Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [TripleThreat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Okay. I supplied some.

I don't feel the need (or really the desire) to go through all ~22K google 'scholarly' (or the 426 at PubMedCentral) entries regarding "strength training and injury prevention" and pull out each and every one that supports the position that ST does or can help prevent injury. The amount of time invested versus the "reward achieved" is simply not worth it. Basically I would get to do a lot of work for no reward. I don't see any benefit in "proving" (not a good word, I know) that strength-training helps or may help prevent injury, when it's already something that is accepted by most.

Again, if you are in the field, and know off-hand of convincing research that shows that strength training has no effect on injury prevention, I politely suggest it would be much simpler to just lay it out. I will read it.


The difference here is that people like AC have read throughout the years those "all ~22K google 'scholarly' (or the 426 at PubMedCentral) entries" you found today in order to form their opinion (I would call that knowledge, but these days it seems opinions are favored over knowledge). OTOH, you think that "muscles are cool".

I for one, know which knowledge to trust... I'm sorry, I meant opinion... my bad...
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [Paulo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The difference here is that people like AC have read throughout the years those "all ~22K google 'scholarly' (or the 426 at PubMedCentral) entries" you found today in order to form their opinion (I would call that knowledge, but these days it seems opinions are favored over knowledge)

That's exactly what I mean. In every thread on this topic the same pattern follows ...

1. People bring out examples of coaches, athletes, etc that use strength training and have success. There's some scuttlebutt about whether all that is evidence or anecdote.

2. A few people make the claim the ST doesn't help prevent injuries and/or improve performance, contrary to the consensus of coaches, specialists, etc (not necessarily scientists), and then say that "research supports this".

3. More people provide personal examples, and admittingly these are just "I feel it is working for me" stories.

But, at no time [or at least none that I have seen], are the examples/citations of the studies that conclusively show that 'ST does not help prevent injuries' (or improive race performance), that would [1] end the discussion (or should end the discussion), and [2] significantly change the opinions and claims of those that promote ST as a means of injury prevention and/or improve race performance (or at least should change the opinion).

It would seem that those in the field, and making the interesting claims, would provide those citations (rather than vaguely refer to them) seeing that they are very important to the back and forth going on here. I just want to know whether I should never repeat the phrase "ST can help prevent injuries" or not.

OTOH, you think that "muscles are cool".

Misrepresentation. It's fairly obvious that I said that to convey that I strength-train because I think muscles are cool (they are, really), not to race faster, or to prevent injuries ... to illustrate that I have no vested interest in seeing that those *myths* (if the case may be) get passed on to the next generation.

I for one, know which knowledge to trust... I'm sorry, I meant opinion... my bad...

What we have are a large group of coaches, athletes, etc touting strength-training as a means of preventing injury and/or improving performance. In opposition to that we have some that are saying "no, strength training does not, and the research supports that claim" ... so rather than just keep (essentially) saying "does not" "does too" "does not" "does too" "I'm smarter than you, does not", I would figure the side making the contrary (most important, in this situation) case would cite the studies and end the discussion and do the triathlon world a favor, specifically encouraging triathletes to take the time they spend strength-training and allocate it to triathlon training.

I am, not at all, showing any intentional disrespect to Andrew Coggan (and admittingly I do not know his background outside of what was described in this thread), and I would hope that no unintentional disrespect is felt. Certainly AC understands that this is an internet forum, and that lots of claims get made on the internet, and sometimes it is important and crucial to cite evidence in order to demonstrate the truth. I don't think AC would take that as an attack or challenge, do you? I'd be willing to bet AC would look at it as an opportunity to inform and educate a large group of misguided and wrongly influenced, but well-meaning, people.

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --
Last edited by: TripleThreat: Jul 8, 06 21:06
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [TripleThreat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
well put.

research papers are just that. you still have to produce the results on the race course. I don think a paper is going to change the tri world. when we start to see champions use new techniques to get to the top it will then be hailed as a break through. everyone will then stop lifting weights and emulate what the winners are doing. ala high cadence from lance and his coach. lance does lifting too though ;)

just to toss another log on the fire that you guys can flame...

Endurance racing will burn muscle fibres. To keep your muscle mass in check you need to do some muscle building work in the gym. obviously it needs to be controlled because your not trying to become a body builder but you do have to replace that mass.
Last edited by: iamtikigod: Jul 8, 06 20:29
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [iamtikigod] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don think a paper is going to change the tri world.

If the results are repeatedly demonstrated, it should. Whether it would may be a different story.

when we start to see champions use new techniques to get to the top it will then be hailed as a break through.

Like 'breath right' strips? How did those things lose their effectiveness so quickly? What? You mean they were only 'for fashion'?!?!?!?! =)

everyone will then stop lifting weigh

I think it will take quite a bit to get everyone to stop lifting weights. The benefits (documented, reported, or otherwise) just seem "too well known/ingrained" for a quick change to take place. Even if the evidence is anecdotal (not saying it's limited to that), it still a convincing correlation for a good number of people. People will also likely feel that if their competition is lifting and they aren't then they are "missing out" or "falling behind". That's where the demonstrated research can come in handy.

We used to joke that one of the strongest PED's one could take is "Placebol" ... as in the mind is a powerful tool. As they say in Bull Durham, "if you think you're winning because you wear women's underwear ... then you are ..." If people feel that strength training is giving them a physical advantage, then it might also be giving them a mental edge or increased confidence. I'm not suggesting that be factored into the equation and research ... but the mind is a powerful weapon in the sporting arena.

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --
Last edited by: TripleThreat: Jul 8, 06 21:22
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [TripleThreat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Personally, I'm always in favor of ST, however, most fail to realize the parameters needing to be considered and the justification (or when) to strength train.

The aspect that most ALWAYS neglect about this topic is that strength training MAY or MAY NOT work for someone regarding strictly performance. Will it make a person more "healthy"? Yes. Will it make someone stronger? Yes. Can certain movements prevent and rehab injury? Yes. Will this translate into performance increases for endurance athletes? Questionable. Much of this deals with the individual prescribing the ST...if they know what they're talking about, the chances of a positive outcome are increased, but more research is needed. Skip to the bottom if no one wants to read some of the studies below (keep in mind also I'm biased to which of these I pasted here from the search I did).

...this abstract alludes that specific training will generally yield specific results, but also gives the possibility that more indepth assessments are needed prior to a ST regime other than "x" weight and "y" reps will get you better.

doi: 10.1519/1533-4287(2003)017<0503:CSAETT>2.0.CO;2
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 503–508.
Concurrent Strength and Endurance Training: The Influence of Dependent Variable Selection

Michael Leveritt



School of Biosciences, University of Westminster, London, United Kingdom

Michael Leveritt, Peter J. Abernethy, and Ben Barry



School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia

Peter A. Logan



Department of Exercise Physiology and Applied Nutrition, The Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra, Australia

ABSTRACT

Twenty-six active university students were randomly allocated to resistance (R, n = 9), endurance (E, n = 8), and concurrent resistance and endurance (C, n = 9) training conditions. Training was completed 3 times per week in all conditions, with endurance training preceding resistance training in the C group. Resistance training involved 4 sets of upper- and lower-body exercises with loads of 4–8 repetition maximum (RM). Each endurance training session consisted of five 5-minute bouts of incremental cycle exercise at between 40 and 100% of peak oxygen uptake ( O2peak). Parameters measured prior to and following training included strength (1RM and isometric and isokinetic [1.04, 3.12, 5.20, and 8.67 rad·s&#8722;1] strength), O2peak and Wingate test performance (peak power output [PPO], average power, and relative power decline). Significant improvements in 1RM strength were observed in the R and C groups following training. O2peak significantly increased in E and C but was significantly reduced in R after training. Effect size (ES) transformations on the other dependent variables suggested that performance changes in the C group were not always similar to changes in the R or E groups. These ES data suggest that statistical power and dependent variable selection are significant issues in enhancing our insights into concurrent training. It may be necessary to assess a range of performance parameters to monitor the relative effectiveness of a particular concurrent training regimen.

...Same here, but also the notion of "no harm no foul" with ST...

doi: 10.1519/1533-4287(1993)007<0234:CSAETO>2.3.CO;2
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 234–240.

Concurrent Strength and Endurance Training of the Elbow Extensors

Peter J. Abernethy and Brian M. Quigley



Department of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of 7 weeks of concurrent strength and endurance training on the triceps brachii. Fifteen fit subjects were randomly allocated to endurance (TE), strength (TS), or concurrent (TC) training groups. Endurance training involved five 5-min bouts of incremental arm cranking at between 40 and 100% of peak arm ergometer oxygen consumption (P O2). Strength training involved two 30-s sets of maximal isokinetic contractions at 4.16 rad · sec&#8722;1. The TC group completed both strength and endurance training. P O2 and strength assessments were conducted prior to and following 2, 5, and 7 weeks of training. Isokinetic strength (T30) was determined 0.52 rad (30°) from full extension for 10 angular velocities between 0.52 and 5.20 rad · sec&#8722;1. Two weeks of training significantly increased T30 at all contractile speeds for the TS, TE, and TC conditions. T30 was further increased at all contractile speeds at Weeks 5 and 7 for the TE and TC groups, respectively. Seven weeks of training significantly increased P O2 in the TE and TC conditions, but not in the TS group.



...Possible validity for ST and competitive endurance athletes...

doi: 10.1519/R-16334.1
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 826–830.

Combining Explosive and High-Resistance Training Improves Performance in Competitive Cyclists

Carl D. Paton



The Centre for Sport and Exercise Science, The Waikato Institute of Technology, Hamilton, New Zealand

William G. Hopkins



Department of Sport and Recreation, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

ABSTRACT

Paton, C.D., and W.G. Hopkins. Combining explosive and high-resistance training improves performance in competitive cyclists. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19(4):826–830. 2005.— In several recent studies, athletes experienced substantial gains in sprint and endurance performance when explosive training or high-intensity interval training was added in the noncompetitive phase of a season. Here we report the effect of combining these 2 types of training on performance in the competitive phase. We randomized 18 road cyclists to an experimental (n = 9) or control (n = 9) group for 4–5 weeks of training. The experimental group replaced part of their usual training with twelve 30-minute sessions consisting of 3 sets of explosive single-leg jumps (20 for each leg) alternating with 3 sets of high-resistance cycling sprints (5 × 30 seconds at 60–70 min&#8722;1 with 30-second recoveries between repetitions). Performance measures, obtained over 2–3 days on a cycle ergometer before and after the intervention, were mean power in a 1- and 4-km time trial, peak power in an incremental test, and lactate-profile power and oxygen cost determined from 2 fixed submaximal workloads. The control group showed little mean change in performance. Power output sampled in the training sprints of the experimental group indicated a plateau in the training effect after 8–12 sessions. Relative to the control group, the mean changes (±90% confidence limits) in the experimental group were: 1-km power, 8.7% (±2.5%); 4-km power, 8.1% (±4.1%); peak power, 6.8% (±3.6); lactate-profile power, 3.7% (±4.8%); and oxygen cost, &#8722;3.0% (±2.6%). Individual responses to the training were apparent only for 4-km and lactate-profile power (standard deviations of 2.5% and 2.8%, respectively). The addition of explosive training and high-resistance interval training to the programs of already well-trained cyclists produces major gains in sprint and endurance performance, partly through improvements in exercise efficiency and anaerobic threshold.

...and then the abstracts that typically get misrepresented b/c people take the stance that strength training is good for injury prevention, but fail to realize physiological parameters prior to training or the specific injury mechanism (such as q-angles, ACL diameter, and muscle strength), and then lump all injury into the "strength training improves all injury prevention"...

doi: 10.1519/R-13473.1
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 703–707.

Effects of a Knee Ligament Injury Prevention Exercise Program on Impact Forces in Women

Bobbie S. Irmischer, Chad Harris, Ronald P. Pfeiffer, Mark A. DeBeliso, and Kevin G. Shea



Center for Orthopaedic and Biomechanics Research, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho 83725

Kent J. Adams



Exercise Physiology Lab, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40292

Kevin G. Shea



Intermountain Orthopaedics, Boise, Idaho 83702

ABSTRACT

Irmischer, B.S., C. Harris, R.P. Pfeiffer, M.A. DeBeliso, K.J. Adams, and K.G. Shea. Effects of a knee ligament injury prevention (KLIP) exercise program on impact forces in women. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18(4):000–000. 2004.—Previous research suggests high impact forces generated during landings contribute to noncontact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. In women, neuromuscular differences appear to modify the ability to dissipate landing forces when compared to men. This study examined peak vertical impact forces (Fp) and rate of force development (RFD) following a 9-week, low-intensity (simple jump-landing-jump tasks) and volume (number of foot contacts per workout) plyometric-based knee ligament injury prevention (KLIP) program. Female subjects were randomly assigned into control (n = 14) and treatment (n = 14) groups. Treatment subjects attended KLIP sessions twice a week for 9 weeks, and control subjects received no intervention. Ground reaction forces (Fp and RFD) generated during a step-land protocol were assessed at study onset and termination. Significant reductions in Fp (p = 0.0004) and RFD (p = 0.0205) were observed in the treatment group. Our results indicate that 9 weeks of KLIP training altered landing strategies in women to lower Fp and RFD. These changes are considered conducive to a reduced risk of knee injury while landing.

Bottom line:

1) Strength training increases strength (obviously), but it is specific gains from the adaptation

2) ST may or may not translate into increased endurance performance, but is less likely to "hurt" performance overall. You do have to consider the time factor for this one- we all have limited time, and we all know time in the saddle and pounding the pavement has been proven to make one faster, but time in the gym may not.

3) Injury prevention is specific to the predisposition of the individual and focus of the prevention. Simply "lifiting" with the hopes of injury prevention is a waste of time if that is the primary focus.

4) Muscles ARE cool (awesome statement Triple- very honest, direct and to the point).

5) Most who ST have no idea why and will often take the advice of some yahoo shamon in the middle of the chinese rain forest as gospel, as well as the "miracle" Rx to go with it. The 30-60 minutes spent ST-ing would probably be better spent on the S/B/R, or learning how to ST more effectively so they spend less time in the gym and possibly getting the advantages from it (or likewise not making themselves slower).

If done correctly, ST may or may not make you a better athlete, and will provide better health and fitness. Done incorrectly, and performance may suffer some, but not enough for most of us to care or notice.

See everyone at the races- hopefully looking like muscle-toned stud's and studette's rather than little boys and girls...

Rob

http://www.reathcon.com
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [TripleThreat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
But to also address some of your comments more specifically rather than some random abstracts posted-

I mispoke with the "pro v con" statement, b/c it's not so much "con", but injury prevention is specific to the predisposition and the training prescribed to address it. That's one when people say "do leg extension to strengthen the knee and prevent injury" don't have clue one of what they are talking about.

The evidence and research that I am talking about is not groundbreaking- it's been there for decades. Over the years, people have dumbed down the training programs to a simple, anyone-can-do-it, approach so that even Mr. Beaver Cleaver across the street can get the benefits (which is a good thing). However, for optimal performance I personally believe that power movements, plyometrics, and movements with acceleration should be the focus (in individuals who already have the basic 2 sets of 12-15 reps of a 6 week training program, etc etc etc). It also shouldn't take long (ex: 80-100 hits for the plyo's specific to running and cycling, 4x4 of a power movement, and one compound strength movement of 3x8 ), roughly about 15-25 min with rest included, and some abs, pushups, and pullups done periodically to compliment.

History proves that everything moves in cycles- and if I had to make a prediction I would say that people will start in the next few years going back to more grassroots power/calisthenic training and quit wasting time with their 40,000 low weight reps and changing the angle of the foot on the leg press to get all parts of the quad.

But, once again, I agree with you- muscles are cool. It's just not cool (and this is not directed at you) when people do or don't do ST programs just b/c they read it in a magazine or heard it from a coach. People need to get some facts and then decide for themselves.

http://www.reathcon.com
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [iamtikigod] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"just to toss another log on the fire that you guys can flame...

Endurance racing will burn muscle fibres."



I've got to get my hands on this research- where is it located???

http://www.reathcon.com
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [trirookie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I haven't read this entire thing, so I don't know if any of this has been covered...

- When you run, your quads are your shock absorbers. If you are really light, this will be less of an issue. Otherwise, you will want to build these guys up a little.

- You also don't want to become too quad-dominant. If you do, it will seriously limit your running efficiency. So hit the hamstrings.

- There are other sport-specific resistance training exercises you can do that will improve your core strength (a must), and your form. Things where you combine hip extension with some kind of arm swing or torso rotation.

Obviously, you don't want to get huge, but there are some benefits to lifting. Just don't overdo it.
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [Stiff Crank] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I haven't read this entire thing, so I don't know if any of this has been covered...
Why read the whole thread and have your ideas challenged and maybe even learn a thing or two, when instead you can just spew off the stuff that you believe to be true?
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [Paulo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I hold degrees in Kinesiology and Biology, and I am an NSCA Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist. I have read the research, and I am pretty confident that what I say is true. That is why.
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [Stiff Crank] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oh, you're in the weight training business... I'm sure it's purely coincidental that more and more only those are still recommending weight training for endurance training.

Like a coach good friend of mine once said, "there are many reasons why you should be doing weight training, but improving performance isn't one of them".
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [Paulo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I am in the "going to medical school" business. I've worked with college strength coaches before though. What I'm suggesting is mostly for preventing injury and maintaining performance. I don't think you can really improve your performance much in an endurance event with strength training, other than maybe core stuff.
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [Stiff Crank] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I do realize you were being general, but you did mean that the quad was a stabilizer in this equation and not a shock absorber, right? Because the "building up" is more a function of periodized training with proper recovery-

Also- which exercise does "combine hip extension with some kind of arm swing or torso rotation" relate to endurance training? No offense, but this is the kind of BS functional crap I was talking about before. Believe me, I've been to the crazy CEC shows that have Santana and others twisting as if they're Chubby Checker, but tell me how that is going to improve "core" strength for endurance athletes. I'll agree possibly with an adventure racer, but that's about it.

Unless I'm mistaken as well in some of the literature, getting "huge quads" also doesn't mean limiting run efficiency, does it?

http://www.reathcon.com
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [Rob] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
do a search of pub med. i dont have to sling the studies around. are you really going to debate glycolysis here?

In long races where one have a drop in blood glucose levels they can and will burn muscle proteins. you can fight it off but a season of long distance racing or a single hard race with nutrition slips will in great probability show some muscle catabolization.
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [Paulo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Like a coach good friend of mine once said, "there are many reasons why you should be doing weight training, but improving performance isn't one of them".


I used to lift a lot of weights and was really fast and beat a lot of people because I lifted all those weights. But then, I raced a bunch of people who were faster than me and they didn't lift any weights which is why they were faster. ; ^ )

In my 13 months of trying to pick apart tri-training I'd always wondered why triathletes focus more attention to weight training than runners, swimmers, and cyclists. After reading this thread (among many others) I understand why. >= P

Personaly, I've witnessed many athletes make huge breakthroughs in performance. Not once have I ever heard one say "......that was the year that I REALLY focused on weight training."

...................I'm sorry. Was I thinking criticaly? I'll stop.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [Rob] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
since I logged off back on page 2 this thread blows me away how it exploded. I did read it all though and found it interesting. One thing I love about triathletes..almost all of them are very passionate about their sport and it comes through in your writing. What I am about to write, the exercise physiologists can try to blow holes in all this, but this is reality for ultras..at least for me as a mid 30s female. I did submit to pre-race testing (and as usual always blood numbers pre and post) still trying to get in for post-race testing.

For Rob..since you picked on my moving my quads to hit all angles--taught to me by a body builder and I feel is the one thing that has kept my knees from having any problems...I am not normal (in my distances I do) and I don't know if what I do would apply to shorter races. The long information I am about to give you, no other athlete would share with me--it is ALL trial and error. I highly doubt anyone will ever need this information, but you just never know, and I am nothing more than a big chemical/lab rat experiment. From the emails I receive for training advice it is evident so much to learn..so here you go:

I only put it out there because some athletes are starting to take on the double (my 2nd favorite distance 5x is my fav.) iron. You DO need all the muscle you can handle (not bulk, streamlined longer you go the more bulk you need) for the endurance and fatigue factor. I think there are maybe under 70 (?) people that have now finished the deca iron, I got it right the first time, and missed the second and plan on nailing it my third in Nov. So our sample pool is a wee bit small and only one research paper has been done on it. For females we are now looking at only 5 finishers and I am one of them (was told Kathy stopped at number 5 in Michigan, really thought she would nail it :-(. During my first I gained body weight on purpose before the race since I saw a great deal of RAAM riders gaining some weight to have as excess food since what you are burning you can't put back in and you have to have reserves somewhere. That idea backfired on me and was carrying in too much weight and GAINED weight during the event. This time around I put on 15 lbs extra and think that is almost the ideal weight for me. Next time I am going to put on the 15 lbs but more in muscle form than just body fat form. I am looking for the ideal percentage of extra fat and muscle bulk to carry me through--and the research does not exist for this - trial and error does. Hormones I am told also comes into play, which I don't doubt. Sadly as a female I am more susceptible to other problems you men are not. But what is cool is not peaking until mid 40s so the ST is going to get me there in my best form. It isn't about winning/finishing every race, it is about protecting the body for that one perfect day be it 10 yrs from now.

During my first deca, fellow athlete Beat (Swiss) is a Medical Doctor and has done a great deal of research on ultra athletes and he taught me that I actually needed to put on muscle bulk up top to have as burn power for food--and he looked huge to start and dwindled by the end of the race. Everyone dwindles and becomes scrawny.

This last race I shut down the ability to swallow on day 7 (should have been yanked on day 3) and was barely able to get in my Infinit fluid from day 7-11- maybe 4 water bottles/day. I still have no clue how I got to day 11 without being able to eat and swallow. The one thing that got me through was my muscle mass (which is significantly smaller now) and my body fat-although my chest seems to never want to disappear. I don't like the gaining/losing but my body is becoming more efficient. I had very little swelling this time around because I simply couldn't put things in my body and slept between 6-12 hrs/day so I rested (way more important than Weight training!)..and I upped my protein.

Your body DOES burn itself up--to think different you just haven't experienced/witnessed--and you cannot do research with what happens at dayX or this happened in a 6 hr time frame therefore this will happen during 17 hrs. or 10 days. I have studied a ton of research and in the process of doing my last research paper and it blows me how short the trials actually are, and then they make judgement calls on a human body that did not come with an owners manual.

Since I have been back, people don't recognize me because of how small the body became (which is the size I was before the ultras)--and a few have told me to just eat. I do have 3 different sizes I bounce through during the season, usually at my highest size right before a race and then my smallest one month after the race. I hit the gym and of course am weak, I have that burn smell coming off my body from it metabolizing itself (TCA cycle, and no way am I going to remember the whys - my brain is shot so I might have the wrong pathway). I tried to swim and there is no power to speak of, but it is coming back gradually, haven't ventured on the bike that is this week, and the run actually feels good. I for one HATE weights, but know from personal trial and error (which is how Iron training began in the first place) that without the weight training (and I am down right evil in the gym) I couldn't pull off what I pull off--even if it isn't the outcome I want. The body can go significantly further with the muscle strength.

I think for shorter, quicker, faster races you need a totally different build. It is up to the individual to decide what works for them. I would even work with a coach that is AGAINST the weights, because I am going to do them anyway and don't need their input--especially since they aren't me and don't race in my shoes. When you start getting into multiple days (weeks), you need the muscle, because you are not going to eat the bare minimum to try to put back what you are burning. You are correct in the old school way of training. The explosive exercises is one element I do institute along with a ton of balance work (can't tell you how many rolled ankles I have saved).

now will someone KILL this thread. Time for another siesta :-)
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [iamtikigod] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not disputing the protein contribution to exercise in extreme circumstances, but before you start getting worked up over the term "glycolysis", you better educate yourself on the term "gluconeogenesis." To say that one is "burning muscle" in those situations is off track as to what is really going on.

http://www.reathcon.com
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [Eileen Steil] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm not debating what you have and have not accomplished, and it wasn't my intention to pick it apart to death.

And it would probably not be wise to get into a debate over who has seen more "war" than the other one (ref: "Your body DOES burn itself up--to think different you just haven't experienced/witnessed--"). Don't think for a second just b/c I'm not toeing the line at a deca or double that I don't understand or know.

Since you did bring up the comment on "old school way of training"- it's not old school or new school. It's what is specific and proven. Ultra's are unique as is, no argument there. Tri-training can often lead to being an experiment of one, but as you yourself said, the body does not come with an owners manual. Personally, I'd rather stick with science rather than anectodal or what a body builder says, but that is your choice.

All things aside, good luck with your ultra's. It's mind over matter after the first 16 hours- you don't mind, so it doesn't matter.

http://www.reathcon.com
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [Rob] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rob..

here's the deal. I DO want testing, it is just a matter of finding the time to ask for testing to be done on us midrace. Oh and to find someone with enough funding to go to these events. It looks like I might be heading to Dubai next Dec/Jan08. I might be doing some bloodwork individually at the next stage racing thing. I am tired of trying to figure out what does/does not work. It is a very painful process and really tired of the outcomes (post race swelling/swelling on the brain/ this optical problem after any long race--that they attribute to my tight goggles/seeing double, triple on far distances/ ect). I have read so much it isn't funny, and yet I still am not getting it. It would be way easier for one of the researchers to just set us straight. Which is where half of what I do comes from. The other half I am over the guess work.

btw..I don't like debates on who has seen more war..I never made that claim, I was just trying to give you background of where the loss was coming from--which is a complete opposite of what I was taught in school -sorry if you took it the wrong way--probably using words that in my head mean one thing and in your World mean another. The body loss is very real but it only comes after a body gain (which is most likely fluid and gas). I read the entire thread just looking for insight--I'll do anything to avoid the gym. I only see it (body wasting)/feel it as soon as I am usually starting the second marathon and my quads feel trashed, which is usually the time I start to feel the severe equillibrium problems - I would love to see what is real versus perceived and would even submit to testing mid race. I try to gather what is happening via looking at times and the mind does play tricks on you..everything is amplified.

So if you have anything that gives insight (especially that eye sight stuff..that is so annoying!) feel free to forward it to me (real email is under my name). I want to still be able to do these in my 60s and not just do them, but do them well. I am ready for my breakthrough race and willing to try out other methods, why not, have tried everything else.

sorry to the oriiginal poster for the hijack. time to go soak my body there is a beautiful tub calling my name with some awesome bath salts and a nice glass of water..no vino for a few more weeks :-(
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [Rob] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The quadriceps (all of them) are active in controlling flexion of the knee when the foot strikes. This eccentric action absorbs shock (impulse = F(dt) = m(dv)). Call it stabilization if you want, but it is working like a suspension for your body.

As for gluconeogenesis, you can make glucose out of anything with three-carbon chains that you can cleave off. This includes many "gluconeogenic" amino acids.

As for the "chubby checker" stuff... I don't really know what you mean. But I'm not opposed to stuff like woodchoppers, and most S&C coaches would agree.
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
...................I'm sorry. Was I thinking criticaly? I'll stop.
LOL, welcome back from vacation. I hope MB treated you nice.

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [Stiff Crank] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"This eccentric action absorbs shock"

...for deceleration movements...

"you can make glucose out of anything"

Yes, you're right. But, that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

"...I don't really know what you mean. But I'm not opposed to stuff like woodchoppers, and most S&C coaches would agree."

I mean many ST coaches giving movements with no consideration for why or for what purpose. The "Twist"...you know, the song?...I know, stupid joke, but it's no more stupid than a ST coaches giving a triathlete a woodchopper. "Woodchoppers" have a place, but not in a triathletes program, which is the focus for this topic.

http://www.reathcon.com
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [trirookie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have a background of lifting as well. I pretty much only lift once a month now and allow swimming training to work the upper body.

I'm 5'9 and presently 165 ( race weight 160 ). Whilst lifting , I have been up to 180lbs , 8-10 years ago.

Still , I notice I'm carrying substantially more upper body mass than 80% of IM competitors. I will be attempting to shed more mass by increasing my running and changing timing of eating certain foods.

I find it more difficult in the shorter events ( OD's , etc ) than HIM and IM's.

I do believe however that core strength still needs to be worked on frequently though.

"You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream" - Les Brown
"Discipline is the bridge between goals and accomplishment" - Jim Rohn
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [Rob] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You can't make glucose out of "anything". It has to have a specific three-carbon unit that can be cleaved by specific enzymes. Think amino-acid side-chains.

Woodchoppers may not be ideal, but at the same time you're getting transversus, oblique, spinal erectors, and possibly the hip extensors, depending on how you do it. I've seen swimmers do it (and by "swimmers", I'm talking about arguably the best swimming and diving program in the history of college athletics... UT-Austin), so I have a hard time believing that it is as dumb as you seem to think.
Quote Reply
Re: lifting weights = slower ironman [Stiff Crank] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
the best swimming and diving program in the history of college athletics... UT-Austin),
Don't you mean Stanford?

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Quote Reply

Prev Next