It depends if someone is racing a marathon, and trying to beat an established PR or win a race, or merely trying to finish. To change the subject, I know of a man who won a bet by squatting 405 and then the same day running a marathon under 3 hours.
It depends if someone is racing a marathon, and trying to beat an established PR or win a race, or merely trying to finish. To change the subject, I know of a man who won a bet by squatting 405 and then the same day running a marathon under 3 hours.
Isn't the point here more about which is more intimidating, or appears harder, to an untrained individual looking to start 'exercising'?
For that person, starting running is much easier conceptually and less intimidating than starting lifting. Even training for a marathon is easier to conceive. Most people, if they think about it at all, don't think ever squatting 405 is actually possible for them. And most coaches and exercise science experts don't either.
Do a 100 mile MTB race with 12k feet of climbing then come back and tell me it wasn't difficult. This is a race, not a casual ride thru the woods.
I've wrestled in HS/college, lifted post college, then got into the endurance thing for a few years, now back to lifting with little cardio. I can honestly say that 100 mile race was the most difficult thing I've done in terms of mental toughness
Everyone trying to say X weight squats = Y miles running aren't looking at things very clearly.
Any endurance event can be completed via walking, given enough time. Strength events don't work that way. Also, different people are built for different things. Long legs are great for running, short legs are great for lifting.
Back when I was much, much lighter and uninjured, I set a PR 10k pace of 34:15. Before my second girl was born, I managed a 500x5 squat, and I'm back around that territory now. When I was relatively fast, there is no way I could have been strong. Now that I'm relatively strong, there's no way that I can be fast. They're competing adaptations.
That's the counter to the original theory posed by your professor. We adapt to the stresses imposed on us. We are built to adapt; not to be endurance only, not to be strength only, but to adapt.
also, even if we are "designed" to be endurance/aerobic organisms or whatever.
what if fact is wrong with adapting ourselves to the other end of the spectrum/strength/power/anaerobic side ?
I'm not seeing the downside.
So we good at one thing 'naturally', why fuck around and pursue that futher to the nth degree? pursue the other end of the spectrum.
Good one brah
Sorry to get off topic.
But yeah, agreed that the human body will adapt to whatever stressors are applied. Certain body types and other genetic traits will make one more easily adaptable to the type of stress applied ("good responders"), but the bottom line is that the human body will respond to the overreach/recovery/adaptation cycle