I'm not your dude, guy.

Maybe we need to come to a mutually agreeable definition of "strength training" so that this debate may be properly framed. I am NOT talking about the traditional notion of "lifting weights." When you blithely say that Michael Phelps does not "strength train", but does core work on balls, etc., this is precisely what I am referring to as "strength training." I suspect that is what most endurance athletes are referrring to as such.

I am a proponent of strength training, but I almost never touch a free weight. In fact, my in-season and off-season routines rarely incorporate anything more than my own body weight. I am talking about all manner of planks, stability exercises on the BOSU ball, yoga movements, plyometrics, balancing exercises and the like. So the straw man you have so carefully built that equates "strength training" with anything more than that may kindly be taken down.

How much time do you spend on these body weight exercises? How do they make you faster in SBR?

John

---

---

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

Actually, we don't need to come to a "mutually agreeable definition." You just need to learn the actual definition that already exists. There is a perfectly good definition of strength training, and I don't feel the need to redefine it because you are too obtuse to actually spend the time looking it up BEFORE you post on this forum.

The fact that other people also have no concept as to what these terms actually mean is also not my problem. The fact that you are a big proponent of something that you don't actually understand the definition of just underscores how little you are actually adding to this argument.

Since you don't seem inclined to actually educate yourself, I'll explain to you what you actually wrote. Then you can remove your straw man that you built around terms that you don't understand and you can - if you wish - actually engage me in a logical debate about the actual topics that people who do understand are trying to address.

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

STRENGTH TRAINING: exercises designed to increase strength

That's the ONLY definition of strength. It doesn't mean anything more or less than that. If you need some help understanding that definition, I'm happy to help. But either a one-rep max or the maximum isometric force (so like pushing on a door that doesn't budge) are both acceptable standards for measuring strength.

The exercises that you have described basically consist of a variety of endurance, strength, balance/proprioceptive exercises of a non-specific nature. Planks and plyometrics are totally different different exercises. One is an isometric endurance exercise. The other an exercise in neuromuscular coordination, explosive power, and strength. They share essentially nothing in terms of training effect. So for you to group them together under the category of "strength training" is totally incorrect. Plyometrics is a strength exercise, among other things, but planks are not.

So, basically, you have admitted you don't really understand that terms being discussed, you do a random hodgepodge of exercises that you don't fully understand the purpose of, and yet you think that we should reach some sort of mutual understanding?

---

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

Geezus! 204 friggin replies. For half of the posters in this thread, "go study physiology". To the other half, "go spend time with your family. Your triathletes afterall, they'd like to see you".

---

Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com

dd is on a business trip and can't even read his own thread goodness. I've been texting him updates. :p

John

---

---

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

No need for the venom, my man. Just so you don't make the same mistake in future posts, however, planks are isometric exercises, also known as static strength training.

The notion that a plank would not be considered a "strength" exercise is, well, I'll let others decide for themselves.

I'm out.....I've got a yoga class I'm late for.

Sorry, wrong again. Isometric exercises can be static strength exercises _OR_ they can be static endurance exercises (though most people would call that "stability," which is sort of fine with me, though you are specifically training the endurance of your muscles, so that's really the most appropriate term to use). In the case of planks, provided you can actually get into the plank position in the first place, you have the required strength. What you then lack is endurance.

Example of each:
Plank as a static strength exercise - get in the plank position. Have someone put a stack of 2 or 3 45lb plates on your back. Hold the plank for 2-6sec.

Planks as a static endurance exercise - get in a regular plank position. Hold for 20-60sec.

Enjoy yoga. Maybe spend some time in the library on the way home.

---

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

So. . .which of the following do you think has made the more significant contribution to Haile's running career:

A) Running 10k to (and from) school everyday for ten years of childhood (~70mpw over 10 years)
B) Maintenance work at the gym, post-WR.

Hmm. . .to what should we defer?

Now I'm going to go back and do my best not to reply in this thread. . . :)

If you don't mind, put me in the Non-Strength-Trainers: column please.

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

Pssh like you coach good athletes or something :p

Rappstar is destroying these fools! This is about as good as the questioning of what exactly Folmer technologies was(is)?

I wonder if the people around him are a bit worried when every time he checks his texts he starts giggling uncontrollably.

Jordan, words serve only one purpose: to communicate. And they mean exactly what the parties involved agree that they mean (and often they DON'T agree what they mean, which is a common cause of miscommunication).

You're perfectly happy to accept Joseph Pilates use of the word "Contrology" even though the word has no apparent basis in the English language. And that's fine, as long as you and Joe agree on what it means then that's what it means for you.

People often agree on the meaning of words which may not mean the same thing (or ANY thing) to other people. My wife and I have a few terms/words that would sound like nonsense to a third party but we know what they mean to us and that's all that matters. I'm sure you and your wife are the same way. (congrats on that, by the way!)

