Weightlifting and runing

Mr_Hat

I run a couple of miles each week, with a long run on Sat. Ive been aiming to lose some weight. So Ive taken up weight lifting as well. I understand High reps low weight is best. So Im doing 25 reps and Im using weight machines. I count three bars in the machine and lift that. I dont know how heavy it is but im begining to think its to low. Any advice

TheTherapist

send me a private message with your email and i will send you a circuit training for runners.
High reps low weight to define and lose weight (best for runners) Its normally in the range of 12-15 reps, and 3 to 4 sets. The weight depends on the person.
Low reps heavy weight if you want to be bulky

mushykeogh

TheTherapist wrote: »

Low reps heavy weight if you want to be bulky

Low reps and heavy weights will result in little or no hypertrophy if 2 - 3 minutes rest is taken between sets,the adaptations are mainly neural.

another world

mushykeogh wrote: »

Low reps and heavy weights will result in little or no hypertrophy if 2 - 3 minutes rest is taken between sets,the adaptations are mainly neural.

I´ve never heard that before. Do you have an article or anything to back it up? Really, I´m just curious because I would have thought that by taking a decent break like 2-3 minutes would lead to hypertrophy.

I personally do lowish weights, medium reps, with short rests. Oh, and with free weights, the machines really aren´t as effective.

yop

From my own training I do low weights also, doing 12 stations with a 40 second on 40 seconds off.
It definately helps me lose weight but has not bulked me up compared to the heavier weights.

mushykeogh

yop wrote: »

From my own training I do low weights also, doing 12 stations with a 40 second on 40 seconds off.
It definately helps me lose weight but has not bulked me up compared to the heavier weights.

Heavier weights with 40 sec rest would certainly cause some bulk, if your doing 40 secs on an exercise i imagine the rep range is 15 reps or more, your working on endurance here on the initial load is not high enough to elicit hypertrophy.

another world wrote: »

I´ve never heard that before. Do you have an article or anything to back it up? Really, I´m just curious because I would have thought that by taking a decent break like 2-3 minutes would lead to hypertrophy.

Its nothing new mate, if you rest 3 mins your atp and creatine stores are pretty much replenished, combined with a weight in the 2 to 5 rep range your working mainly on strength, neural adaptations with very little hypertrophy.
Lift a weight where you fail around 6-12 reps and take a 60 0
or 90 sec rest then go again, your causing a lot of atp/cp depletion, metabolic and muscle dame thus leading to protein synthesis and hypertrophy.
As for references, well any exercise physiology book by wilmore& costill, McCardle and Katch, designing resistance training by Kraemer and fleck, Periodisation by Bompa, its endless. And heres a review of the theories behind resistance training attached.
(its late so if youve any quetions il answer them tomorrow!)

joconnell

Cheers for that bit of info mushy - I do a fair bit to try and size up so good to know the 60 second rule! (I think I'm within it but good to keep an eye on!)

another world

mushykeogh wrote: »

Heavier weights with 40 sec rest would certainly cause some bulk, if your doing 40 secs on an exercise i imagine the rep range is 15 reps or more, your working on endurance here on the initial load is not high enough to elicit hypertrophy.


Its nothing new mate, if you rest 3 mins your atp and creatine stores are pretty much replenished, combined with a weight in the 2 to 5 rep range your working mainly on strength, neural adaptations with very little hypertrophy.
Lift a weight where you fail around 6-12 reps and take a 60 0
or 90 sec rest then go again, your causing a lot of atp/cp depletion, metabolic and muscle dame thus leading to protein synthesis and hypertrophy.
As for references, well any exercise physiology book by wilmore& costill, McCardle and Katch, designing resistance training by Kraemer and fleck, Periodisation by Bompa, its endless. And heres a review of the theories behind resistance training attached.
(its late so if youve any quetions il answer them tomorrow!)

Interesting article. As far as I could tell he still talks about resistance being over 10 reps and load depending on the level but usually between 50 to 70%. That´s all what I was doing but his rest periods are a bit longer than I thought so I´ll be taking that into account.

mushykeogh

another world wrote: »

Interesting article. As far as I could tell he still talks about resistance being over 10 reps and load depending on the level but usually between 50 to 70%.

For maximal strength, its recommended that your using 80 -100% of 1 rep max, this is probably 6 reps and less. It all depends on your goals but you should always let your goals dictate how you change the following variables, load, reps, sets, rest interval.
Iv attached a little table that explains things a little better, i just copied it from "designing resistance training programs " by kraemer and fleck.
p.s. (that table you see first would make more sense if i put it second but there you go!, ah, have it sorted now).

mushykeogh

Heres another set of interesting articles, quite a lot of research out there looking at the concurrent effects of resistance training and endurance events. Have a read, it should stir up a bit of healthy debate!:D

ss43

mushykeogh wrote: »

Heres another set of interesting articles, quite a lot of research out there looking at the concurrent effects of resistance training and endurance events. Have a read, it should stir up a bit of healthy debate!:D

The Paavolainen one is not much use in my opinion. If they want it to be a valid study, why not test the effects of strength training on 5k performance in 5k runners rather than in orienteers. That study is useful for orienteers wanting to run fast 5ks.

The second one also uses 'slow' (18mins + for 5k) runners. Would these results be present with faster runners (not even elite, just sub 16 min 5k for example)?

Are there any studies dealing higher performance levels?

mushykeogh

ss43 wrote: »

The Paavolainen one is not much use in my opinion. If they want it to be a valid study, why not test the effects of strength training on 5k performance in 5k runners rather than in orienteers. That study is useful for orienteers wanting to run fast 5ks.

The second one also uses 'slow' (18mins + for 5k) runners. Would these results be present with faster runners (not even elite, just sub 16 min 5k for example)?

Are there any studies dealing higher performance levels?

have we any reason to suggest that the physiological responses found in these individuals would not occur in more highly trained athletes? Here a review paper with plenty of info on other studies. I had one somewhere on cross country skiers somewhere but i cant find it right now, think they use athletes with a vo2 of 69 ml-kg -min.

ss43

mushykeogh wrote: »

have we any reason to suggest that the physiological responses found in these individuals would not occur in more highly trained athletes? Here a review paper with plenty of info on other studies. I had one somewhere on cross country skiers somewhere but i cant find it right now, think they use athletes with a vo2 of 69 ml-kg -min.

An orienteer is likely to be weaker than a 5k runner due to a lesser demand for strength in the activity. Also, people tend to choose activities they are suited to so the 5k runner is probably naturally stronger than the orienteer. This would suggest to me that the benefits of strength training would be much more pronounced in the weaker orienteer.

Slower runners are probably less well trained and naturally weaker than faster runners. They would thus also, be more likely to respond well to strength training.

All the studies seem to be of short duration also. I'm not staying I don't think strength training is useful. I just think a lot of the studies are limited to the point of being of little use.

mushykeogh

ss43 wrote: »

An orienteer is likely to be weaker than a 5k runner due to a lesser demand for strength in the activity. .

do you not think running up hills and over obstacles would require an element strength?!

Longitudinal studies are always difficult for a number of reasons but i think theres one in the review that lasted 16 weeks. I think to dismiss the physiological changes in the majority of these studies on the basis they are too short is a bit naive. Apologies for taking this thread way of its original point.

ss43

mushykeogh wrote: »

do you not think running up hills and over obstacles would require an element strength?!

Longitudinal studies are always difficult for a number of reasons but i think theres one in the review that lasted 16 weeks. I think to dismiss the physiological changes in the majority of these studies on the basis they are too short is a bit naive. Apologies for taking this thread way of its original point.

Yes it would require an element of strength but I don't think it would require as much as a fast 5k. I'm not an expert on orienteers but the main point is: to show how something effects 5k performances in runners you need to conduct the study on runners. If you did that study on sprinters, I bet the extra endurance training would have been more beneficial.

Studies that short can give misleading results.

For example, take Lydiard's programme (and let's assume all his theories were correct) which advocated six weeks of anaerobic training after the previous phases. Those six weeks would bring about a huge increase in performance but that doesn't mean it can be extrapolated to mean that training would help if used all season.

There could be a limit to how long the strength training would be beneficial that wouldn't be shown in those studies. It's not right to dismiss the results but they cannot be taken too seriously either!

mushykeogh

ss43 wrote: »

There could be a limit to how long the strength training would be beneficial that wouldn't be shown in those studies. It's not right to dismiss the results but they cannot be taken too seriously either!

If a periodized plan is used i cant really see how the benefits of the strength gains would be reversed. Unless they stopped resistance training of course. Having worked with a top ranked tri athlete we have found the increase in maximal strength to improve times in all events.

ss43

mushykeogh wrote: »

If a periodized plan is used i cant really see how the benefits of the strength gains would be reversed. Unless they stopped resistance training of course. Having worked with a top ranked tri athlete we have found the increase in maximal strength to improve times in all events.

Indeed, but these studies tell you nothing about how to put the findings into a periodised plan.


Take for example those orienteers and assume they were relatively weak as 5k runners go. 6 weeks of strength training at the expense of endurance training will have a beneficial effect on performance. However, over time as their strength grows and their endurance decreases, that strength training will no longer benefit overall performance as much as endurance training might.

The paavlainen stufy replaced endurance with strength work for 6 weeks. Those initial six weeks would probably show a bigger strength gain than any subsequent 6 week spell. The loss in endurance would be least in the initial six week as it would serve as a taper. Therefore results after six weeks tip the balance towards strength training.

It would seem to me that the lads doing that study went out to prove that strength training is beneficial whereas they should have gone out to check if strength training improved performance.

thirtyfoot

In events that have a lot more reliance on strength than tri, distance or orienteering like sprinting or jumping, Loren Seagrave reckons there is a stage at which you can no longer increase max strength to the benefit of their event. There comes a stage when you are strong enough for your event. Having said that its probably hard to gauge when this is!!

Generally I think weights are grand once they are in synch with what you are training for in the first place. If you spend much of your running at 70% of your max effort, then I think you should do much of your strength and conditioning at 70% of your max effort. Likewise when you are doing your running training at 95-100% of your max effort then you should compliment it with similar intensity in the weights room. When you sprint train, there will be times when you will train at 95-100% of effort. When you train for distance, I'm not sure how many times you will run at 95-100%. Might seem like a simple philosophy and very rudimentary but it makes sense in my head. Having said that I read an article in The Coach that said heavy weights are more benefit to marathoners than lighter weights as you will generate more force etc etc and be more efficient etc etc in each ground impact etc etc.

mushykeogh

ss43 wrote: »

Indeed, but these studies tell you nothing about how to put the findings into a periodised plan.

Ah come on! its a research article, not a book on periodisation and planning! Do you want them to make you a cup of tea as well?!

"they should have gone out to check if strength training improved performance" , thats what the storen study and found it did.
And heres another comparing concurrent training with endurance training alone.

i agree with tingle, there is such thing as being strong enough for your event, but i think most endurance athletes could do with a well planned strength phase.

ss43

mushykeogh wrote: »

Ah come on! its a research article, not a book on periodisation and planning! Do you want them to make you a cup of tea as well?!

"they should have gone out to check if strength training improved performance" , thats what the storen study and found it did.
And heres another comparing concurrent training with endurance training alone.

i agree with tingle, there is such thing as being strong enough for your event, but i think most endurance athletes could do with a well planned strength phase.

Yeah and a biscuit as well if that's ok!

Soren study found that strength training as a supplement to endurance training was beneficial. Didn't show whether more endurance training would have been more or less beneficial. Basically, it showed that extra training helped 18 min 5k runners (almost definitely runners who were not trianing close to their personal limit) - massive discovery. If they added in cycling it probably would have helped. If they added in running it would have helped. Better diet would ahve helped. It's (generally) not hard to bring about improvement in 18 min + runners)

Paavolainen studied orienteers and 5k performance so of no real benefit to orienteers who orienteer or runners. The method of reducing the endurance training to allow for the strength training would go some way to showing which was more beneficial if appropriate subjects were used.

The Hoff one is based on the upper body action of cross-country skiers. As pointed out in the review you posted - that would be of no use to a runner.

The review uses short studies. If the athletes had done little in the way of strength training beforehand then the initial period would be very beneficial. However, after the initial improvement we don't know whether the strength training would be more beneficial than extra endurance training.

As you can see, I don't have much time for these research articles. I'd find info on successful systems far more useful e.g. what the Jamaican sprinters do, Clyde Hart stuff for 400m, I don't know what Ethiopians do for longer distance stuff. It would appear that there is very little emphasis on strength training in Kenya.

mushykeogh

ss43 wrote: »

I don't know what Ethiopians do for longer distance stuff. It would appear that there is very little emphasis on strength training in Kenya.

Well after speaking to someone who has competed on an international level with kenyans and ethiopians it appears there is emphasis!

mushykeogh

wel be here all year debating this but i believe the strength training works and have found an improved performnce when its incorporated into programmes.

Transform

100% strength training would help if only for injury prevention e.g. tight IT band, glutes not firing properly, core work etc

why would running coaches get their atheltes tested for muscle imbalances/functional movement screaning if they did not intend on using strength training to help improve performance?

No question at all

ocnoc

It would appear that ss43 has never tried orienteering, or knows the slightest bit about the sport if he's making comments such as orienteers are weaker than 5k runners.

Look at any of the recent mountain races - the top orienteers are cleaning up! And surely running up a mountain requires more strength than running a measly 5km on the road or track

Transform

just a quick one and could pick from 100's of studies -

Int J Sports Med. 2009 Jan;30(1):27-32. Epub 2008 Oct 30.

Effects of strength training on running economy.
Guglielmo LG, Greco CC, Denadai BS.

Human Performance Laboratory, UNESP, Rio Claro, Brazil.

The objective of this study was to compare the effect of different strength training protocols added to endurance training on running economy (RE). Sixteen well-trained runners (27.4 +/- 4.4 years; 62.7 +/- 4.3 kg; 166.1 +/- 5.0 cm), were randomized into two groups: explosive strength training (EST) (n = 9) and heavy weight strength training (HWT) (n = 7) group. They performed the following tests before and after 4 weeks of training: 1) incremental treadmill test to exhaustion to determine of peak oxygen uptake and the velocity corresponding to 3.5 mM of blood lactate concentration; 2) submaximal constant-intensity test to determine RE; 3) maximal countermovement jump test and; 4) one repetition maximal strength test in leg press. After the training period, there was an improvement in RE only in the HWT group (HWT = 47.3 +/- 6.8 vs. 44.3 +/- 4.9 ml . kg (-1) . min (-1); EST = 46.4 +/- 4.1 vs. 45.5 +/- 4.1 ml . kg (-1) . min (-1)). In conclusion, a short period of traditional strength training can improve RE in well-trained runners, but this improvement can be dependent on the strength training characteristics. When comparing to explosive training performed in the same equipment, heavy weight training seems to be more efficient for the improvement of RE.


J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Nov;22(6):2036-44.

The effects of resistance training on endurance distance running performance among highly trained runners: a systematic review.
Yamamoto LM, Lopez RM, Klau JF, Casa DJ, Kraemer WJ, Maresh CM.

Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA. linda.yamamoto@uconn.edu

The current perception among highly competitive endurance runners is that concurrent resistance and endurance training (CT) will improve running performance despite the limited research in this area. The purpose of this review was to search the body of scientific literature for original research addressing the effects of CT on distance running performance in highly competitive endurance runners. Specific key words (including running, strength training, performance, and endurance) were used to search relevant databases through April 2007 for literature related to CT. Original research was reviewed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Five studies met inclusion criteria: highly trained runners (>or= 30 mile x wk(-1) or >or= 5 d x wk(-1)), CT intervention for a period >or= 6 weeks, performance distance between 3K and 42.2K, and a PEDro scale score >or= 5 (out of 10). Exclusion criteria were prepubertal children and elderly populations. Four of the five studies employed sport-specific, explosive resistance training, whereas one study used traditional heavy weight resistance training. Two of the five studies measured 2.9% improved performance (3K and 5K), and all five studies measured 4.6% improved running economy (RE; range = 3-8.1%). After critically reviewing the literature for the impact of CT on high-level runners, we conclude that resistance training likely has a positive effect on endurance running performance or RE. The short duration and wide range of exercises implemented are of concern, but coaches should not hesitate to implement a well-planned, periodized CT program for their endurance runners.