Jump to content
japay1

Any benefit from strength work/lifting

Recommended Posts

Famous quote from Sutto "Kieran Perkins was so weak he couldn't carry his own swim bag".

Now he didn't look weak, but the point being swimming is not really a strength sport.

 

And Sutto would have his athletes do hill reps in bike and run rather than weights

Did the same with Chrissie Wellington. Then she went to Dave Scott who worked on her weaknesses in relation to imbalances then she went even faster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Famous quote from Sutto "Kieran Perkins was so weak he couldn't carry his own swim bag".

Now he didn't look weak, but the point being swimming is not really a strength sport.

 

And Sutto would have his athletes do hill reps in bike and run rather than weights

Interesting. I figured they'd have to be lifting to gain that size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you actually pushing when you swim except when push off the wall on a turn?

Catch and pull pretty sure they are fundamentals of swimming. You PULL your hand through the water to create forward pulposion. Like to see you PUSH it and see where you end up

Sorry FB, you're way off the mark here. You push the water with your hand and forearm. Pulling suggests tug of war style grabbing which leads with elbow - the exact thing we all try to avoid - the dropped elbow. Think about pushing against the water once the hand has passed under the shoulder.

 

Most gym exercises for upper body / arm strength lead with the elbow. That's why they don't enhance the swim stroke.

Edited by The Customer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the same with Chrissie Wellington. Then she went to Dave Scott who worked on her weaknesses in relation to imbalances then she went even faster

Really? Did she? Or was her continuing dominance simply the result of the years spent with Sutton. She also quit soon after training with Scott. Maybe the extra gym work was the nail in the coffin. ;-)

Edited by The Customer
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I

 

Transitions is very weird place you have people who are trolls, some very nice, some seeking help and others after a laugh. Maybe that's why we kerp checking in on here.

I think I'm many of those (maybe not the nice one)

And it changes.

 

Wonder who I will be tomorrow?

 

This non training and staying up later leads to weird posts like above (my one FB not yours ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fixation continues. Sometimes the brick wall is just to stubborn for its own good.

Strength training for the aging athlete works. It enhances their main focussed training such as SBR. Now for the hard of reading folk, I will spell it out. It enhances, doesn't replace, the main training.

TC, by using your throw away line and assumption regarding Swiss balls and kettle bells shows a level of ignorance which I wouldn't expect from you. A Swiss ball is a great piece of kit for core work. Kettle bells, well you will have to talk to a cross fitter about them. I don't use them but I know people who do use them and swear by them. That's great for them , but I don't see a need to bag kettle bells because I don't use them.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if you struggle to get out for some tri specific swimming, riding and running then it's easy to kid yourself and believe that swanning around a gym doing some Lat-pulldowns is 'enhancing' your triathlon prospects. ;-) Some people just find running too hard.

 

Note: The OP is not about rehabilitation where you literally cannot SBR, nor is it about the aging athlete. It is also not about overweight athletes who find running painful and are looking for some kind of path to weight loss and general fitness in order to get to the point where they can run. The OP is about strength and lifting. I repeat, strength can be improved whilst Swimming, biking and running if the right approach is undertaken and will be of far greater benefit than the kind of strength work done in the gym.

Edited by The Customer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fixation continues. Sometimes the brick wall is just to stubborn for its own good.

Strength training for the aging athlete works. It enhances their main focussed training such as SBR. Now for the hard of reading folk, I will spell it out. It enhances, doesn't replace, the main training.

TC, by using your throw away line and assumption regarding Swiss balls and kettle bells shows a level of ignorance which I wouldn't expect from you. A Swiss ball is a great piece of kit for core work. Kettle bells, well you will have to talk to a cross fitter about them. I don't use them but I know people who do use them and swear by them. That's great for them , but I don't see a need to bag kettle bells because I don't use them.

How does it enhance SBR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Did she? Or was her continuing dominance simply the result of the years spent with Sutton. She also quit soon after training with Scott. Maybe the extra gym work was the nail in the coffin. ;-)

 

Emotionally/Mentally drained more like it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rinny does strength and conditioning work

 

 

Great exercises all relevant and emcompass functionality through mobility, stability and strength.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Did she? Or was her continuing dominance simply the result of the years spent with Sutton. She also quit soon after training with Scott. Maybe the extra gym work was the nail in the coffin. ;-)

She always spoke about not staying long in the sport...

 

Pretty sure it was the relationship and wanting to move down a different path that ended tri for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No TC, no caveats like sedentary lifestyle etc, all types of lifestyle can benefit from strength training as a person gets older, especially past 40 years of age. Notice I said "strength training" and not weight training, which I think you fixate on as the interpretation of strength training.

Using paddles for strength training in swimming, big gear workouts on the bike or hill repeats for cycling and running all fit the bill as strength training.

 

None of these remotely qualify as strength workouts.

 

Strength is the maximal force generation capability of a muscle or group of muscles.

 

As soon as a movement involves much velocity, or a frequently repeated effort such as in swimming, cycling and running irrespective of the aid (big gears, hills, paddles), or both, then it's about an order of magnitude away from the sort of forces involved in and required for developing strength.

 

There is a bit a of a difference for running though which I'll get to later.

 

The workouts mentioned above are aerobic endurance workouts, or they might possibly work on ones anaerobic energy capacity if done hard enough such that you significantly fatigue within a minute or so, but they most definitely are not even close to being strength workouts. Even doing maximal effort sprints running and cycling for a handful of seconds are still barely getting into strength territory. Not sure why a performance triathlete would be all that concerned with anaerobic work capacity or strength in any case. they are hardly limiters to one's performance in such events.

 

Interesting that no one on this thread has even mentioned the research into actual strength training and it's efficacy for cycling/swimming/running performance.

 

Here's the short answer. It's never going to be better than swimming/cycling/running training. Injury prevention benefits are mostly a myth. There is some potential benefit for running, and SFA for endurance cycling and swimming.

 

The balance of evidence for cycling is equivocal (i.e. not much of a compelling argument other than for track sprint / BMX cycling) while there is some supporting evidence for running (which is not surprising due to the different nature of the forces involved being both concentric and eccentric muscle contractions whereas cycling and swimming are confined to concentric). In swimming the data is significantly less and fairly equivocal for endurance swimming while some studies report benefits for short swimming events (e.g. 50m, which is akin to physiological demands of longer track cycling sprint events like the kilo TT and Kieren), there are also contradictory results.

 

The non-strength work as described above (big gear efforts / paddles / hills etc) are pretty much just a coaching ruse to do some quality endurance power efforts - give the athlete something else to focus on while working hard - but there is little if any benefit over simply doing the same work/intensity mix normally.

 

As for actual strength training, again the benefits to endurance performance are pretty marginal if at all (and running has the best supporting evidence) but in some cases it's detrimental, so do it if:

(i) you enjoy it because life, and

(ii) your personal priorities include things other than just endurance athletic performance because life.

 

As always, YMMV (IOW every individual is different).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I do S&C work is to maintain my ability to actually train, which is how I improve and what I enjoy doing.

 

If I am injured due to age-related weaknesses and/or imbalances that can be addressed by S&C, then I won't be able to put the training work in to chase my performance goals.

 

I don't do S&C work directly to improve...plyos being one exception.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there is a very important factor and that is the age of the athlete.

Males loose muscle volume with age and strength /weight training becomes more important with age to maintain muscle mass in order to reduce or slowdown deterioration in performance,

May be when you're under 30 weights may be unnecessary but over 30 weight lifting would maintain muscle volume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

None of these remotely qualify as strength workouts.

 

Strength is the maximal force generation capability of a muscle or group of muscles.

 

As soon as a movement involves much velocity, or a frequently repeated effort such as in swimming, cycling and running irrespective of the aid (big gears, hills, paddles), or both, then it's about an order of magnitude away from the sort of forces involved in and required for developing strength.

 

There is a bit a of a difference for running though which I'll get to later.

 

The workouts mentioned above are aerobic endurance workouts, or they might possibly work on ones anaerobic energy capacity if done hard enough such that you significantly fatigue within a minute or so, but they most definitely are not even close to being strength workouts. Even doing maximal effort sprints running and cycling for a handful of seconds are still barely getting into strength territory. Not sure why a performance triathlete would be all that concerned with anaerobic work capacity or strength in any case. they are hardly limiters to one's performance in such events.

 

Interesting that no one on this thread has even mentioned the research into actual strength training and it's efficacy for cycling/swimming/running performance.

 

Here's the short answer. It's never going to be better than swimming/cycling/running training. Injury prevention benefits are mostly a myth. There is some potential benefit for running, and SFA for endurance cycling and swimming.

 

The balance of evidence for cycling is equivocal (i.e. not much of a compelling argument other than for track sprint / BMX cycling) while there is some supporting evidence for running (which is not surprising due to the different nature of the forces involved being both concentric and eccentric muscle contractions whereas cycling and swimming are confined to concentric). In swimming the data is significantly less and fairly equivocal for endurance swimming while some studies report benefits for short swimming events (e.g. 50m, which is akin to physiological demands of longer track cycling sprint events like the kilo TT and Kieren), there are also contradictory results.

 

The non-strength work as described above (big gear efforts / paddles / hills etc) are pretty much just a coaching ruse to do some quality endurance power efforts - give the athlete something else to focus on while working hard - but there is little if any benefit over simply doing the same work/intensity mix normally.

 

As for actual strength training, again the benefits to endurance performance are pretty marginal if at all (and running has the best supporting evidence) but in some cases it's detrimental, so do it if:

(i) you enjoy it because life, and

(ii) your personal priorities include things other than just endurance athletic performance because life.

 

As always, YMMV (IOW every individual is different).

we were trying not to upset the beliefs of the strength advocates.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there is a very important factor and that is the age of the athlete.

Males loose muscle volume with age and strength /weight training becomes more important with age to maintain muscle mass in order to reduce or slowdown deterioration in performance,

May be when you're under 30 weights may be unnecessary but over 30 weight lifting would maintain muscle volume.

 

Well there is some element of truth in that, but in reality all that is needed is to stay active (use it or lose it).

 

Muscle mass of fit ageing triathletes is pretty darn good. Keeping up some jogging or running if your knees are up for it (at least modestly brisk walking) is great for bone mineral density, much better that doing weights ever would be. The bigger risk with age is falling BMD and the risk of fractures when one falls over.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As running is done one leg at time, with core activated as the platform for rotation, is this not a fine way to build specific strength/endurance in those muscles with specific activation.

If by specific activation you mean just running, maybe not. Your thought is incorrectly based on the assumption you are doing that activity in the most efficient way to start with and with gradual overload you should always adapt correctly. This is not the case.

As an example.

In regards to running being single leg movement, runners (new and old) often end up with ITB issues. A well studies remedy is to have those runners complete a 6 week program of single legs squats to specifically strengthen the glute med, piriformis etc. If done a certain way it also has the secondary benefit of correct activation sequences and stability. From memory this exercise alone has resolved ITB issues in greater than 75% of ITB cases in established runners. Holding correct form longer through some ancillary conditioning (not strength, or work designed to hypertrophy) work is always beneficial.

 

Now the more learned people on here may argue what is described above is not strength training by the traditional meaning which is usually defined as the 1 rep max ability. In that case don't waste your time :) Edit: Looks like Alex got ahead of me.

Edited by thekeeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If by specific activation you mean just running, maybe not. Your thought is incorrectly based on the assumption you are doing that activity in the most efficient way to start with and with gradual overload you should always adapt correctly. This is not the case.

As an example.

In regards to running being single leg movement, runners (new and old) often end up with ITB issues. A well studies remedy is to have those runners complete a 6 week program of single legs squats to specifically strengthen the glute med, piriformis etc. If done a certain way it also has the secondary benefit of correct activation sequences and stability. From memory this exercise alone has resolved ITB issues in greater than 75% of ITB cases in established runners. Holding correct form longer through some ancillary conditioning (not strength, or work designed to hypertrophy) work is always beneficial.

 

Now the more learned people on here may argue what is described above is not strength training by the traditional meaning which is usually defined as the 1 rep max ability. In that case don't waste your time :) Edit: Looks like Alex got ahead of me.

Most runners get ITB because they run too much to intensely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I do S&C work is to maintain my ability to actually train, which is how I improve and what I enjoy doing.

If I am injured due to age-related weaknesses and/or imbalances that can be addressed by S&C, then I won't be able to put the training work in to chase my performance goals.

I don't do S&C work directly to improve...plyos being one exception.

The reason I do S&C work is to maintain my ability to actually train, which is how I improve and what I enjoy doing.

If I am injured due to age-related weaknesses and/or imbalances that can be addressed by S&C, then I won't be able to put the training work in to chase my performance goals.

I don't do S&C work directly to improve...plyos being one exception.

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If by specific activation you mean just running, maybe not. Your thought is incorrectly based on the assumption you are doing that activity in the most efficient way to start with and with gradual overload you should always adapt correctly. This is not the case.

As an example.

In regards to running being single leg movement, runners (new and old) often end up with ITB issues. A well studies remedy is to have those runners complete a 6 week program of single legs squats to specifically strengthen the glute med, piriformis etc. If done a certain way it also has the secondary benefit of correct activation sequences and stability. From memory this exercise alone has resolved ITB issues in greater than 75% of ITB cases in established runners. Holding correct form longer through some ancillary conditioning (not strength, or work designed to hypertrophy) work is always beneficial.

 

Now the more learned people on here may argue what is described above is not strength training by the traditional meaning which is usually defined as the 1 rep max ability. In that case don't waste your time :) Edit: Looks like Alex got ahead of me.

But looking at the theory:

 

strengthening of glute med and the other parts of the body through single leg squats makes the body less prone to ITB issues.

 

If I run and don't do these exercises I should be more prone to ITB issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it helps SBR or not. Apparently not. But I reckon you do look a lot better if you incorporate some lifting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that any response to this needs to be backed up with research papers and more importantly a University Degree (as AH pointed out). ð

 

You can look at many aspects and daily routines we do in life and then ask yourself are they going to help me SBR.

Examples

- sitting in office chair

- eating shit

- drinking alcohol

- not getting enough sleep

- stress

- driving using your mobile phone

 

None of the above help with performance or help with maintining body capable of achieving goals related to SBR where as some form of STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING/BODY MAINTENANCE will provide a positive rather than negative effect both physically and mentally.

 

The originally post was strength work and lifting does it benefit SBR. So far it has created debate.

I have overseen and worked with running/cycling based athletes at a high performance centre which screens athlete corrects their dysfunctions etc. Puts them through fitness testing every 3 months over the year and each time the athletes improve.

 

As Alex Simmons said what work for you. The question is are you going to let it work for you or through stubborn just disrespect it.

Do we need the research papers to decide for us or just test the waters for yourself and find out.

 

From my experience it sometimes can only take one incident to unravel a lot of years of accummalated kilometres of SBR to go disappear.

One crash and one infection can cause many issues.

 

Also the little niggle you thought you could train through can sometimes develop in compensation issues and dysfunction.

 

This is my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I didn't have my bike for 6 months in Doha last year, I was running 4 days a week ( 12 -20k per session ) and doing S&C 3 days a week for an hour. As a 53 year old it did make me look good and lean - just ask me.

 

As the muscle mass issue has been discussed, what about the benefit to the middle aged like me as far as all the tendons and ligaments around the muscles. Do the S&C sessions help things other than muscle?

 

There has also been a belief that doing the S&C sessions will assist in keeping form when fatigue sets in on the run. How much truth is there in that, or is it also more a play on the mental aspect - if you believe it, it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most runners get ITB because they run too much to intensely.

Really? Care to back that up with proof/facts?

 

I hate strength work. Hate it. Really hate it. Hate the DOMS it causes that forces a rest day. But I do it as it is necessary. Those of you that think that just running more, cycling more and swimming more is going to give you the required strength are deluded. Weak glute Med? Run more? Need more propulsion when running? Run more? Seriously? Strength work works. Simples.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can look at many aspects and daily routines we do in life and then ask yourself are they going to help me SBR.

Examples

- sitting in office chair

- eating shit

- drinking alcohol

- not getting enough sleep

- stress

- driving using your mobile phone

 

None of the above help with performance or help with maintining body capable of achieving goals related to SBR where as some form of STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING/BODY MAINTENANCE will provide a positive rather than negative effect both physically and mentally.

 

I get it now. Bit like saying playing Twister is better for your triathlon performance than slamming your head in the car door.

 

Going back to something I said on page 1, turning up to a SBR session with weight lifting fatigue in your body will NOT have a physical or mental benefit to your SBR performance/development.

NB. I have a vague recollection of learning about periodisation in High School phys ed. Try finding a day within the 7 day week to slot in a weight lifting session that will not impact the next SBR session?!?!? You might see pro athletes in the gym during their 'off' season when it won't impact more important SBR sessions of the pre-race and race seasons.

 

As for gym sessions making you look good, seen plenty of rock hard bodies crawling just as fast along the Queen K as the wine loving 'softer' looking types.

Edited by The Customer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Care to back that up with proof/facts?

 

I hate strength work. Hate it. Really hate it. Hate the DOMS it causes that forces a rest day. But I do it as it is necessary. Those of you that think that just running more, cycling more and swimming more is going to give you the required strength are deluded. Weak glute Med? Run more? Need more propulsion when running? Run more? Seriously? Strength work works. Simples.

There are many studies showing strength work works for strength, not for running. You can find them on Pubmed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did find that for the sedentary person that there was benefit from strength work for running etc, mostly attributed to these people doing anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of assumption that strength work means lifting heavy to fatigue which no one supports for either sport. Numerous articles focused on top cyclists and swimmers say they incorporate some workouts in the gym using complex (non-isolating) exercises to compliment outside work.

 

Was just thinking, is deep water running effectively a strength workout if done right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marcinik, McCartney (1991) showed increase for untrained people, these people only tested for 12 minutes

 

Hickson showed heavily trained athletes got stronger but had no improvement in cycling or running from the added strength work.

 

Bastiaan showed that while you might not increase performance you can take some riding out of the programme and not lose much, uo to 37 %

 

Tanaka in swimming showed strengthe increases but no performance increase.

 

The studies, not articles, show little to no improvement for SBR. One study showed it could let you reduce SBR, but it was isolated. Hawlely concludes little to no benefit for endurance athletes.

 

Issue with adding this, is the fatigue it induces reducing the ability to perform as well in SBR. All said there is nothing wrong with getting stronger if that makes you happy.

 

Imbalance and injury prevention, is often cited as a rationale. Though it won't do much for overuse which is a significant cause of injury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an article some time ago (I can't remember where it was from), that strength training will not have significant benefit towards triathletes or endurance athletes, it will not make them go faster, however it will make them a more balanced athlete.

 

If strength training can make triathletes go faster, then all those crossfitters or obstacle racers will be able to go faster than a triathlete, BUT it is not happening.

 

The article also states that specific functional training, which most of the pros and top agers do, will provide more benefit to the athlete compared to strength training itself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marcinik, McCartney (1991) showed increase for untrained people, these people only tested for 12 minutes

 

Hickson showed heavily trained athletes got stronger but had no improvement in cycling or running from the added strength work.

 

Bastiaan showed that while you might not increase performance you can take some riding out of the programme and not lose much, uo to 37 %

 

Tanaka in swimming showed strengthe increases but no performance increase.

 

The studies, not articles, show little to no improvement for SBR. One study showed it could let you reduce SBR, but it was isolated. Hawlely concludes little to no benefit for endurance athletes.

 

Issue with adding this, is the fatigue it induces reducing the ability to perform as well in SBR. All said there is nothing wrong with getting stronger if that makes you happy.

