Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Strength Training, Science vs N=1
Quote | Reply
I'll admit to being on the side of science in this one.

Here are some of my thoughts in regards to arguments presented by the 'lifting is good' crowd.'

# Nobody ever said not to correct muscle imbalances
# Core work does not necessarily equal lifting
# Running efficiency gains can be accomplished without lifting

So why do you strength advocates get so bent when someone says that strength training won't make you faster?

You accuse the 'prove it works' crowd of all sorts of assumptions, while obviously making many of your own. At least AC, DD, Prevost, etc are making positive assumptions, while you in turn want to paint them as the vilest creatures since pinko commies.

If anything, I think that we should at least define what we mean by 'strength' so we know what it is we are arguing about. (I'm defining it to mean going to the gym and lifting, or things like big ring hill repeats or running with ankle weights, and NOT by crunches on the excercise ball or plyos in your back yard)

I'm guessing here, and they can qualify or clarify, but I doubt AC, DD, or anyone of those guys would have a problem with you correcting a correctly diagnosed muscle imbalance, but would recommend doing so based on the recommendations of a competent PT.

It is impossible to prove a negative (go read a philosophy book if necessary) so your 'injury prevention' argument is a fallacy.
And strength work necessitates a drop in sport specific stress, so improved performance after a lifting routine is going to make the scientific types question your experimental design, and bring up things like first and second order flaws.

In other words, your arguments are not working, whether you want to hear that or not. So find new arguments.

Or at least be willing to have an adult conversation, and agree to disagree.

From my perspective, the 'science' types don't care if you lift, they just don't think it will make you faster.
OTOH, the 'strength' types have resorted to ad hominem attacks and shrillness.

Finally, Jeanni Longo would kick my ass in a time trial. And it ain't because she can leg press more than me!
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [RebeccaCreekKid] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I'll admit to being on the side of science in this one.
Really!!! I am not so sure I would say that the "science" on this subject is particularly definitive.

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oh hell, my thread is only 10 minutes old and it's already been killed!
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [RebeccaCreekKid] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Percentage of positive responders to weight training threads who weigh more than 170lbs, dont break bones on a semi annual basis, have all around ability in athletics, haven't been beaten down or intimated by a girl in the last decade, cannot be mistaken for a female while riding= you already know the answer, dont you!

Percentage of negative responders who do not fit into the above category= NIL.



persequetur vestra metas furiose
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [RebeccaCreekKid] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
First I'm no pinko communist, as you stated, nor am I some vile monster, depending upon who you ask anyway.

Second I think that, and it on the surface seems logical, the strength training = better racing crowd thinks that if I'm stronger I'll be faster. How many times have you heard bigger, stronger, faster?

Third, plyo's can increase running economy so those are something people should investigate

I think big ring climbing & running hill repeats have been characterized as strength workouts by some author that came up with erroneous terms like muscular endurance or completely got wrong terms such as critical power in his "bibles". This made way for a complete generation of endurance athletes to think wrong about the what behind the why of what they were doing contributing to the hey if I lift i'll get faster crowd. I mean if I need muscles to get more endurance then the gym has to be the place right? right? WRONG.
Riding hills in the big ring or running up hills are ways to increase your efficiency and economy, increase your ability to do more work in a shorter period of time. They don't require massive amounts of strength, they do require your body to become very efficient at converting CHO and fat into energy. Nothing strong about that. That's a chemical reaction not a function of strength.

I have something to confess. A deep, dark secret. Something I've been harboring inside of me, that has been gnawing at the core of my tiny, tiny soul. Chewing on the deliciousness that the very foundations of my being are built upon. I have athletes lifting weights. There, I said it. I almost feel better in a dirty sort of way. I have athletes lift weights. Only a few though and for specific reasons none of which have to do with performance. I have them lifting because osteoporosis is a real thing. I don't want my athletes to get a dexa and have them come back with a T score of -2.0 or worse, I don't want my -1.5 T score people getting worse. Maybe I am a pinko commie for this, for trying to keep health care costs down and improve their quality of life, maybe I'm not. But my tiny, tiny soul feels just a little better right now after spilling those beans. Mmm beans, black beans, on a warm tortilla with rice, avocado, tomatoes, some cheese and a touch of guacamole, but I digress.

Finally I've seen Jeannie Longo race. She is very fast, one of my goals in life is to be as fast as she is now climbing.

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [RebeccaCreekKid] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You need to add "beat down by a girl" and "weigh less than 170" to the pinko commie and vile creature thing... ; )
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Finally I've seen Jeannie Longo race. She is very fast, one of my goals in life is to be as fast as she is now climbing.


Ha! Was this a confession, too? Having you been harboring this desire deep inside?
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [c.dan.jog] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"It is impossible to prove a negative (go read a philosophy book if necessary) so your 'injury prevention' argument is a fallacy."

This is true for N=1 studies. If you got a large group, split it in half randomly and had one half lift, and the other not and track injury rates you could absolutely prove or disprove injury prevention.

Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [c.dan.jog] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 Was this a confession, too? Having you been harboring this desire deep inside?
In Reply To:

Confession? No way, a hope and desire. If i could climb like her I could actually win some bike races around here. Everything in AZ it seems, finishes up some f*cking, damn hill. Unless it's a short hill, I'm not a winner.

