The Army's continuing education model

Virtually unknown to the academic world, for over 25 years the U.S. Army has conducted a sophisticated continuing education program for its reserve component officers, marked by many aspects of the nontraditional study civilian campuses are now discovering. This paper discusses goals, courses, delivery systems, faculty, instructional materials and methods, and students of the army program and summarizes the characteristics adaptable to many forms of civilian alternative higher education—credit for life experience, credit by examination, varied yet articulated delivery systems, quality control exercised by residence faculty, maximum use of ad hoc faculty, tangible and intangible student incentives, constantly revised instructional materials, in-service training for instructors, and performance testing—a cost-effective program at once responsible for academic standards and responsive to student needs.A product of the school system he describes, Col. Schoenfeld served as a USAR School Instructor, Chief of Staff, and Commandant. In civilian life he is Joint Professor of Journalism and Wildlife Ecology and Director of Inter-College Programs, the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706.     

Differential effects of attentional focus strategies during long-term resistance training

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of using an internal versus external focus of attention during resistance training on muscular adaptations. Thirty untrained college-aged men were randomly assigned to an internal focus group (INTERNAL) that focused on contracting the target muscle during training (n?=?15) or an external focus group (EXTERNAL) that focused on the outcome of the lift (n?=?15). Training for both routines consisted of 3 weekly sessions performed on non-consecutive days for 8 weeks. Subjects performed 4 sets of 8–12 repetitions per exercise. Changes in strength were assessed by six repetition maximum in the biceps curl and isometric maximal voluntary contraction in knee extension and elbow flexion. Changes in muscle thickness for the elbow flexors and quadriceps were assessed by ultrasound. Results show significantly greater increases in elbow flexor thickness in INTERNAL versus EXTERNAL (12.4% vs. 6.9%, respectively); similar changes were noted in quadriceps thickness. Isometric elbow flexion strength was greater for INTERNAL while isometric knee extension strength was greater for EXTERNAL, although neither reached statistical significance. The findings lend support to the use of a mind–muscle connection to enhance muscle hypertrophy.     

Effects of plyometric vs. resistance training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy: A review

ObjectiveIn this review, we critically evaluate studies directly comparing the effects of plyometric vs. resistance training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy.MethodsWe conducted electronic searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science to find studies that explored the effects of plyometric vs. resistance training on muscle hypertrophy.ResultsEight relevant studies were included in the review. Six studies compared the effects of plyometric vs. resistance training on muscle hypertrophy, while 2 studies explored the effects of combining plyometric and resistance training vs. isolated resistance training on acute anabolic signaling or muscle hypertrophy. Based on the results of these studies, we conclude that plyometric and resistance training may produce similar effects on whole muscle hypertrophy for the muscle groups of the lower extremities. Therefore, it seems that plyometric training has a greater potential for inducing increases in muscle size than previously thought. Despite the findings observed at the whole muscle level, the evidence for the effects of plyometric training on hypertrophy on the muscle fiber level is currently limited for drawing inferences. Compared to isolated resistance training, combining plyometric and resistance exercise does not seem to produce additive effects on anabolic signaling or muscle growth; however, this area requires future study. The limitations of the current body of evidence are that the findings are specific to (a) musculature of the lower extremities, (b) short-term training interventions that lasted up to 12 weeks, and (c) previously untrained or recreationally active participants.ConclusionThis review highlights that plyometric and resistance training interventions may produce similar effects on whole muscle hypertrophy, at least for the muscle groups of the lower extremities, in untrained and recreationally trained individuals, and over short-term (i.e., ≤12 weeks) intervention periods.