Forum Replies Created
13/02/2021 at 22:47 #31199
@john Lythe – quick question:
In the ‘Dashboarding in Google Sheets Demo’, in the ‘FitnessProfile’ tab – are those Z-scores intra-athlete? As in, are they z-scores based off of the athlete’s individual mean from a repeated test; or are they z-scores based off the individual’s test score compared to the mean of the group for that test? I hope that makes sense. Thank you!26/01/2021 at 21:14 #31032
Question for the AthleteSR team:
My “team” of athletes are all individuals – different programs, different sports, training at different times of day in different time zones, etc. And many of them don’t train at the same times of the day, even within their own weekly flow.
Given this, in setting them up in AthleteSR, do I still need to assign a time on the calendar in order to give them the survey I want (wellness, sRPE, etc)? Is the workout to simply put the workout on the calendar day at some time, and just tell them to ignore the specific time that I chose, and to just make sure they get their survey in corresponding to their actual workout time?26/01/2021 at 21:09 #31031
Hey Ben, here was a paper looking at profiles during the bulgarian split squat:
Not sure there is a ton of data out there on normative cut-offs or how much asymmetry is “acceptable”, as these things likely depend on the exercise examined, how it’s measured, how asymmetry is defined, etc.
But generally, the nuts and bolts of the actual profile wouldn’t be much different. Pick a movement that is stable enough to standardize range of motion and technique, ensure maximal concentric intent, and observe the “behavior” (velocity or force) at various loads. A smith machine is likely your best bet for repeatable movements.21/08/2020 at 23:08 #29389
A question for anyone with thoughts or experience:
In the two Jiménez-Reyes/Samozino papers (2017, 2019) where they looked at the effects of training on the individual F-V profile, it was unclear to me how they determined the loads for pre and post testing, and if those loads remained exactly the same from pre to post testing.
The methods state something similar for both papers: “each subject performed vertical maximal SJ without loads and against five to eight extra loads ranging from 17 to 87 kg in a randomized order.”
My question is – if it’s assumed they were basing loads off of % of BW, would the external load potentially change for subsequent testing given changes in bodyweight?
My guess is that the external load was the same through the pre, intra, and post-testing for these papers, and that comes with the assumption that BW stayed relatively stable, and normal BW fluctuations that might actually change what you’d put on the bar by ~5lbs or so may not matter.
However, in my setting when dealing with competitive weightlifters and other weight-class athletes, we sometimes have athletes who are deliberately going up or down weight classes during the training cycle.
In these cases – am I correct in thinking that fixed loads would be suboptimal here, as they would skew training adaptations relative to bodyweight, and the outcomes should be based on relative intensities I choose to test (20, 40, 60, 80, 100% of BW for example). And that those relative %’s may yield significantly different external loads that we actually put on the bar pre and post-testing?
Or how have any of you managed similar situations practically?
(1) Making a simple question into a fucking novel
(2) Missing these details in the papers themselves, if they were, in fact, in there.