Starting Strength Coaches Association Series: Exercise Science 2014

[Brodie Butland]

We're to dismiss interference because of some guy named Albert? I didn't even bother to look.

I think the burden of proof remains with the anti-interference effect camp. If somebody can show us, with data, how to train strength and endurance simultaneously while optimizing improvements in both, nobody will be happier than I. I'm not holding my breath.

My first thought was: where did Albert begin? If I took a completely detrained individual and put him through a primarily strength-based program for three months, I will improve his mile time without doing any running whatsoever. A 60 lbs increase in snatch means the dude got stronger, and I would expect that to translate to a quantifiably better mile time unless the guy was already an elite athlete to begin with.

[CJ Gotcher]

We're to dismiss interference because of some guy named Albert? I didn't even bother to look.

I think the burden of proof remains with the anti-interference effect camp. If somebody can show us, with data, how to train strength and endurance simultaneously while optimizing improvements in both, nobody will be happier than I. I'm not holding my breath.

I agree with you entirely- I think the 'case study' presented is an example of the interference effect based on the slow progression. My own background and training means I lack perspective for multi-modal athletes (OCR, military, MMA, CF, etc.: would sequential or concurrent training be best for them?

+1. I haven't read the entire article, but based on that excerpt do we even know the training was simultaneous? Maybe "Albert" cycled on and off between LSD and RT. Do we even know if the improvements were measured simultaneously? Maybe they were taken months apart in which he improved one, dropped the training, and then improved the other. 2.5 years is certainly plenty of time to alternate back and forth to make the data show whatever the author wants it to.

Not to mention the extremely large and representative sample size of 1.

Sorry for making assumptions (and this addresses Brodie's question): the N=1 was a CrossFitter- his training, according to the author, was concurrent (CF). He was 160# with a 6:57 mile run and a 135# snatch starting off. The snatch PR and run were taken close to each other.

Again (because I realize I wasn't clear enough earlier), the interference effect seems well established- this case study is not even worth holding up to challenge it. I bring it up as a point of discussion: how do we get around it? If you were training a CF'er or someone who, eventually, has to dip into the aerobic spectrum for their sport, how would you do it?

[Jonathon Sullivan]

Again (because I realize I wasn't clear enough earlier), the interference effect seems well established- this case study is not even worth holding up to challenge it. I bring it up as a point of discussion: how do we get around it? If you were training a CF'er or someone who, eventually, has to dip into the aerobic spectrum for their sport, how would you do it?

I think you were pretty clear, and I don't think anyone was taking you to task.

The short answer is that you can't substantively cheat the interference effect.

The long answer is:

Unless you're an athlete working in a strength sport (OL, PL, SM, etc), you will not be as strong as you could be. The athletes who come closest to their genetic potential for strength are strength athletes. Soccer players, karateka, fencers, fighters, ballerinas, runners and cross-country skiers have different agendas.

They all need strength, but they also require other attributes to be honed. In the case of non-endurance athletes (the karateka, soccer player, the fighter and ballerina), strength is more primary and can be brought relatively close to genetic potential if the athlete (and his coach) are not so foolish as to waste time with LSD. These athletes can get strong under the bar, get the endurance they need from sport-specific practice and anaerobic conditioning drills, and experience low-to-moderate levels of interference, depending on their sport. And if well-coached, they will focus on different attributes throughout the training year, moving from raw strength in the off-season and early preseason, thence to power, to conditioning, and ultimately to practice and competition.

Endurance athletes are a different animal. If LSD is your sport (poor fucker), then you simply will not get as close to your genetic potential for strength as other athletes--and that's not your goal. You are intereested in getting close to your genetic potential for endurance. You're not the guy who wants a 220 kg clean (and will do anything to get it), you're the guy who wants a VO2max of 93 (and will do anything to get it). But just as the strength athlete is foolish to completely ignore conditioning (which is NOT the same thing as aerobic LSD), the endurance athlete is foolish to ignore strength training. He will experience significant interference, and he knows that going in, but he will be as strong as he can be as an endurance athlete, and that strength will pay dividends in movement economy and stroke power that will profit him on the competition track.

A stream-of-consciousness response, based as always on a paucity of actual good data. Anyway, that's my current thinking on this. Hope it makes sense.


-

[DeriHughes]

Firstly, Sully - thank you for researching, writing and delivering this, and especially for then providing it free of charge to enlighten us. Can't wait for parts 3 and 4

Re interference effect, you focused on interference of endurance training on strength-related outcomes (hypertrophy, strength, power), but conversely Hickson et al appeared to observe strength training to show little interference with the development of aerobic conditioning (from what I could tell). Rip regularly asserts that strength training supports, rather than interferes with, endurance performance, but he usually quotes his thought experiment regarding % of effort required per movement. Are there studies out there that demonstrate that if you are training for endurance, you can still get strong without significantly restricting your ability to develop aerobic endurance? Or does that fall under your 'we have no good data on the interference effect' banner?

I ask because I think a lot of us ("us" defined as people who wish everyone else wanted to get stronger) have friends who love their LSD - usually running, cycling or swimming - and proof that they can get strong without sacrificing their twice yearly recreational half-marathon time would be a powerful argument. Most of them simply don't buy the "each step will be easier if you're stronger" argument. I understand that it's different for people actively striving to reach their genetic potential on any given dimension, but most people are not close to that.

[Gene61]

Wow this tread got off to a bad start.

Sully, thanks for all your hard work on this. Very interesting and informative.

No for my comment:

On the Shaner et all paper you make the always appropriate warning to be wary of confirmation bias. Because Shaner didn't equalize the effort of of the two exercises we can't definitively state that this paper shows that the squat causes more hormonal response than the leg press. However, think about it this way. They used 90% of 1 RM. This effectively equalizes what a trainee can actually do with each exercise. Rip always points out that he likes the squat because it utilizes the most muscle mass over the most functional range of motion. If you are comparing two exercises to see which delivers the most bang for buck, Shaner picked the right way to equalize then. You can only lift what you can lift! If they accurately figured out the 90% 1 RM for each lift, then the fact that the squat caused a larger hormonal response does in fact confirm the squat is a better choice of exercise. What do you think?

[Bill Been]

I'm clearly the most smartest Doctor in the room due to my being the first and only observer to point out that Reagan was not President in 1980. So any further observation of these phenomena with respect to either our Elite Games athletes or in the case of differing strategies of mobility and stability in the transtemporal corrective exercises required to accomplish the multifaceted post-Carterian rehabilitations.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

Bill, I was wondering when somebody was going to point that out. It kinda puts the tempest in a different teapot, doesn't it?

[Flatlandman]

I get smarter but feel stupider every time I watch one of these. Thanks and please keep them coming.

[Richard Seaman]

Really minor off topic item. When you follow the link to this series of lectures from the resources/videos links on the website, the first 3 parts of the series are linked in, but the 4th is not. Anyone following from that link will miss part 4.