 

Imbalance and injury prevention, is often cited as a rationale. Though it won't do much for overuse which is a significant cause of injury.

 

Can you post the actual links to these articles/studies? I have found a few (looked up Hickson and endurance) and didn't find anything stating that strength training wouldn't help - in fact the opposite. I also note that these studies seem to focus on heavy resistence training 3 times a week. That amount of strength training could be detrimental to performance, but none of the studies I found focused on activity specific strength training once to twice a week which is what I believe works.

 

I also read an article that stated that endurance athletes that did strength work were less injured and faded less in the latter stages of races...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the bottom line is of course it can benefit most people but the difficulty is in finding time to do it and integrate with an already busy training week without affecting recovery.

 

In 99% of the cases you are probably going to get best bang for your buck by swimming, riding or running a bit more.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can you post the actual links to these articles/studies? I have found a few (looked up Hickson and endurance) and didn't find anything stating that strength training wouldn't help - in fact the opposite. I also note that these studies seem to focus on heavy resistence training 3 times a week. That amount of strength training could be detrimental to performance, but none of the studies I found focused on activity specific strength training once to twice a week which is what I believe works.

 

I also read an article that stated that endurance athletes that did strength work were less injured and faded less in the latter stages of races...

They are all from the Phil Skiba Book, most of the references fairly old so their may be some new research:

 

hickson Potential for strenght and endurance training to amplify endurance performance. J. Appl. Phys 65(5) 2285-90 1988

Bastianns was interesting as he found that you could take out timr in the saddle and not lose bike fitness by doing weights, debunking interference theory.

 

From my n=1 found that with weights, it is hard not to get muscle fatigue, assuming the goal is to overload the muscle, which does impact sbr.

 

With time constrained (12-17 hours a week) I do know that I will get more SBR performance from doing more SBR than strength.

 

In time the goal might change, but right now I don't mind looking a bit hungry, in a year or two I might want to be more baywatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hickson showed heavily trained athletes got stronger but had no improvement in cycling or running from the added strength work.

 

 

 

Hawlely concludes little to no benefit for endurance athletes.

 

 

Someone should tell Jason English there's no benefit for cycling or endurance athletes. He works full time as a PE teacher, and does regular weight sessions to supplement his riding. He would probably like the spare time.

 

He's won the 24 hour World MTB Championships, for the last 7 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should tell Jason English there's no benefit for cycling or endurance athletes. He works full time as a PE teacher, and does regular weight sessions to supplement his riding. He would probably like the spare time.

 

He's won the 24 hour World MTB Championships, for the last 7 years.

These guys have lots of hearty dicussions about lifting:

 

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/lifting_weights_%3D_slower_ironman_P882944/

 

Coogan and they guy desert dude are fairly well schooled in this.

 

This discussion is a bit like the politics thread, each point of view is entrenched and has little interest in change other than for the other point of view, regardless of the overwhelming scientific evidence.

 

Hypothesis

 

English wins bike races because he lifts weights

 

English wins bike races and lifts weights

 

English could win bike races by more if he did not lift weights

 

We will never know as I doubt he is going to let his career be subject to experiments, well maybe if we paid him. There are lts of examples of people who lift weights and win endurance races.

 

Jan Frodeno does not lift weights but kills it, he does do pilates though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an interesting topic, but is so polarised, the discussion always becomes frustrated. We do know that biking improves biking, so I am out to ride for 90 minutes, I may even lift my wind trainer which is it is a cheap piece of rubbish gives me a strength workout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an interesting topic, but is so polarised, the discussion always becomes frustrated.

 

Exactly. Triathletes, just like many others, have real issues with balance and moderation in most things. Most discussions here end up on the extreme end of the spectrum with little room for balance.

 

I don't see an issue with some big gear efforts or paddles in the pool. I don't seen an issue with older people doing light weights for their general health. I don't see an issue with triathletes who can't fit in either, just SBR'ing. I don't see an issue with people who do stuff just because they like it.

 

Balance and moderation, peace and love (spoken in Ringo's voice)!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the bottom line is of course it can benefit most people but the difficulty is in finding time to do it and integrate with an already busy training week without affecting recovery.

 

In 99% of the cases you are probably going to get best bang for your buck by swimming, riding or running a bit more.

 

Yep, if you have done all the S,B,R that is optimal for you AND YOU STILL HAVE SPARE TIME TO COMMIT TO TRIATHLON, then stretch, do yoga, do core, lift weights prepare awesome meals etc etc.

 

None of things are bad for you, in fact they are all good for you and will probably help your triathlon skillset, IF YOU HAVE TIME. If not then S,B,R as much as is optimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a personal level, so n=1, I enjoy and think I benefit from some strength training. And by that I don't mean max lifts or anything.

 

In previous years I did some gym stuff, as well as SBR and felt tough. Last year I was doing a lot more running, bike/swim, and didn't have the time for the extra gym. I felt soft, and less tough towards the end of an event - and I'm talking long times - not fast.

 

So this year I'm getting back into the gym and doing weights in a way that challenges my core/body strength and position holding ability. So using machines that works the target muscle but only if you engage others to hold your position. And free weights and TRX moves. When you're heavy, body weight IS strength training! I find it really helps my back and shoulders on the bike, and form on the run. Not to mention day to day work and house renos.

 

I could find more time for SBR but find I feel better with a bit of weight stuff in there instead.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have gone from doing 10-20 hours a week of SBR for 10 years to doing weights 3-5 times a week and playing old fart soccer. Weights has been starting strength/5-3-1 stuff focussing on squat, deadlift, overhead press bench and some assistance exercises (RDL, chin-ups, bulgarian split squats).

 

I have posted on these type of threads before and can say from experience, if you are lifting above the traditional strength gain threshold (5-15 reps) then it will definitely impact on your ability to SBR , especially the R and fitting it into a "normal" triathlon program will be very difficult. Doing what I used to call a stretch and core session with bodyweight and theraband exercises can target injury prevention muscle impairments (glutes, abs etc) and produce gains in strength without impacting things like calf and quads function for running the next day. I know if I lift 5x5 at decent %1RM, I am unable to run properly the next day. If you are serious about building your ability to move weights around or put on some muscle mass then schedule it around a 6 week block with vastly reduced run volume and go for gold for starters.

 

I think I would have improved my triathlon performance by training less, managing fatigue and non-tri stress, eating less refined carbs and getting better/more sleep way more than getting bigger muscles. This may not apply to everyone, but definitely did to me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here's a question from a guy that has to do some core work most days, just to function.

 

A while ago, I read a post from Parkside that said words to the effect of 'anyone suggesting 'firing glutes' was full of it ( I think he was referring to physios) but I never understood why.*

 

Also is the term 'contracting' and 'firing' the same thing?

 

* with apologies to Parky if I misread.

 

No you quoted me correctly.

 

There is a massive industry with activation, firing, compensation buzzwords thrown around willy-nilly. All bullshit.

 

Hamstring injuries or any lower limb soft tissue injury from "poor glute activation" is the biggy. Diagnosing this with your eyeballs or sticking a finger into a hamstring and a glute while you lift a leg off the bed are fraudulent practice IMO. Charismatic observation by industry authorities selling courses, books etc are the worst examples. Recent study finally debunked the prone leg raise, there is no normal or optimal sequence of back, glute and hammy muscle contraction in a non functional test like lifting your leg off the floor when lying on your stomach. Then extrapolating your made-up pathology to what happens when running is a further fallacy.

 

Looking at how you move functionally (video or observation) can give clues into ineffectual muscle function and guide exercise prescription when injured. Ideally having an objective benchmark using a valid and reliable strength test is the most useful way to guide what needs to be strengthened. Otherwise EMG using indwelling electrodes to measure "activation". But having your online trained PT or Masters Trained whatever telling you your glutes aren't firing based on nothing in particular, or a dodgy non weight bearing test is a waste of time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Â

No you quoted me correctly.

Â

There is a massive industry with activation, firing, compensation buzzwords thrown around willy-nilly. All bullshit.Â

Â

Hamstring injuries or any lower limb soft tissue injury from "poor glute activation" is the biggy. Diagnosing this with your eyeballs or sticking a finger into a hamstring and a glute while you lift a leg off the bed are fraudulent practice IMO. Charismatic observation by industry authorities selling courses, books etc are the worst examples. Recent study finally debunked the prone leg raise, there is no normal or optimal sequence of back, glute and hammy muscle contraction in a non functional test like lifting your leg off the floor when lying on your stomach. Then extrapolating your made-up pathology to what happens when running is a further fallacy.

Â

Looking at how you move functionally (video or observation) can give clues into ineffectual muscle function and guide exercise prescription when injured. Ideally having an objective benchmark using a valid and reliable strength test is the most useful way to guide what needs to be strengthened. Otherwise EMG using indwelling electrodes to measure "activation". But having your online trained PT or Masters Trained whatever telling you your glutes aren't firing based on nothing in particular, or a dodgy non weight bearing test is a waste of time.Â

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No you quoted me correctly.

 

There is a massive industry with activation, firing, compensation buzzwords thrown around willy-nilly. All bullshit.

 

Hamstring injuries or any lower limb soft tissue injury from "poor glute activation" is the biggy. Diagnosing this with your eyeballs or sticking a finger into a hamstring and a glute while you lift a leg off the bed are fraudulent practice IMO. Charismatic observation by industry authorities selling courses, books etc are the worst examples. Recent study finally debunked the prone leg raise, there is no normal or optimal sequence of back, glute and hammy muscle contraction in a non functional test like lifting your leg off the floor when lying on your stomach. Then extrapolating your made-up pathology to what happens when running is a further fallacy.

 

Looking at how you move functionally (video or observation) can give clues into ineffectual muscle function and guide exercise prescription when injured. Ideally having an objective benchmark using a valid and reliable strength test is the most useful way to guide what needs to be strengthened. Otherwise EMG using indwelling electrodes to measure "activation". But having your online trained PT or Masters Trained whatever telling you your glutes aren't firing based on nothing in particular, or a dodgy non weight bearing test is a waste of time.

Bang on Parkside. PT's and other strength and conditioning coaches are constantly uploading videos of them with an athlete yelling fire, activate, squeeze. it just seems like a load of crock to me. It just sounds stupid. Sure they may know what they are doing in terms of prescribing the right exercises, making plans, but all this yelling is just over the top and not even needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bang on Parkside. PT's and other strength and conditioning coaches are constantly uploading videos of them with an athlete yelling fire, activate, squeeze. it just seems like a load of crock to me. It just sounds stupid. Sure they may know what they are doing in terms of prescribing the right exercises, making plans, but all this yelling is just over the top and not even needed.Â

 

Where are these videos? I have never seen. Why are you even watching them? Videos like you are describing is whats wrong with fitness industry thing. It more about image, being tough, selfies, ego stuff. When the industry turned into rental schemes and along with internet social media it become more about selling yourself for the body image you present.

Then people get sucked into this. Thinking they can end up like the trainer (sorry but generally are few handy prescriptions have helped).

 

There are trainers who are in it for money just like any industry. Some for an ego boost and some who have interest in helping others. It is pretty easy to work it out either by doing a free trial at a gym and watching the trainers go about it or ask for a free session.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are these videos? I have never seen. Why are you even watching them? Videos like you are describing is whats wrong with fitness industry thing. It more about image, being tough, selfies, ego stuff. When the industry turned into rental schemes and along with internet social media it become more about selling yourself for the body image you present.

Then people get sucked into this. Thinking they can end up like the trainer (sorry but generally are few handy prescriptions have helped).

 

There are trainers who are in it for money just like any industry. Some for an ego boost and some who have interest in helping others. It is pretty easy to work it out either by doing a free trial at a gym and watching the trainers go about it or ask for a free session.

I won't name names, but they're all over facebook. One of the biggest Strength and Conditioning companies based in Victoria is always over this kind of stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×