Resting muscle length related to performance?

[JasonE]

:idea: While reading Scientific Stretching by Thomas Kurz, I was fascinated to learn that muscles are at their shortest two days after strenuous activity. On the third day, they are pretty much back to normal.

This fits in awfully well with the 3 day cycles advocated in Consistent Winning and by Scott. :!:

All other things being equal, is superior performance predicated by muscle length?

:idea: It makes me wonder if, in doing a Density cycle, it wouldn't be better to put 2 days of recovery between each work day. Until my body adapts to the loads I am placing on it, this might be a better way to schedule training days. Otherwise, the typical day-on, day-off approach makes us do most of the work on days when our muscles are already short and tight.

On the other hand, working a tight muscle may help it release some of the tension and regain ROM. With ROM and DROM work done between sessions and on off-days, perhaps the muscles don't shorten as much.

*sigh* I'm just whistling in the wind, here. It's easy to make suppositions, but I don't have the answers. Periodization and recovery are not my strong suits. :? :wink:

Any thoughts? Suggestions? I'm doing more reading! :)

[Robert V]

Thank you. I'd also love to know the answers to your questions.

[Scott Sonnon]

Jason, intensity and recovery are directly proportional for consistent development. With my current intensity level, I perform one effort session every two weeks, and see tremendous development in strength, fat loss, cardio, endurance and general structural grace. However, when performing an intense density cycle, I most often work the 1 day of effort / 2 day of rest scheme.