login
Weights or no weights? (Page 5)
-
No new posts
|
 2011-08-24 9:07 AM in reply to: #3656523 |
Regular  98 |  Subject: RE: Weights or no weights?gsmacleod - 2011-08-24 3:30 AM 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? ShaneJust wanted to include what I wrote after mentioning the editor: 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. You can usually find whatever you want, regardless of position, as long as you looking in that direction. |
| 2011-08-24 12:32 PM in reply to: #3656520 |
Elite 2608    Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? TriAya - 2011-08-24 5:24 AM 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? Well, there's the stuff in my head based on my own search for an answer to this little puzzle - does that count?  Shane's summary is basically correct. For running, there is research showing that plyometric training is beneficial. Technically, plyometrics don't involve weights - it's just jumping onto stuff and jumping off of stuff and sticking the landing, also known as depth jumps, which should be approached VERY cautiously by the beginner. There is also research suggesting that maximal strength work (heavy weight and low reps) improves endurance performance - there are the two articles here and I recall reading one other article that involved a study with female XC skiers. This runs counter to most recommendations, and most people's "gut feeling," that light weight and high reps are best for enhancing endurance. Go figure - physiology isn't always logical. In fact, the research that I've read that concluded there is very little benefit to weight training for endurance used 2-3 sets of 10-12 reps, which is what many "tri specific" programs recommend. Finally, and I'll throw this out there, there is a program out there by Kenneth Jay that uses kettlebell snatches to increase VO2max. However, you need to be somewhat proficient in the kettlebell snatch to do it because it involves a fast pace and short rest periods. While I wouldn't use the snatch program exclusively or even mostly, it's not a bad way to go if you're stuck indoors due to whether or other factors and the idea of spending another minute on the treadmill or trainer just sickens you. |
 2011-08-24 9:50 PM in reply to: #3655475 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-08-24 10:00 PM in reply to: #3655719 |
| Extreme Veteran 644 Anaheim | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? 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. How many 45 y.o. AGers were in those studies? typically those athletes are young, elite and already in peak condition. Its like the stretching studies on Olympic athletes. If the athlete is already close to reaching their potential of course weights, stretching, or chanting isn't going to make much difference. Also many of those studies use a weight regimen that is intended for bodybuilding. Not a regimen with their sport in mind. Also typical body building regimens are really designed for use with steroids and intended for building mass quickly not designed for enhancing a specific athletic endeavor. How about a study with athletes already exhibiting a muscle imbalance? Or middle aged runners? I bet the results would be dramatically different. Edited by Broompatrol 2011-08-24 10:25 PM |
| 2011-08-25 5:45 AM in reply to: #3658091 |
Pro 6011  Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Broompatrol - 2011-08-24 11:00 PM You're pulling my quote out of context, AND mixing apples with oranges. That quote related to core-specific exercises in ADDITION to other exercise or training that worked the core, not general ST. Plus, your scenario is one of the one's I specifically said in the 6th post on page 1 when strength training should be performed. The specific programming would depend on the individual's situation. ETA: BTW, I don't know which programs you're looking at that are designed for use with steroids. That's a rather outlandish claim. I'd be curious what it's based on. Also, strength training does not automatically equal body building.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. How many 45 y.o. AGers were in those studies? typically those athletes are young, elite and already in peak condition. Its like the stretching studies on Olympic athletes. If the athlete is already close to reaching their potential of course weights, stretching, or chanting isn't going to make much difference. Also many of those studies use a weight regimen that is intended for bodybuilding. Not a regimen with their sport in mind. Also typical body building regimens are really designed for use with steroids and intended for building mass quickly not designed for enhancing a specific athletic endeavor. How about a study with athletes already exhibiting a muscle imbalance? Or middle aged runners? I bet the results would be dramatically different. Edited by TriMyBest 2011-08-25 5:55 AM |
| 2011-08-25 4:13 PM in reply to: #3658213 |
| Extreme Veteran 644 Anaheim | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? TriMyBest - 2011-08-25 3:45 AM Broompatrol - 2011-08-24 11:00 PM You're pulling my quote out of context, AND mixing apples with oranges. That quote related to core-specific exercises in ADDITION to other exercise or training that worked the core, not general ST. Plus, your scenario is one of the one's I specifically said in the 6th post on page 1 when strength training should be performed. The specific programming would depend on the individual's situation. ETA: BTW, I don't know which programs you're looking at that are designed for use with steroids. That's a rather outlandish claim. I'd be curious what it's based on. Also, strength training does not automatically equal body building.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. How many 45 y.o. AGers were in those studies? typically those athletes are young, elite and already in peak condition. Its like the stretching studies on Olympic athletes. If the athlete is already close to reaching their potential of course weights, stretching, or chanting isn't going to make much difference. Also many of those studies use a weight regimen that is intended for bodybuilding. Not a regimen with their sport in mind. Also typical body building regimens are really designed for use with steroids and intended for building mass quickly not designed for enhancing a specific athletic endeavor. How about a study with athletes already exhibiting a muscle imbalance? Or middle aged runners? I bet the results would be dramatically different. Don, sorry I missed part of what you wrote. My intend wasn't to misquote you or take you to task. I was thinking about a study I looked at where they were having competitive college swimmers do weight training program of military presses, curls and the like. Yeah the steroid claim is outlandish. |
| 2011-08-25 4:55 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? My name is Tony and I'm recovering from an addiction to posting in ST threads... It has been 2 days since my last post. Edited by tuwood 2011-08-25 4:56 PM |
| 2011-08-25 5:49 PM in reply to: #3656623 |
| Master 2356 Westlake Village , Ca. | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Leegoocrap - 2011-08-24 5:42 AM 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? Your crazy talk has no business here! Edited by Fastyellow 2011-08-25 5:50 PM |
| 2011-08-25 8:09 PM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Veteran 107 Tyngsboro | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Um, yes? Firstly it's good for your health and overall physique, though definitely less during the season (for real, it's nice outside, why waste time trapped indoors unless the weather's junk). Secondly, don't the pros lift? All the videos I've seen of pro triathletes and endurance athletes have them on some sort of lifting regime, so how would it not be beneficial? |
| 2011-08-25 8:41 PM in reply to: #3659993 |
| Master 2356 Westlake Village , Ca. | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? See #2 in the post above yours..... |
| 2011-08-25 8:42 PM in reply to: #3659993 |
| Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? smbrown - 2011-08-25 9:09 PMUm, yes? Firstly it's good for your health and overall physique, though definitely less during the season (for real, it's nice outside, why waste time trapped indoors unless the weather's junk). Secondly, don't the pros lift? All the videos I've seen of pro triathletes and endurance athletes have them on some sort of lifting regime, so how would it not be beneficial? Read the entire thread...and all 8,254 other threads debating this topic... |
| 2011-08-26 5:25 AM in reply to: #3655643 |
| 8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? bscholes - 2011-08-23 12:35 PM The word "weights" is very vague. Theoretically, a pushup is a weight-bearing exercise because it uses your body weight. What about kettlebell swings? These things build a ton of core strength. Furthermore, you do 100 kettlebell swings in five minutes and tell me it doesn't build your core, your cardiovascular ability and your anaerobic endurance. Doing 50-100 35lb kettlebell swings isn't going to turn you into Arnold Scharzenegger, but will strengthen your core a ton. That is what strikes me as odd about this forum's distate for strength building. Strength building exercises don't necessarily mean old school "Gold's Gym" presses and pulldowns and I just have a hard time understanding how building functional strength doesn't help your s/b/r.... BINGO! Functional Strength. Fixing and improving muscle imbalances are important. I can't understand the excuse of 'I get more out of swim/bike/run than I would doing strength training' - REALLY? So you'd rather swim, bike and run more, but less efficiently than you could, b/c you won't cut a s/b/r workout 10 minutes short to work on the imbalances. Kind of silly if you ask me! |
| 2011-08-26 5:27 AM in reply to: #3655670 |
| 8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? ejshowers - 2011-08-23 12:51 PM bscholes - 2011-08-23 1:35 PM The word "weights" is very vague. Theoretically, a pushup is a weight-bearing exercise because it uses your body weight. What about kettlebell swings? These things build a ton of core strength. Furthermore, you do 100 kettlebell swings in five minutes and tell me it doesn't build your core, your cardiovascular ability and your anaerobic endurance. Doing 50-100 35lb kettlebell swings isn't going to turn you into Arnold Scharzenegger, but will strengthen your core a ton. That is what strikes me as odd about this forum's distate for strength building. Strength building exercises don't necessarily mean old school "Gold's Gym" presses and pulldowns and I just have a hard time understanding how building functional strength doesn't help your s/b/r.... Here is my take... It isn't distaste in general for weight training, it is all about diminishing returns on one’s time and personal preferences. Most people on here have limited training time, so the focus should be first on those things with the highest payback, which is s/b/r training. If one has the time, adding in extra core work and weights is great! It will help, just not as much. For me, I s/b/r and occasionally add in some basic core work, old P/T stuff to keep my back from acting up, and some “weight” exercises like push-ups, pull-ups and 20 to 30 pound curls. I still haven’t found the extra time in my schedule to perfect the flip turn – imo its “return on my time investment” is not high enough for me to bother.
Again, sigh: So you'd rather swim, bike and run more, but less efficiently than you could, b/c you won't cut a s/b/r workout 10 minutes short to work on the imbalances. Kind of silly if you ask me! |
| 2011-08-26 5:31 AM in reply to: #3655712 |
| 8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? Scout7 - 2011-08-23 1:06 PM bsc77 - 2011-08-23 3:03 PM 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.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. I have to disagree 100%. Riddle me this: If you have someone who is dropping one of their hips when they run, and it's clearly a core issue, what running workout is going to fix that? More bad running? More hill running? More track workouts? |
| 2011-08-26 5:46 AM in reply to: #3660211 |
| Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? mikericci - 2011-08-26 7:25 AM BINGO! Functional Strength. Fixing and improving muscle imbalances are important. I can't understand the excuse of 'I get more out of swim/bike/run than I would doing strength training' - REALLY? So you'd rather swim, bike and run more, but less efficiently than you could, b/c you won't cut a s/b/r workout 10 minutes short to work on the imbalances. Kind of silly if you ask me! Mike, My concern with this, having had the chance to observe several assessments, is that many (most?) athletes have little idea what imbalances they have and further how to correct them. Further, these imbalances were not obvious and required expert analysis in order to determine what was actually wrong and prescribe appropriate exercises. Shane |
| 2011-08-26 5:48 AM in reply to: #3660214 |
| Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? mikericci - 2011-08-26 6:31 AM Mike, you're very well respected around here, but I need to disagree on a minor point. Your example of that sort of muscle imbalance is one of the reasons that has been noted several times as a good reason to do ST. There are exceptions to every general rule.Scout7 - 2011-08-23 1:06 PM bsc77 - 2011-08-23 3:03 PM 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.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. I have to disagree 100%. Riddle me this: If you have someone who is dropping one of their hips when they run, and it's clearly a core issue, what running workout is going to fix that? More bad running? More hill running? More track workouts? |
| 2011-08-26 7:03 AM in reply to: #3660216 |
| Champion 8936 | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? gsmacleod - 2011-08-26 5:46 AM mikericci - 2011-08-26 7:25 AM BINGO! Functional Strength. Mike, My concern with this, having had the chance to observe several assessments, is that many (most?) athletes have little idea what imbalances they have and further how to correct them. Further, these imbalances were not obvious and required expert analysis in order to determine what was actually wrong and prescribe appropriate exercises. ShaneFixing and improving muscle imbalances are important. I can't understand the excuse of 'I get more out of swim/bike/run than I would doing strength training' - REALLY? So you'd rather swim, bike and run more, but less efficiently than you could, b/c you won't cut a s/b/r workout 10 minutes short to work on the imbalances. Kind of silly if you ask me! And to add to that, you could be WORSENING imbalances by blindly doing some exercises in an effort to correct them. There's a reason physical therapists and the like go to school for that sort of assessment. I'm a huge fan of corrective exercise but only if there's some real assessment by a professional to go on. |
| 2011-08-26 9:55 AM in reply to: #3660281 |
| 8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? DerekL - 2011-08-26 6:03 AM gsmacleod - 2011-08-26 5:46 AM mikericci - 2011-08-26 7:25 AM BINGO! Functional Strength. Mike, My concern with this, having had the chance to observe several assessments, is that many (most?) athletes have little idea what imbalances they have and further how to correct them. Further, these imbalances were not obvious and required expert analysis in order to determine what was actually wrong and prescribe appropriate exercises. ShaneFixing and improving muscle imbalances are important. I can't understand the excuse of 'I get more out of swim/bike/run than I would doing strength training' - REALLY? So you'd rather swim, bike and run more, but less efficiently than you could, b/c you won't cut a s/b/r workout 10 minutes short to work on the imbalances. Kind of silly if you ask me! And to add to that, you could be WORSENING imbalances by blindly doing some exercises in an effort to correct them. There's a reason physical therapists and the like go to school for that sort of assessment. I'm a huge fan of corrective exercise but only if there's some real assessment by a professional to go on. Gray Cook's Functional Movement Screen: 7 step test with scoring system to help ID weaknesses on an individualized level. Then you can design individual traininig program to correct the issues. |
| 2011-08-26 9:55 AM in reply to: #3660218 |
| 8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? TriMyBest - 2011-08-26 4:48 AM mikericci - 2011-08-26 6:31 AM Mike, you're very well respected around here, but I need to disagree on a minor point. Your example of that sort of muscle imbalance is one of the reasons that has been noted several times as a good reason to do ST. There are exceptions to every general rule.Scout7 - 2011-08-23 1:06 PM bsc77 - 2011-08-23 3:03 PM 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.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. I have to disagree 100%. Riddle me this: If you have someone who is dropping one of their hips when they run, and it's clearly a core issue, what running workout is going to fix that? More bad running? More hill running? More track workouts? So where is the disagreement? Sounds like we agree. |
| 2011-08-26 9:57 AM in reply to: #3660216 |
| 8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? gsmacleod - 2011-08-26 4:46 AM mikericci - 2011-08-26 7:25 AM BINGO! Functional Strength. Mike, My concern with this, having had the chance to observe several assessments, is that many (most?) athletes have little idea what imbalances they have and further how to correct them. Further, these imbalances were not obvious and required expert analysis in order to determine what was actually wrong and prescribe appropriate exercises. ShaneFixing and improving muscle imbalances are important. I can't understand the excuse of 'I get more out of swim/bike/run than I would doing strength training' - REALLY? So you'd rather swim, bike and run more, but less efficiently than you could, b/c you won't cut a s/b/r workout 10 minutes short to work on the imbalances. Kind of silly if you ask me! Shane, As I noted above. Gray Cook has an assessment program you can go through to determine the imbalances and correct them. Same as you would for swimming, cycling or running flaws. |
| 2011-08-26 10:18 AM in reply to: #3660572 |
| Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? mikericci - 2011-08-26 11:57 AM Shane, As I noted above. Gray Cook has an assessment program you can go through to determine the imbalances and correct them. Same as you would for swimming, cycling or running flaws. I'll look into that, I hadn't seen it before. Thanks! However, the assessments that I had the chance to observe with all with a very experienced exercise physiologist and with several coaches. We were observing athletes and then he would ask what the issue was and what corrective measures would be required. In most cases, the corrective actions were incorrect based on an assessment by a professional. While I certainly agree that an athlete that has imbalances should correct them, my concern is in how an athlete will go about figuring them out as few will invest the time with someone who knows what they are doing. Shane |
| 2011-08-26 11:08 AM in reply to: #3655300 |
| Veteran 198 Chicago, IL | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? I attended a meet and greet last night with pro triathlete Sarah Haskins who is in town for the Chicago Triathlon (which she won last year). A question was asked about the importance of strength training in her overall training. She and her coach/training partner/husband gave a lengthy description. The summary is that it is very important for her in order to remain injury free. They work with a therapist trained in muscle activation therapy (MAT) to determine her muscle imbalances. They use actual weight training in the off season to correct these imbalances and then body weight exercises during in season training to keep from losing the gains made during the off season weight training. She uses MAT on a regular basis to identify potential issues and address on a weekly basis. Other interesting points made is that she trains at 85-90% intensity 5-6 days a week but very rarely over 90% intensity as it takes too long to recover. They pointed out that 85-90% intense, quality workouts were much more important than lower intensity, quantity oriented workouts for her Olympic distance training. |
| 2011-08-26 11:38 AM in reply to: #3660740 |
| 8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? 08M3Sedanski - 2011-08-26 10:08 AM I attended a meet and greet last night with pro triathlete Sarah Haskins who is in town for the Chicago Triathlon (which she won last year). A question was asked about the importance of strength training in her overall training. She and her coach/training partner/husband gave a lengthy description. The summary is that it is very important for her in order to remain injury free. They work with a therapist trained in muscle activation therapy (MAT) to determine her muscle imbalances. They use actual weight training in the off season to correct these imbalances and then body weight exercises during in season training to keep from losing the gains made during the off season weight training. She uses MAT on a regular basis to identify potential issues and address on a weekly basis. Other interesting points made is that she trains at 85-90% intensity 5-6 days a week but very rarely over 90% intensity as it takes too long to recover. They pointed out that 85-90% intense, quality workouts were much more important than lower intensity, quantity oriented workouts for her Olympic distance training. This is great info, thanks. There have been studies on how hard to train going back many years and they will all tell you that sub LT is just as good as LT. Why people want to crush themselves and take days to recover I'll never understand. |
| 2011-08-26 11:40 AM in reply to: #3660622 |
| 8763 Boulder, Colorado | Subject: RE: Weights or no weights? gsmacleod - 2011-08-26 9:18 AM mikericci - 2011-08-26 11:57 AM Shane, I'll look into that, I hadn't seen it before. Thanks! However, the assessments that I had the chance to observe with all with a very experienced exercise physiologist and with several coaches. We were observing athletes and then he would ask what the issue was and what corrective measures would be required. In most cases, the corrective actions were incorrect based on an assessment by a professional. While I certainly agree that an athlete that has imbalances should correct them, my concern is in how an athlete will go about figuring them out as few will invest the time with someone who knows what they are doing. ShaneAs I noted above. Gray Cook has an assessment program you can go through to determine the imbalances and correct them. Same as you would for swimming, cycling or running flaws. I absolutely agree 100%. You need to work with someone who is very knowledgable. I take it for granted sometimes, that I live Boulder and there are multiple well respected resources in town. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK