Strength vs Endurance: Why are you wasting your time in the gym? Strength vs Endurance: Why are you wasting your time in the gym? - Page 2

starting strength gym
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Strength vs Endurance: Why are you wasting your time in the gym?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    357

    Default

    • wichita falls texas march seminar date
    • woodmere new york april seminar date
    @Mark and Jonathon:

    For example,
    + art. stiffness by RT:
    Aerobic, resistance and combined exercise training on arterial stiffness in normotensive and hypertensive adults: A review. - PubMed - NCBI
    Relationship between muscle sympathetic nerve activity and aortic wave reflection characteristics in aerobic- and resistance-trained subjects. - PubMed - NCBI cross-sect
    Arterial Stiffness and Autonomic Modulation After Free-Weight Resistance Exercises in Resistance Trained Individuals. - PubMed - NCBI short-term longit.

    no change:
    The effects of resistance exercise training on arterial stiffness in metabolic syndrome. - PubMed - NCBI

    RT+ aerobic almost as beneficial as AT alone in AS:
    Effect of combined aerobic and resistance training versus aerobic training on arterial stiffness. - PubMed - NCBI

    Note there is also mixed evidence with a few studies reporting less arterial stiffness (AS) with RT. However, that mostly seems to be confounded with weight loss, aerobic exercise, and the kind of RT training done in those studies. As higher intensity RT (often defined as >75 or 80%1RM) increased AS whereas lower intensity RT may decrease it. Aerobic, resistance and combined exercise training on arterial stiffness in normotensive and hypertensive adults: A review. - PubMed - NCBI

    The positive effects of aerobic exercise on AS are well-established and dont need to be demonstrated.

    The effects of AS on outcome markers of health are also pretty clear. I am not aware of a particular longit. RTC of strength trainees, arterial stiffness and outcomes of health. For obvious reasons I dont think there will be any, either. That leaves us with the effects of RT on AS and the effects of AS on health outcomes in general. I dont see much difference in the latter relationship in a RT vs an aerobic trained, other sports trained or sedentary any other population. Save, of course, that other health factors always are at play when finally determining health outcomes, and sure youre better off being not obese and active. So RT may be favorable on AS when in the course of it you become less obese - but thats set apart from the discussion on RT or aerobic exercise on AE itself.

    From what I understand its partly the heightened activity of the Sympathetic nervous system triggered by repeated RT (less n. vagus activity) that is responsible for chronic increases in arterial stiffness. One study that investigated cycled vs continued RT suggests that mechanism: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25734911 But certainly a cardiologist can explain that better than I can.

    --------------------------------

    @ stef: Yeah, the good ole man with the cigar.

    Obviously, there is too little aerobic exercise for some people. Quite what you meant with "people who are moderately active" - the seem to be becoming less and less. I dont think we should be overly surprised about that when a good portion of the population in industrialized countries get up in the morning, get in the car, drive to work, sit there for 8hrs+, drive home, sit in front of the computer/TV for a total of 7hrs sleeping, 16.5hrs sitting and at most 30 out of 1440 minutes per day walking (that I even agree to count as very low intensity aerobic exercise for lack of another term ).

    You also try bring up the "time constraint" argument. I understand that. "Time is of the essence" for everone nowadays. Well, you cant have everything in no time. If you want to reap the exclusive fruits of RT, you have to do strength training. You cant get the same effects with playing soccer. If you want to have aerobic exercise effects, you have to train that. Same with anaerobic exercise. These effects dont fight each other (save interference effects at higher levels), there is no "better". Plane is no better than car or vice versa. Different behavior have different effects, different advantages and disadvantages. The good thing is that you can do and reap of all these different activities (until high levels of specialization were not talking about when talking about health anyway).

    Thats why I strongly think there is a "both and", not "either-or". Yes I know, we all love to fall in this dichotomy of reasons probably better explained by boring psychologists or sociologists. People did in the 80s when aerobic-only was the hype, they did with low-fat diets. No the pendulum has of course swung in the other direction, and even researchers are not unimpressed by fashions. [Of course I have to recommend (if you dont already know him) the godfather of criticizing and educating his own profession here, John Ioannidis. Hes done some very interesting work on analyzing research trends.] One was the savior, the other the devil. The mild form of it: "better vs worse", "high vs low efficiency".

    The evidence still supports "both and". Dont (they) tell me you/they dont have time for it because LISS/aerobic exercise can be easliy incorporated in a lot of peopleīs daily life. Just say "I dont like doing X" - I can understand that. I could write exactly the same paragraphs in a runnerīs forum where angry aerobic exercise enthusiasts demand absolute proof that HIIT or RT have certain advantages.

    So lets try to avoid falsely rationalizing our personal preferences and dislikes for different activities, methods or sports. Or as Churchill put it: "I am trying to cut down on alcohol. I have knocked off brandy and take Cointreau instead."

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,757

    Default

    You managed to miss the point again, Marenghi, as well as fantasize quite a bit about my activities and likes.

    Strength is the foundation. It covers the spectrum. Additional aerobic training is secondary. Again, the point isn't to do only strength, but to prioritize strength in untrained and abnormal populations.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Farmington Hills, MI
    Posts
    4,596

    Default

    Yeah, that's exactly the response I thought I'd get.

    What part of this request did you completely, utterly, and obtusely fail to understand?

    While we're at it, can we please see the reference that the "arterial stiffness" induced by weight lifting has ever been even correlated (much less causally linked) to any clinically relevant cardiovascular outcome (morbidity, mortality, organ dysfunction, cardiocerebrovascular events), in any population, anywhere, ever?
    Or did you think you could just link to a few random sciency-sounding abstracts utterly lacking in any real-world clinical relevance and we'd all be so impressed with you, and hang our heads in shame and pull our forelocks and change our evil ways?

    I used to think Rip was being too hard on you. As usual, he was right on the money.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathon Sullivan View Post
    Yeah, that's exactly the response I thought I'd get.

    What part of this request did you completely, utterly, and obtusely fail to understand?

    Or did you think you could just link to a few random sciency-sounding abstracts utterly lacking in any real-world clinical relevance and we'd all be so impressed with you, and hang our heads in shame and pull our forelocks and change our evil ways?

    I used to think Rip was being too hard on you. As usual, he was right on the money.
    Ha! First, your emotional furor seems to cloud your reading apprehension. Read again:
    "[...] I am not aware of a particular longit. RTC of strength trainees, arterial stiffness and outcomes of health. For obvious reasons I dont think there will be any, either. That leaves us with the effects of RT on AS and the effects of AS on health outcomes in general. I dont see much difference in the latter relationship in a RT vs an aerobic trained, other sports trained or sedentary any other population. Save, of course, that other health factors always are at play when finally determining health outcomes, and sure youre better off being not obese and active. So RT may be favorable on AS when in the course of it you become less obese - but thats set apart from the discussion on RT or aerobic exercise on AE itself.

    From what I understand its partly the heightened activity of the Sympathetic nervous system triggered by repeated RT (less n. vagus activity) that is responsible for chronic increases in arterial stiffness. One study that investigated cycled vs continued RT suggests that mechanism: Repeated cessation and resumption of resistance training attenuates increases in arterial stiffness. - PubMed - NCBI But certainly a cardiologist can explain that better than I can."
    Second, you also seem to have unrealistic or naive illusions about what evidence has to look like or is available when youre against a stance. Do you really think there is or will be a RTC, longitudinal or or even CS data in strength trainees and their long term arterial stiffness outcomes in health? Given the likelihood of most cardio-vascular events correlating with age, you would need to have data to explore a cohort of 70yr old strength trainees that have trained for years. You also probably - as do other critics like you - wish to have a study with strength trainees that train following your expectations (in this case, SS-programming style-characteristics - the other critic wishes to see myoreps, the third aks for high repitition machine-based rest-pause block periodization schemes). How likely do you think such a study will ever happen, how probable would be funding?

    Of course, people like you wont have those expectations at scientific evidence, when theyre in favour of a topic: Then "experience" - or just "common sense" - will suffice...

    So I dont know if you use this common fallacies of discarding scientific evidence on purpose or automatically. In the latter case, you should just become aware of those discrepancies and honestly ask yourself if and when you would change your mind on a topic. "Cognitive dissonance" would be a helpful entry to learn about.

    If you didnt know these studies or others, it shows you havent even researched a topic you nevertheless have strong unfounded opinions on. Lest have of course any scientific evidence in favour of your point that suffices the same expectations on evidence.

    For me, there is a very probable cause, mechanism and evidence that
    a) high load (in %1RM) RT causes increases of arterial stiffness
    b) arterial stiffness has shown to have negative health outcomes in the general population and there is no evidence that in strength trainees, chronic arterial stiffness would be neurtral or even favorable
    c) aerobic training can effectively counter this undesirable effect.

    Readers can verify or research the (and further) evidence themselves and form an opinion of their own.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    40,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathon Sullivan View Post
    Or did you think you could just link to a few random sciency-sounding abstracts utterly lacking in any real-world clinical relevance and we'd all be so impressed with you, and hang our heads in shame and pull our forelocks and change our evil ways?
    It works just fine in his ExFizz classes.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Farmington Hills, MI
    Posts
    4,596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post
    Second, you also seem to have unrealistic or naive illusions about what evidence has to look like or is available when youre IN FAVOR of a stance. Do you really think there is or will be a RTC, longitudinal or or even CS data in strength trainees and their long term arterial stiffness outcomes in health?
    Fixed that for you. And just to be clear, this is an attitude that has led to an untold amount of fuckery, at least in medicine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post
    Do you really think there is or will be a RTC, longitudinal or or even CS data in strength trainees and their long term arterial stiffness outcomes in health?
    Wow. Gosh. Hadn't thought of that. But of course, we do have this same level of data in aerobic trainees, strongly correlated with their silky-smooth levels of arterial compliance, to show how much better off they are.

    Right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post
    Given the likelihood of most cardio-vascular events correlating with age, you would need to have data to explore a cohort of 70yr old strength trainees that have trained for years.
    The data we do have, limited as it is, shows that such people do better, not worse, with regard to health, mortality, and cardiovascular events.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post
    How likely do you think such a study will ever happen, how probable would be funding?
    I don't know, but in the long run, I think it's more likely than you might suspect. But for now, of course, this means there's also no data to support your contentions that RT-induced "arterial stiffness" has any long-term negative health consequences in populations. And you seem to think you can somehow make this gaping hole in your rhetorical trollery our problem, by asserting that the burden is on US to compensate for this "arterial stiffness" epiphenomenon. An epiphenomenon which, I repeat, has NEVER BEEN SHOWN TO BE EVEN CORRELATED WITH MEANINGFUL NEGATIVE OUTCOMES IN ANY TRAINING POPULATION, or even a clinically meaningful increase chronic blood pressure.

    The best argument that you can conjure is "we see arterial stiffness in some disease states, therefore arterial stiffness is always bad." Well, we see cardiac hypertrophy and bradycardia in some disease states, too--and also in well-trained, perfectly healthy subjects. We see disc protrusion in people with neurosurgical presentations....and in perfectly healthy people. We see PVCs as a premorbid condition in people having an acute cardiac event...and in perfectly healthy people having a cup of coffee. We see increased red cell mass in polycythemia...and also in pregnancy and in endurance athletes. We see dandruff in HIV disease...and also in people with...dandruff.

    And so on. You see, the interpretation and significance of any particular biomarker depends heavily on context, and many can be markers for both health or disease, depending on that context. (Have you ever considered that the slight decreases in arterial compliance reported in the literature might be a salutary adaptation to resistance training, even though it's unhealthy in sedentary or diseased populations?)

    So....the best you can do is, shall we say, unconvincing.

    And all of this proceeds from your straw-man assumption that we are actually arguing against conditioning exercise, when in fact the opposite is true.

    In short, you're just a moderately eloquent troll with some sort of axe to grind. Not for the first time, we asked you to back up your scribblings, and you came up with a bunch of irrelevant citations and a lot of empty rhetoric. I won't waste any more time on you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    It works just fine in his ExFizz classes.
    Which, along with some aerobic hand waving, probably helps to diminish the cognitive stiffness (rigor) of his students.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathon Sullivan View Post
    While we're at it, can we please see the reference that the "arterial stiffness" induced by weight lifting has ever been even correlated (much less causally linked) to any clinically relevant cardiovascular outcome (morbidity, mortality, organ dysfunction, cardiocerebrovascular events), in any population, anywhere, ever?

    Cuz that would be super-interesting.

    Please send that data. We'll wait.
    Note: I was a paper-pusher and not a researcher so my knowledge of the science and terms will be rather pedestrian.

    About 10 years ago I was working for a company that was researching ways of treating blood pressure without medication, particularly the way isometric contractions effect BP. The research indicated that an isometric hold with the hands (with a very hard squeeze) over a period of just two minutes (that is "squeeze" sessions and rest periods) created a net long-term effect of lowering BP. It appeared that the changes to blood pressure were due, in part, to an increase of flexibility/elasticity in the blood vessels. The research saw similar, though not as dramatic, results with a group that performed the leg press. None of the research was conclusive and none of it was conducted on populations that weight train (mostly sedentary on protocol vs. populations that performed traditional cardio exercises). However, it would seem, by the initial research we had access too, that the body responds to a stimulus, like weight training, by ordinarily adapting to the strain event and makes or allows those vessels to accommodate the stress.

    I don't have access to the research right now, but I could find it if I dig around a bit. All the research was done on statistically significant populations, but from what I understand that only needs to be 15 or 20 people. However, last I heard this company was funding a major study at a university hospital system so the protocol could be tested on a major population over a longer period of time. I don't want to mention the name of the company, because, well, I can't.

    Again, I don't have the medical background necessary to interpret these studies, but I gleaned a lot from the actual doctors and other researchers. Some of the results might have been interpreted more favorably towards the protocol and device they were developing ('cause hey, they had to get a product to market), but it still seems that the conventional wisdom regarding "arterial stiffness" had no basis in reality.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    40,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slhuckstead View Post
    About 10 years ago I was working for a company that was researching ways of treating blood pressure without medication, particularly the way isometric contractions effect BP. The research indicated that an isometric hold with the hands (with a very hard squeeze) over a period of just two minutes (that is "squeeze" sessions and rest periods) created a net long-term effect of lowering BP. It appeared that the changes to blood pressure were due, in part, to an increase of flexibility/elasticity in the blood vessels. The research saw similar, though not as dramatic, results with a group that performed the leg press.
    And had they used enough weight on the leg press, the isometric grip-squeeze effect would have been quite significant. But, of course, they'd have no way of knowing that.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    And had they used enough weight on the leg press, the isometric grip-squeeze effect would have been quite significant. But, of course, they'd have no way of knowing that.
    If I remember correctly the leg press was something like 20% less than body weight for high reps and multiple sets. The research was conducted almost exclusively by exercise physiologists on test subjects that were pre-hypertensive. It also helps the former company for which I worked sell 600.00 dynamometers with a timing protocol.

    I'm not saying the research was logical or conducted optimally, but merely that the net-effect of isometric contractions over a period of time has a greater effect of lowering blood pressure than cardio. I would assume that weight training would involve similar if not identical isometric contractions, as well as getting your whole body stronger and increasing your metabolic efficiency (which I now remember was a comment one of the doctors on the study once said to me). All that is to say I'd rather lift and get strong, then squeeze a dynamometer for 120 seconds or run 5 to 10 miles a day.

    It would be interesting, I guess, to see the mean BP of, lets say WFAC or Horn Strenght vs. your local YMCA or similarly trained population. That's if you think current BP guidlines are rational.

    I'm a fatty (close to 300 lbs) and I know my BP is lower now, after two years of weight training at 39 years of age, then when I was in my 20's and on the cardio train--running 40 miles per week and riding my bike at around 120 miles per week and weighing in at 150.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    766

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by slhuckstead View Post
    However, it would seem, by the initial research we had access too, that the body responds to a stimulus, like weight training, by ordinarily adapting to the strain event and makes or allows those vessels to accommodate the stress.
    Though not the specific paper you are referring to, this is one that Jordan and I came across showing similar effects to what you describe. Increased stiffness w/ RT versus aerobic exercise, but RT increased vasodilatory capacity to a greater extent than aerobic exercise. Of course, this is still not looking at important clinical endpoints.

    https://www.nature.com/jhh/journal/v...jhh200836a.pdf

    ... both AE and RE training can
    decrease mean arterial pressure, without a concomitant
    mean weight loss in either group. RE training,
    however, produces increased central and peripheral
    arterial stiffness in a population with pre- and stage-
    1 essential hypertension, whereas AE training decreased
    arterial stiffness, yet both forms of training
    produced similar changes in BP. Although both
    training modes produced an increase in RH, resistance
    training produced greater increases in vasodilatory
    capacity than aerobic training. This suggests
    that although increases in arterial stiffness occur
    with RE, it seems there is a compensatory increase in
    flow in the microvasculature that may offset the
    increases in arterial stiffness. Further, the increase in
    vasodilatory capacity following short-term resistance
    training may not be a compensatory response to
    decreased central arterial distensibility but a local
    microvascular phenomenon.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •