Home   |   Contact   |   Help

Get Our Newsletter
Sign up for our free newsletter to get training tips and stay up to date on Catalyst Athletics, and get a FREE issue of the Performance Menu journal.

Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Training > Endurance

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-19-2007, 04:46 AM   #1
Paul Kayley
Member
 
Paul Kayley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 40
Default Resistance training and aerobic performance

What are your thoughts on the relevance of resistance training to aerobic sports performance?

Have you experienced complimentary benefits? If yes, why do you think improved strength increases aerobic performance?
Paul Kayley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2007, 08:41 AM   #2
Robb Wolf
Senior Member
 
Robb Wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,444
Default

Hey Paul!!

Our endurance oriented clients certainly have benefited from both strength training (SQT, DL, Press) and from some smart CF style mixed modal training.

It seem like the stronger the person is the faster they run or bike...swimming has not shown as linear a correlation.

The literature indicates better inter and intra muscular coordination (strength training) benefits all of these endurance activities. If one can fuel a given movement with say stronger, better coordinated type 1 fibers this will be more efficient than relying on more fatigable type 2A's. Makes sense.

If someone were say....racing road bikes in Europe for a portion of the year the months leading up to race preparation might include some dedicated strength work 2-3x per week for the big movements...perhaps some metabolic conditioning. Once the season is rolling one need only hit those big lifts (sqt, dl, press, pull) 1x/7-10 days in something like an 8x3 or 10x2 format to maintain ~90% of peak strength. That should involve a minimal time investment with good return and no degradation of recovery ability.
__________________
"Survival will be neither to the strongest of the species, nor to the most intelligent, but to those most adaptable to change."
C. