login
Weights or no weights? (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2011-08-23 4:39 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
Member  473  |  Subject: RE: Weights or no weights?no weights, just do 2 sets of 15 pushups, 8 chin ups, 20 sit ups and 15 cross sit ups. for me thats a lot and its been working though i would love defined abs! |
| 2011-08-23 4:40 PM in reply to: #3655914 |
Extreme Veteran 2261  Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? bscholes - 2011-08-23 3:46 PM 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. I agree with what Fred said, but I would also ask what should we replace for this strength training session (A swim session, run, or bike ride)? |
| 2011-08-23 4:43 PM in reply to: #3655996 |
Regular 241 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Fred Doucette - 2011-08-23 4:34 PM bscholes 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. If you do a medline literature search on papers that study this issue, there are a huge number of them. About 60% do NOT support strength training in the improvement of triathlon/endurance sport performance, about 40% DO support ST in endurance performance. ie; it's pretty easy to cherry pick studies to show "your side" of the argument. I'm not getting into the debate as I could care less what others do with themselves regarding ST, do what you feel is right. Again, just thought you would like to know a little bit more about the preponderance of studies out there and the fact that there is not universal agreement on the issue. Fred I've asked a few times in this thread for inks to studies that do not show a performance increase through the use of strength training, but no one has posted one. On the other hand its very easy to find studies that show improvement. Please if you have any info show me some of the 60% that prove this. |
 2011-08-23 4:43 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-08-23 4:44 PM in reply to: #3656011 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-08-23 4:54 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
Champion 8936   | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Was it really necessary to bring this topic up again? It has and will be discussed ad nauseam by newbies who are truly interested. |
| 2011-08-23 4:56 PM in reply to: #3656017 |
| Regular 241 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Fred Doucette - 2011-08-23 4:44 PM bsc77 - 2011-08-23 5:43 PM Fred Doucette - 2011-08-23 4:34 PM bscholes 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. If you do a medline literature search on papers that study this issue, there are a huge number of them. About 60% do NOT support strength training in the improvement of triathlon/endurance sport performance, about 40% DO support ST in endurance performance. ie; it's pretty easy to cherry pick studies to show "your side" of the argument. I'm not getting into the debate as I could care less what others do with themselves regarding ST, do what you feel is right. Again, just thought you would like to know a little bit more about the preponderance of studies out there and the fact that there is not universal agreement on the issue. Fred I've asked a few times in this thread for inks to studies that do not show a performance increase through the use of strength training, but no one has posted one. On the other hand its very easy to find studies that show improvement. Please if you have any info show me some of the 60% that prove this. Honest question?? Do you know how to do a full medline search? Not only do I not know how to perform one, but never heard of one |
| 2011-08-23 5:00 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-08-23 5:07 PM in reply to: #3656038 |
| Regular 241 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Fred Doucette - 2011-08-23 5:00 PM ^^ Hey that's cool, made me chuckle! Again I am not saying it doesn't help, I'm not saying it does help. BUT for the majority of us we have to give something up to allow ST. ie; time is limited. Do what you think is best for you and be happy about it. LOL was just being honest! And had I known this topic was so fiercely debated, I would have stayed out. I know I should back off when I read someone talking about "i'll bring the popcorn"... I should know better! Have a good one man. |
| 2011-08-23 5:34 PM in reply to: #3655384 |
| Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? 3 pages of debate, and we basically come back around to what I posted as the 6th post in the thread: TriMyBest - 2011-08-23 12:27 PMI didn't vote, because my choice isn't there: "it depends". If you are the average AGer, juggling a full time job, family, and training, with no specific health issues or injuries that respond well to ST, and a male not over the age of 50 or a female not over the age of 40 whose primary goal is race performance, then the answer is not to do ST. If you fall into any of these exceptions, or if your goal is general fitness rather than only tri performance, then the answer is yes. (Why do we keep beating this poor dead horse?) |
| 2011-08-23 5:56 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Master 2356 Westlake Village , Ca. | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? |
| 2011-08-23 6:13 PM in reply to: #3656081 |
| Champion 7136 Knoxville area | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Fastyellow - 2011-08-23 6:56 PM 
I can hear "The Ghetto Boys" playing in the background... |
| 2011-08-23 7:09 PM in reply to: #3655635 |
| Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? medamullet - 2011-08-23 3:30 PM liftign makes you stronger, stronger makes you faster. While this seems to make sense, it is demonstrably false. Shane |
| 2011-08-23 7:10 PM in reply to: #3655643 |
| Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? bscholes - 2011-08-23 3:35 PM I just have a hard time understanding how building functional strength doesn't help your s/b/r.... What is the best way to build functional "strength" for swimming, biking and running? Shane |
| 2011-08-23 7:25 PM in reply to: #3656166 |
| Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? gsmacleod - 2011-08-23 8:09 PM Doh! Shane! The fire was almost out, and you had to throw gas on it! medamullet - 2011-08-23 3:30 PMliftign makes you stronger, stronger makes you faster. While this seems to make sense, it is demonstrably false.Shane |
| 2011-08-23 7:31 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Elite 2608 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Weights all the time and I think I've explained why many times. 1. Enjoyment: It's something I enjoy doing. 2. Health benefits: It prevents muscle and bone loss that inevitably results from aging. It can also help strengthen joints. |
| 2011-08-23 7:32 PM in reply to: #3656205 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-08-23 7:34 PM in reply to: #3656205 |
| Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? TriMyBest - 2011-08-23 9:25 PM Doh! Shane! The fire was almost out, and you had to throw gas on it! Sometimes I can't help myself. Shane |
| 2011-08-23 7:34 PM in reply to: #3655875 |
| Veteran 198 Chicago, IL | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? gsmacleod - 2011-08-23 3:21 PM 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. ShaneShane, I have argued the same point with my wife. She is an accomplished runner but new cyclist. She claims that she can't get her heart rate up on the bike like she does when running because she doesn't have the leg strength to do it. I say put it in a lower gear and spin faster. If you are right, so am I (I think). Who is right? Anonymous (yes, I am afraid of her) |
| 2011-08-23 7:38 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Veteran 111 Fort Wayne IN | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? I will include body weight exercises, but not the typical "How much ya bench" type weights |
| 2011-08-23 7:42 PM in reply to: #3656215 |
| Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? 08M3Sedanski - 2011-08-23 9:34 PM Who is right? If she can walk up stairs, she has all the strength she needs for endurance cycling. Shane |
| 2011-08-23 7:43 PM in reply to: #3656211 |
| Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Fred Doucette - 2011-08-23 8:32 PM I know...and I'll probably let myself be drawn in again like a moth to a flame. TriMyBest - 2011-08-23 8:25 PM gsmacleod - 2011-08-23 8:09 PM Doh! Shane! The fire was almost out, and you had to throw gas on it! medamullet - 2011-08-23 3:30 PMliftign makes you stronger, stronger makes you faster. While this seems to make sense, it is demonstrably false.ShaneDon't worry Don there will be a new thread on this topic tomorrow, the next day and the next.... |
| 2011-08-23 8:06 PM in reply to: #3655679 |
| Elite 2608 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? TriMyBest - 2011-08-23 1:54 PM [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. I have to agree with Don. The whole "core training" thing is just the latest fitness fad that personal trainers are pushing. Most "core training programs" are nothing but a few ab exercises with maybe one or two "unique" exercises thrown into the mix. If you're already lifting weights and doing exercises such as squats, deadlifts, and overhead presses, you're already training your core. Doing push ups trains your core - it's basically holding a plank but you're also pushing up. Why waste time doing just planks when you can add a push up and kill two birds? As someone mentioned, kettlebell swings are an excellent total body exercise. If you're doing kettlebell swings, you really don't need much more. If you feel you must do additional core training, get an ab wheel and do roll outs. For a core stability exercise, grab two dumbbells, lift them overhead, and start walking. This really starts to suck after a few feet. As I said, I agree with Don in that endurance athletes pretty much get sufficient core training from just doing their event, which in our case is sbr. However, for those who feel the need to do more, any type of core exercises beyond what I've mentioned will yield diminishing returns and thus are pretty much a waste of time. Personal trainers specializing in "core training" can now send me hate email. |
| 2011-08-23 8:28 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Elite 2608 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Okay, one more post by me. I used to be in the camp that believed "stronger is faster." I mean, that's just common sense, right? And I used my experience from weight training to justify this. Let's say you had a test that required athletes to squat 200 lbs. for maximum repetitions. Which athlete would do more reps: the one who could squat a maximum of 300 lbs. or the one who could only squat a maximum of 250 lbs.? The answer is clear: it's the guy with the higher maximum. I think figured that since endurance activities are, at their very basic level, similar to doing "lots of reps," so the stronger athlete could thus do "more reps more easily" much like the two guys doing squats. That was what I thought. Then I did some more research. I learned that this was not the case. Although my thinking may have been valid from a logical standpoint, physiology doesn't always follow logic. What changed my mind was the following article: http://www.nordicskiracer.com/news.asp?NewsID=1734 Although the article deals with cross-country skiers, it's valid for all endurance sports. Basically, the flaw in my logic was that squatting for repetitions is still an anaerobic activity. What the article says is that once you hit the aerobic zone, the heart becomes the limiting factor, not muscle strength. Other articles and studies I've read confirm this. For instance, if you're a 400m runner, some weight training is beneficial. Why? Because a 400m race still has a large anaerobic component to it so the heart is not the sole limiting factor. But as the distances increased, the benefits from weight training decreased. For instance, 1500m runners still saw some benefit from weight training, but beyond this distance the benefits diminished substantially. |
| 2011-08-23 8:35 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Master 1404 Saratoga Springs, Utah | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? I support my competition cutting into their SBR time and using it to knock out some strengh training instead.  |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK