Strength and Endurance

[Crom]

For perspective: you can probably win some pretty major races if you can maintain 400 watts for 20 minutes.
If I did the math right, that means each pedal stomp at 90 RPM would reach a peak force of only about 120 pounds-force.

That is really not tremendously "strong".
But 20 minutes of that would be 1800 reps ...with each leg.

So pretty quickly (about 30 seconds or so) you are not limited by strength, but limited by whether your heart and lungs can supply 400 watts worth of oxygenated blood to the muscles. It doesn't really matter if you are only at 30%, or 50%, or 90% of your strength limit, you are still limited by the cardiovascular system. It FEELS like you need more "leg strength" while you're doing it, but the legs are getting weaker because of the cardio-system limits.

[The Berserker]

Have you or other SS coaches trained any elite runners or cyclists?

I also have some issues/questions about this. Because the arguments come across kinda simplistic.

Nah, they just know that your analogy is incomplete.

Here's something else I find intriguing. These guys will take anything and do anything to become better, but they will not focus on strength training with a barbell (Lance lifted, but not Our Way).
Steroids, check. Amphetamines, check. EPO, check. Blood transfusions, check. High altitude training, check.
Wind tunnel tests, Vo2max tests, lactate tests, wattage and cadence sensors, heart rate monitors, sleep monitors, etc.
There's usually a staff of doctors, scientists, technicians, nutritionists, masseuses, etc.

For all this sophistication, with so many years of experience, spread across the entire world, and with so much riding on the line, it is astonishing that they all are so f-ing stupid.
Reminds me of the Olympic Weightlifting community.

[Dave M]

Nah, they just know that your analogy is incomplete.

The "bigger motor" theory is fine and all, but when comparing people to cars you need to include the fact that we have a hybrid fuel system. Human-cars have 30 seconds of gasoline, and the rest of the time we're electric cars.

The tiny motors of elite distance runners are extremely fuel efficient. No top end, but can maintain 60 mph indefinitely on electric (aka aerobic) power. The big damn motors of sprinters are not efficient at all. They have a phenomenal top end, but can only maintain 30 mph in electric mode.

Now, over the course of 25 minutes to 2 hours, which vehicle wins the race? It's not about horsepower in an endurance race if that horsepower comes at the expense of worse mpg.

I'm sorry Rip, but the idea of serious strength training improving long duration endurance just doesn't match the evidence (unless your definition of "endurance" is way shorter than mine. I'm talking like 45-60 minutes and up). There is the above argument (a bigger motor doesn't make a car slower, but it does make it run out of gas faster) but there are a couple of others.

You make a good case about 1RM improving endurance with the percentage example, but it's a case of a real phenomenon getting over extended to an area where it no longer applies. If you're talking 20 rep squat endurance I'm 100% on board with your argument that 1RM is predictive, but we're talking a 4500+ "rep max" (75 RPM x 60+ minutes). At these loads the % of 1RM is simply too small for 1RM to predict endurance. Zatsiorksy in Science and Practice of Strength Training pegs the value below which 1RM doesn't predict endurance at about 25%. That is, if both people are below 25% their respective 1RMs have little predictive power. I don't know how good that figure is, but the idea that at some threshold 1RM has no predictive power matches what we know about physiology.

Physiologically the adaptations that allow for elite endurance performance (high mitochondrial density, high capillary density, high ventricle stroke volume, etc) are totally different than the adaptations that allow for a good back squat 5 RM so why would training your 5RM help your cycling? It gets you the wrong kind of adaptations. You talk about adding 100 lbs to a cyclists squat but this will primarily cause adaptation in the big fast twitch muscle fiber units: motor units with very poor endurance. After a few minutes of cycling these bigger stronger muscle fiber's you've created will just have to tap out and let the slow twitch ones take over anyway, so it's not really going to help on the flat long parts. And if you added significant muscle mass to get that 100 lbs of squat increase you'll probably reduce performance since the slow twitch fibers now also have to sling around this exhausted hypertrophied fast twitch muscle.

Now, might strength training help prevent injuries? I'm on board with that. Will it help on steep hill climbs where where we're talking about maybe a 50 RM instead of a 4500 RM? I'm totally a believer. Will it help short duration track cyclists? Of course (have you seen their quads?! GOOD GOD). But the idea that adding 100 lbs to a long duration endurance cyclists squat will help them with their 20-100 mile rides? It just doesn't fit with our understanding of training adaptations or the athletes we seen consistently winning the competitions.

[Mark Rippetoe]

But the idea that adding 100 lbs to a long duration endurance cyclists squat will help them with their 20-100 mile rides? It just doesn't fit with our understanding of training adaptations or the athletes we seen consistently winning the competitions.

You've seen endurance athletes that added 100 pounds to their squat while continuing to train endurance whose performance suffered? You people seem to think that this shit is all theoretical on my end.

[The Berserker]

If sitting out of 5-6 weeks of ongoing aerobic training does in fact cause a rather profound degradation or detraining of aerobic capacity, doesn't that sort of point out the futility of attempting to train for such as a long-term exercise goal?

Futile, for who? Why? The person who is interested in endurance activity doesn't think their aerobic capacity is a futile long-term exercise goal.
Many people here think it is (maybe, this is why these athletes don't train with us); but, we're talking to the endurance people, remember.

I mean, is a highly-developed aerobic engine a rational training goal for the GenPop if taking a few weeks off causes a catastrophic cratering of all you have worked for?

Taking a few weeks off and losing "all you have worked for" isn't really the debate, here.

Regarding what is deemed "rational":
Is doing a beginning powerlifting program (Starting Strength) rational if the acquired strength is lost without maintenance training?
People pursuing a well developed aerobic capacity aren't irrational fools. They just don't what to be as strong as you.

If this adaptation is so healthy and so desireable, why does your body seem so determined to shed it and return to a lower baseline level of "fitness"? Is this adaptation akin to the perennial maintenance of sub-10% bodyfat?

This cuts both ways: If strength is "so healthy and so desirable," "why does your body seem so determined to shed it" and not retain it.

This, too, is just more smoke and mirrors distracting from the actual debate about strength training's overall impact on endurance athletics.
I don't think anyone is saying strength is meaningless for endurance, but is it overrated, especially in this community? I think so.

[Maties Hofstede]

For all this sophistication, with so many years of experience, spread across the entire world, and with so much riding on the line, it is astonishing that they all are so f-ing stupid.
Reminds me of the Olympic Weightlifting community.

Yeah, so bizarre how they're all missing a chromosome.

You've seen endurance athletes that added 100 pounds to their squat while continuing to train endurance whose performance suffered? You people seem to think that this shit is all theoretical on my end.

You've seen endurance athletes that added 100 pounds to their squat while continuing to train endurance whose performance suffered? You people seem to think that this shit is all theoretical on my end.

No we are not. I can ask who has put 100lbs on their squat and therefore improved performance? Won la tour de france or something.

In all respect im not even saying you are wrong. Damn you might very well be right (as usual). But for an compelling case I need a better explanation because the bigger motor argument doesnt stack up.

Just because they don't undertand barbell training doesnt mean they don't understand their own sport. I know numerous storys about amatuer and prof cyclists, and everyone single one of em will tell you that once they start losing weight, from what liltle
They have, their racing performance improves. So the moment we come barking in with "a bigger motor...." all they heard was bigger. No wonder they won't train.

Since reading SSBBT:3 I can EXPLAIN anatomically etc why squats are not bad for the knees, why deadlifting is prob good for the back etc. I havent seen such an argument / analysis on this subject. And from the comments we can see we 'need' one.

[JohnW]

I'm sorry Rip, but the idea of serious strength training improving long duration endurance just doesn't match the evidence (unless your definition of "endurance" is way shorter than mine. I'm talking like 45-60 minutes and up). There is the above argument (a bigger motor doesn't make a car slower, but it does make it run out of gas faster) but there are a couple of others.

You make a good case about 1RM improving endurance with the percentage example, but it's a case of a real phenomenon getting over extended to an area where it no longer applies. If you're talking 20 rep squat endurance I'm 100% on board with your argument that 1RM is predictive, but we're talking a 4500+ "rep max" (75 RPM x 60+ minutes). At these loads the % of 1RM is simply too small for 1RM to predict endurance. Zatsiorksy in Science and Practice of Strength Training pegs the value below which 1RM doesn't predict endurance at about 25%. That is, if both people are below 25% their respective 1RMs have little predictive power. I don't know how good that figure is, but the idea that at some threshold 1RM has no predictive power matches what we know about physiology.

Physiologically the adaptations that allow for elite endurance performance (high mitochondrial density, high capillary density, high ventricle stroke volume, etc) are totally different than the adaptations that allow for a good back squat 5 RM so why would training your 5RM help your cycling? It gets you the wrong kind of adaptations. You talk about adding 100 lbs to a cyclists squat but this will primarily cause adaptation in the big fast twitch muscle fiber units: motor units with very poor endurance. After a few minutes of cycling these bigger stronger muscle fiber's you've created will just have to tap out and let the slow twitch ones take over anyway, so it's not really going to help on the flat long parts. And if you added significant muscle mass to get that 100 lbs of squat increase you'll probably reduce performance since the slow twitch fibers now also have to sling around this exhausted hypertrophied fast twitch muscle.

Now, might strength training help prevent injuries? I'm on board with that. Will it help on steep hill climbs where where we're talking about maybe a 50 RM instead of a 4500 RM? I'm totally a believer. Will it help short duration track cyclists? Of course (have you seen their quads?! GOOD GOD). But the idea that adding 100 lbs to a long duration endurance cyclists squat will help them with their 20-100 mile rides? It just doesn't fit with our understanding of training adaptations or the athletes we seen consistently winning the competitions.

Examples of athletes who've consistently won endurance events who strength train (with barbells)
Mo Farah has discussed this publicly as making a major difference in his athletics career.
Bradley Wiggins
Mark Cavendish
Laura Trott/Kenny and anyone else who has been near British Cycling.

I think you've made a mistake with Zatsiorsky's data. 1RM doesn't predict endurance performance between different athletes.
But, if an individual athlete gets stronger they improve compared to their previous self.
Granted if an athlete is using 15% of her 1RM prior to training she won't be able to use 15% of her new doubled 1RM. Limitations on cardiac output, mitochondrial density etc will see to that. However, if she can use 8% she'll still be better. And, that's before considering improvements in power, fatigue resistance and injury prevention.

[Cody]

This all makes sense. Which is why long distance runners or cyclists should spend boatloads of time running or cycling, so they can develop that efficiency. But they would also benefit from increasing their capacity for force production, because all things being equal, a stronger runner is a better runner.

All things are never equal.

Now of course, your serious "endurance" athletes won't be able to devote as much resource to weight training because of the nature of their chosen activity for a variety of reasons. The energy demands and the stress on the body associated with running long distances won't be conducive to significant strength gains, a lot of extra bodyweight isn't good for long distances, etc. But that doesn't mean your male marathon runner can't get to and won't benefit from a 2-plate squat (which, by LP standards, is pretty damn low, and doesn't require putting on a lot of bodyweight).

Any bodyweight that isn't strictly necessary will affect their time. Any muscle mass more than necessary will affect their energy demands.

But how many marathoners do you know can squat 225? At least of the ones I know (which is over 10 people), the answer is "none." The reason? Because they believe that using a barbell will make them "musclebound" and "slow." And this is what I believe Rip is trying to say when he says that elite runners won't train (for strength).

None. Which begs the question, do they need to be able to do that?

It would be more apt to reverse the two motor types - electric for a short-lived high intensity anaerobic jolt, then gas for the long steady aerobic cruise.

Let's not get too literal with an illustrative metaphor here.

Apart from that, you seem to be insinuating that the long-endurance electric (in your example) motor disappears in Rip's paradigm. Vanishes. Poof. Gone. Since that's not at all what happens to the aerobic capacity of an predominantly aerobic endurance athlete during the 5-6 week linear progression he argues for in the video, it sorta mootifies your cogitatin'.

No, that's not what I insinuated at all. I said quite clearly that the bigger motor is less efficient over time. It has nothing to do with the length of the LP, it has to do with the adaptations that occur from that LP.

And as yet another aside: if sitting out of 5-6 weeks of ongoing aerobic training does in fact cause a rather profound degradation or detraining of aerobic capacity, doesn't that sort of point out the futility of attempting to train for such as a long-term exercise goal? I mean, is a highly-developed aerobic engine a rational training goal for the GenPop if taking a few weeks off causes a catastrophic cratering of all you have worked for? If this adaptation is so healthy and so desireable, why does your body seem so determined to shed it and return to a lower baseline level of "fitness"? Is this adaptation akin to the perennial maintenance of sub-10% bodyfat?

Someone said elite athletes (of any sport) are healthy? But again, you read something that wasn't there.

Is there evidence (anecdotal, even) of an elite-class distance runner adding a bit of muscle over a short period to demonstrate the "worse mpg' in her distance times?

Is there evidence (anecdotal, even) of an elite-class distance runner adding a bit of muscle over a short period to demonstrate better performance in her distance times?

[Mark Rippetoe]

This cuts both ways: If strength is "so healthy and so desirable," "why does your body seem so determined to shed it" and not retain it.

If you think strength is lost as fast as conditioning, you need to stop typing right now, because this is a Facebook-level comment.

This, too, is just more smoke and mirrors distracting from the actual debate about strength training's overall impact on endurance athletics.
I don't think anyone is saying strength is meaningless for endurance, but is it overrated, especially in this community? I think so.

You don't know what you're talking about, and you don't understand the argument. Do you people think I haven't trained any cyclists?

No we are not. I can ask who has put 100lbs on their squat and therefore improved performance? Won la tour de france or something.

You think that nobody who has won the TdF has trained for strength? You think that the idea that perhaps the naturally strongest endurance athletes are the ones that win is absurd? The guys born with the bigger motor don't win???? The other guys can't benefit from a bigger motor? You win the TdF with your VO2max?

Just because they don't undertand barbell training doesnt mean they don't understand their own sport. I know numerous storys about amatuer and prof cyclists, and everyone single one of em will tell you that once they start losing weight, from what liltle
They have, their racing performance improves. So the moment we come barking in with "a bigger motor...." all they heard was bigger. No wonder they won't train.

There is no point in discussing this with you, because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Remember what business I have been in for 40 years, and compare that to your professional history.

Let me ask you a question: why do you find pleasure in trolling this board? Why would you type this half-thought-out bullshit for everybody else to see? Why is it necessary to challenge my experience with "numerous storys"? Please find someone else to irritate.

Is there evidence (anecdotal, even) of an elite-class distance runner adding a bit of muscle over a short period to demonstrate better performance in her distance times?

Is there evidence of her coach ever recommending this approach? Is there evidence that it's ever been tried? You, like most people, seem to be having trouble with phenomenology.

[Cody]

Is there evidence of her coach ever recommending this approach? Is there evidence that it's ever been tried? You, like most people, seem to be having trouble with phenomenology.

You, like most people, seem to be having trouble with the null hypothesis.