Yes, I've done lots of different kinds of strength training, from the very classic olympic-lift based programs to stuff that's more crossfit-esque that isn't really "pure" strength training. I've tried a lot of different programs. What I noticed was that my *strength* and my endurance were essentially unrelated. Getting stronger didn't make me any more powerful in the context that mattered to me, which was/is racing triathlons. Or, previously, rowing races.

What I have found is that I have made the most profound gains when I have focused on executing focused, sport-specific training. Run hills, time trial efforts on the bike, hard efforts in the pool without relying on paddles or a pull buoy, LOTS of time on the erg and in the rowing tanks.

I do now use *resistance* training to address specifically identified imbalances, most of which are from my accident with a car, but for sure I have some other imbalances which I've attempted to address, most notably through simple isometric exercises that target a single specific muscle. As an example, my peroneus longus on my right side tends to get very tight when I run a lot, which causes me some discomfort. This happens largely because I tend to run very pigeon toed, and even moreso on the right side. So I've done some resistance work on trying to balance out the muscles that support my right foot with light elastic bands so that I can run with a bit better foot strike, and I think that has helped improved my run training overall. But I'm talking about absurdly low resistance and extremely targeted exercises and an imbalance that was identified by a logical and methodical thought process. These exercises are simply designed to isolate and then activate those specific muscles in the hopes that they can then be properly trained by actually going out and running.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

JR,

You really can't give this up. I have a suggestion to reinforce our side of the story better. Post up a picture of your skinny dorky body with zero muscle definition( I can say that because I am built the same way) and tell them that despite that skinny, dorky no muscle body - you are an Ironman Champion!

That's all that really needs to be said. :-)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Thanks for the answer.

Of course I know his background, and I respect his opinion. I also am entitled to mine. I think the argument is interesting, and the civilized portion of the debate sparks good ideas all around. It at least causes me to examine my own beliefs. Isnt that the point?

Can I get put in whatever group Magali Tyssere is in. I don't really care what her training protocol is, I just want to be in the same group :-) :-) :-)

Ken....8-9 years later a few seconds difference in finish time...but did you have:

1. different bike
2. different helmet
3. different rubber
4. different wheels
5. different aero position
6. different temperature
7. different atmospheric pressure
8. different wind pattern
9. different vehicular traffic on course
10. different pavement quality

Unless we see the wattage numbers, your cited example is fairly baseless....just saying there are too many variables that go into the 40k TT time that you can't really say whether weights on no weights had ANY impact on your finish time. For all we know you were putting out 20 less watts and going the same time, or maybe putting out 20 more watts and going the same time.

Dev

100s may very well improve your mile time, but not because of gains in aerobic efficiency. [EDIT: Maybe I shouldn't say that. . .your set of 100s could actually be some beast of a fartlek run for all I know. . .] Generally 100s are attributed to preserving "leg speed." However, that term is about as vague as "weight training." Provided you're not overstriding, they can reinforce good running form, much the way that fishies credit their frequent speedwork with developing good technique. However there are a variety of purposes and approaches to them. . .one of Lydiard's plans had a set of 100s with the recovery run the day after the longest run of the week, for example, (each week) during the base building. *shrug*

Then any scientific experiment/study with regards to human performance can be dismissed. He's presenting it as anecdotal evidence, as were my examples.

I do find it interesting the myriad ways that people choose to bury their head in the sand.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

This thread is staying in the grave about as well as Freddy or Jason.

---

Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines. -Enzo Ferrari

Can I get put in whatever group Magali Tyssere is in. I don't really care what her training protocol is, I just want to be in the same group :-) :-) :-)

Sign me up.

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

Well, except he's NOT asking for clarity. He's arrogantly lecturing others about what the words mean and belittling them if they don't use his definitions.

Jordan is a terrific triathlete and a great source of information and experience on the subject of endurance sport, no doubt about it. He's a smart guy and I'm always interested in reading what he has to say.

If he has a different definition of a word then that's fine, let's agree on what definition we're going to use and move on. Not insist that your own definition is the only possible definition and everybody else is ignorant. In most cases I'm probably o.k. with using his definition. I'm not o.k. with being told I'm stupid if I don't use words exactly the way he does.

And frankly, on that specific point, he's wrong. Words mean what they mean in the context of the conversation and by agreement of the participants. Tell a Brit that their house is "homely" and they'll be flattered. Say it to a New Yorker and you might have to duck. And a latte is never just a latte at Starbucks. You have to tell them what size, if you want it "skinny" or "soy", if you want it iced or hot, there are a dozen flavored latte's...i.e. there has to be some agreement about what "latte" means to you.

If there's some "ST Glossary" that I missed when I logged in I'll be happy to refer to it. Otherwise we should all accept that we all come from different backgrounds and "strength training" might mean "weight lifting" to some people and "plyometrics" to others.

I'm interested to know if there is value for a triathlete to do "strength training" in addition to his SBR workouts. I see good AG triathletes who do pilates (for one example) and they seem to believe that it helps them. I see elite athletes like Chrissie doing plyometrics. I see a variety of coaches recommend it. In my opinion many AGers could benefit by supplementing their SBR workouts with an intelligent "strength training" plan. I could be wrong. If so I'd like to have a reasoned discussion about why I'm wrong. Not be lectured about pilates being called "Contrology". (speaking of words with specious definitions)

If the only argument against supplemental training is "There's no data to support that it helps" well...then it just boils down to opinion. Jordan's opinion is obviously worthy of respect given his position in the sport and his accomplishment. But there are a lot of other top athletes and coaches who seem to have a different opinion.

And that opinion seems a little problematic when you dismiss most of the people on the podium by saying they only strength train because they are now finding themselves limited by something other than aerobic capacity. Presumably Chrissie only does plyometrics because the strength of her legs/glutes/hips is now her limiting factor? How could we know that? Or is she wrong to do them?

But o.k., if we accept that for the purposes of discussion how does a triathlete determine that their limiting factor is perhaps not aerobic conditioning and is, instead, something where plyometrics, yoga or some other form of "strength training" would benefit them? How does the equation change for masters athletes?

Running speed is basically stride rate times stride length. And the ability of your body to apply force against the ground is one of the factors. There may be an interesting discussion here about power to weight ratio and whether or not an average AG athlete can use "strength training" techniques to supplement their SBR training and improve their own power to weight ratio.

Does that discussion change if the athlete is a Clydesdale/Athena? What role does body composition play? (i.e. down to a certain point it seems more beneficial for a heavy athlete to focus on shedding fat rather than building strength if they're looking to improve their power to weight ratio)

Ryan Hall is featured in an article showing him doing squats (with a barbell) and push-ups. The clear implication is that this is part of Ryan's training and we might want to do it too. Is he wrong? Maybe. Maybe he's right for people for whom leg strength is their limiting factor; at what point do you make that determination? That could be an interesting discussion.

But not if it's just going to devolve into a pedantic lecture about how ignorant we are of what the words "power" or "weight" or "leg" mean. Let's agree on the definitions and move on, without the attitude. Or else just drop it.

Damn, there went the time I saved.

---

Ben Schorr
http://www.twitter.com/hitriguy
Then: Hawaii 70.3 (2009, 2010), Longhorn 70.3 (10/17/2010), IM Texas (5/21/11)
Now: IM Arizona (11/20/2011)

I'm actually pretty sure that Ken's additional riding in his 40's was the reason for an awesome sub 60 time vs doing weights in his 30's. Just saying that his example has too many holes given that his example is a bike TT time, which we all know is pretty hard to compare from outing to outing on the same course. We all know that even for the same wattage, the final time posted can wildly vary for all the 10 points I mentioned in the previous post. For all we know, Ken actually posted 10% more watts at the higher age and only got the same time due to a "bad weather day"

If he had provided a 10K run time on the same course over 8-9 years at least the variations are not "quite as drastic" and if anything posting an equal run time in 45-49 compared to 35 would be even more proof that running more helps running over lifting, cause it is pretty well proven that the declines in running over age on the average are substantially more significant than in cycling.

There's a long line up to get into this group (The Magali group, not the "I do weights" group....)

What kind of intensity did Lydiard have those 100s at? Were those sprints or striders?

---

Ben Schorr
http://www.twitter.com/hitriguy
Then: Hawaii 70.3 (2009, 2010), Longhorn 70.3 (10/17/2010), IM Texas (5/21/11)
Now: IM Arizona (11/20/2011)

I don't understand why you kept saying "my" definition. It's not mine. It's the actual definition in the context of exercise physiology, which is what we're talking about here.

Here's an alternative example. I'm an engineer. If you asked me "how strong is that steel bar," I would then ask you if wanted to know the compressive strength, shear strength, or tensile strength of the bar. If you said you wanted to know the tensile strength, I would give you the exact amount of force that is required to cause necking in that bar, which would I would derive mathematically by knowing the dimensions of the bar and the value of the maxima on the stress-strain curve for that particular alloy of steel. That's what tensile strength means. Exactly.

So next time we talk about strength, would you consider it reasonable if I started talking about the futility of trying to increase the tensile strength of your limbs? Tensile strength is another definition of the word strength, but it's not relevant in the context of physiology.

Just like if we talked about training that would give you more courage during a race - another meaning of the word strength - that would be equally absurd.

In the context of physiology, strength has only one definition. I didn't make it up. And I certainly can't change it in order to come up with something that makes everyone happy.

