wow you really like to twist words - I stated, and hold by, that there is evidence that strength training improves performance and prevents injuries - and yes I have read most of the literature in that thread posted.
What animosity? because I have an opinion and will argue my side?

Show me the data that DISPROVES, conclusively, that strength training does NOT improve performance and does NOT prevent injuries. The studies that were inconclusive were all small, short studies - and most in experienced athletes. The thread on BT SPECIFICALLY addressed beginners, who DO stand to gain the most.

24 years of sports medicine experience behind me (started research in orthopedics in 1992 whilst in medical school). What is your training Jorge? What is your background? What is your VAST experience that you have such a tone with me?

oh wait here it is: 'December of 2005 Jorge successfully completed the USAT coach level 1 clinic'

so because you took a clinic and paid money 2 years ago for a course and now call yourself a coach that gives you more expertise than me??? or wait maybe it is your academic credentials: ' his academic background is on business (Bachelor of business Administration and Masters Degree in Finance)' Oh here is the medical portion: 'CPR and First Aid Certified'

might want to correct the grammar in your bio on your website- oh wait you were a business major now doing coaching no one will care that you have no grammar

snerk

---

---

cat
Sponsored by Suntheanine, Lycored and Celadrin
http://www.lycored.com/web/content/library.asp http://suntheanine.com/Research.cfm http://celadrin.com/pages/studies.php

Dude, I beg you, on behalf of the scientists who post on this board, shut up now. I'm not arguing one way or another about weights. You're just making us all look like arrogant assholes. Please stop.

---

http://www.semperfitnesschicago.com

You just can't control both groups. Both will be open loop systems with too many variables that are uncontrollable to the point that any measured rates of injury (if they happen) will be meaningless. I agree with Adal that sport science is many years behind what happens in the field....keep looking for your studies...the guys using what works in the field will be running circles around the guys waiting for conclusive evidence. A lot of sport is experimentation, trying things and seeing if it works for each one of us. The findings in a study, or the principles applied by one coach, don't universally apply to everyone. We're not robots...each body reacts differently to a variety of stiumulii.

To Andrew, Noakes' record as head medical doc at Comrades and Ironman New Zealand speaks for itself. He has real world success backing things up. He does not need a bunch of hotshots from a cycling federation to bestow recognition on him to stroke his ego and he does not need to be right on a slowtwitch forum. He needs to be right in the medical tent at races where he is dealing with the lives of athletes. That alone buys him a lot of success, and I credit the man with a lot of my own success in long course racing later in life. He's out to better the lives of athletes, not to stroke his ego and sense of self importance...

Dev

but Daaaadd he started it, he is picking on me!

---

---

cat
Sponsored by Suntheanine, Lycored and Celadrin
http://www.lycored.com/web/content/library.asp http://suntheanine.com/Research.cfm http://celadrin.com/pages/studies.php

Right....that's why he writes endless review articles, letters to the editor, etc., pushing ideas that no one believes in papers that no one ever cites (except in rebuttal), and why when challenged on a meaningless internet forum he gets so bent-out-of-shape that he can't even keeps his attributions straight. Seems to me that if his ego weren't involved and his singular goal were "...to better the lives of athletes..." he would just stick to the doctorin'...

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...earch_engine#1369748

"Not only has Dr Coggan never undertaken any studies of this topic, but he enjoys the rare privilege of the laboratory exercise scientist � absolute immunity from responsibility for any outcomes resulting from his advice. "

LOL! It's funny because it's so true.

It is true...well, all except the part about advice, as I never offered any (remember what I said about Noakes getting so hot-under-the-collar that he lost track of who said what?).

If you have the time to lift weight, go ahead and do so. After all doing a little bit of meathead exercising is not going to get you huge to the point that you won't be able to swim, bike or run fast. If anything you will gain some of that explosive power that you may need on the bike or on some hill on the run.

For me Monday's and Friday's I will lift a bit after swimming. On Wednesday's I will just lift. I call it my meathead Wednesday. Good old fashined weight stuff.

Some of the weightlifting guys have a ball with me trying to bench 185. But I make fun of them trying to run on the treadmill at 6.7mph, for more than ten minutes.

If lifting weights is fun for you, do it. Just like triathlon it is fun so we train and race. That is the whole point of this or any other sport anyway.

---

Looking like a color blind super hero!
Damn triathlon.

ok, so would you advise lifting weights?

---

---

cat
Sponsored by Suntheanine, Lycored and Celadrin
http://www.lycored.com/web/content/library.asp http://suntheanine.com/Research.cfm http://celadrin.com/pages/studies.php

"ok, so would you advise lifting weights?"

He already did.

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

no actually he specifically does NOT give advice for nor against. Giving his criticism of papers/talks/organizations is not the same as advising yay or nay.
The closest was telling IronMike that he had some good reasons to lift a couple of pages back.

---

---

cat
Sponsored by Suntheanine, Lycored and Celadrin
http://www.lycored.com/web/content/library.asp http://suntheanine.com/Research.cfm http://celadrin.com/pages/studies.php

Page 3 post 70, indeed. What more do you need?

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

Not to pick nits, but no self-respecting scientist would ever admit to gathering data in an attempt to support a hypothesis.

I'm glad you clarified that, because I'd hate to think that "a Yale-trained scientist" would make so many unsupported statements and then attempt to pass them off as scientific fact by citing a bunch of studies that either don't adress the question at hand, or actually don't show what is claimed.

EDIT: Case-in-point, here is the abstract from the very first study cited by your friend:

"Bishop D, Jenkins DG, Mackinnon LT, McEniery M, Carey MF. The effects of strength training on endurance performance and muscle characteristics. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Jun;31(6):886-91. Department
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of resistance training on endurance performance and selected muscle characteristics of female cyclists. METHODS: Twenty-one endurance-trained, female cyclists, aged 18-42 yr, were randomly assigned to either a resistance training (RT; N = 14) or a control group (CON; N = 7). Resistance training (2X x wk(-1)) consisted of five sets to failure (2-8 RM) of parallel squats for 12 wk. Before and immediately after the resistance-training period, all subjects completed an incremental cycle test to allow determination of both their lactate threshold (LT) and peak oxygen consumption VO2). In addition, endurance performance was assessed by average power output during a 1-h cycle test (OHT), and leg strength was measured by recording the subject's one repetition maximum (1 RM) concentric squat. Before and after the 12-wk training program, resting muscle was sampled by needle biopsy from m. vastus lateralis and analyzed for fiber type diameter, fiber type percentage, and the activities of 2-oxoglutarate dehydrogenase and phosphofructokinase. RESULTS: After the resistance training program, there was a significant increase in 1 RM concentric squat strength for RT (35.9%) but not for CON (3.7%) (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant changes in OHT performance, LT, VO2, muscle fiber characteristics, or enzyme activities in either group (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The present data suggest that increased leg strength does not improve cycle endurance performance in endurance-trained, female cyclists (emphasis added)"

So, why would somebody cite a study that so clearly refutes their claims? I can only think that either they haven't actually read all of the studies they cited in support of their position, or thought that they could just BS people by throwing up a bunch of references that most people haven't read and/or can't even access. Either way, such sloppy citation of the literature is inexcusable, even for someone who might have only an undergraduate degree.

Come on, Andy. You know very well that 12 weeks is not nearly enough time to show any effect. Haven't you been paying attention?

---

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

wow this is so out of context.

Tom prefaced the bibliography he put up (in which he put both positive and negative studies so as NOT to appear biased) with:


Without having the entire paper in front of me to comment (I am at home and only have access to the abstract) I will say that the study is flawed - only 14 in the intervention group and 7 in the control group - too small to have statistical significance. But interestingly this study is used in nsca review papers to show that performance improvements have NOT been shown in well-trained cyclists unlike running. One of the things that I admire about the nsca is they do look at both sides and don't just refer to papers that further their position.

This study only looked at ENDURANCE from strength training - I will agree that if endurance is the only measure then perhaps strength training is not appropriate.

Strength training's other potential benefits - explosive power to sprint up a hill, correct muscle imbalances and potentially protect against injury, maintenance of muscle mass in aging athletes remain. For example one of the other abstracts:


The effects of replacing a portion of endurance training by explosive strength training on performance in trained cyclists. - Bastiaans JJ - Eur J Appl Physiol - 01-NOV-2001; 86(1): 79-84 (From NIH/NLM MEDLINE)
Abstract:

To investigate the effects of replacing a portion of endurance training by strength training on exercise performance, 14 competitive cyclists were divided into an experimental (E; n = 6) and a control (C; n = 8) group. Both groups received a training program of 9 weeks. The total training volume for both groups was the same [E: 8.8 (1.1) h/week; C: 8.9 (1.7) h/week], but 37% of training for E consisted of explosive-type strength training, whilst C received endurance training only. Simulated time trial performance (TT), short-term performance (STP), maximal workload (Wmax) and gross (GE) and delta efficiency (DE) were measured before, after 4 weeks and at the end of the training program (9 weeks). No significant group-by-training effects for the markers of endurance performance (TT and Wmax) were found after 9 weeks, although after 4 weeks, these markers had only increased (P < 0.05) in E. STP decreased (P < 0.05) in C, whereas no changes were observed in E. For DE, a significant group-by-training interaction (P < 0.05) was found, and for GE the group-by-training interaction was not significant. It is concluded that replacing a portion of endurance training by explosive strength training prevents a decrease in STP without compromising gains in endurance performance of trained cyclists. (emphasis added)

Again flawed for being a small study, but at least the two groups were of equal size.

---

---

cat
Sponsored by Suntheanine, Lycored and Celadrin
http://www.lycored.com/web/content/library.asp http://suntheanine.com/Research.cfm http://celadrin.com/pages/studies.php

Andrew, he does a fine job doctorin at numerous ACTUAL REAL LIFE EVENTS, and the man has the right to defend himself from what people like you throw out from the ivory tower.

You just go on and on and on about being a better scientist, papers etc etc etc and have this nasty habit about telling people they are wrong, instead of actually initiating any positive contribution whose primary priority is to ACTUALLY help other athletes.

Most of your posts are rebuttals to others trying to show that you are correct and they are wrong as "proven in research". Trust, me, sometimes, your posts really really do help people improve themselves, but you would stand to gain by flipping your communication style so that it comes across that youre trying to to help people learn first achieving the secondary effect of proving you are correct too. It is a subtle difference, and no doubt you are capable of this in person, but seemingly fail to do so electronically.

Maybe its just research misfits of this world that are stuck in their self elevated intellectual grandeur and cannot actually bring themselves down to the level of actually communicating with people with some semblance of respect and harmony that drags this otherwise great forum into endless bickering.

Dev

If you lift weights you could end with guns like the guy (orange singlet) in this photo.

http://www.celeritas-photography.com/...n_ohio/fr_po_a_14215


I heard he does curls with 40 lb dumbells.

Triyoda...forget about the orange guy :-) :-)

The primary reason to lift weights is so that your quads are twice the size of #205....I think my wife might divorce me if my overtaining routine caused me to wither into aerobic nothingness like that guy...its bad enough that I am training as much as I do!

"You just go on and on and on about being a better scientist, papers etc etc etc and have this nasty habit about telling people they are wrong, instead of actually initiating any positive contribution whose primary priority is to ACTUALLY help other athletes."

The data would say otherwise:

http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=3209

http://www.amazon.com/Training-Racing-Power-Meter-Hunter/dp/1931382794/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204413981&sr=8-1

http://www.fixedgearfever.com/downloads/PASO.ppt

http://www.fixedgearfever.com/downloads/TrackApplicationsForAPowermeter.ppt

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/pmc_summit.pdf

http://www.cyclecoach.com/andycoggantrainingload/uksport1.ppt

O.K. I'm tired now.

[/reply]

Seems like my first "quote" reply got blown away.

It is clear that the guys is capable of adding value as demonstated by the links that you have posted. It would be nice if he could just spend more time talking about the content on these links in a constructive way and impart his work to others on this forum rather than spending the majority of time beating up on others...no one gains when their is constant friction.

Dev

Are you saying that when someone authoritatively states something that's clearly wrong or not supported by sound science, that we would all be better off if they just went unchallenged?

Those who are professionals in the fitness industry all lose credibility when myths are perpetuated and lore becomes accepted as fact.

One can provide a counter point and high value without the need for one upmanship, rudeness or beating on other forum members. Different points of view are good. That is how most things progress...and just because something is not supported by sound science at the moment, that does not mean that it does not work....it might take time for the science to catch up with something that has been working in the field on 1000's of people.

Was there any sound scientific studies that show that the M2 program works on elite Ironman level athletes? No....but Gina Kehr flew in the face of conventional Ironman prep and took 4th at Kona 2006. Was there a scientific study back in the 80's specific to Ironman that showed that supplementing with salt would help performance in Kona? No, there was not...but the guys tried it and it worked....was there a scientific study that showed that a skating technique would be faster than a classic technique in XC skiing? No...but Bill Koch tried it in 1985 and beat everyone
and so on and so on...

Sometimes the flawed studies that some use as gospel can be equally questioned. The ensuing debate can happen with civility though!

Dev

Based on your post, I can assume that you do not believe the subject to have been researched enough then?

If so, then I ask:
-What is wrong with the current studies?
-Under what criteria would you be more likely to accept their findings?

justin