One of the first steps in data communication is that both ends of the line agree on a protocol that governs the communication. To some extent it doesn't really matter what that protocol is, as long as both sides agree - they're speaking the same language.

The same is true here. A "stem" means one thing to a cyclist and something else to a sailor. When I was in school we had a class called "Drafting" and there wasn't a bike in the room. Just a bunch of t-squares and compasses.

The subject of this thread, which has drifted somewhat it appears, refers to the term "weight training". That term means different things to different people. You can arrogantly declare that there's only one proper definition of "weight training" if you want to, but that's just not so.

It seems clear that some people believe "weight training" equals "weight lifting" and further that "weight lifting" means throwing a bunch of iron on a bar and moving it.

For those people I will say that, in my opinion, no...that kind of weight lifting, except perhaps in certain very unusual cases, is NOT going make you faster. It's hard to imagine a scenario where putting 225 on a bench press and throwing it up half a dozen times is going to make you faster. Certainly it never made me any faster. But I wasn't doing it to get faster, I was doing it to knock down linebackers in a previous sporting life.

When my triathlete friends say "strength training" they do often have different exact meanings. For most of them they use the term to refer somewhat generically to any kind of cross-training/isometrics/plyometrics generally out-of-sport things which may include pilates, yoga, kettle bells, running up/down stairs. A couple of them even actually do mean going to the gym and lifting weights.

We can discuss whether there is value in any or all of that, and I suspect the answer is going to depend considerably upon the athlete doing it, what and how they're doing it and what they're passing up in order to do those exercises.

Or we can sit here and belittle others for not using our definition of words.

---

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)

A stem doesn't mean one thing to a cyclist and one thing to a sailor. It means one thing IN THE CONTEXT OF CYCLING. If you are talking to a cyclist about sailing and you talk about the stem, and he thinks you are talking about the thing that attaches the handlebar to the steerer tube, he is incorrect.

Weight training has one definition. Training with weights. If you want to debate that, that's fine, because I can see some debate about does that mean free weights only, medicine balls, etc. But my issue has never been with weight training. From my perspective, a foot is a weight and if you want to say running is weight training because you are lifting a weight - your foot and lower leg - off of the ground, that's fine. The debate has NEVER been about the definition of "weight training."

However non-specific weight training is as a term, strength training is equally specific. Just because you can't be bothered to use the terms correctly, that's doesn't make you correct. It just makes you ignorant.



You do realize that you are basically conceding that if people do not use terminology correctly it makes it impossible to have a discussion about something. If "strength training" really does mean such a hodgepodge of things, how is it possible to ever actually evaluate and discuss it? It's not. It does have a meaning, a very specific one. You just can't be bothered to abide by it.

Look at it another way, how valuable would it be if you told folks to go do VO2max intervals on the bike and some people did a workout like 6 x 3min @ 115% of FTP with 3min rest and other folks went out and rode 90min @ 50% FTP. Of course, since the term might mean different things to different people, both are totally okay... That's absurd. Training is entirely based around the idea of specificity. You need to be able to say exactly what you mean.

That's why words have meanings - that is exactly what allows people to use words to communicate. You don't have to guess what you sort of drink will show up in your hand when you order a latte at Starbucks. A latte is a latte. That's why I don't need to say a drink made from ground coffee beans put into an espresso machine that injects very hot water through the mixture at high pressure and which is then mixed with milk from a cow's udder that has rapidly been heated by steam. But according to you, that's how I should order my coffee, because a latte might mean something totally different to that particular barista.

Next time you tell your mechanic to tighten the stem on your bike, don't get mad when he tightens the skewer of the front wheel since it's near the "stem" of your bike, at least if would be if he's a sailor...

---

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

Ah, I see you've chosen to simply belittle others for not using your definition of words. Fair enough, saves me some time.

Watch how much time I save by not correcting your misunderstanding of what a "stem" is on a ship. :-)

---

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 wonder, if one were to walk into a Starbucks in Italy and order a "latte", would one get a cafe latte, or a glass of milk? :p

---

<If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough>
Get Fitter!
Proud member of the Smartasscrew, MONSTER CLUB
Get your FIX today?

I can appreciate both sides of the debate, and yes, actually read a lot on the subject of physiology. My research has led me to my current training regimen, which I have found to be highly successful, for me. Rappstar, and many others, obviously got very fast without strength training.

Here is my question. Have any of you guys arguing so vehemently against its benefit ever tried any form of strength training? What were your experiences? Did you find that it inhibited your ability to improve?

I'm legimately asking, not trying to fuel the debate or claim my way is better.

I personally improved at a much faster rate when strength training than I did before doing running only. I am not saying that is the singular causation of my improvement. I also changed my diet, included anaerobic training, focused on active recovery, and in general dedicated myself much more to the sport(s). All of these have been factors. I now do a lot of anaerobic training and heavy, explosive olympic lifts. I find that I can fully recover between short, intense workout sessions, and hit it hard a few hours later. I typically do 4 weight sessions, and 6-8 s/b/r workouts a week, including one hard anaerobic effort apeice, as well as one tempo or hard longer effort per sport. Its working. Something else may work better.

I'm not replying to smugfit specifically but I remember seeing this a while back and thought it might be relevant.

The Secret Wish
There's a secret wish among a lot of triathletes out there. They wish that there's another way to being fast. The easier, shorter, faster way to get there.

-- Paulo Sousa

Im glad that wasnt directed at me.

I train my ass off. I am wrecked laying it down every night, which means nothing except that the intensity is there. Im not looking for a shortcut, I want to be fast, period. Not in spite of my training, not fast on limited training, but because I trained hard and smart.

A lot of people making the anaerobic/strength argument are looking for a get rich quick. You can get to a pretty high level of fitness with general purpose fitness programming, and be a decent endurance athlete as a result. Thats not my intent. Im looking to post competitive results, and am willing to put in the time/effort to do so. I have seen exponential improvement from the current plan. Was it because I had a great base before I started? Most certainly.

I am not strength training because Lance or Lieto is or isn't, as many have pointed out, what they do doesnt really matter to those of us who cant train full time.

Wait, that was supposed to be a SECRET!?

Heck, I looked at every bottle on the shelf but couldn't find Vitamin Crowie. ;-)

---

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)

It's too bad that you feel that way, because everything Jordan's written above is valid. If you no longer wish to reply, good riddance, since you think that taking words with multiple definitions out of context justifies inaccuracy of the single definition in context. You can think it's arrogant of someone to correct you with regard to the definition in a specific context, but really it is just a quest for clarity. I should hope you never get treated by a medical doctor with such lack of concern for accuracy over the communication of physiological data. Unfortunately scrupulousness is frequently mistaken for hubris.

I have. In the mid-90s, I lifted and rode with a cycling team, and also did triathlons. I managed 59:36 for the NJ District 40km TT. I was 37 or 38. I then took missed the entire 40-44 age group due to "life." Fast forward to 2001, when I had gained almost 30 pounds. I rode my ass off for a couple of years, lost the weight. 2004, on the same course, I did 59:43 at age 46, without having touched weights in nearly a decade.

I lifted several times a week in college. Of course, that made sense for a high jumper.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

So...all of those are factors, yet you say "Weight training makes me faster!" (And the something else that may work better is not doing explosive Olympic lifting. Just saying...)

As far as the heavy, explosive lifting that you do 4x a week, strength training coaches advocate 24-48 hours rest between intensive lifting sessions per body part, so how are you quantifying your recovery? How can you realistically say that you are fully recovered, and able to do a quality SBR session? How do you know that you aren't getting faster in SBR because you are concentrating on it, and that you would not progress even faster if you dropped the heavy lifting from your routine?

As far as "have you tried it", yes, I have. I have been competing in something year round since I was 4. For the first 17 years, that was swimming and soccer. I added cross country and competitive cycling in my high school and college years. After that, I moved into martial arts. At the same time I started martial arts, I added weight lifting (of the pick it up/put it down variety). I found that I got much slower, as the time that I was dedicating to weight lifting and martial arts did not allow me enough quality triathlon time. When I came back to tri's, I wasn't doing as much martial arts, but I was still weight lifting. The extra weight that I carried due to lifting hampered my training. I found that when I dropped the weights and concentrated solely on SBR, I got lighter and faster, with less fatigue.

Earlier this year, when I was going for 4th degree, I wrote off this season, as I needed a different type of training that was specific to the sport I was concentrating on. (There's that concept of specificity again). Once I passed the test, I dropped a lot of the training I had been doing, and went back to SBR. I've dropped 17 lbs (From 185 to 168), and the only resistance training I do is harder gears on the bike. And, guess what? I'm faster. What a concept.

Here is an interesting list of abstracts. A little old, but some very good stuff:
http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol12/table.htm

John

---

---

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

As I stated before, I'm not saying its the single factor that caused my improvement. Unless I add/eliminate every single piece of the equation, I can't isolate one cause. I grew up a swimmer and a runner. Tons of yardage/miles, very little strength stuff. Did nothing for a few years, mounted my comeback, and started training again. I got faster. Then I added other forms of training (discussed earlier), I continued getting faster. At a faster rate. Hence I'm a proponent.

My piece is stated. I managed to waste most of the workday with this, and it was fun. Now off to the track for some 100s. (Yes I think a faster 100 time will help run a faster mile, which will help run a faster 10k.)