Strength and Endurance

[Elephant]

Strength and Endurance | Mark Rippetoe - YouTube

The argument is very plausible. There are some things I wonder about. For example, why do sprinters and marathon runners try such different approaches? Sprinters look relatively strong and have been known to take steroids. Marathon runners look scrawny and the weight of world record setters has been dropping. Intermediate distance runners have intermediate body types.

I find Ryan Hall an interesting case. He was emaciated as a marathon runner and after retiring added a bunch of muscle. He says he's healthier now and seems to recommend weight training for just about everyone other than pro marathoners. Yes, Professional Runners Are Weak | Outside Online

Alberto Salazar, who trains many elite distance runners, incorporates weight training. To make it to the next level, strength training is a must | FloTrack Is it just tradition which causes them to do some weight work, but not continue packing on muscle? Genetics?

You have correctly pointed out that just because athletes train in some way does not necessarily mean that way is rational, let alone optimal. Nonetheless, the obvious differences between sprinters and marathon runners (and those in between) suggests something.

So, I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just curious. Tradition and lack of knowledge might predominate, even if some are experimenting. Elite running seems much more eager to try different approaches than, for example, the train wreck of US Olympic lifting.

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

[Mark Rippetoe]

Elite runners and cyclists will not train.

[Maties Hofstede]

Elite runners and cyclists will not train.

You mean not with a barbell.

I also have some issues/questions about this. Because the arguments come across kinda simplistic. Now I am aware that the simplicity of arithmics and getting strong is what makes the ss approach so goddamn good, but this arguments falls short imo.

How does a decreased submax pedal stroke account for longer endurance? Because even the "amateur" cyclist will be on his bike for an avg of 3-5 hrs. His sprinting capabilities will be better yes, it's just that 5hrs endurance work and a higher 5rm squat are both so on the outer xtremes of the continuum. Pushing a higher gear is also not persé a guide for better performance. A lot of world class cyclists pedal with a high rpm. Akin to that, there has never been a "sprinter" who won the tour de France, or any great race. Its always the skinny weaklings who weigh so little they fly across the road n race up the mountains, taking home the yellow jersey.
Fcourse thats talking athletes which probably doesnt crossover to the layman but anyways.

As for the amateur, they all should squat ofcourse but I wonder if the argument for generall health woulldnt be more compelling.


This these are just some thoughts I had. I learned from you and this community to always think and be criticial so rhere you have it.

Have a good day.

[Cody]

Elite runners and cyclists will not train.

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.

[JustinTxDave]

Elite runners and cyclists will not train.

Track Cyclists do train with weights. The events are shorter, faster, and pure power is more desired than hours of spinning the pedals. Sprinters, as in their running equivalent, are usually very heavily muscled and the races can involve a lot of NASCAR style bashing. BTW these bikes have no brakes, one gear, and can not coast.

Road cyclists are very afraid of having to drag any excess weight up hills that many of the top pros have all sort of mental problems knowing that they need to eat 10,00 calories a day for energy but wondering simultaneously if they are getting fat. BTW the first American to win the Giro de Italia (Tour of Italy) said he used to day dream about Dairy Queen soft serve ice cream while racing in Europe as they do not have any DQs over there. :-)

See How to get legs like track cyclist Jason Kenny - Telegraph

[Brodie Butland]

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.

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.

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).

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).

[Bill Been]

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.

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.

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'.

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?

[m_sporkboy]

My daughter went to a swim meet yesterday, and was complaining that her coaches almost never have them do any training in race conditions; they do thousands of yards in a practice, and almost no sprinting other than when they've already tired themselves out. Even the "warmup" the coach prescribed before a 100 fly was 600 meters of slow nonsense. It is idiotic. Yet another reason I'm glad I talked her into quitting swim for the summer to do the novice program.

[johnnys]

It's not about horsepower in an endurance race if that horsepower comes at the expense of worse mpg.

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?

[MBasic]

You mean not with a barbell.

I also have some issues/questions about this. Because the arguments come across kinda simplistic. Now I am aware that the simplicity of arithmics and getting strong is what makes the ss approach so goddamn good, but this arguments falls short imo.

How does a decreased submax pedal stroke account for longer endurance? Because even the "amateur" cyclist will be on his bike for an avg of 3-5 hrs. His sprinting capabilities will be better yes, it's just that 5hrs endurance work and a higher 5rm squat are both so on the outer xtremes of the continuum. Pushing a higher gear is also not persé a guide for better performance. A lot of world class cyclists pedal with a high rpm. Akin to that, there has never been a "sprinter" who won the tour de France, or any great race. Its always the skinny weaklings who weigh so little they fly across the road n race up the mountains, taking home the yellow jersey.
Fcourse thats talking athletes which probably doesnt crossover to the layman but anyways.

As for the amateur, they all should squat ofcourse but I wonder if the argument for generall health woulldnt be more compelling.


This these are just some thoughts I had. I learned from you and this community to always think and be criticial so rhere you have it.

Have a good day.

agree with this.

I'd say the marathoners could stand to do some off season strength training. I think with is does to their tendons, bones, joints might have a more positive influence than just the strength part. In season (i.e. the training build-up for a race), there is little time to fit in strength training.

With half-marathoners or less (13.1 mi; 10K; etc) . . . could probably strength train more year round.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________

Its funny how some say a certain amount of running will completely derail your strength gainz.
But then, the long distance runners are maligned for not taking time away from their running training for strength training.