Words do mean what they mean in the context of the conversation - which in this case is a conversation about physiology. Agreement of the participants has no bearing if the participants are not in a position to actually dictate the definition. It doesn't matter whether you and I agree or don't agree that the definition of the word strength is what it is. What matters is that it is the agreed upon definition according to exercise physiologists.

It's not like here on Slowtwitch we get to have a vote to decide what power, leg, and strength mean. They all already mean something. If you don't want to abide by those definitions, that's going to make things very difficult when it comes to having a discussion.

It's the very fact that you and others been so resistant to actually accepting those definitions that has caused this thread to go on as long as it has.

These are the definitions. There aren't others. And they aren't "mine." They are just THE definitions.

STRENGTH: the ability of a person to exert force on physical objects using muscles

STRENGTH TRAINING: the use of resistance to muscular contraction to build the strength, anaerobic endurance, and size of skeletal muscles.

Both definitions come from Wikipedia, but they would be totally acceptable to any exercise physiologist.

A tall latte or a grande latte doesn't actually change what a latte is. It just gives size. Just like a raspberry latte, if such a thing existed, which I'm sure it does, also doesn't change what a latte is, it just further defines it, much the same way that, in engineering, you need to specify tensile strength, compressive strength, or shear strength. But a latte is simply a drink made from espresso and steamed milk. All those other words just further specify exactly what details further describe your latte.

It's perfectly acceptable for strength training to mean weight lifting OR plyometrics. Both are fine examples of strength training. But, especially in the case of weight training, not all weigh training is strength training. Just like VO2max intervals and LT intervals are both examples of aerobic training, but not all aerobic training is VO2max.

Strength training is designed to increase the force that your muscles can produce. Since force is not time dependent, the accepted definition considers peak force. So how strong you are means how much peak force can you generate. And it means for one repetition. Because otherwise you need to introduce time and distance, and that is an entirely different word - power, which is force*distance/time - or distance, which is another word - work, which is force*distance - or just time, which is another word - impulse, which is force*time.

All these words mean something. And I didn't decide what.

But if you want to talk about whether or not strength training actually has a benefit for triathletes, you actually need to know what you are talking about. Otherwise, I fail to see how you can actually have the discussion.

If one persons thinks that doing low-rep (2-4) heavy-weight deadlifts is strength training (it is) and another person thinks that doing 20min wall-sits is strength training (it isn't), then that's gonna make it really hard to evaluate whether or not strength training is beneficial. But if somehow you see a way around all that, please enlighten me.

But please, please stop saying that I want people to use "my" definition of these words. I just want people to use THE definition.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Off the cuff here, I'd say in our terms they're definitely striders. Keep in mind they are a part of the recovery. Lydiard was a fanatic with regards to stressing the aerobic metabolism. The 100s were not designed to be challenging sprints. . .if they were, they would inhibit recovery of the muscles, which would damage the athlete's ability to train the aerobic system the next day. . .and that would be sacrilege for the development of peak mileage, as well as the peak mileage base building (where peak mileage, i.e. ~100mpw, becomes progressively faster) - both of which the sole purpose was to reach maximal aerobic efficiency before tapping into anaerobic training. There is a pamphlet of one of Lydiard's lectures in 1999 (among other sources) where he discusses "leg speed" and these short-distance interval sets. I don't have the time to dig it up now, but I will go back and look over some of the materials again and see if I can give you a more specific answer, especially with regards to purpose as well as intensity. It is my suspicion (until I refresh myself on his work) that he did espouse some value in the 100s for running economy, since he consistently warned against developing a shuffling action during all the slower running that took place as the athlete took on increases of mileage. The placement of the 100s on the day following the longest, relatively slow, run (marked at 1/4th effort, although we know that Snell was still flying!) is consistent with this, at length. I will check in and verify these things. Hope that helped for now. :)

Strength-Trainers: Deena K., Meb K., Michael Phelps, Ryan Hall, Haile G., Chris Lieto, Craig A., Mirinda C., Magali T., Dave Scott, Mark Allen, Joe Friel

Non-Strength-Trainers: Rappstar, Some Guy Named Ken Lehner

Hmmmm....to whom should I defer?
**************

Would you mind putting including the workouts of these athletes?

Take, for example, Mark Allen. If I remember correctly, he was getting in 30-35 hours a week of SBR. How much strength training was he doing?

If you are deferring to Mark Allen, then are you saying that you are training 35 hours a week?


I ask primarily because I've noticed that people apply the same logic to track work when it comes to running. Everyone wants to hit the gym 3 hours a week while SBR 1/4 of what the elites do. At the same time they want to do just as much speedwork as the elites do while cutting out 85% of the milage.

If you want to defer to those guys, take the amount of time you spend in the gym and multiply that by the amount of more training time the spend SBR. ie A guy who hits the gym for 3 hours a week and SBR 10 hours a week would be doing 12 hours a week of gym time if he was Mark Allen.

