login
Weights or no weights? (Page 4)
-
No new posts
|
 2011-08-23 8:54 PM in reply to: #3656303 |
Veteran  111  Fort Wayne IN |  Subject: RE: Weights or no weights?gerald12 - 2011-08-23 9:35 PMI support my competition cutting into their SBR time and using it to knock out some strengh training instead. ^^^This!! And let them Cross-Fit too!! Baaaahaaaaahaaaa Edited by MB550 2011-08-23 8:55 PM |
| 2011-08-23 8:55 PM in reply to: #3656303 |
Extreme Veteran 2261  Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? gerald12 - 2011-08-23 8:35 PM I support my competition cutting into their SBR time and using it to knock out some strengh training instead. This! |
| 2011-08-23 9:01 PM in reply to: #3656172 |
| New user 55 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? gsmacleod - 2011-08-23 7:10 PM 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
Shannon Wickes (whose blog you link to on your website) explains functional strength training this way: http://www.roskopp.com/2010_10_01_archive.htmlFunctional Strength Training
During the off season I like to hit the gym and start doing some strength training. Typically I do the regular exercises that hit each of the various major muscle groups. However, this year I want to be more specific in my exercises and how the apply to swimming, biking, and running. |
| 2011-08-23 9:19 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
Extreme Veteran 682 Mendenhall, MS | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? |
| 2011-08-23 9:36 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Elite 2608 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? I lied, I must comment. Regarding "functional training"... This term is now a bit meaningless. Back when I re-entered weight training, which was around 2000, I no longer wanted to do bodybuilding training - I was after "functional strength." Back then the term meant something. First and foremost it meant STAYING OFF OF THE MACHINES! Second, it meant doing compound movements that worked lots of muscle groups: squats, deadlifts, presses, the Olympic lifts. This is how I define functional training. Today, I don't know what it means. I've seen people do lifts on a BOSU ball and I've seen people (literally) doing squats while standing on a Swiss ball. They call this "functional training." I call it stupid and useless. Research has shown that, unless you are rehabbing from an injury, there is absolutely no benefit to doing unstable surface training. In fact, it may even result in a decrease in strength. I won't go into why - it's geeky physiology stuff. Regarding "sports specific training"... I almost want to say that sports specific training is a bit of a myth. At worst, it's counterproductive and can cause injury. The problem, again, is definitional: what exactly is "sports specific training?" At one time coaches thought it would be a good idea to train with implements heavier than the ones used in competition. For instance, if a pitcher threw a slightly heavier ball in training, that would increase his strength for pitching, right? It seems logical. But once again, physiology doesn't always follow logic. What happens when you start using heavier implements is the neuromuscular pattern changes. What this means in lay terms is that throwing a heavier ball requires a slightly different throwing technique which doesn't transfer to a ball of regular weight. So the pitcher might get better at throwing a heavier ball (assuming he doesn't injure his rotator cuff), but this does nothing for his regular pitching. I actually read about one coach who had the ridiculous notion of having his football players do lots of chest flyes to "simulate" tackling. Meanwhile, his competition was doing power cleans and squats. Which team do you think was stronger out on the field? Obviously there are exceptions. If you're a high-level athlete under the guidance of a high-level coach who is up on the latest and greatest training techniques in your sport, such a coach can probably design a sport specific program that makes sense. For the rest of us, stay away from exercises that try to mimic sports movements with weights. They generally won't help and may even hurt. |
| 2011-08-23 9:41 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
Veteran 351 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? I voted for weights all the time, because that's what I do. I'm slower than mud, and I'll never be fast. I do triathlons to get/stay in shape (because I find them interesting). The best way to lose weight and to look toned is to add in weights. That, and I genuinely enjoy lifting :-D I like crossfit too. Yup, I said it :-p
::adding to the numbers that you all pass during races:: |
| 2011-08-23 9:42 PM in reply to: #3656291 |
Regular 98 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? MikeTheBear - 2011-08-23 6:28 PM 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. Not in the case of the guy who only has a max of 250 lb BUT can do high reps at a lower weight. Just because you can do a max 300lb doesn't mean you can do more reps than a person with lower max set. The more appropriate question maybe who can do the most TOTAL weights (reps x weights vs. just single max weight). The article you mentioned even goes on to mention that on off season the nordic skier may do "dedicated specific training designed to increase skiing specific strength AND endurance [which] can result in more total muscle available during double poling, or other arm-intensive skiing techniques. In the summer training of the elite, it is common to see arm-intensive work like kayaking added to the program in order to help close the endurance gap between the upper and lower body" Here's another recent article regarding running: How Strength Training Helps Your RunI've always accompanied every sport activity I do with weight and strength training. To benefit most from weight training for your sport, it should be specific to your sport. Both the nordic skiing and running articles are in agreement on that concept, as well as the need to be balanced. In the case of tris, do gross muscle exercises in addition to secondary muscle (e.g., ankle stabilizers and shoulder - rotator, scapular, etc.)
