What stretches do you do after workouts so you don't get sore?

Discussion in 'Fitness & Nutrition' started by siniquezu, Nov 29, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. siniquezu

    siniquezu New Member

    Aug 8, 2003
    Likes Received:
    I've tried a few stretches after my leg days like toe touching, and walking/running, but I'm still stiff the next day. What do you guys do?
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2005
  2. ccrooks

    ccrooks New Member

    Oct 26, 2003
    Likes Received:
    south bay, southern cali
    i still get sore no matter what stretches i do

    i like being sore... makes me feel like i've done something
  3. Ceaze

    Ceaze https://hearthis.at/DoYouEvenUplift Moderator

    Jun 4, 2000
    Likes Received:
    stretching doesn't alleviate soreness
  4. siniquezu

    siniquezu New Member

    Aug 8, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Do tell. What does it do? How can I alleviate soreness?
  5. jmx2323

    jmx2323 OT Supporter

    Oct 13, 2002
    Likes Received:
    Centennial, CO
    I like getting sore...well everything but calves
  6. Yail Bloor

    Yail Bloor OT Supporter

    May 5, 2002
    Likes Received:
    the streets
    paraphrasing Chad Waterbury: "Soreness is your body telling you to eat more carbs and protein"
  7. remike

    remike the second coming

    Feb 27, 2005
    Likes Received:
    lots and lots... my favorite is the bridge for my abs, even though people give me weird looks sometimes at the university student rec center when I bust out a full bridge. Most people there don't even stretch. :mamoru:
  8. Ceaze

    Ceaze https://hearthis.at/DoYouEvenUplift Moderator

    Jun 4, 2000
    Likes Received:
    can't stand waterbury
  9. AustinL911

    AustinL911 Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator

    May 24, 2005
    Likes Received:
    Explain said 'bridge'?
  10. remike

    remike the second coming

    Feb 27, 2005
    Likes Received:
    like this, but not as well, since I'm not a prepubescent girl

  11. onslaught61

    onslaught61 OT Supporter

    Mar 2, 2005
    Likes Received:
    haha good one. hilarious when you do something thats normal and ppl stare cause they dont know anything about it. im gonna bust out a full planche someday in the gym.
  12. Bruised Lee

    Bruised Lee John Kune Do, puncher of faces

    Oct 1, 2003
    Likes Received:
    i think streching just raises your pain tolorance and keeps you limber so you feel less sore. either way its good for you.
  13. KIDRR

    KIDRR Duck dog>* OT Supporter

    Nov 1, 2004
    Likes Received:
    North Mexico
  14. nathanbx

    nathanbx New Member

    Sep 23, 2002
    Likes Received:
    Peoria, Il
    Really? I thought you were after those leg pics :hs:
  15. remike

    remike the second coming

    Feb 27, 2005
    Likes Received:
  16. Hpower

    Hpower GO GATORS

    Oct 29, 2001
    Likes Received:
    Gainesville, Fl
    Stretching does not relieve soreness and nothing will. Being sore is a result of the micro tears in your muscle. Stretching is good to do after working out to help increase your range of motion which can help prevent injuries.
  17. remike

    remike the second coming

    Feb 27, 2005
    Likes Received:

    My main motivation to stretch is this big guy at my gym that has pathetic range of motion. I don't want to growth muscles just to be trapped in them and not be able to do the things I want to do.
  18. NJGuy

    NJGuy "Fuckmefuckmefuckmefuckmef uckmefuckmefuckmefuckm OT Supporter

    May 19, 2005
    Likes Received:
    wtf, USA
    The more sore i am the more I want to eat.
    Im not bulking but when I get a really good workout and get really sore i just "feel" like I want to eat and eat and eat.
  19. You are the ultimate bandwagoneer
  20. Ceaze

    Ceaze https://hearthis.at/DoYouEvenUplift Moderator

    Jun 4, 2000
    Likes Received:
    you know me so well, troll :rolleyes:
  21. everyone says they hate cw

    Give me your reasoning...I happen to know him very well in real life.
  22. Ceaze

    Ceaze https://hearthis.at/DoYouEvenUplift Moderator

    Jun 4, 2000
    Likes Received:
    He was cool and i used to like him, until he started recommending 8x3 for every goal imaginable.

    I asked him on the t-nation forum about a recent study in which a group who performed 4x6 (to failure) gained more strength than a group who performed 8x3 (not to failure) and he conveniently dodged the question.

    His recent article on how your muscles grow was a ripoff of stuff that Bryan Haycock wrote 4 years ago.
  23. Why did the 4x6 group gain more strength than the 8x3 group? When you say not to failure for the 8x3, do you mean 1 rep left in the tank? or were they doing very light loads?
  24. Ceaze

    Ceaze https://hearthis.at/DoYouEvenUplift Moderator

    Jun 4, 2000
    Likes Received:
    A few relevant snips:

    Several studies have explored training to failure but
    have not directly equated several important training variables
    within the experimental design, such as volume (3
    sets of 10 repetitions not to failure vs. 1 set of 8–12 repetitions
    to failure) (21), duration of the training period
    (about 4 vs. more than 20 minutes) (11), or training intensities
    (60 vs. 100% maximal voluntary contraction
    [MVC]) (20). Other studies used only untrained subjects
    (2, 26) or single-joint movements and isokinetic or isometric
    machines (11, 19, 20, 27), which may not be directly
    relevant for most sporting applications that involve
    coordinating several joints for movements (2, 26). Therefore,
    a protocol that equates volume, time, and intensity
    of training in noncontact team sport athletes undertaking
    multiple-joint, free-weight training could elucidate valuable
    information about including training that leads to
    repetition failure into larger periodized programs.

    Subjects were 26 highly trained junior basketball and soccer
    players. Each subject was assigned to one of two
    bench press–training programs consisting of 4 sets of 6
    repetitions or 8 sets of 3 repetitions. Both groups trained
    an equal number of repetitions (24 total repetitions) at
    the same relative intensity of their 6RM (85–105%) in an
    equal amount of time (13 minutes 20 seconds), 3 times
    per week for 6 weeks. Pilot testing established that such
    training program designs elicited sufficient fatigue for the
    4 sets of 6 groups to be unable to complete the final repetitions
    of the training program without the assistance of
    a spotter, while the 8 sets of 3 groups were able to complete
    all repetitions successfully. This allowed us to evaluate
    the importance of training that leads to repetition
    failure without adding the confounding variables of training
    volume, intensity, or time.

    6RM Bench Press
    Subjects were evaluated on 2 tests, a free-weight 6RM
    bench press for strength and a 40-kg Smith machine
    bench throw for maximal mean power. We defined
    strength as the capacity to displace a known mass (kilograms)
    for a designated number of repetitions that met
    our technical criteria for the selected lift irrespective of
    the time taken to move the mass. Prior to testing, subjects
    performed a thorough warm-up involving 10 minutes of
    stationary cycling and 3 sets of bench press comprising
    12 repetitions at 50%, 6 repetitions at 75%, and 3 repetitions
    at 90% of their 6RM. Previously documented training
    records were used as a guide for selecting the first
    test mass for determination of 6RM. Mass was progressively
    increased with each successful set of 6 repetitions,
    allowing a minimum of 180 seconds of rest between attempts.
    Our technical criteria for bench press specified a pronated
    grip with hands spaced so that the subject’s forearms
    were perpendicular to the bar when the bar was
    resting on the chest. The subject was required to lower
    the bar without a pause until the chest was touched lightly
    approximately 3 cm superior to the xiphoid process.
    The bar was not permitted to stop at any point throughout
    the lift off the chest. The elbows were extended equally,
    with the head, hips, and feet remaining in contact with
    the bench throughout the lift. Failing to meet any of these
    technical criteria constituted an unsuccessful attempt.

    Bench Throw Power
    On a day separate from the 6RM bench press testing,
    subjects were evaluated for maximal power output during
    a Smith machine bench throw. The Smith machine (Life
    Fitness, Victoria, Australia) consisted of a horizontal barbell
    mounted on 2 vertical rails, thereby keeping the bar
    level and allowing it to move only in the vertical plane.
    We used the 40-kg bench throw power as an independent
    test for maximal strength because of its high correlation
    with maximal strength (4) and performance in other power
    events (23). Prior to testing, each subject completed a
    thorough warm-up involving 10 minutes of stationary cycling
    and 3 sets of bench press comprising 12 repetitions at 20 kg,
    6 repetitions at 30 kg, and 3 repetitions at 40
    kg with a 1-minute rest between sets. Subjects then performed
    2 sets of two 40-kg bench throws every 35 seconds
    for a total of 4 throws.

    Bench Press
    The TEM, ICC, and SWC of the 6RM bench press were
    1.1 kg (1.7%), 0.86, and 1.8 kg (2.6%). Prior to training,
    there were no significant differences between the RF436
    and NF833 groups in 6RM bench press (69.3 kg 6 10.3 vs.
    67.5 kg 6 8.2, respectively, p 5 0.62).
    The RF436 group experienced a substantial increase in
    strength in 6RM (7.3 kg, 95% CL, 6.0–8.7 kg, p , 0.001)
    (Figure 1) after training that was twofold greater (p 5
    0.001, 95% CL, 1.2–6.2 kg) than the increase in 6RM in
    the NF833 group (3.6 kg, 95% CL, 1.6–5.7 kg, p , 0.005)
    (Figure 1). Calculation of likelihoods shows that there is
    a 92% probability that the true difference between the 2
    groups is worthwhile in practical terms.

    Bench Throw
    The TEM, ICC, and SWC of the bench throw power were
    14 W (4.0%), 0.92, and 10 W (2.6%), respectively. We
    found no significant differences between the repetition
    failure and nonrepetition failure groups in the 40-kg
    bench throw (343 6 67 W vs. 342 6 62 W, respectively,
    p 5 0.97).
    The RF436 experienced a substantial increase in bench
    throw power (40.8 W, 27.5–54.1 W, p , 0.001) (Figure 2)
    that was, on average, 15.8 W more (p , 0.05, 3.1–34.7 W)
    than the increase experienced by the NF833 group (25 W,
    12.2–37.8 W, p , 0.001) (Figure 2). Calculation of likelihoods
    showed that differences between the 2 training protocols are not only statistically significant but also 96%
    likely to be practically worthwhile. While a likelihood of
    more than 75% should be considered likely to be beneficial,
    a likelihood of more than 95% indicates that the difference
    between the 2 training protocols can be described
    as being ‘‘very likely’’ (23).
    There was a strong correlation (r 5 0.89, p , 0.01)
    between the 6RM bench press and 40-kg bench throw.
    With such a high dependence of bench throw power on
    strength, we decided that the Smith machine bench throw
    would be a more sensitive test of strength than 1RM testing.

    Fatigue and Failure
    The RF436 group failed on more repetitions per training
    session (1.0 6 1.3 repetitions) than the NF833 group (0.0
    6 0.2 repetitions) (p , 0.01). This indicates that while
    the NF833 group rarely failed on any repetitions, the RF436
    group usually failed on at least 1 repetition of the 24 attempted.
    This observation confirms the intent of the program
    design in equating the volume of work in an equal
    amount of time to induce repetition failure by the end of
    each training session in the RF436 group but not in the
    NF833 group.
    The decrement of power in the 40-kg bench throws
    was 19.6% after the RF436 training protocol (62.9 W, 35.9–
    89.9, p , 0.01) compared with 7.8% for the NF833 group
    (25.6 W, 7.7–43.6, p , 0.01). While there were no significant
    differences between pretrials (p 5 0.47), the power
    in the RF436 group was 15.9% lower after training (48.4
    W, 24.7–72.0, p 5 0.001). There was no order effect in
    which the protocols were tested.


    To ensure that the training effect of improving 6RM
    was not simply a task-specific response to training sets
    of 6 repetitions, we measured bench throw power output
    as a novel test of strength. We found a high correlation
    between bench throw power and 6RM, supporting the notion
    that a task with a large resistance is dependent on
    strength to generate power (3, 23). The bench throw has
    several advantages over a traditional 1RM test of
    strength. Primarily, the bench throw is a dynamic movement
    that is largely independent of the strength of a single-
    joint angle, giving it context validity to the ballistic
    movements of team sports. The bench throw can also be
    measured with much greater precision (i.e., in watts)
    than a 1RM bench press, which is typically measured to
    the nearest 2.5 kg. The greater improvements of the
    RF436 group demonstrated that the strength improvements
    in bench press existed throughout the bench press
    range of motion.
    Fatigue represents a decreased ability to produce power
    (10). We demonstrated that greater fatigue was induced
    by the RF436 protocol, since a greater decrement in
    bench throw power occurred after the RF436 protocol than
    after the NF833 protocol. Some authors conclude that fatigue
    should be avoided for strength development, since
    fatigue reduces the force a muscle can generate (11, 32).
    Previous data from our laboratory have demonstrated
    that decrements of power are greater in the 4 3 6 group
    than in the 8 3 3 group (22). While no measurements of
    force were taken during training or testing, we can infer
    that velocity is lower (i.e., there was negative acceleration),
    and thus force is lower, in the 4 3 6 group. We
    therefore conclude that declining force induced by fatigue
    does not inhibit strength development.

    Other authors suggest that fatigue is a necessary component
    of resistance training (8, 27). Motor units are recruited
    in response to a submaximal contraction in an
    assigned order so that not all motor units are active at
    once (12). Repeated submaximal contractions elicit fatigue
    of the active motor units such that additional motor
    units must be progressively recruited in order to maintain
    force output (27, 28). Therefore, at the point of repetition
    failure, the maximal number of motor units was
    presumably activated, especially during assisted repetitions,
    a point that our repetition rest group did not reach.
    Since the activating and overloading of a high number of
    motor units are important in facilitating strength development
    (30, 32), the repetition failure group presumably
    experienced greater strength gains as a result of maximizing
    the recruitment of active motor units (24). Training
    to failure might enable an athlete to maximize the
    number of active motor units and therefore the magnitude
    of the adaptations made by the nervous system.
    While no measures of neuromuscular activity or hypertrophy
    were collected in this study, the large magnitude
    of changes in 6RM for the NF833 (5.1%) and RF436
    (9.5%) groups and bench throw (mean 5 6.8 and 10.6%,
    respectively) in a 6-week training period, coupled with
    the slow rate of hypertrophic (2) and architectural (1) improvements
    of muscle in trained individuals, leads us to
    speculate that most strength changes were related to neural
    adaptations. It is generally concluded that neural adaptations
    are predominant in strength-training studies,
    where strength and/or electromyogram (EMG) increase
    disproportionately more than changes in muscle hypertrophy
    (6, 15). Neural adaptations are most commonly
    presented in relation to the rapid strength development
    in novice weightlifters (6). However, Ha¨kkinen et al. (14,
    16) have demonstrated increases in EMG even in experienced
    lifters when increases in training intensity occur.
    Increasing the intensity elicits neural adaptations in a
    greater number of motor units by maximizing the number
    of active motor units active at one time.

    By training barbell bench press using a more conventional
    weight-training program (4 3 6 repetitions) with assisted
    repetitions, coaches can maximize strength gains
    in their athletes. The current research highlights the potential
    benefits of training leading to repetition failure by
    demonstrating larger strength and mean power gains
    during a 6-week training period. Further research to clarify
    the mechanism by which training leading to repetition
    failure promotes maximal strength gains is warranted.
    Additionally, we found that during a 6-week training
    phase, athletes are able to maintain strength levels without
    training to failure. Such an outcome is important to
    allow athletes to periodize their strength-training program
    for training blocks of failure and nonfailure. Such
    an application would be appropriate in a setting involving
    young male team sport athletes with modest upper-body
    strength-training experience for a 6-week block of a larger
    periodized program of free-weight training.
  25. Ceaze

    Ceaze https://hearthis.at/DoYouEvenUplift Moderator

    Jun 4, 2000
    Likes Received:

    J Strength Cond Res. 2005 May;19(2):382-8. Related Articles, Links

    Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength gains in elite junior athletes.

    Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, Lindsell RP, Pyne DB, Hunt PH, McKenna MJ.

    Department of Physiology, Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra, ACT, Australia. [email protected]

    The purpose of this study was to investigate the importance of training leading to repetition failure in the performance of 2 different tests: 6 repetition maximum (6RM) bench press strength and 40-kg bench throw power in elite junior athletes. Subjects were 26 elite junior male basketball players (n = 12; age = 18.6 +/- 0.3 years; height = 202.0 +/- 11.6 cm; mass = 97.0 +/- 12.9 kg; mean +/- SD) and soccer players (n = 14; age = 17.4 +/- 0.5 years; height = 179.0 +/- 7.0 cm; mass = 75.0 +/- 7.1 kg) with a history of greater than 6 months' strength training. Subjects were initially tested twice for 6RM bench press mass and 40-kg Smith machine bench throw power output (in watts) to establish retest reliability. Subjects then undertook bench press training with 3 sessions per week for 6 weeks, using equal volume programs (24 repetitions x 80-105% 6RM in 13 minutes 20 seconds). Subjects were assigned to one of two experimental groups designed either to elicit repetition failure with 4 sets of 6 repetitions every 260 seconds (RF(4 x 6)) or allow all repetitions to be completed with 8 sets of 3 repetitions every 113 seconds (NF(8 x 3)). The RF(4 x 6) treatment elicited substantial increases in strength (7.3 +/- 2.4 kg, +9.5%, p < 0.001) and power (40.8 +/- 24.1 W, +10.6%, p < 0.001), while the NF(8 x 3) group elicited 3.6 +/- 3.0 kg (+5.0%, p < 0.005) and 25 +/- 19.0 W increases (+6.8%, p < 0.001). The improvements in the RF(4 x 6) group were greater than those in the repetition rest group for both strength (p < 0.005) and power (p < 0.05). Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise for elite junior team sport athletes.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page