Secondly, the argument that strength training is bad for triathletes is just not sound. Cite or quote a study that says this? I can understand why somebody would disagree with CFE being appropriate, but it seems that many are against strength training as a whole...just not smart.

I'm sure you're only looking for things to back up your argument, but if you spent half that time using the search function, there are several recent threads here discussing strength training, with several, if not dozens, of studies quoted.

I would look them up for you but I am at work. I'm sure you know how to use the search box. The majority have a control group, with another group that does their training + strength training. The strength training group never shows much improvement, if at all. You say "triathletes are stubborn," well, I encourage you to actually read these studies and not be stubborn yourself.

There was even a study, I believe quoted earlier in this thread, that showed the group that used strength training couldn't even put out more power for 1 kilometer at the end of a 20 minute effort! This is the type of thing most CFE'rs would expect to be improved. The study showed it actually was worse after a period of strength training. Looks like strength can't even be applied to the sprint distance.

-Physiojoe

There was one study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826297) which dealt strictly with time trialists and it was only over a six week period. A) triathletes have great physical demands for all around fitness than time trialists. B) a 6 week program is not enough to gauge the validity of strength training. What the study showed was the periodization was not an effecti strength training method for that study length, which is different then saying all strength training is not applicable.

You miss something in your criticism: the length of the training has nothing to do with it. The RT group got stronger (" but the RT group showed a significantly greater increase in 1RM squat strength compared with CON (p < 0.05)"), yet didn't get faster. What other change would you expect strength training to do, besides make one stronger? Again: stronger did not lead to faster.

As for "the oneous is on you as your opinion is the outlier" (first, it is "onus"): as endurance swimming, biking and running are not strength limited, the onus is on you and others who claim that increasing strength will increase endurance, to show why strength training is [more] effective than S/B/R training. So, it is incumbent upon you to show that strength training is more effective. You have not done so. You need to find some peer-reviewed research that shows the benefits of strength training towards endurance performance.

This discussion is like chinese finger cuffs, the more you fight the less room you have. I said Triathletes are stubburn and cling to traditional views and are afraid to look at new information or methods, you then trot out a 20 year old study of questionable value based on a number of factors authored and conducted by a researcher who is professionally tainted by other studies and known to have doctored (or at the least erred ) data in his work. If that is your benchmark, then this discusion proves my point exactly. Eyes closed, ears plugged, marching forward.

Secondly, the argument that strength training is bad for triathletes is just not sound. Cite or quote a study that says this? I can understand why somebody would disagree with CFE being appropriate, but it seems that many are against strength training as a whole...just not smart.

This we agree on. One of my main points is that one should work out towards ones goals. For most folks, triathlons are part of general fitness, that is where I think CFE or other types of trainings can work. I am no zealot, as I have stated, just somebody willing to give it a try. Just like trying Yoga, Kettlebells and other types of fitness, this might have a place too. With 95% of us being age group races, I am not concerned with what the top 5% do. I train towards what helps me, not what helps them.

that 95% would absolutely 100% be better off spending their time running and biking more then.

Some of you boys need to try and find a site called Fasttwitch.com, where you might find more like-minded strength training types. Here we are more concerned with endurance and recruiting as many slow twitch muscles as possible - those that can work all day, doing the same thing 10,000, 20,000 times in a row without tiring, not 20 reps.

Have a look at the muscles on Bekele or Gebreselaise ... A runner doesn't want strong muscles slowing him down. Have a look at the muscles on anyone in the pro peleton... A big guy is 70kg. Have a look at the scrawny kids that come through the swimming ranks every year, blitzing everybody. Too much strength will just add unnecessary baggage to cart around

I quoted Brett Sutton earlier... One of the most successful tri coaches in the world currently and a former national swim coach. He hates the gym. Laughs at coaches that apply the minimal rep workout as it has nothing to do with what you do on race day.
Forget the studies, this is 20 years of experience talking.
Listen to IMTalk podcast from about 1 month ago if u are interested

but for us normal guys, us big fellas, I need some strength to lug my ass around a course. That is where strength training comes in handy. It seems to be a false platform when us 95%ers want to make decisions and train like we are the 5%ers. It like softball players training like Big Leagers, or rec league Basketball players training like an NBA forward. Just not reasonable.

Rugby

stop wasting your bandwidth these guys are right If you want to be fast at tris it is best to be an anorexic narcissist no weights no nothing but s/b/r


However, if you want to be a better athlete who does tris , who can lift his kid over his head, who can have a push up contest with his teenage son, who can scare the shit out of his teenage daughters boyfriend by clean and jerking 170lbs or flipping a truck tire over a few times (the best is actually getting a keg overhead and throwing it a few times, it actually decreases the little bastards testosterone) then CF is for you

and who gives a shit what some internet board denziens think Is CFE/CF fun? then have at it

I find cleaning my rifle while sitting in a chair below my Marine Corps Officer's sword and medals works far better than that to scare the crap out of the little buggers, without having to strain myself. Work smarter, not harder! ;-)[/font]

What the hell is so hard for you to understand?

If the goal is to become the fastest you possibly can at triathlon...then run/bike/swim/repeat and DROP the lifting nonsense.

If the goal is to be generally fit and enjoy a bit of competition and social aspect of triathlon but not worry about maximum capability, then lift to your heart's content. That's fine and laudable if for nothing else than you are not joining the legion of couch potato fat-ass middle-aged slugs out there. Just don't come here blathering on and on about strength and lifting making you better at triathlon. Most of the other 95%ers on here aren't on board with you. They are trying to become faster triathletes. It has nothing to do with what % of the field you are actually finishing in or whether we're pros or not.

I said Triathletes are stubburn and cling to traditional views and are afraid to look at new information or methods, you then trot out a 20 year old study of questionable value based on a number of factors authored and conducted by a researcher who is professionally tainted by other studies and known to have doctored (or at the least erred ) data in his work.

Likely the difference between strength training and lifting is not apparent. Pull ups and push ups are strength training and are very useful, nobody said lifting. As a Marine, you should know the difference.

It is this all or nothing mentality, it is just foolish. You either SBR, or you don't...just not well though out. I have read other tri blogs and forums that give just the opposite advice.

You're just wrong, wrong, wrong. Triathletes have typically leapt at new ideas willy nilly, adopting everything and anything in the hope that it might make them faster. Some ideas have, some haven't - aerobars, beam bikes, non-traditional frame geometry, non-KOPS saddle position, Newton shoes, heart rate monitors, power meters, compression socks, 650C wheelsets, non-double diamond frames, and the list of innovations embraced by triathletes goes on and on.

CFE is just the latest flavor of the month when it comes to "new ideas". Speaking of being resistant to new ideas, the idea that a rounder pedal stroke is somehow superior is one that has long existed in cycling lore. Most cyclists I know, and I've been doing this a long time, still cling to the belief that a round stroke is superior. Actual research has not shown that rounder is better, but you *think* it is and anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.

Of course you didn't criticize the study in question.

Folks have posted links to studies that show no advantage to strength training. That is not a traditional view, at least when it comes to cycling. During my collegiate days, we lifted in the off season and into the early season. It's modern research that has shown the lack of benefit to cycling from strength training.



Did someone make the argument that strength training is "bad" or are you just building a strawman to argue against. Most here are not against strength training; they don't believe that strength training makes you faster and in that belief they are backed by the preponderance of published research.

I think that Crossfit is a great tool for general fitness. Triathlon/cycling isn't the be-all and end-all of fitness, but if you want to get faster at tri/cycling, the preponderance of published research doesn't show strength training to be a particular benefit. If one understands the different adaptation that come from strength and endurance training, the reasons why are pretty obvious.

I don't have anything against Crossfit per se', nor do most of the folks here. It's just when the zealots roll in and bleat and bloviate about how CFE is more effective than properly periodized and structured endurance training at making someone faster.