|
| 2011-08-23 11:57 PM in reply to: #3656393 |
Melon Presser 52116 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? drgary - 2011-08-24 11:42 AM MikeTheBear - 2011-08-23 6:28 PM 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. Not in the case of the guy who only has a max of 250 lb BUT can do high reps at a lower weight. Just because you can do a max 300lb doesn't mean you can do more reps than a person with lower max set. The more appropriate question maybe who can do the most TOTAL weights (reps x weights vs. just single max weight). The article you mentioned even goes on to mention that on off season the nordic skier may do "dedicated specific training designed to increase skiing specific strength AND endurance [which] can result in more total muscle available during double poling, or other arm-intensive skiing techniques. In the summer training of the elite, it is common to see arm-intensive work like kayaking added to the program in order to help close the endurance gap between the upper and lower body" Here's another recent article regarding running: How Strength Training Helps Your RunI've always accompanied every sport activity I do with weight and strength training. To benefit most from weight training for your sport, it should be specific to your sport. Both the nordic skiing and running articles are in agreement on that concept, as well as the need to be balanced. In the case of tris, do gross muscle exercises in addition to secondary muscle (e.g., ankle stabilizers and shoulder - rotator, scapular, etc.)
The difficulty with the linked article is that it appears on a website (not a print periodical, which actually do have slightly, and I mean SLIGHTLY, higher standards of evidence), but even most popular endurance sites/print periodicals are marketing tools, not actual journalism, and definitely not by any means research reviews or science. The article explains why strength/weight training is beneficial, but it does not actually explain, much less give any evidence for, its title--how it helps your run. |
| 2011-08-24 12:04 AM in reply to: #3655300 |
Melon Presser 52116 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? *elitist snob alert* Wait, actually, I'm not good enough to be elitist, but I am sure gonna try Some of these hot-button debates--weight training, flip turns, can't-swim-but-wanna-tri, etc.--may seem tiresome. There are a LOT of lurkers on this site. THOUSANDS. Registered and guests. Many people also genuinely don't know the basis for making logical arguments, nor understand the basics of how scientific research is conducted, nor what research reviews are. Many do, but aren't aware of the current preponderance of evidence regarding certain endurance topics. I think there's a hell of an education to be had here when people actually read the threads, and evidence points to that they do. Without even thinking, I can rattle off dozens of names of known persons here who had their lines of thinking changed by what was posted. We get new people coming in all the time. I think it's fine to drag out the dead horses and beat them. If it really bothers you, don't post, or (I have cough cough *never* done this) keep the best blurbs you've posted and copy and paste. I don't do that often, but I do bookmark and paste common links often. Thank you to everyone who does ask, who does want to know, and everyone who answers. |
| 2011-08-24 12:05 AM in reply to: #3656393 |
| Elite 2608 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? drgary - 2011-08-23 9:42 PM Not in the case of the guy who only has a max of 250 lb BUT can do high reps at a lower weight. Just because you can do a max 300lb doesn't mean you can do more reps than a person with lower max set. The more appropriate question maybe who can do the most TOTAL weights (reps x weights vs. just single max weight). My example holds true for the majority of the population. Yes, you do find individuals who have low 1 rep maxes but can do reps all day. They tend to have a higher percentage of endurance fibers. Most guys with endurance fibers gravitate towards endurance sports so it's rare to see them in a strength sport or even lifting weights, but sure, they exist. The article you mentioned even goes on to mention that on off season the nordic skier may do "dedicated specific training designed to increase skiing specific strength AND endurance [which] can result in more total muscle available during double poling, or other arm-intensive skiing techniques. In the summer training of the elite, it is common to see arm-intensive work like kayaking added to the program in order to help close the endurance gap between the upper and lower body." Yes, and the reason that upper body strength helps in XC skiing is because, as the article says, upper body muscles tend to be smaller than lower body muscles so the heart is no longer the limiting factor. XC skiers do general upper body stuff in the weight room such as pull ups, pulldowns, and rows. Sport specific work involves double pole only sessions on roller skis or double pole only sessions on snow. Since 2 out of the 3 triathlon events use lower body, the point of the article is that stronger legs will not make a stronger run or bike. Some upper body work might help the swim. Here's another recent article regarding running: How Strength Training Helps Your RunI've always accompanied every sport activity I do with weight and strength training. I have some issues with this article which I will cover separately. To benefit most from weight training for your sport, it should be specific to your sport. Both the nordic skiing and running articles are in agreement on that concept, as well as the need to be balanced. In the case of tris, do gross muscle exercises in addition to secondary muscle (e.g., ankle stabilizers and shoulder - rotator, scapular, etc.)
I've already discussed some problems with sport specific programs. The compound exercises, done properly, are going to hit the stabilizers. If I can squat 400 lbs., am I going to have weak ankle stabilizers? No. Focus on the big stuff and the little stuff will take care of itself. |
| 2011-08-24 12:26 AM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Elite 2608 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? As for the article here: http://www.active.com/running/Articles/How-Strength-Training-Helps-... First, the article was written in 2005 - it's not that recent. In terms of science, even sports science which tends to lag other areas, 6 years is ancient. The good: Most runners will benefit from two resistance train sessions per week, using dumbbells in a variety of ways. In keeping with the sport-specific principle of resistance training, favor exercises that stabilize the core. Contrary to common belief, this does not mean favoring only abdominal and back exercises. For example, the alternate standing shoulder press, during which you "punch" a dumbbell above your head with one hand, then lower it as you raise the dumbbell in the other hand, demands of the core muscles that they stabilize the body while you perform these exercises. By contrast, an isolated single-joint exercise like the bicep curl may provide little benefit, as these muscles are rarely used in isolation during running. I agree 100% and I've been saying this on this site for some time now. Similarly, while back exercises are certainly running-appropriate, remember to achieve muscle balance by training the muscles of the chest and shoulders, which provide opposite antagonistic actions to the muscles of the upper back. Limiting muscle imbalances in the way limits injury. True, but most people have weak backs compared to their chests. But I do agree about training shoulders. Unilateral upper body exercises are more specific to running than bilateral exercises like the traditional bench press; running simply does not involve both limbs moving in the same direction simultaneously. Yeah, but. First, this argument can be taken to it's logical end - running doesn't involve carrying weights, so why bother to begin with? Second, to do dumbbell bench presses, you need to get the dumbbells into position, which is difficult to do unless the weight is very light. Overhead presses are a bit easier to do with dumbbells, but even they can get awkward. For 99% of the population, doing barbell movements is just fine for building general strength. No need to get cute with "sports specific" movements. Increase the load in your dumbbell exercises by two to four pounds every couple of weeks to ensure progressive overload and therefore continued gains in muscle strength. Research suggests that after eight weeks and up to three or so years, strength gains are primarily due to gains in muscle size, not the neurological coordination of muscle fibers seen in the earlier stages of resistance training. This might be considered a complicating factor for runners, who generally don't want bigger upper-body muscles to carry across the finish line. Note that this phenomenon attenuates, however, after about three years of regular strength training, when a ceiling is reached in terms of muscle hypertrophy, and neural factors again seem to take over as the main supplier of greater force. Unfortunately I don't have a source, but I believe that this has been proven to be incorrect. A new trainee can gain muscle immediately, along with neurological efficiency. Morever, strength gains due to neurological efficiency are best done with heavy weight and 1-3 reps. The rep range the article recommends, 12-15, is more in the hypertrophy range with limited gains in neurological efficiency. And don't get me started on the "complicating factor for runners who generally don't want bigger upper-body muscles." It is not easy to build muscle - this is why bodybuilders turn to steroids. Research has shown that doing endurance work while lifting weights minimizes muscle gains. Finally, the program they recommend simply does not have enough volume to allow for significant gains in muscle. Muscle gains on that program would be very limited, if any. As skills and experience improve, there are always ways of performing advanced variations of the exercises, as well, for example while balancing on a stability ball or in a lunge position. NO! Recent research has shown that doing exercises while balancing a stability or any form of unstable surface training is useless except for certain situations involving rehabilitation from an injury. For a healthy person, there are no benefits, and such training may even result in a decrease in strength. That's because when your nervous system senses instability, it will, as a safety measure, reduce the amount of motor units it recruits. Your body is basically smart enough to figure out that lifting something heavy on an unstable surface might hurt you, so it prevents you from doing that - something many personal trainers don't get. This teaches your body to recruit a lesser number of motor units - the exact opposite of what you want from a strength training program. |
| 2011-08-24 1:10 AM in reply to: #3656478 |
Regular 98 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? TriAya - 2011-08-23 9:57 PM drgary - 2011-08-24 11:42 AM The difficulty with the linked article is that it appears on a website (not a print periodical, which actually do have slightly, and I mean SLIGHTLY, higher standards of evidence), but even most popular endurance sites/print periodicals are marketing tools, not actual journalism, and definitely not by any means research reviews or science. The article explains why strength/weight training is beneficial, but it does not actually explain, much less give any evidence for, its title--how it helps your run. Well, the article is written by the editor of the book this is cited: Run Strong ed. by Kevin Beck, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, 2005,"Gaining Ground Through Upper-Body Strength" by Michael Leveritt, PhD,CSCS, pp. 83-99 Yep, even with research, it's rather political (who funds the research, what gets published, etc.). As one who's in academia and research, it's easy to make research say what you want. lol It's simple enough for me to rummage through literature and cite research supporting my point, but someone else can cite all the counter arguments. |
| 2011-08-24 1:12 AM in reply to: #3656478 |
Regular 98 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? double posted oops Edited by drgary 2011-08-24 1:19 AM |
| 2011-08-24 1:19 AM in reply to: #3655300 |
Regular 98 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? An example of research supporting weight training (source from Pubmed): J Sports Sci. 2011 Aug 22. [Epub ahead of print] Effect of resistance training regimens on treadmill running and neuromuscular performance in recreational endurancerunners.
