really?

you're either enjoying rabble rousing or you're being purposefully obtuse.

1 rep max is used as the measure of strength because of what it is ... the MAXIMUM amount of weight that can be lifted ... which is therefore THE measure of how strong the muscles are that are being measured.

To use the non-technical jargon that you (for some reason) seem to be insisting on, when someone says "how much can you bench" ... besides being a bit of a douche bag ... they are not asking how much you can lift 50 times. It is understood in any gym in the land (that includes a weight lifting area), that what is being inquired about is your "max."

To go back to the car analogy ... when someone says "how fast can your car go?" ... if you answered "it can go 50 mph for 400 miles" ... besides being a bit of a douche bag, you would not have answered the question.

doing a search for the definition of "metabolic fitness" found a very interesting page:

http://www.fitness.gov/digest_mar2000.htm

It turns out the definition of "strength" from this document is close to what Dr. Coggan says it is, that is a one rep testing but it is not a one rep squat.

However, there is no way anyone is confusing the definition of strength with the definition of "metabolic fitness" according to the definition of metabolic fitness in this document.

The problem that I see is this document does not contain a definition related to what we are talking about here, that is the ability to increase the force involved for a specific number of repetitions, be it 2 or 20,000. Muscular endurance has a definition that relates to repetitions but ignores force. Strength has a definition that addresses "force" but ignores repetitions. What is being discussed here is the combination of the two, for which no official term exists.

One of my customers calls it strend, the combination of strength and endurance. Perhaps this should become an official term.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

See my earlier post. while that may be the way "strength" is being used in the gym when someone asks "how much can you bench" it is not how anyone who is referring to strength training is using the term here. The people who are being obtuse are those who are insisting on these people using a technically correct jargon term before they will engage them in conversation. This is especially distasteful since no technically correct jargon term apparently exists to describe what they are talking about, the combination of muscle force with endurance.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I accept that now.

Unfortunately I cannot accept that the definitions of the presidents council have any real world relevance. Strength only relates to one rep. Endurance does not include any resistance requirement but only counts reps. Neither, as defined by the "scientists", has any practical usefulness. I am surprised that you come here to threads that are talking about training and pretend they do. Why haven't you lobbied for a term that actually means something that athletes could use.

Let's talk about strend, how much force one can exert for a certain number of repetitions. That is the real metric that counts for power production isn't it?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Sure they do - for example, strength as defined by exercise physiologists is obviously THE determinant of weight lifting/power lifting performance, and is also an important determinant of performance in other sports/events as well. OTOH, muscular endurance as defined by, e.g., ACSM, would be important in a sport such as wrestling (although obviously technique, etc., are also critical here). What they DON'T have a lot of relevance to is triathlon performance.




Just keeping people like you on the straight and narrow when you misuse the terms.



Because there is no need (see below).

(BTW, I'm the one who has been pushing "muscular metabolic fitness" as a surrogate/alternative to LT, paralleling the way that "aerobic fitness" is used as a surrogate/alternative to VO2max, so you're off-base in accusing me of not lobbying for new terms when they can actually be helpful.)



Not only is that the metric that counts, it IS power. IOW, your/your clients definition is entirely circular.

The "technically correct jargon term" that you seem to be searching for is "power".

No, power does not incorporate a time or endurance component and would not relate directly to this discussion as to whether "strength training" helps with power generation.

edit: what is the term you would use to describe the maximum force a user can exert for 2 or 10 or 10,000 repetitions? How would that ability relate to power generation? Any idea?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Au contraire: all you have to do is specify the duration over which said power is maintained. For example, if it is for only couple of seconds, then strength training might (or might not) be beneficial. OTOH, if is for many minutes, then clearly not.

but, that is the issue, this last conclusion of yours is not so clear to everyone. The problem is that "strength training" is not defined as training to increase your 1 rep max. It is only the definition of strength that is defined as a 1 rep max. Don't you think that a bit confusing?

Anyhow, you may have missed my edit to my previous post. What is the term you would use to describe the maximum muscular force a user can exert for 2 or 10 or 10,000 repetitions? How would that ability relate to power generation? Any idea?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I think you're 're-inventing' a basic power-duration curve Frank ... whilst killing kajillions of electrons in the process and more than a few brain cells :-)

Indeed, that is the issue...



Not to me: one is a property of muscle, another is a form of exercise.



2 RM, 10 RM, and 10,000 RM, respectively (since you didn't specify the duration).



Power over what duration?

this really sums up this thread, and JR's responses, to a 'T'. He's using 'strength' as a proxy for metabolic fitness. That's fine and all, until it then leads to faulty conclusions, such as 'stronger legs=stronger cyclist'.

---

I'm not using strength as a proxy for metabolic fitness. I understand that strength and power are different. I understand the definition of power (force x velocity).

Why does the notion "stronger legs = stronger cyclist" bother you so much? Why is it a "faulty conclusion?" I don't think you're giving some of us enough credit. Don't you think that just about everyone on this forum understands that "the world's strongest man" will not win the World TT champs? We all watch bike racing on tv. We see the different body types that excel in different disciplines of cycling. We see Lance climb as well as Pantani. We see Contador TT as well as Cancellara (sort of).

I just think it's funny to get so bent over the fact that people have come to accept certain terminology - just because the terminology does not meet your version of the absolute definition. There is nothing wrong with saying, "I want to become a stronger cyclist." There is nothing wrong with referring to "Big Gear Intervals" as strength training. There is nothing wrong with referring to running hill repeats, as strength training.

Coaching requires knowledge, wisdom, compassion, and intuition (among other things - such as patience). But to convey these things you must be able to communicate. In my career, both as an athlete and a coach, I've been fortunate enough to follow and watch some of the smartest coaches and athletes in sports. Fortunately, these people spoke to me in a way that I could understand. All of these smart people have referenced "strength" as part of the equation for success - and they have produced very successful athletes in many different sports. Taking into account the I really do know the actual definition of strength (and have for a long time) - I knew what they meant.

I bet we do the same bike workouts - just for different reasons;)

JR

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

Because - as has been stated again and again throughout this thread - it simply isn't true.

Except, of course, for the fact that it confuses people, and in particular leads them to believe that strength is a determinant of endurance cycling performance (which it is not).

My wife sleeps with a PhD exercise physiologist - does that mean she is more of an expert than you? ;-)

---

PhD trumps a Master's degree, for sure. But everyone knows that: Expert = the type of degree x frequency of "sleeping."

Therefore it's statistically possible that I am more of an expert than your wife. Draw up a graph for me - so that we can compare notes;)

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

Power is not a good substitute for the term I am referring to. The same power can be achieve in many different ways from high force low cadence to "low force" high cadence cycling. So, both the force and the repetitions can be substantially different plus, as you know, some of us believe that technique also plays a role in power production such that it is not a simple muscle force metric. So, simple power is not a very specific term to address basic muscle mechanisms I am referring to. Power, imho, is only a good end point for research purposes and, then, perhaps only for cyclists, how does it work for swimmers or runners?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

 

In Reply To:

There is nothing wrong with saying, "I want to become a stronger cyclist." There is nothing wrong with referring to "Big Gear Intervals" as strength training. There is nothing wrong with referring to running hill repeats, as strength training.

Except, of course, for the fact that it confuses people, and in particular leads them to believe that strength is a determinant of endurance cycling performance (which it is not).

---

Fortunately for us, there a lot of confused people out there.

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

Why must one specify duration? The definition of endurance only counts reps without regard to duration?

