93 lines
5.2 KiB
Markdown
93 lines
5.2 KiB
Markdown
# Programming foundations and MAX context
|
|
|
|
TRAINING KNOWLEDGE V1 supplies knowledge for future reasoning about training.
|
|
It does not generate workouts, prescribe loads or provide clinical
|
|
rehabilitation advice. Principles below distinguish intervention findings from
|
|
Trainlog's practical interpretation of them.
|
|
|
|
## Adaptation and exposure
|
|
|
|
Resistance-training interventions improve strength and muscle size across many
|
|
studied configurations. Higher loads tend to favor high-load strength outcomes;
|
|
multiple sets characterize better-ranked hypertrophy configurations in a large
|
|
network meta-analysis. These are population-level comparisons, not an optimal
|
|
program for every person. Load, sets and frequency interact.
|
|
[Currier and colleagues](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37414459/)
|
|
|
|
Volume can mean sets, repetitions or accumulated load. Those are different
|
|
quantities. Machine kilograms multiplied by repetitions do not establish
|
|
equal muscle exposure across different devices. Direct and indirect muscle
|
|
participation cannot be assigned universal equal set credit. Frequency helps
|
|
distribute exposure and fatigue; no weekly frequency or unbounded more-volume
|
|
rule is encoded here.
|
|
|
|
Relative external load and effort are also different. A heavy task need not
|
|
end in failure; a lighter task can. Evidence does not establish that momentary
|
|
failure is generally required for strength or hypertrophy, but it does not
|
|
imply that arbitrarily easy sets provide the same stimulus. Failure definitions,
|
|
actual effort and compared volume constrain interpretation.
|
|
[Grgic and colleagues](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33497853/),
|
|
[Refalo and colleagues](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36334240/)
|
|
|
|
Failure conditions generally produce greater acute fatigue in the reviewed
|
|
experiments. Acute markers cannot supply a universal recovery clock or predict
|
|
an individual's long-term result. Repeated performance, actual execution and
|
|
context matter when a future system interprets recovery.
|
|
[Vieira and colleagues](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34881412/)
|
|
|
|
## Progression, selection and coverage
|
|
|
|
Progression and specificity require consistent definitions of the task and
|
|
its successful performance. The historical ACSM position stand supplies these
|
|
organizing principles; its numeric schedules and load recommendations are not
|
|
adopted as V1 rules. Comparative outcomes are interpreted using the subsequent
|
|
reviews above.
|
|
[ACSM progression position stand](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19204579/)
|
|
|
|
Exercise variation can change regional exposure and task practice. The limited
|
|
intervention literature supports considering purposeful variation, not a
|
|
requirement to randomize exercises or change them as often as possible. Stable
|
|
exercise context also makes progress interpretable.
|
|
[Kassiano and colleagues](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35438660/)
|
|
|
|
Practical selection should compare the intended joint action, muscle role,
|
|
range of motion, stability demand and available equipment. BODY ZONES alone
|
|
cannot establish a substitute. Leg extension and leg curl share `thighs` while
|
|
training opposing knee actions. Seated and prone curls share knee flexion but
|
|
differ in the length context of biarticular muscles.
|
|
[OpenStax lower-limb anatomy](https://openstax.org/books/anatomy-and-physiology-2e/pages/11-6-appendicular-muscles-of-the-pelvic-girdle-and-lower-limbs),
|
|
[Maeo and colleagues](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33009197/)
|
|
|
|
Coverage therefore considers movement functions as well as zones: horizontal
|
|
and vertical pushing/pulling, knee and hip extension, knee flexion, hip
|
|
abduction/adduction, plantarflexion, trunk motion and resisting trunk motion.
|
|
This is an authored reasoning aid. It is not a universal checklist that proves
|
|
a program balanced, effective or suitable for a particular individual.
|
|
|
|
## What a recorded MAX can establish
|
|
|
|
`max_weight_kg` records an observed result owned by an exercise occurrence.
|
|
Interpreting it requires its resistance and execution context. At minimum,
|
|
consider exercise identity, physical equipment, external-versus-assistance
|
|
mode, machine settings, range of motion, support, technique and success
|
|
criterion. Unknown context stays unknown.
|
|
|
|
An explicit MAX result without repetition count is not proven to be a one-rep
|
|
maximum. Ordinary sets do not become measured maxima by being the heaviest
|
|
available observation. No estimated 1RM or percentage prescription follows
|
|
from the value alone. A shared BODY ZONE, movement family or machine does not
|
|
make distinct exercises' results interchangeable.
|
|
|
|
Stack labels need not equal handle resistance. Pulley routing, lever arms,
|
|
cams, tare and friction affect external moments; human moment arms add further
|
|
variation. Manufacturer documentation for an identified example demonstrates
|
|
a non-unit cable ratio, but supplies no conversion for the unconfirmed local
|
|
equipment.
|
|
[Precor pulley documentation](https://www.precor.com/en-US/products/RUD0915)
|
|
|
|
For otherwise matched assisted performance, less help represents greater
|
|
unsupported demand. Body mass, assistance mechanism and motion remain part of
|
|
the comparison. Do not treat assistance as added external weight or assume
|
|
that body mass minus displayed assistance gives a calibrated effective load.
|
|
The source exercise and resistance context must remain visible when knowledge
|
|
is composed with history.
|