Research on Breathing muscle resistance training

oh yeah, randomizing 30 guys to three groups is 'significantly' different. Okay, give me 20 guys and the two groups I suggest and use the same randomizing algorithm to divide them. Or use the simple count off method 1...2...3...1..2..3. Ones to the left, twos stay here, and threes to the right. I'd bet the results would be damn close to the same as what I suggested with just two people. All the randomizing did was to say they didn't look at genetic disposition or other factors that might influence the study. In my example that didn't happen either. Don't try to over emphasize what is a minute issue in comparing these things. The truth is that they took 30 experienced swimmers of unknown quality and did a study to measure improvement. I've coached swimmers who went from over a minute in a 50 down to :33 and less in just over two months. I certainly didn't hand pick my swimmers, they were given to me. I'd say it was random. So was it the right tool, my suberb coaching skills? I could claim that, but I won't. These were Special Olympic participants without any quality coaching prior to me working with them. Without knowledge of what you start with how do you know? Perhaps there is more to this study than what the article says, but in reading the article at the link Brian put out , they don't include anything to suggest that what I have said is wrong.

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.

I'm not even sure where to start.

Duck. It's a randomised controlled trial. It's the best way to find out whether a treatment (or in this case a training program) works better than what you are comaring it to. Why? Because the participants you select are randomly assigned to the treatment groups. You can't select them into the group you want. That's a very important strength, not a weakness. That's why we insist on this testing regime for new medical treatments.

Randomisation does not imply that genetics were not investiagted. It does imply that genetics were controlled for. You cannot really claim genetics are a factor when randomisation has occured.

And I get it. Your a great coach who's done wonders with people. Nothing in our discussion has in anyway contradicted that you are a good guy and you do a good job and you've been around UWH for a very long time and that you have an opinion we respect hearing. What we are trying to discuss is whether this breathing resistance training might be a useful adjunct training technique for UWH. I still can't find a proper copy of the actual RCT. But if it's well designed and run then it offers very strong proof that this training technique is indeed a useful additional technique. It would require confirmation in UWH players. But it's actually worth looking at.

I cannot understand why this is a contention. Why are you so anti a potential innovative training technique for UWH with proven efficacy elsewhere?

I have now got a copy of the actual published study.

Email me for a copy if you would like to read it firsthand.

nat, i'm glad that you are using the portion of brainpower that i am squandering. somehow it has transferred through the aether when we were born and i'm stoked its being put to use.

It may have been transferred through the silicon and latex fumes in the flat

I'm not anti it. Look back at what I said, "try it for those that need it" or something to that effect. I just contend that it will help for people without any background as oppossed to regular hockey players. You seemed to be arguing that is wrong by bringing up randomizing as a difference in my example and the study's. But the randomizing has little to do with whether or not the program will help us.

I agree that studies need to have randomized groups to be accurate. They probably need a larger sample than 30, but I get the concept. I agree that this breathing resistence program can help some people. I think the 33% they quote is crap because they didn't have the level of particpants in it. Maybe it's in what you found and that will support whatever side, or maybe not.

And I couldn't care less about what people think of my coaching or me as a person or what I've done or not done for anyone or anything. Gave that up as a kid when my mom always used the "what will the neighbors think" line in an effort to guilt me into doing what or acting how she wanted. I just used that one example to show that you can tweak numbers to say what you want. So don't blindly believe the crap that's dished out.

Send it to me.

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.

Okay, so I read it. Resistence respiratory muscle training is crap for Underwater Hockey Players. The study if for divers on SCUBA and how resistence training helps them to last longer breathing at depth. Since we breathe at the surface the part that is critical for us is this result:

"Impact of RMT on swimming performance
Following RRMT, surface swimming times improved
33% and underwater swimming times improved 66%.
Following ERMT, surface swimming and underwater
swimming times improved 38 and 26%, respectively.
Results of this study suggest that the endurance per-
formance improvements were not due to changes in
the aerobic fitness of the subjects since it was un-
changed throughout the study."

Seems the endurance respiratory muscle training is what we need to work on.

And if you read it close you see that they took swimmers and gave them 12 whole sessions with a snorkle and a dive class. So the level of fitness they started at was fine but their skill at breathing through a device was non-existent just one month before their study. Very similar to taking a break from hockey and staying fit doing other things then coming back and having to get hockey fit again. I still stand by what I've said throughout this thread.

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.

This question of the effect of RMT on sports performance is discussed in many sport actually. Reading this thread is funny cos it is not easy for a non specialist to recognize how qualifyed is the author of a message.

So on when I read "Elite athletes and the general UWH community already are training these muscles so the improvement would be nowhere near the 33% the article claims"
or

I have doubt on the physiological background of the coach.

So on, the point of all those studies is to sort out the effect of an improvement of the Inspiratory muscle strenght (IMS) on the performance. It is well recognized now that RMT improves this factor if the stimulation is important enough.

What is sure is that UWH player so as Elite athletes can improve their IMS because they don't train this quality in their activity. Duck, when you sprint underwater you don't use your scalene or your scm.

so on, recent studies showed a very little improvement in the performance in sport like rowing, cyclism or running without behing able to understand why. (also many expriences show no improvement at all)

a good option for explanation is the decrease of dyspnae.

the question now is : is dyspnae a limitating factor in uwh perf?

__________________
GG