Does anyone here think that Allen spent 12 hours a week in the gym? How much gym time do you think he spent? I know the answer. He spent whatever amount he could such that it did NOT impact his SBR training.

---

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

Jordan,

Could you elaborate a bit more on the thought process that led to the resistance training you do? Did a PT/chiro/massage therapist prescribe your band exercises, or did you determine what to do on your own? Are there any resources you would recommend to others trying to identify and work on their own imbalances?

The whole doing core or any weight workouts is very much of the Endurance Nation principle. Which if fine if you only have time to S_B_R.

But look at Chrissie Wellington's calves in person and tell me she doesn't do any strength training. They're like big oak trees.

....which is why you can't just walk into Starbucks and ask for a latte any more than you can ask an engineer "how strong is that steel bar". :-)

They can't fill your order without understanding more about what you're asking for, just as you can't answer the question without knowing what kind of strength (tensile in your fine example) the questioner is asking about.

"Latte" and "strength" can mean very different things. If we go to Starbucks my latte and your latte could bear very little resemblance to each other. (if that ever happens, I'm buying)

But we've wasted way too much time on this already, let's move on....


Well, here's a place where we may need to clarify. It would seem to me that a wall-sit is designed to build muscular endurance isn't it? So why wouldn't that be considered strength training? I get that they're isometric instead of concentric but isometrics are muscle contractions too. Just because the muscle isn't actually shortening doesn't mean it's not under tension and generating force.

Am I missing something?

---

Ben Schorr
http://www.twitter.com/hitriguy
Then: Hawaii 70.3 (2009, 2010), Longhorn 70.3 (10/17/2010), IM Texas (5/21/11)
Now: IM Arizona (11/20/2011)

Because there are lots of women doing 8:19 IMs for comparison. . .it must be the weights!!

Pro cyclists' quads have that appearance, too. While Cadel did discuss some weight training on competitor.com, I'm wondering if that 7-hour training ride through the mountains to prepare for the tour didn't have something to do with it, too. Hmm...

Since we're going to use the Wikipedia version of the definition, we may as well use the entire writeup (or at least the first couple paragraphs):
Strength training From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the basic principles to train muscular strength. For strength training using free weights or weight machines, see weight training.
Strength training is the use of resistance to muscular contraction to build the strength, anaerobic endurance, and size of skeletal muscles. There are many different methods of strength training, the most common being the use of gravity or elastic/hydraulic forces to oppose muscle contraction. See the resistance training article for information about elastic/hydraulic training, but note that the terms "strength training" and "resistance training" are often used interchangeably.
When properly performed, strength training can provide significant functional benefits and improvement in overall health and well-being, including increased bone, muscle, tendon and ligament strength and toughness, improved joint function, reduced potential for injury, increased bone density, a temporary increase in metabolism, improved cardiac function, and elevated HDL (good) cholesterol. Training commonly uses the technique of progressively increasing the force output of the muscle through incremental increases of weight, elastic tension or other resistance, and uses a variety of exercises and types of equipment to target specific muscle groups. Strength training is primarily an anaerobic activity, although some proponents have adapted it to provide the benefits of aerobic exercise through circuit training.

Strength training differs from bodybuilding, weightlifting, powerlifting, and strongman, which are sports rather than forms of exercise, although training for them is inherently interconnected with strength training, as it is for shotput, discus, and Highland games. Many other sports use strength training as part of their training regimen, notably football, lacrosse, basketball, rugby, hockey and track and field.

Not to be picky, but not "totally acceptable to any exercise physiologist".

From Brooks, Fahey, and Baldwin 4th ed. pg 456

"Muscular strength is the amount of force that a muscle can produce with a single maximum effort."

Similar definitions can be found in other texts, the key elements being single and maximum/maximal.

Just thought I'd clarify the issue. Not that wikipedia isn't a great resource for information.... well, at least for undergrad term papers.

---

Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com

Yes, interesting, thanks. I come out of a "power" background - sprints and football - which may help explain why I'm hard to convince that strength training has no benefit for triathlon.

Of course I recognize that sprints are largely anaerobic vs the almost entirely aerobic nature of long course triathlon. But I think there are times when it's beneficial (like with the finish line in sight) to have an anaerobic gear to shift into if you want it.

And I can understand the running form argument - trying to avoid the shuffle.

---

Ben Schorr
http://www.twitter.com/hitriguy
Then: Hawaii 70.3 (2009, 2010), Longhorn 70.3 (10/17/2010), IM Texas (5/21/11)
Now: IM Arizona (11/20/2011)

So...the proponents of weight training have managed to shift the focus of the debate from the dubious benefits of weight training to a perceived semantic ambiguity.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |