Strength and Endurance

[Leanne M. Lloyd]

Interesting that the improvement in her squat was far less than what is typically predicted by the linear progression model associated with SS.

If she was still competing in marathons while strength training, she was still training for marathons. Add that to the fact that she only strength trained twice a week and did not add much body weight in nine months time. It is not surprising that her strength improvements were less robust than they would have been if she were not still marathon training, dedicated three days to strength training, and gaining more weight. (Please don't confuse this with me implying that she should have done so, I'm just pointing out the obvious barriers to attaining a "typical" strength gain using the SS model)

Basically what we can conclude from this is that being able to squat one's body weight is how much muscular strength is required for success in elite endurance performance.

That's not exactly a correct conclusion. I will agree that going from a less than body weight squat to a body weight squat allowed for her to improve her endurance/times. Could she see more improvement with a little more strength? Quite possibly; as you pointed out, she really didn't get "that much stronger". Where is the point of diminishing returns? It seems that no one quite has this answer yet.

[brcleeroy]

If she was still competing in marathons while strength training, she was still training for marathons. Add that to the fact that she only strength trained twice a week and did not add much body weight in nine months time. It is not surprising that her strength improvements were less robust than they would have been if she were not still marathon training, dedicated three days to strength training, and gaining more weight. (Please don't confuse this with me implying that she should have done so, I'm just pointing out the obvious barriers to attaining a "typical" strength gain using the SS model)



That's not exactly a correct conclusion. I will agree that going from a less than body weight squat to a body weight squat allowed for her to improve her endurance/times. Could she see more improvement with a little more strength? Quite possibly; as you pointed out, she really didn't get "that much stronger". Where is the point of diminishing returns? It seems that no one quite has this answer yet.

Oddly enough, in an earlier post I asked Ripp questions regarding how he would differently program strength training for an endurance athlete. Unfortunately, due to no fault of your own, you would not have known this because he deleted the post.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Such a post would have been deleted because it is repetitive and pointless. There is no program of strength training for an endurance athlete. There is only strength training for novices, as we have explained thousands of times, and which has apparently eluded your finely-honed reading skills.

[brcleeroy]

Such a post would have been deleted because it is repetitive and pointless. There is no program of strength training for an endurance athlete. There is only strength training for novices, as we have explained thousands of times, and which has apparently eluded your finely-honed reading skills.

So there are no differences in programming for strength training between aerobic and strength based sports? May I remind you and your obviously superior reading skills that the person in the above scenario is also an elite level endurance athlete, so we weren't talking about a novice individual. You honestly would prefer that she goes into the gym and focus on maximally improving her strength and you actually believe this would have no effect on her endurance capabilities? What a missed opportunity that athlete had by not following this bullshit advice!

[Alex Kennedy]

What type of programming did you use with her running training?

Do you remember what year and age group?

That's cool stuff.

-SS novice LP
-5x3Med/3x5Heavy
-3x5 Med/3x3 Heavy
Somewhere in the upper 30s. I can't remember

Interesting that the improvement in her squat was far less than what is typically predicted by the linear progression model associated with SS. This would be even more interesting if anyone had ever said strength training wasn't important. Basically what we can conclude from this is that being able to squat one's body weight is how much muscular strength is required for success in elite endurance performance.

It really wasn't that interesting or surprising. She was running everyday when we started. At one point she agreed to go to just 4x/week, but I know she did more than agreed (this is some of what Rip is getting at guys). Imagine running 40-50 miles a week, and trying to run an LP. Your bodyweight conclusion is premature, and kinda funny. I would not take anything from the example I gave other than, strength training can help marathon runners. They just never know what strength training actually is (usually), and are resistant to do things to apply it well.

Did her bodyweight increase over the course of training?

5lbs. Maybe a little more.

[Brodie Butland]

Also (and perhaps this is where my previous posts weren't clear) I was primarily arguing against Ripp's absurd logic in the initial video he posted. If his explanation was true muscular strength would be the biggest determining factor regarding who would win the race. It's not. The biggest determining factor for endurance events is Cardiac Output (once again, this is far from the only variable). The engine that drives endurance performance is the heart, not muscular strength!

Dude...you post stuff like this and then wonder why you aren't taken seriously.

Here's what Rip said, verbatim, at the beginning of the video:

What do runners and cyclists all have in common? (A) They won't train with barbells, and (B) they're not very strong. Would they be better at their sport if they were stronger? Why? [Explanation regarding increments of 1RM follows]

At 4:50, Rip refers to doubling a cyclist's squat from 100 lbs to 200 lbs over 5 weeks and indicates that would help the cyclist's endurance. (Which incidentally is the same type of number he gave in posts #14 and 33.)

How do you get an implication from there to "Rip says muscular strength [is] the biggest determining factor regarding who would win [a] race"? Or that an otherwise average runner could become nationally competitive if he just got his squat to [insert large number here]? Or that Jordan could beat Lance Armstrong on the bike?

Rip's argument--based on the words he actually used, not the ones you're putting in his mouth--is only that runners and cyclists should seek to make a modest strength gain, and if they do so they will see an improvement in endurance capability. That's it. He isn't saying that strength is the limiting or biggest determining factor in a marathon or the Tour de France. (He doesn't even use the words "limiting" or "biggest determining" anywhere in the video.) He isn't disputing that training for a marathon or a long cycling competition will require a completely different type of training than we encourage for the GenPop. (He doesn't discuss a training program for endurance athletes in the video, and has said in prior articles that marathoners will train differently than powerlifters.) He isn't disputing the importance of VO2 max capability for competitive endurance athletes. (He doesn't mention VO2 max or any other factors that would be important.)

If you want to have a debate that no one else is having, that's fine. But you don't get to bitch when you're called out for blatantly misrepresenting someone's position in the process.

[Mark Rippetoe]

So there are no differences in programming for strength training between aerobic and strength based sports? May I remind you and your obviously superior reading skills that the person in the above scenario is also an elite level endurance athlete, so we weren't talking about a novice individual.

You are amazingly stupid. You are incredibly ignorant. You cannot be taken seriously. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you have just proven conclusively that you have no idea what we're talking about. And this is why you were deleted, on far too few occasions. Anybody that responds to this shit with anything except "Read the fucking book" loses their posting privileges.

[brcleeroy]

You are amazingly stupid. You are incredibly ignorant. You cannot be taken seriously. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you have just proven conclusively that you have no idea what we're talking about. And this is why you were deleted, on far too few occasions. Anybody that responds to this shit with anything except "Read the fucking book" loses their posting privileges.

I know you won't post this but this is the pot calling the kettle black.

REQUIREMENTS for AEROBIC TRAINING =/= REQUIREMENTS for STRENGTH TRAINING!

Please stay within your narrow realm of expertise you fat fuck!

[Mark Rippetoe]

I'll delete the next one, okay?

[tnumrych]

I'll delete the next one, okay?

Rip, it's times like this that make me actually wish you turn the forum into a paysite.