology of the studies rather than to turn your back on the scientific process itself.
If you think you’re right and the science is wrong, and you can’t find major design flaws in the studies you dispute, you’re either arrogant and lacking a leg to stand on, or you’re in the position of needing to “put up or shut up.”

5. Science flip flops, changes positions, or isn’t reliable
Changing positions in the face of new evidence isn’t a weakness. That’s a sign of humility. Science doesn’t claim to have Truth (notice the capital T). Science merely tries to move closer and closer to what is actually true and verifiable. If something is found to be false, it should be discarded. That’s not wishy-washy-ness. That’s epistemological honesty.

6. You can find a study that says anything
This is another fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. Applying science isn’t about finding a single study to support your position. It’s about looking to see what the bulk of the literature says. Science is consensus-driven.
For example, if you have 2 poorly-controlled studies saying GMOs are going to cause cancer and kill you, and 15 major, well-controlled studies saying they’re fine and carry no significant long-term risk of disease, you go where the best and most numerous studies are leading. The fact that there are dissent and conflicting studies doesn’t mean science isn’t useful – it just means you need to examine the literature as a whole and not try to cherry-pick studies to make a point.
Reviews and meta-analyses are good places to start for an overview of a topic.

Drawbacks:

1. prescription vs. principles
Scientific studies don’t write training programs for you. They teach you about mechanisms and principles that you can then apply to your own training or to how you train athletes.
Science will never remove the importance of the strength coach. Science may give you the ingredients, but the trainer or coach is still the master chef. Training and program design will always be equal parts art and science.

2. individual variation
As I’ve harped on before, science deals with averages. It doesn’t (at least yet) account for individual variability. As such, it can help give you a starting point for programming, but a smart coach or athlete still needs to make adjustments to account for individual differences that can’t show up in a study that has to deal with means and standard deviations.

3. insufficient literature
This is a point the critics are 100% right about – right now, the scientific literature about training for elite level athletic endeavors is pretty thin gruel.
However, some would assert that the logical implication is we need to forget about exercise science.
I couldn’t disagree more. The best way to fix bad science or insufficient science is with more science! It is a self-correcting process.
For example, prior to the germ theory of disease, it was often thought that disease was caused by ill humors in the air, or by “bad blood.” Doctors weren’t held in particularly high esteem, and many were skeptical of the medical profession as a whole. However, Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch helped demonstrate that infectious diseases were actually caused by microorganisms, and thus modern medicine was born, and doctors were actually able to treat disease well and reliably get positive results from their treatments.
Just because the exercise science literature is insufficient for many questions an athlete or coach will wrestle with, that does not mean the process as a whole is unsound – it just means more research needs to be done to expand the knowledge in the field.
Luckily, I think we’re on the cusp of some really exciting times in strength science. Jacob Wilson, Alan Aragon, Brad Schoenfeld (who has literally a dozen studies in review right now – I’m sure mostly on trained athletes!), and many others are pumping out research almost every week that’s relevant to most of us on subjects like the effectiveness of post-workout protein supplements, whether high or low reps are better for muscle hypertrophy and strength, and the effects of blood flow restriction training on hypertrophy.
I think the critics are going to be amazed at the relevance and quality of studies that are coming down the pike in the next couple of years.

Is there really a conflict?
Or, to state it another way, why would a coach be critical of applying the scientific method to training athletes.
To reiterate – the truth has nothing to hide.
Honestly, I can only think of two reasons why someone would oppose exercise science.
a) they don’t understand how it works, and come to conclusions about its usefulness based on bad assumptions.
b) they don’t want to find themselves in a position of having to admit they’re wrong if the evidence comes out against them.
The best coaches (even once who aren’t explicitly citing scientific studies) are already using the scientific process every day.
Science isn’t complicated or reserved for the elites. It’s a simple process
1. make an observation
2. make a hypothesis (prediction) based on that observation
3. think of a way to test your prediction
4. run the test (experiment)
5. ask yourself if the outcome of the experiment supported your prediction, or called it into question.
Any good coach should always be trying to figure out better and better ways to improve their athletes’ performance. When they observe that something could be improved upon, attempt a fix, and then check to see if the changes had the desired effect, they are doing science. That is how good coaches became good coaches, and continue to become better coaches.
The only coaches not doing science, on some level, are the ones that say there’s only one way of doing things and refuse to change in the face of new evidence. They don’t realize that just because something works, it could still work better. Instead of innovation and improvement, this approach represents stagnation. It belies a stronger desire to assert that “I’m right, and have been right this whole time” than the desire to improve training outcomes for their athletes.

There is no true conflict between evidence-based coaches and in-the-trenches coaches. Evidence-based coaches start with the literature, and refine their approach based on in-the-trenches experience. In-the-trenches coaches start with experience, and apply the scientific method to their training programs to continue improving them. In my opinion, both are legitimate ways to learn and improve, and both camps should listen to what the other has to say.

Exercise Science: What is it good for | Strength & Science

**Aldo Raine** · 12-01-2015, 20:57

Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6H2edyPLU8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BztxybaTNQk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgCJkngR6xE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FviIXAvUj_U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6p-BockeRw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdqVF7-8wng

**Aldo Raine** · 12-01-2015, 20:58

Cardio:

Myths Under the Microscope Part 1: The Low Intensity Fat Burning Zone

Myths Under the Microscope Part 2: False Hopes for Fasted Cardio

Challenging the Glycemic Index

A Musclehead's Guide to Alcohol

False Hopes for Fasted Cardio
- At low intensities (25-50% VO2 max), carbs during exercise reduce fat oxidation compared to fasted trainees.
- At moderate intensities (63-68% VO2 max) carbs during exercise may reduce fat oxidation in untrained subjects, but do not reduce fat oxidation in trained subjects for at least the first 80-120 minutes of exercise.
- Carbohydrate during exercise spares liver glycogen, which is among the most critical factors for anticatabolism during hypocaloric & other conditions of metabolic stress. This protective hepatic effect is absent in fasted cardio.
- At the established intensity level of peak fat oxidation (~63% VO2 max), carbohydrate increases performance without any suppression of fat oxidation in trained subjects.

The Low Intensity Fat Burning Zone, hier struikel ik een beetje over:

- In acute trials, fat oxidation during exercise tends to be higher in low-intensity treatments, but postexercise fat oxidation and/or energy expenditure tends to be higher in high-intensity treatments.Dit wisten we al.
- Fed subjects consistently experience a greater thermic effect postexercise in both intensity ranges
- In 24-hr trials, there is no difference in fat oxidation between the 2 types, pointing to a delayed rise in fat oxidation in the high-intensity groups which evens out the field.
- In long-term studies, both linear high-intensity and HIIT training is superior to lower intensities on the whole for maintaining and/or increasing cardiovascular fitness & lean mass, and are at least as effective, and according to some research, far better at reducing bodyfat.Hier struikel ik een beetje over. Waarom far better?

Myths Under the Microscope Part 1: The Low Intensity Fat Burning Zone - AlanAragon.com - Fitness Based on Science & Experience

**Aldo Raine** · 12-01-2015, 20:58

Overig:

JISSN | Full text | Evidence-based recommendations for natural bodybuilding contest preparation: nutrition and supplementation

T Nation | How to Keep Muscle During a Layoff

Dietary Fats, Prostaglandins and Hormones: Part I, II & III

Strength Gains by Motor Imagery with Different Ratios of Physical to Mental Practice

Victor Mooren Eten voor spiergroei: Deel 1 - gunstige vetpercentagezone - Victor Mooren

Victor Mooren Eten voor spiergroei: Deel 2 - het calorie-overschot - Victor Mooren

Victor Mooren Eten voor spiergroei: Deel 3 - lange termijn benadering - Victor Mooren

http://startingstrength.com/articles/squat_rippetoe.pdf

**rain** · 12-01-2015, 21:02

Super initatief herr Aldo.
Zo valt er weer wat te leren hier hopelijk.
Victor Mooren schrijft trouwens wel veel interessante en duidelijk uitgelegde artikelen.

**mdejonge** · 12-01-2015, 21:05

Netjes en duidelijk Aldo, mooi initiatief inderdaad!
Heb niet alles gelezen, staat er ook een cut guide voor Rain bij?

**NickP** · 12-01-2015, 21:15

Nice man, zeker goed te gebruiken

**kedamn** · 12-01-2015, 21:17

Thanks aldo! Klein vraagje maybe niet goed gekeken, ik las net het gedeelte van aantal gram protein per bw/kg. Dit is voor een natural athlete , is er mischien een onderzoek hoeveel dit omhoog ( als dat uberhaupt het geval is) gaat voor mensen die op aas zitten?

**Aldo Raine** · 12-01-2015, 21:30

Originally posted by rain View Post

Super initatief herr Aldo.
Zo valt er weer wat te leren hier hopelijk.
Victor Mooren schrijft trouwens wel veel interessante en duidelijk uitgelegde artikelen.

Originally posted by NickP View Post

Nice man, zeker goed te gebruiken

Dank heren hopen dat het goed ontvangen wordt en de moeite waard was.

**Aldo Raine** · 12-01-2015, 21:31

Originally posted by mdejonge View Post

Netjes en duidelijk Aldo, mooi initiatief inderdaad!
Heb niet alles gelezen, staat er ook een cut guide voor Rain bij?

Originally posted by kedamn View Post

Thanks aldo! Klein vraagje maybe niet goed gekeken, ik las net het gedeelte van aantal gram protein per bw/kg. Dit is voor een natural athlete , is er mischien een onderzoek hoeveel dit omhoog ( als dat uberhaupt het geval is) gaat voor mensen die op aas zitten?

Bedankt heren. Er zijn genoeg leden die deze kennis tot hun beschikking hebben. Om meteen maar even de interactie te maken.

**Aldo Raine** · 13-01-2015, 16:37

Training: Stop Sucking at Pull-Ups

Here's what you need to know...

Modern day living means sitting around a lot. So why go to the gym and sit more on the pulldown machine?
The lat pulldown is an effective way to work anything but the lats when poorly executed.
Unless you're a competitive, elite CrossFitter, stop kipping.
Avoid straps until you can get 15 solid pull-ups.
Forget about doing 30 reps of pull-ups per set. This is like repping out 95 pounds on the bench for 30. Add weight with a dipping belt.

Born to Pull

Step aside bench press, the vertical pull has taken the title of the most effective and efficient movement to build a bigger, stronger, and healthier upper body.
If you're stuck in purgatory on the lat pulldown machine or are totally ignoring the vertical pull and its many variations, then this is for you.
The primitive functionality of the pull-up is what makes it such a pivotal aspect of any training program. The vertical pull was once a necessity of life in evading predators and obtaining food sources, but recently it's become a novelty.
Outside the gym, when's the last time you've pulled up to anything other than the Taco Bell drive-thru? With disuse of this primitive upper body pattern, our bodies as a collective whole have begun to fall apart.

Your Devolving Posture

From a postural standpoint, our culture is in an orthopedic epidemic. America is leading the pack to the grave with the popularization of computers and cell phones. Our spines, shoulders, and hips are facing extended periods of dysfunctional postural stresses on a daily basis.
We're also losing our ability to perceive what neutral position actually looks and feels like. We've created a new neutral position, one of postural compensations and stress. Our shoulders are forward and internally rotated, our chest is tight, and our shoulder blades are fixed to our backs.
For those who train with purpose and goals, these daily stresses really put us at a biomechanical disadvantage to perform and stay healthy. Luckily, there's a cure: a properly performed pull-up.

Sitting Our Lazy Asses on Machines

As soon as humans figured out a way to train in a seated position, we lost the physical supremacy battle as a species. Not only are we sitting all day at our desk, in our car, or on the couch, we're now going to the gym and "training" on machines that we can comfortably sit our lazy ass on.
Case in point, the lat pulldown machine.
Before you jump on the bash bus, the pulldown machine is a variation of the traditional vertical pull. When programmed and executed properly, it can be a powerful tool for advanced trainees to grow and strengthen the upper body.
However, it's actually the most commonly butchered upper-body pulling exercise in any stereotypical big box gym. How did we get to this point? Why is the pulldown machine so different than the pull-up, and why should we care?

Rise of the Machines

By plopping down in a seated position, we lose the ability to stabilize the core in a functional position. All of the anti-rotational and anti-flexion/extension movements are lost.
When in a non-neutral seated position, the pelvis is dumped posteriorly, putting increased stresses on our spine and lower back. When we attempt to execute a strengthening exercise, too many of us are in the same position we're in when we watch Sports Center. Good luck with that.
Momentum and heavy flexion-extension moments at the thoracolumbar spine initiate movement and are the primary cause for heavy compensation patterns in poorly performed pulldowns. The sad fact is, the pulldown is an effective way to work anything but the lats when poorly executed.
Static stabilizers are forced to kick in and aid in movement, along with non-contractile tissues acting as restraints to limit harmful positions. Again, this is a less than ideal environment for muscle building and strength gains.
Own your movement and stand up at the gym!

Globally Pack on Muscle

The lats have a primary action of upper arm (humeral) adduction, extension, and internal rotation, but their secondary properties make it a versatile muscle to train for posture. Strength gains at the lats provide enhanced postural stabilization of the spine and lower pelvis due to its attachment points.
Increased core stability translates to higher numbers in the squat, bench, and deadlift, and an overall increase in total body strength. Simply said, strong and stable lats will allow you to pack on more muscle globally.
Of course, the vertical pull is unarguably the most efficient way of building strong and functional lats. Secondarily, the vertical pull will train your grip, arms, shoulders, back, core, and pelvic floor.
Creating a strong foundational link between various accessory-pulling muscles will also alleviate undue joint and ligamentous stresses while still training the movement for strength.

Cheaters Gonna Cheat!

There are many problems that arise when executing the closed-chain vertical pull:

Mistake #1: Short range of motion

A true pull-up will start from a stand-still position with elbows fully extended.
From that position, movement should be initiated with muscular contraction moving the body upwards until the chin is in position over the bar (others prefer the apex of the movement to be chest to bar).
From the top of the motion, the body is lowered in a controlled manner to the starting position. Full range of motion is imperative not only for strength gains, but also to stress contractile tissues that are being strategically targeted.

Mistake #2: Use of momentum to initiate movement

Let's get this one straight: the "kipping" pull-up is not a pull-up, plain and simple. Using momentum to initiate a movement is also known as cheating.
For amateurs that haven't mastered shoulder girdle stabilization and requisite vertical pull strength, the kip stresses the joints, puts the shoulders in shit positions, and plays a huge role in global warming, among other things.
Related: More on kipping pull-ups

Just because your body kinda moves in the same direction doesn't mean the kip is even comparable to a real pull-up.
Newbie CrossFitters love the kip because they can't complete a real pull-up. I'm not saying the CrossFitters kicking ass on ESPN aren't amazing athletes though. I'm just making the point that a majority of CrossFit clientele will never, ever perform to that level. Kipping just allows them to participate in a WOD and feel good about themselves.

Mistake #3: Poor scapular rhythm and stability

Setting your ego aside and making the decision to incorporate full range of motion during the pull-up is an absolute requisite for optimal scapular rhythm. Use the full motion and let the body's natural stabilization and movement patterns kick in. Don't over think it.
If you're not able to complete full-range reps, the use of accommodating resistances such as bands can help you get the right range on your pulls. This isn't an excuse to hang from the bar like a sloth, though, ripping your non-contractile tissues to shreds in the process.
Keep tension through the back of your shoulders at all times while reaching a fully extended position at the elbows for each and every movement.
Quit your half-reppin' and maybe your shoulders will move and function better than a rusty transmission!

Mistake #4: Decreased tension and TUT (time under tension)

At the starting point of the pull-up, tension should be initiated to stabilize the shoulder, making sure you aren't just hanging out on the ligaments and tendons. Squeezing your shoulders into external rotation will cue this tension and optimize your start.
Aside from stabilizing tension, another commonly underused method to increase overall muscular force output and growth-inducing TUT is programming specific tempos into your pulls.
In order to recruit a maximal number of fast-twitch muscle fibers, make the concentric contraction (the pulling up part) as explosive as possible as your chest approximates the bar.
At the apex of the movement, squeeze for 2 seconds to maximize TUT and force output in the shortened state of the biceps, lats, and upper posterior-chain musculature.
Control the eccentric or lowering portion of the movement by trying to "press" yourself back down into a full tensioned hang. The tempo I recommend for muscular strength and hypertrophy is X120.
In tempo lingo, that means:

Explode up as your chest moves toward the bar.
Hold isometrically at the top for one second.
Take about two seconds to lower your body.
With no pause, come back up for another rep.

Mistake #5: Newbies Using Straps

Straps are an advanced addition to any pull-up variation, so stay away newbies!
Straps reduce the requisite grip strength needed to complete a set of pulls, placing an increased focus on the more proximal joints and tissues found in the posterior shoulder girdle and back.
When you're able to complete 15+ reps of strict body weight pull-ups in any variation, only then have you earned the right to strap in.

Variation For a Bad-Ass Back

One of the best things about vertical pulling is that based on your functional and aesthetics goals, you can manipulate your hand and grip position.
Simple modifications can be used to take the stress off a certain joint, specifically train an individual muscle group while not losing the advantages of the entire motion, and target different stabilizers from different angles.
The four most common variations of the closed-chain vertical pulling movements are the wide, medium, and neutral grip pull-ups, along with the chin-up (palms facing your face.)
The semi-supinated grip (palms facing each other) can also play a key role in shoulder health, especially if you have a past history of problems.
If you have rings available, don't be afraid to use them. The varying hand position can reduce unwanted stress off non-contractile structures of the shoulder girdle while also allowing a more authentic movement pattern of the region.
That being said, the rings will also put a huge focus on shoulder stability and rhythm as opposed to pure strength and hypertrophy type training effects.
While the primitive patterning will stay constant, the muscular stresses and stabilization patterns will vary depending on individual anthropometrics and movement mechanics. Finding your sweet spot so that you can implement a plan of progressive overload along with long-term orthopedic joint and soft tissue health is paramount.

Don't Be Afraid to Load Up!

Some trainers have been avoiding the maximally loaded pull-up and its variations for decades. This is a damn shame because the vertical pull is just another movement in the training arsenal and should be programmed as such.
What makes the pull-up so intimidating? Most likely the setup and positioning of an external load strapped right in front of your junk. However, with proper execution and set up of the dip belt in conjunction with plate control, loading the pull-up for rep ranges that build muscle isn't only possible but downright mandatory.
Related: More on building pull-up strength

Forget doing 30 reps of pull-ups per set if you're a backside beast! This is the equivalent of repping out 95 pounds on the bench for 30, and I haven't seen that since the last time I walked through Planet Fitness, which was never.
Loading a pull-up is no different than loading up any other movement in the gym. Still, I can see how loading a pull-up has gotten a bad rap because of the way the typical gym member does it.
Don't let this be you:

The kettlebell hanging from the feet guy
The dumbbell clenched between your thighs guy
The chains around your neck like a prisoner guy

While technically you're still pulling up additional weight, these variations place an overemphasis on secondary training stimuli.
Hanging the kettlebell from the feet causes an alteration in the natural angulation that the upper spine and shoulder blades are able to achieve when the chest approximates the bar.
The pinched dumbbell between the thighs or ankles causes the primary limiting factor of this loaded pull to be the stabilization of the weight between the legs, not your upper body strength.
And while the chains placed around the neck looks awesome, they can also create some unnecessary shear forces through the delicate cervical spine and neck.
Do yourself a favor and invest a few bucks in a dip belt. And please, please don't wear it while your hitting the bench.

**Pren** · 13-01-2015, 16:54

**Dynamix** · 13-01-2015, 17:30

Een belangrijk onderwerp dat nog mist is: hoe continu progressie maken/hoe doorbreek je plateau's. Periodiseren is hier een leidend onderwerp in en daardoor kom je terecht in de categorie 'eigen schema maken'.

De meeste kennis die ik over periodiseren heb komt uit boeken, dus da's lastig te plaatsen, maar dit zou een begin kunnen zijn:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/tra...s-part-1.html/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/tra...s-part-2.html/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/tra...s-part-3.html/

Bodynet informatie database.