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'll cop to wanting to be as fast as Chrissie Wellington. I'll scream it from my rooftop when I get home tonight...scratch that. I would have to shovel it off.
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have them lifting because osteoporosis is a real thing. I don't want my athletes to get a dexa and have them come back with a T score of -2.0 or worse, I don't want my -1.5 T score people getting worse.

Do these people not run, or is there some other issue? Older women?

Seriously curious.

-Jot



Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [gamebofh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would second this question, as my understanding was that running was not only sufficient at building/maintaining bone density, but actually superior to lifting?
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [RebeccaCreekKid] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I coach more then just triathletes and runners you know. Cyclists also, some who refuse to run or swim (smart people). IMO, some upper body lifting to maintain bone density is better then having them reinforced by plates and screws.

See if I ever tell my deep, deep, dark secrets again on ST ;-)

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Last edited by: desert dude: Jan 14, 10 11:16
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
First I'm no pinko communist, as you stated, nor am I some vile monster, depending upon who you ask anyway.
You're neither a pinko commy nor vile monster - but you ARE a hypocrite. Big-gear workouts AND weights? Pick a side, man;)

JR

PS- I'm pounding up Lemmon in the 53x12-14 tomorrow. You in?

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Jimtraci] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How about big gear working wearing a weight vest with 4 cement bottles filling up the 4 possible water bottle locations that we triathletes feel we need to fill with liquid on race day given that there is only an aid station every 6 miles or so.....
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [RebeccaCreekKid] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think I'll agree with most of what you say. However, most of the anti-lifting crowd isn't content just to say "it won't make you faster"...they say that it's stupid to lift---as if the athlete may not have some other priorities in addition to faster triathlons.

And the core work and treatment of muscle imbalances that you DO support doing...can be done just fine by lifting weights (or being in the gym near weights). So as long as the lift-haters don't say that I'm wrong to lift, I won't say that lifting makes me faster.
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [jyeager] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I think I'll agree with most of what you say. However, most of the anti-lifting crowd isn't content just to say "it won't make you faster"...they say that it's stupid to lift---as if the athlete may not have some other priorities in addition to faster triathlons.


I have not seen that on this forum. I'm hard pressed to recall anyone saying that: even the most strident anti-lifting-for-triathlon-performance proponent agrees that there are justifications for lifting weights. Can you point out some examples? It should be easy since "most" of them do what you say.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Just Old Again] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
I think I'll agree with most of what you say. However, most of the anti-lifting crowd isn't content just to say "it won't make you faster"...they say that it's stupid to lift---as if the athlete may not have some other priorities in addition to faster triathlons.


I have not seen that on this forum. I'm hard pressed to recall anyone saying that: even the most strident anti-lifting-for-triathlon-performance proponent agrees that there are justifications for lifting weights. Can you point out some examples? It should be easy since "most" of them do what you say.


Not inclined to search, and you may have caught me speaking from an unwarranted implication....but then again...I sure feel as though thread after thead has strongly IMPLIED that triathletes are dumb to lift weights. In fact, I will bet it would be easy to find someone saying that if you put that extra time in to more run/bike/swim rather than weight training that you'd be faster. It follows therefore that lifting makes you slower as a triathlete. And anyone expressing that opinion without qualifications would pretty much prove my statement.

Do you lift, or do any form of non R/B/S training?
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Jimtraci] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You'll notice that I didn't advocate lifting for improving triathlon performance nor did I endorse big gear workouts. I merely stated what big gear workouts are for, and that some females I coach need some better T scores.


That probably makes me a vile, anti-democracy monster.

I'd love to be in for Lemmon tomorrow, but I'm at home now for the second day nursing a cold. I think tomorrows workouts will consist of dog walking

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [jyeager] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
On the contrary, every one of the anti-lifting crowd would say a triathlete is dumb for lifting weights if the goal of said lifting is to improve performance. It's the italicized qualification that matters.

As what little training I do is to improve triathlon performance, I don't do any training but S/B/R for triathlon. I do other stuff (tennis, alpine skiing, etc.) because I like to do other stuff. If my goal was to improve my tennis instead of triathlon, I'd likely lift weights.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [Just Old Again] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
If my goal was to improve my tennis instead of triathlon, I'd likely lift weights.


Why?
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
"You'll notice that I didn't advocate lifting for improving triathlon performance nor did I endorse big gear workouts. I merely stated what big gear workouts are for, and that some females I coach need some better T scores."
It's okay - I know what you really mean.

JR

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [jstonebarger] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
If my goal was to improve my tennis instead of triathlon, I'd likely lift weights.


Why?


Because tennis requires maximal exertion and explosive acceleration: hitting the ball and getting to the ball. Weight lifting can improve those things. If I had to choose between court time and gym time, though, I'd go with the former.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
"How about big gear working wearing a weight vest with 4 cement bottles filling up the 4 possible water bottle locations that we triathletes feel we need to fill with liquid on race day given that there is only an aid station every 6 miles or so....."
You may be on to something ... a few things, actually:)

JR

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com
Quote Reply
Re: Strength Training, Science vs N=1 [RebeccaCreekKid] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Finally, Jeanni Longo would kick my ass in a time trial. And it ain't because she can leg press more than me!
"Rock it old school and embrace the suck."

Are you sure about that;)

In a cycling sense - she's stronger than you, right? She can push harder on the pedals.

If you consider big-gear work, strength training (which you do, right?) - perhaps you should include some in your training routine and see if it helps. Longo does (and MANY other top cyclists).

And before you get all bent out of shape - I agree to disagree:)

JR

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com
Quote Reply

Prev Next