login
Weights or no weights? (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2011-08-23 2:06 PM in reply to: #3655700 |
Runner |  Subject: RE: Weights or no weights?bsc77 - 2011-08-23 3:03 PM TriMyBest - 2011-08-23 1:54 PM bsc77 - 2011-08-23 12:59 PM msteiner - 2011-08-23 10:51 AM I'll be the first to say "no weights" if you want to be the fastest triathlete you can be. I'm not sure I understand how this is the case. A strong core is really important for all 3 disciplines, strong legs are obviously essential. I can understand potentially limiting upper body weight training as there won't be too much tri specific gains but I can't see how a rock solid core will slow you down? It is a little bit of an over-generalization, but because for most people, they are choosing (even if unintentionally) between spending their time lifting weights or doing more sbr. More sbr will have a direct positive effect on performance. ST will have a marginal indirect benefit, at best. A solid core will be established through sbr workouts. Most people will not benefit from additional core-specific exercises. Having a "rock solid core" will not slow you down, but it's not necessary, so the time spent developing it is better spent elsewhere. And, strong legs are not important for biking or running. Powerful legs are. Only certain types of lifts develop power, and they develop short duration/high power like those needed in sports that utilize explosive movements, not the long duration/lower power that is needed to be successful in triathlon. I would argue that the benefits of a strong core are more important that you're making them out to be. A strong core increases the chance that you'll maintain proper form in SBR, and it will reduce the chance of injury. While it may not take time off your bike or swim, it will allow you to train effectively and consistently enough to realize those gains. A solid core is important in ANY sport, and worth targeting. A solid enough core can be developed through sport-specific workouts, and does not require any time spent doing anything additional. To develop your core for running, just run. Run hills and run on trails. You'll develop all the muscle you need to stabilize your body for running. Do some strides, do some form drills. All of these things are sport-specific, and develop sport-specific muscles and skills. I've found that proper training does far more to promote proper form in running than any strengthening exercises. |
| 2011-08-23 2:09 PM in reply to: #3655700 |
Pro  6011   Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? bsc77 - 2011-08-23 3:03 PM TriMyBest - 2011-08-23 1:54 PM bsc77 - 2011-08-23 12:59 PM msteiner - 2011-08-23 10:51 AM I'll be the first to say "no weights" if you want to be the fastest triathlete you can be. I'm not sure I understand how this is the case. A strong core is really important for all 3 disciplines, strong legs are obviously essential. I can understand potentially limiting upper body weight training as there won't be too much tri specific gains but I can't see how a rock solid core will slow you down? It is a little bit of an over-generalization, but because for most people, they are choosing (even if unintentionally) between spending their time lifting weights or doing more sbr. More sbr will have a direct positive effect on performance. ST will have a marginal indirect benefit, at best. A solid core will be established through sbr workouts. Most people will not benefit from additional core-specific exercises. Having a "rock solid core" will not slow you down, but it's not necessary, so the time spent developing it is better spent elsewhere. And, strong legs are not important for biking or running. Powerful legs are. Only certain types of lifts develop power, and they develop short duration/high power like those needed in sports that utilize explosive movements, not the long duration/lower power that is needed to be successful in triathlon. I would argue that the benefits of a strong core are more important that you're making them out to be. A strong core increases the chance that you'll maintain proper form in SBR, and it will reduce the chance of injury. While it may not take time off your bike or swim, it will allow you to train effectively and consistently enough to realize those gains. A solid core is important in ANY sport, and worth targeting. And, I would counter with research journal papers that demonstrate that athletes in certain sports showed zero performance improvement and no change in incidence of injury when incorporating core-specific work in addition to their existing training. |
| 2011-08-23 2:13 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Alpharetta, GA | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? I strength train throughout the year 2-3 DPW for 1-1.5 hours. I LOVE to lift. It gives me benefits triathlon doesn't - great muscle definition, lean muscles, etc. S/B/R doesn't do it like weights do. At almost 42, I still have people stop me to ask me what I do to have "such great legs". lol I heard my 14 year old daughter in our gym lifting dumb bells w/a friend and telling her she wants to look like "my mom". What 14 year old girl wants to look like mom? lol With that said I strength train for the health (bone density, overall fitness, etc) and physical benefits (feeling/looking strong/tight). I do not ST to improve triathlon performance. I'll go so far as to say strength training takes precedence over triathlon performance. It's non-negotiable. Andi Edited by Anditrigirl 2011-08-23 2:15 PM |
| 2011-08-23 2:14 PM in reply to: #3655719 |
Regular 241  | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? TriMyBest - 2011-08-23 2:09 PM bsc77 - 2011-08-23 3:03 PM TriMyBest - 2011-08-23 1:54 PM bsc77 - 2011-08-23 12:59 PM msteiner - 2011-08-23 10:51 AM I'll be the first to say "no weights" if you want to be the fastest triathlete you can be. I'm not sure I understand how this is the case. A strong core is really important for all 3 disciplines, strong legs are obviously essential. I can understand potentially limiting upper body weight training as there won't be too much tri specific gains but I can't see how a rock solid core will slow you down? It is a little bit of an over-generalization, but because for most people, they are choosing (even if unintentionally) between spending their time lifting weights or doing more sbr. More sbr will have a direct positive effect on performance. ST will have a marginal indirect benefit, at best. A solid core will be established through sbr workouts. Most people will not benefit from additional core-specific exercises. Having a "rock solid core" will not slow you down, but it's not necessary, so the time spent developing it is better spent elsewhere. And, strong legs are not important for biking or running. Powerful legs are. Only certain types of lifts develop power, and they develop short duration/high power like those needed in sports that utilize explosive movements, not the long duration/lower power that is needed to be successful in triathlon. I would argue that the benefits of a strong core are more important that you're making them out to be. A strong core increases the chance that you'll maintain proper form in SBR, and it will reduce the chance of injury. While it may not take time off your bike or swim, it will allow you to train effectively and consistently enough to realize those gains. A solid core is important in ANY sport, and worth targeting. And, I would counter with research journal papers that demonstrate that athletes in certain sports showed zero performance improvement and no change in incidence of injury when incorporating core-specific work in addition to their existing training. Touche 10 years ago no one in golf used a structured strength training routine in the off season, things have definitely changed. I guess it's just a personal preference and judging from the polling most people (70%) incorporate some weight training over the course of the year. You're right, just b/c people use weights, doesn't make them better / faster, just as it won't make them worse / slower.
|
| 2011-08-23 2:17 PM in reply to: #3655726 |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Anditrigirl - 2011-08-23 3:13 PM I lift throughut the year 2-3 DPW for 1-1.5 hours. I LOVE to lift. It gives me benefits triathlon doesn't - great muscle definition, lean muscles, etc. S/B/R doesn't do it like weights do. At almost 42, I still have people stop me to ask me what I do to have "such great legs". lol I heard my 14 year old daughter in our gym lifting w/a friend and telling her she wants to look like "her mom". What 14 year old girl wants to look like mom? lol With that said I lift for the health (bone density, overall fitness, etc) and physical benefits (feeling/looking strong/tight). I do not lift to improve triathlon performance. I'll go so far as to say lifting takes precedence over triathlon performance. It's non-negotiable. Andi These are good reasons to lift!
|
| 2011-08-23 2:18 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
Champion 7136 Knoxville area | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Weight training is an awesome thing to include in your life for a multitude of reasons. Missing from that list is increased triathlon performance however.
|
| 2011-08-23 2:19 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
Regular 241 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Can anyone post a link to a study or some research which found that weight training is not good for a triathlete? |
| 2011-08-23 2:24 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
Member 127 Orlando | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? I do it for Vanity! |
| 2011-08-23 2:26 PM in reply to: #3655736 |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? bsc77 - 2011-08-23 3:19 PMCan anyone post a link to a study or some research which found that weight training is not good for a triathlete? No one in this thread has said it's not good for a triathlete. I don't mean to be snarky when I say if that's your takeaway, then you might want to reread all the posts again, especially my first post.Edited by TriMyBest 2011-08-23 2:27 PM |
| 2011-08-23 2:26 PM in reply to: #3655736 |
Extreme Veteran 655 Victoria | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? bsc77 - 2011-08-23 12:19 PM Can anyone post a link to a study or some research which found that weight training is not good for a triathlete? Well generally speaking weight lifting will add mass. more mass on bike/run, more weight to push around. Then you get into strength:weight ratio etc.
But when I was strictly doing tri training with no weights my weight was at 165. I was climbing and running great. But I hated how I looked. So I bulked myself up to 180 and feel a lot better, but I've directly seen my times decrease with the added weight. not as much on the run, but when I'm doing hill repeats I can feel it. But at the end of the day this is a hobby not a career so for me a balance in the 2 sports is key. |
| 2011-08-23 2:36 PM in reply to: #3655750 |
Regular 241 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? TriMyBest - 2011-08-23 2:26 PM bsc77 - 2011-08-23 3:19 PMCan anyone post a link to a study or some research which found that weight training is not good for a triathlete? No one in this thread has said it's not good for a triathlete. I don't mean to be snarky when I say if that's your takeaway, then you might want to reread all the posts again, especially my first post.No, I'm not taking it as snarky at all and I apologize if I'm coming off that way myself. I just find it hard to believe that there is no added value in a structured strength program for any sport, including triathlon. Every resource I can find online (including articles here @ BT, over 100 of them) specifically mention incorporating strength training, including what benefits they will provide. I haven't read any posts containing specifics or facts, just opinions. |
| 2011-08-23 2:37 PM in reply to: #3655751 |
Regular 241 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? ubersteiny - 2011-08-23 2:26 PM bsc77 - 2011-08-23 12:19 PM Can anyone post a link to a study or some research which found that weight training is not good for a triathlete? Well generally speaking weight lifting will add mass. more mass on bike/run, more weight to push around. Then you get into strength:weight ratio etc.
But when I was strictly doing tri training with no weights my weight was at 165. I was climbing and running great. But I hated how I looked. So I bulked myself up to 180 and feel a lot better, but I've directly seen my times decrease with the added weight. not as much on the run, but when I'm doing hill repeats I can feel it. But at the end of the day this is a hobby not a career so for me a balance in the 2 sports is key. OK I see what you're saying. What about your performance on the flats after the added muscle? Increased weight could affect your climbing negatively but it should increase your performance on the flats, no? |
| 2011-08-23 2:43 PM in reply to: #3655727 |
Expert 1416 San Luis Obispo, CA | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Touche 10 years ago no one in golf used a structured strength training routine in the off season, things have definitely changed. I guess it's just a personal preference and judging from the polling most people (70%) incorporate some weight training over the course of the year. You're right, just b/c people use weights, doesn't make them better / faster, just as it won't make them worse / slower.
This is the PERFECT analogy! Yes, you are seeing PROFESSIONAL golfers adding strength training to their workouts. Just like you will hear/read about PROFESSIONAL triathletes doing strength training. But adding 3 hours a week of strength training to an 18 handicap golfer is not going to come close to the benefits of spending those same three hours practicing their short game and putting. This is the point that most beginner triathletes seem to miss. If you are looking at becoming the best triathlete you are capable of and you have X amount of time to swim/bike/run, your biggest return on you investment is going to be to swim/bike/run. If you are using triathlon as piece of your overall fitness (CRAZY, but some people are OK with this), then adding strength training may be the way to go. |
| 2011-08-23 2:45 PM in reply to: #3655781 |
Champion 7136 Knoxville area | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? bsc77 - 2011-08-23 3:37 PM ubersteiny - 2011-08-23 2:26 PM bsc77 - 2011-08-23 12:19 PM Can anyone post a link to a study or some research which found that weight training is not good for a triathlete? Well generally speaking weight lifting will add mass. more mass on bike/run, more weight to push around. Then you get into strength:weight ratio etc.
But when I was strictly doing tri training with no weights my weight was at 165. I was climbing and running great. But I hated how I looked. So I bulked myself up to 180 and feel a lot better, but I've directly seen my times decrease with the added weight. not as much on the run, but when I'm doing hill repeats I can feel it. But at the end of the day this is a hobby not a career so for me a balance in the 2 sports is key. OK I see what you're saying. What about your performance on the flats after the added muscle? Increased weight could affect your climbing negatively but it should increase your performance on the flats, no? That is assuming that leg strength is what is missing, which it is not. |
| 2011-08-23 2:47 PM in reply to: #3655797 |
Extreme Veteran 2261 Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? blbriley - 2011-08-23 2:43 PM
Touche 10 years ago no one in golf used a structured strength training routine in the off season, things have definitely changed. I guess it's just a personal preference and judging from the polling most people (70%) incorporate some weight training over the course of the year. You're right, just b/c people use weights, doesn't make them better / faster, just as it won't make them worse / slower. This is the PERFECT analogy! Yes, you are seeing PROFESSIONAL golfers adding strength training to their workouts. Just like you will hear/read about PROFESSIONAL triathletes doing strength training. But adding 3 hours a week of strength training to an 18 handicap golfer is not going to come close to the benefits of spending those same three hours practicing their short game and putting. This is the point that most beginner triathletes seem to miss. If you are looking at becoming the best triathlete you are capable of and you have X amount of time to swim/bike/run, your biggest return on you investment is going to be to swim/bike/run. If you are using triathlon as piece of your overall fitness (CRAZY, but some people are OK with this), then adding strength training may be the way to go. Well said. |
| 2011-08-23 2:47 PM in reply to: #3655797 |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? blbriley - 2011-08-23 3:43 PM Touche 10 years ago no one in golf used a structured strength training routine in the off season, things have definitely changed. I guess it's just a personal preference and judging from the polling most people (70%) incorporate some weight training over the course of the year. You're right, just b/c people use weights, doesn't make them better / faster, just as it won't make them worse / slower.
This is the PERFECT analogy! Yes, you are seeing PROFESSIONAL golfers adding strength training to their workouts. Just like you will hear/read about PROFESSIONAL triathletes doing strength training. But adding 3 hours a week of strength training to an 18 handicap golfer is not going to come close to the benefits of spending those same three hours practicing their short game and putting. This is the point that most beginner triathletes seem to miss. If you are looking at becoming the best triathlete you are capable of and you have X amount of time to swim/bike/run, your biggest return on you investment is going to be to swim/bike/run. If you are using triathlon as piece of your overall fitness (CRAZY, but some people are OK with this), then adding strength training may be the way to go. Good post. |
| 2011-08-23 2:48 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
Regular 241 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? OK OK, I'm not going to be that guy and keep this going. I'll respectfully agree to disagree here and hopefully over the next few years I'll be able to make a more educated argument stemming from my own experience as opposed to what I read. I wasn't trying to fan the flames just trying to understand where you guys (the 30% that don't use weights) are coming from.
EDIT: Doesn't weight training make it easier to HTFU? Edited by bsc77 2011-08-23 2:49 PM |
| 2011-08-23 2:56 PM in reply to: #3655810 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? bsc77 - 2011-08-23 3:48 PM I wasn't trying to fan the flames just trying to understand where you guys (the 30% that don't use weights) are coming from. Well, like I said initially, I don't do it because I have absolutely zero interest in lifting weights. Which brings up a point that may be missed in the discussion. I said "lifting weights". I did not say "strength training". I don't do any weight lifting exercises, not even body weight ones like push ups. I do, however, incorporate strengthening workouts into my running, specifically hills and form drills and specific intervals. Running hill repeats can develop strength, and it's running specific. In other words, just because people don't lift weights doesn't mean they do not do some form of strength work. That said, I'm sure there are other reasons besides lack of interest that people don't lift weights. I am willing to bet there's an intimidation factor involved as well as stereotyping and misunderstanding of weight training. |
| 2011-08-23 3:01 PM in reply to: #3655824 |
Regular 241 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Scout7 - 2011-08-23 2:56 PM bsc77 - 2011-08-23 3:48 PM Well, like I said initially, I don't do it because I have absolutely zero interest in lifting weights. Which brings up a point that may be missed in the discussion. I said "lifting weights". I did not say "strength training". I don't do any weight lifting exercises, not even body weight ones like push ups. I do, however, incorporate strengthening workouts into my running, specifically hills and form drills and specific intervals. Running hill repeats can develop strength, and it's running specific. In other words, just because people don't lift weights doesn't mean they do not do some form of strength work. That said, I'm sure there are other reasons besides lack of interest that people don't lift weights. I am willing to bet there's an intimidation factor involved as well as stereotyping and misunderstanding of weight training.I wasn't trying to fan the flames just trying to understand where you guys (the 30% that don't use weights) are coming from. I agree and the thread is a little vague. Weight training can be a part of strength training, but you don't need to lift weights to strength train Hill repeats = strength training Holding plank form on the floor = strength training Bench Press = strength training
|
| 2011-08-23 3:21 PM in reply to: #3655677 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? bsc77 - 2011-08-23 3:53 PM If you're going to use that as weight training, what about a dead lift? Or a squat? Do those exercises strengthen your legs / glutes? You can't tell me this isn't a good thing. Cycling is not strength limited and there is no corrleation between strength and endurance cycling performance. So, if training time is limited, for the vast majority of triathletes, taking the time spent on squats, dead lifts, etc would be better used in the saddle. Shane |
| 2011-08-23 3:46 PM in reply to: #3655719 |
| New user 55 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? TriMyBest - 2011-08-23 2:09 PM bsc77 - 2011-08-23 3:03 PM TriMyBest - 2011-08-23 1:54 PM bsc77 - 2011-08-23 12:59 PM msteiner - 2011-08-23 10:51 AM I'll be the first to say "no weights" if you want to be the fastest triathlete you can be. I'm not sure I understand how this is the case. A strong core is really important for all 3 disciplines, strong legs are obviously essential. I can understand potentially limiting upper body weight training as there won't be too much tri specific gains but I can't see how a rock solid core will slow you down? It is a little bit of an over-generalization, but because for most people, they are choosing (even if unintentionally) between spending their time lifting weights or doing more sbr. More sbr will have a direct positive effect on performance. ST will have a marginal indirect benefit, at best. A solid core will be established through sbr workouts. Most people will not benefit from additional core-specific exercises. Having a "rock solid core" will not slow you down, but it's not necessary, so the time spent developing it is better spent elsewhere. And, strong legs are not important for biking or running. Powerful legs are. Only certain types of lifts develop power, and they develop short duration/high power like those needed in sports that utilize explosive movements, not the long duration/lower power that is needed to be successful in triathlon. I would argue that the benefits of a strong core are more important that you're making them out to be. A strong core increases the chance that you'll maintain proper form in SBR, and it will reduce the chance of injury. While it may not take time off your bike or swim, it will allow you to train effectively and consistently enough to realize those gains. A solid core is important in ANY sport, and worth targeting. And, I would counter with research journal papers that demonstrate that athletes in certain sports showed zero performance improvement and no change in incidence of injury when incorporating core-specific work in addition to their existing training. These papers usually show no improvement in V02 Max. This makes sense. However, I think most of the improvements from strength training are to economy and time to exhaustion. You are becoming more efficient and using fewer muscle fibers to do the same work:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1886483?dopt=Abstract -Cycling study. No change in V02 Max; but a 33% increase in time to exhaustion & 12% increase in LT. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10233114 -Running study. No change in V02 Max; however, improvements to 5k running time were seen. http://jap.physiology.org/content/65/5/2285.abstract? ijkey=b4a3ad8ae6db9b26f42022cdd021920381940886&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha -Combined running and cycling study. No change in V02 Max; cyclying time to exhaustion increased from 70 to 82 minutes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7453510?dopt=Abstract -Combined running and cycling study. Time to exhaustion increased by 47% for cycling and 12% for running.
Now, I'm 100% positive that s/b/r will also increase time to exhaustion. And maybe you don't want to put strength training ahead of s/b/r on your priority list. All I'm saying is that people should hedge themselves and do maybe one strength session a week. |
| 2011-08-23 3:46 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
| 1660 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Just look at the top ITU guys (Brownlee, Gomez) or even Macca or Craig Alexander. Super lean, no extra muscle. They look anorexic on race day. No extra bulk whatsoever.
Again, they definitely do sport-specific power workouts, and a lot of them. (Sprints, hills, big paddle swims.) But even those workouts are long enough that they fall into the endurance category, and do not build bulk, as you would with bodybuilding type 1-10 reps per set, maximal weight. |
 2011-08-23 4:29 PM in reply to: #3655810 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-08-23 4:34 PM in reply to: #3655914 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-08-23 4:34 PM in reply to: #3655914 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK