I picked up a copy of the Triathlete’s Training Bible in B&N yesterday and was thumbing through it. It looks like the new edition, that’s been out for a while, no longer has a Muscle Endurance phase to weight training. The book has Muscle Adaptation, Muscle Strength and then a Strength Maintenance phase. Granted, I didn’t read through the chapter, but I was surprised to notice the deletion of what will be my next weight training phase. I just got done working on strength for several weeks, and now plan to start lifting lighter with more reps.
Muscle endurance using weights is something that never existed 
.
It looks like the new edition, that’s been out for a while, no longer has a Muscle Endurance phase to weight training. .
The term “muscle endurance” is not particularly useful. Nobody even agrees on what it means. Weightlifting has never been shown to improve long-duration (a few tens of minutes or more) endurance any more than just running/biking/swimming. Dropping the term was smart since it misleads people. The Friel/TrainingPeaks group has been making other changes in the past year or so, too. I’ve been pleasantly surprised with how some of their terminology and methods are slowly coming around to match up with more exacting concepts and definitions. I think the CyclingPeaks merger had something to do with it.
In fact, when you get right down to it, there is no consensus working definition of what the term “endurance” even means when it comes to aerobic sports.
I hear your point about the fuzzy concept of muscular endurance…but personally, as an older (45-49) AG’er I credit that “concept” for getting me from mid-front to FOP. It really hit home that in/for the long haul, to race well, one needs muscles that can fire strongly in the later stages. The difference between just finishing a leg and biking or running their respective last hour strongly is huge. I love the idea, as a personally interpreted concept and simplified goal. I basically train 100% towards that concept as an IM distance athlete, feeling that fewer harder and/or longer efforts are more beneficial than more frequency and more weekly hours. In my three year build-up (return to the sport after 11 yars off) my goal was for three one-year goals of: “get fit”, “get strong”, “get fast”. Now, given a schedule that has always limited training time, my results and self-knowledge have evolved the goal to simply “get strong.” That means stronger muscular endurance from one year to the next. The results are great, for me. Multi year focus is also a huge asset, allowing mslcular adaptation without burnout and a lower frequency of injury.
…for the long haul, to race well, one needs muscles that can fire strongly in the later stages.
And that is simply good fitness. To break fitness down into all these component pieces – “strength” “endurance” “cardio” “speed” “etc.” is a mistake, IMO. It’s just “fitness.” Muscles continue to generate power late in an event because (1) we’ve done the miles; and (2) we paced carefully. There is no magic special workout that improves the ability to keep going, versus workouts that just get us more fit.
I think that triathletes make a big mistake if they go about their training in an attempt to train all the different component “parts” of fitness as separate things. There’s no difference between “muscular endurance” and any other kind.
Ride, Run, Swim
Long, Hard or Often
Just about anything else is a waste of time.
Actually, Ash…I guess that is what I was trying to say…the “concept” of muscular endurance is more of a mental thing that was helpful in my approach. I certainly agree with you on the whole vs. the parts.
Unless you have heard Tudor Bompa explain it. I had the chance to listen to him speak this last week - and the way he explains it; is to do 10 minutes of an exercise. There are other ways to get that ME - as in doing hill repeats (bike or run) and you will get more reps in less time.
In essence isn’t all physical activity at some level weight lifting? It’s just a matter of what weight and how many reps.
~Matt
Unless you have heard Tudor Bompa explain it. I had the chance to listen to him speak this last week - and the way he explains it; is to do 10 minutes of an exercise. There are other ways to get that ME - as in doing hill repeats (bike or run) and you will get more reps in less time.
Unless you forgot how was the Muscle Endurance phase as “explained” in the older edition of Friel. Hardly 10 minutes bouts of continuous exercise.
Also remember that Bompa didn’t invent all this. He was just the first guy that knew russian and english to write a book.
In essence isn’t all physical activity at some level weight lifting? It’s just a matter of what weight and how many reps.
~Matt
Uh… no… you’ve been listening to personal trainers and gym rats for far too long
True on both accounts SAC. Joe actually said this was a concept that he and Tudor disagreed on.
Answer me this. I trained aerobically with very close attention to nutrition. During a span of three months, including a half-IM, an oly, and IMH, I lost a lot of weight. Was told it was due to muscle-wasting, aka protein synthesis. Was also told that I needed more time on weights for greater mass and “muscle endurance”. All the complex carbs didn’t phase the situation. I wonder if there are genetic-metabolic determiners where this is concerned(?).
In essence isn’t all physical activity at some level weight lifting? It’s just a matter of what weight and how many reps.
~Matt
Replace “weight lifting” with “resistance training” and you will be more correct.
“Replace “weight lifting” with “resistance training” and you will be more correct.”
Can I be less wrong instead?
Point is every step you take you’re “lifting weight” and or “Resistance training”. Even though you are merely lifting body weight. You can modify endurance training to be closer to gym room training my running up hills, stairs or riding huge gears.
In my uneducated humble opion it’s all a matter of steps. Extremely high weight , slow reps on one end extremely low weight, fast reps on the other. Pretty much everything else lies between. Different steps have slightly different effects.
~Matt
Do you know your sweat rate? That’s the first suspect for the weight loss when racing.
Assuming it isn’t, did you do blood analysis following those races? Because catabolic processes leave a considerable signature in the blood.
No Ken, because not all forms of physical activity are training.
No Ken, because not all forms of physical activity are training.
Yeah, I was assuming that “physical activity” referred to things vaguely related to triathlon. Everything I do is training (leaf raking for core strength, etc.) 
You think I can make a device to rake leaves that doesn’t make a good job of raking leaves, but it’s great for your core and your running? And charge $800 for it? 
You think I can make a device to rake leaves that doesn’t make a good job of raking leaves, but it’s great for your core and your running? And charge $800 for it?
Only if you provide a 90 day money back guarantee (and which doesn’t apply in autumn)…
I look at it from a time efficiency standpoint. As a coach I’m a time investment manager.
Off-Season Scheduling
Swim: 0-2/wk, depends on the athlete
Bike: 3/wk with 2-3hr long ride, monthly 80-100+ ride (trainer athletes different)
Run: 4-6/wk with 1:15-1:45 long run
Overall: training is fun, we make it as time efficient as possible. Only the essentials.
General Prep
Training to train, still addressing critical limiters. Focus on short term races, goals, fun training events, not the A race.
Swim: 0-3/wk, depends on the athlete
Bike: 3/wk with 3-5hr long ride.
Run: 4-6/wk with 1:30-2hr long run
Race Prep
Training to race, switch is turn to “on” and focus becomes volume, esp on the bike
Swim: 3-5/wk
Bike: 3-4/wk
Run: 4-6/wk
As you can see, one of my focuses is on run frequency. I think (know) it is very easy for a coach or training manual to say “you need to swim 3, bike 3-4, run 4-5 times per week. Oh, by the way, we think it’s also a good idea for you to lift 2x’s per week.” So now the minimum is friggin’ 12 sessions per week. In my opinion, regardless of the science does or does not say, the decision to schedule a training session must be based on it’s potential for a good return and the time constraints of the athlete. In my experience, lifting weights is often, at best, a precursor to transitioning that strength to a sport specific movement:
We do leg press and squats so we can make our legs strong so we can **convert **that strength to the sport specific movements of pedaling a bike or running. But that strength session comes at the opportunity cost of a sport specific session and the recovery cost of a perhaps a quality or long session. What is your return on investment? If you can accomplish the same or similar returns with a sport specific investment, isn’t that where we should apply our time? Why not just skip the intermediate step (lifting) and go straight to riding the bike harder/longer? As for my perspective and my own training, if you’re my competition just know that everytime you’re in the gym trashing your legs with squats and then needing a day or two off from biking or running, I’m drilling myself solo at 250-340 watts on Tuesday and backing it up at the front of a roadie ride on Wednesday.
The exceptions I have are: Older athletes. Less time constrained: have the time for the extra session and the recovery resources to pay for it. I will sort of buy the argument that lifting build “tough” legs that are resistant to fatigue and soreness near the end of an IM. But then again, so does frequency, volume, hills (up and down), etc.
But if the sport specific sessions of either group begin to be compromised we adjust the strength training first.
Specificity: If you want to get good at a thing, do that thing more frequently, harder and/or longer.
Cheers,