The problem is these specific definitions are all insufficient for such discussions but you insist upon holding everyone to your understanding of how they should be used (even though they don't have your understanding) without giving an alternative as a basis of discussion. You are criticizing these people for trying to discuss a concept for which there is no accepted definition. They should be applauded for trying instead of being chastised for being stupid. Put on your teaching hat and engage them in this discussion.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

More comedy gold there Frank.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

No, it only seems to confuse you. You are, seemingly, so anal that you cannot understand this use of the term strength, as found in the ordinary dictionary and not in your technical jargon dictionary and as trying to be discussed by them. You are technically correct, according to your definition. But, your input adds essentially zero to this conversation which is about something entirely different that happens to be using the ordinary dictionary definition of strength.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

It all depends on what you are talking about. Training on hills generally makes someone better at running hills. When they run better on hills, people will often call them a "strong" runner. If by "strong" they mean "they run up hills well," then, yes, I would agree that they are "strong."

However, when people hear that they often think that being "strong" is good for running and conclude that they should go to the weight room and get "stronger." When getting "stronger" in the weight room, they do so by trying to increase their one rep (or low rep) maximum strength. This is completely different than the ability to run hills at 5-7 minutes a mile.

FWIW, when a runner works on "strength," they are really working on increasing their lactate threshold, which again has nothing to do with the actual one rep (or low rep) maximum strength of a muscle. This is a completely different term altogether.

Aslso FWIW, sprinting steep hills for short durations does increase explosive power in a "maximal 1 rep (or low rep) strength kind of way." This is typically done for sprinters and middle distance runners. Again, unrelated to triathlon endurance events.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Thanks. They approached me about taking over for Conan when he leaves but I turned them down as I am engaged here.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

AC, regarding your assesment of Haile and cycling, I have a question for you that I hope you can answer. It's in a new thread:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...;;page=unread#unread

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

This is true.
IT has been stated over and over again.
Funnily enough, people keep using Tri specific/ applicable strength training in their programs with success.
Naysayers are quick to invalidate any claims, point to extracts that support the claims of No-benefit, finally scraping the bottom of the excuse-barrel and invoking the you got better simply because you kept doing all your swims, rides and runs during the period you were doing the "strength training". This argument really is NO argument, its just a cop-out.

Fact is, the Coaches who are getting published (books and magazines in the last 12-24 months), all advocate strength training.

Two critical points that the strength training advocates are aware exists in every piece of published research, that the anti-strength training group puts forth to bolster their argument is:
Every study.
1. when RT (resistance training) is added to one control group, that group is not provided with a program that is going to be of any real benefit in terms of rep scheme or exercise choice. (there are other factors, but these two are key, IMHO).
2. when RT is added to one control group, their is no modification to the training schedule that would allow for recovery from the RT sessions, so at BEST the control group is going to suffer from insufficient recovery and therefore beginning and overreaching and eventually an over-training incident.

The SIMPLEST beginnings to a study that had the actual intentions of discerning whether or not, (and then eventually HOW) RT improves performance in endurance sport, would be to apply a scientific model that would allow the benefits of RT to appear, vs. squelching any possible benefit with a model that gives it NO chance. The model that exists in all the (exhaustively) aforementioned studies follows the model that everyone here worthy of calling themselves coaches, scientists, etc KNOWS wont allow for the benefit (possible or not), to appear.

So, when I read (ad nauseum), all the experts here on ST, citing how it wont work: I say to myself: Hey, these guys arent stupid (I'm going with that theory still.......,but I am losing faith fast), so they must be purposely trying to deceive the readers who are buying into their nonsense. So my only question on this subject as it relates to ST is: Why are you guys trying SO hard to deceive the readers here? And, if I am wrong, and you are not trying to deceive, your just not really as smart as we all thought you were; well........damn......then I apologize. I hate picking on the less fortunate.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

Which is exactly what I'm talking about. The problem is, people do get confused, which is why they go to the gym to work on their "muscular endurance."




But no one knows what the hell he is talking about. That's the problem.




Are you trying to argue that in human endurance racing that max rep strength is relavent? If so, then you are wrong no matter how much you twist my analogy around to suit your argument.




Because Lance needs the ability to sprint. If triathlons start allowing drafting causing breakaway speed to be a critical factor in triathlon performance, then leg strength will actually become quite important.................so that they can SPRINT.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485