Source
a KIHU - Research Institute for Olympic Sports , Jyväskylä , Finland. Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of heavy resistance, explosive resistance, and muscle endurance training on neuromuscular, endurance, and high-intensity running performance in recreational endurance runners. Twenty-seven male runners were divided into one of three groups: heavy resistance, explosive resistance or muscle endurance training. After 6 weeks of preparatory training, the groups underwent an 8-week resistance training programme as a supplement to endurance training. Before and after the 8-week training period, maximal strength (one-repetition maximum), electromyographic activity of the leg extensors, countermovement jump height, maximal speed in the maximal anaerobic running test, maximal endurance performance, maximal oxygen uptake ([Vdot]O(2max)), and running economy were assessed. Maximal strength improved in the heavy (P = 0.034, effect size ES = 0.38) and explosive resistance training groups (P = 0.003, ES = 0.67) with increases in leg muscle activation (heavy: P = 0.032, ES = 0.38; explosive: P = 0.002, ES = 0.77). Only the heavy resistance training group improved maximal running speed in the maximal anaerobic running test (P = 0.012, ES = 0.52) and jump height (P = 0.006, ES = 0.59). Maximal endurance running performance was improved in all groups (heavy: P = 0.005, ES = 0.56; explosive: P = 0.034, ES = 0.39; muscle endurance: P = 0.001, ES = 0.94), with small though not statistically significant improvements in [Vdot]O(2max) (heavy: ES = 0.08; explosive: ES = 0.29; muscle endurance: ES = 0.65) and running economy (ES in all groups < 0.08). All three modes of strength training used concurrently with endurance training were effective in improving treadmill running endurance performance. However, both heavy and explosive strength training were beneficial in improving neuromuscular characteristics, and heavy resistance training in particular contributed to improvements in high-intensity running characteristics. Thus, endurance runners should include heavy resistance training in their training programmes to enhance endurance performance, such as improving sprinting ability at the end of a race.
|
| 2011-08-24 1:22 AM in reply to: #3656483 |
Regular 98 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? MikeTheBear - 2011-08-23 10:26 PM see above - it's a 2011 article. Really, we can find almost any empirical evidence to support our views. Edited by drgary 2011-08-24 1:25 AM |
| 2011-08-24 1:29 AM in reply to: #3655300 |
Regular 98 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Just for sh*ts and giggles - last article I'll post: Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010 Dec;110(6):1269-82. Epub 2010 Aug 27. In-season strength maintenance training increases well-trained cyclists' performance.
Abstract
We investigated the effects of strength maintenance training on thigh muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), leg strength, determinants of cycling performance, and cycling performance. Well-trained cyclists completed either (1) usual endurance training supplemented with heavy strength training twice a week during a 12-week preparatory period followed by strength maintenance training once a week during the first 13 weeks of a competition period (E + S; n = 6 [? = 6]), or (2) usual endurance training during the whole intervention period (E; n = 6 [? = 5, ? = 1]). Following the preparatory period, E + S increased thigh muscle CSA and 1RM (p < 0.05), while no changes were observed in E. Both groups increased maximal oxygen consumption and mean power output in the 40-min all-out trial (p < 0.05). At 13 weeks into the competition period, E + S had preserved the increase in CSA and strength from the preparatory period. From the beginning of the preparatory period to 13 weeks into the competition period, E + S increased peak power output in the Wingate test, power output at 2 mmol l(-1) [la(-)], maximal aerobic power output (W (max)), and mean power output in the 40-min all-out trial (p < 0.05). The relative improvements in the last two measurements were larger than in E (p < 0.05). For E, W (max) and power output at 2 mmol l(-1) [la(-)] remained unchanged. In conclusion, in well-trained cyclists, strength maintenance training in a competition period preserved increases in thigh muscle CSA and leg strength attained in a preceding preparatory period and further improved cycling performance determinants and performance.
|
| 2011-08-24 1:54 AM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Elite 2608 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? drgary, The ironic thing is that I used to believe that weight training enhanced endurance. After doing a bunch of research, I'm no longer sure that this is the case. I think the research is equivocal. Recently, someone posted this article which supports the idea that weight training improves endurance: http://www.rappstar.com/pdf/StrengthTrainingEnduranceAthletes.pdf Here was the conclusion: "Experimental data demonstrate that strength training can lead to enhanced long-term (430 min) and short-term (o15 min) endurance capacity both in well-trained individuals and highly trained top-level endurance athletes, especially (but not exclusively) when high-volume, heavy-resistance strength training protocols are applied. As summarized in Fig. 5, the enhancement in long-term endurance capacity appears to involve training-induced increases in the proportion of type IIA muscle fibers as well as gains in maximal muscle strength (MVC) and rapid force characteristics (RFD), while also likely involving enhanced neuromuscular function." Note the part that I bolded, which recommends heavy, high-volume work (although it does say that this is not absolutely necessary). I've done heavy, high-volume work. To add a fairly high volume of endurance work on top of that would be a miserable experience. Not to mention that for most people, there are only so many hours in a day. I'm not sure how practical it would be for the average person to do heavy weight training, even if it was a lower volume of work, and endurance training. I suppose I can experiment on myself. I recently finished training for Olympic weightlifting, so I was doing the heavy and explosive training that your articles recommend. Next summer I'd like to do a half-iron distance. I plan to continue doing the Olympic lifts simply because they are fun to do. I'll let you know how it goes. So far, I've gradually tried to get back into swimming and running and I can say that my endurance is in the crapper, but that's to be expected since I did no endurance training in the last year. I can sprint pretty good, though. ETA: If you have more research on this issue, feel free to post links as I am interested in this topic. I'd like to be convinced that weight training helps endurance. It won't matter either way as I will continue to lift, but the topic is interesting. Edited by MikeTheBear 2011-08-24 1:56 AM |
| 2011-08-24 5:23 AM in reply to: #3656338 |
| 2011-08-24 5:24 AM in reply to: #3655300 |
Melon Presser 52116 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? It's no use to pick (cherry or no) single articles or single studies. What we want to look for, as I said before, is the preponderance of evidence.
Does anyone know of a good, thorough research review regarding this issue? |
| 2011-08-24 5:30 AM in reply to: #3656489 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? drgary - 2011-08-24 3:10 AM Well, the article is written by the editor of the book this is cited: Run Strong ed. by Kevin Beck, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, 2005,"Gaining Ground Through Upper-Body Strength" by Michael Leveritt, PhD,CSCS, pp. 83-99 So a guy who edits a book at using strength training to improve running also write an article for Active.com and this makes him more credible? Shane |
| 2011-08-24 5:37 AM in reply to: #3656491 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? I've highlighted (with italics) the parts of the abstract I would see as important to the vast majority of endurance athletes. drgary - 2011-08-24 3:19 AM An example of research supporting weight training (source from Pubmed): J Sports Sci. 2011 Aug 22. [Epub ahead of print] Effect of resistance training regimens on treadmill running and neuromuscular performance in recreational endurancerunners.
Source
a KIHU - Research Institute for Olympic Sports , Jyväskylä , Finland. Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of heavy resistance, explosive resistance, and muscle endurance training on neuromuscular, endurance, and high-intensity running performance in recreational endurance runners. Twenty-seven male runners were divided into one of three groups: heavy resistance, explosive resistance or muscle endurance training. After 6 weeks of preparatory training, the groups underwent an 8-week resistance training programme as a supplement to endurance training. Before and after the 8-week training period, maximal strength (one-repetition maximum), electromyographic activity of the leg extensors, countermovement jump height, maximal speed in the maximal anaerobic running test, maximal endurance performance, maximal oxygen uptake ([Vdot]O(2max)), and running economy were assessed. Maximal strength improved in the heavy (P = 0.034, effect size ES = 0.38) and explosive resistance training groups (P = 0.003, ES = 0.67) with increases in leg muscle activation (heavy: P = 0.032, ES = 0.38; explosive: P = 0.002, ES = 0.77). Only the heavy resistance training group improved maximal running speed in the maximal anaerobic running test (P = 0.012, ES = 0.52) and jump height (P = 0.006, ES = 0.59). Maximal endurance running performance was improved in all groups (heavy: P = 0.005, ES = 0.56; explosive: P = 0.034, ES = 0.39; muscle endurance: P = 0.001, ES = 0.94), with small though not statistically significant improvements in [Vdot]O(2max) (heavy: ES = 0.08; explosive: ES = 0.29; muscle endurance: ES = 0.65) and running economy (ES in all groups < 0.08). All three modes of strength training used concurrently with endurance training were effective in improving treadmill running endurance performance. However, both heavy and explosive strength training were beneficial in improving neuromuscular characteristics, and heavy resistance training in particular contributed to improvements in high-intensity running characteristics. Thus, endurance runners should include heavy resistance training in their training programmes to enhance endurance performance, such as improving sprinting ability at the end of a race.
Further, although I haven't take the time to dig into the study (yet) it would appear to fit with what we have known about resistance training when it comes to endurance running; namely: 1) Heavy resistance (high percentage of 1RM) is the way to go for someone who is going to add weights to their routine; and 2) Plyometrics work to improve running performance Shane |
| 2011-08-24 5:43 AM in reply to: #3656493 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Highlighted again for what I see as important to endurance training. drgary - 2011-08-24 3:29 AM Just for sh*ts and giggles - last article I'll post: Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010 Dec;110(6):1269-82. Epub 2010 Aug 27. In-season strength maintenance training increases well-trained cyclists' performance.
Abstract
We investigated the effects of strength maintenance training on thigh muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), leg strength, determinants of cycling performance, and cycling performance. Well-trained cyclists completed either (1) usual endurance training supplemented with heavy strength training twice a week during a 12-week preparatory period followed by strength maintenance training once a week during the first 13 weeks of a competition period (E + S; n = 6 [? = 6]), or (2) usual endurance training during the whole intervention period (E; n = 6 [? = 5, ? = 1]). Following the preparatory period, E + S increased thigh muscle CSA and 1RM (p < 0.05), while no changes were observed in E. Both groups increased maximal oxygen consumption and mean power output in the 40-min all-out trial (p < 0.05). At 13 weeks into the competition period, E + S had preserved the increase in CSA and strength from the preparatory period. From the beginning of the preparatory period to 13 weeks into the competition period, E + S increased peak power output in the Wingate test, power output at 2 mmol l(-1) [la(-)], maximal aerobic power output (W (max)), and mean power output in the 40-min all-out trial (p < 0.05). The relative improvements in the last two measurements were larger than in E (p < 0.05). For E, W (max) and power output at 2 mmol l(-1) [la(-)] remained unchanged. In conclusion, in well-trained cyclists, strength maintenance training in a competition period preserved increases in thigh muscle CSA and leg strength attained in a preceding preparatory period and further improved cycling performance determinants and performance.
I would need to look at this study but I believe this was another study done where the S part involved lifting very heavy weight which is again consistent with what we know about endurance training and weight training. Shane |
 2011-08-24 6:05 AM in reply to: #3656520 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-08-24 7:42 AM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Champion 7136 Knoxville area | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? I think we could put it to end if we could all agree to a few things. 1.) If you had no obligations in life other than training, weight training (considering an intelligently designed plan that would not hinder performance in the other 3 sports NOR take time away from them) COULD be beneficial, or at the very least not a negative. 2.) If you are not getting paid to race / independently wealthy, (That is, you don't already train the same as a TRUE, pointy end of the knife Pro) then you have to make a choice where to spend your time. Spending that time SBR'ing is a fairly foolproof way to get better SBR'ing, whereas spending some of that time doing curls for the girls may or may not be. 3.) If your #1 priority is NOT being as fast as you possibly can be with the time you have to train, but to be healthy in a broad sense (or you just want to look good naked) of the word, then Weight training is a good choice.
Fair? |
| 2011-08-24 8:00 AM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Weight training is absolutely beneficial to being a good triathlete. I bet all the pros are in the gym at least four hours a day. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK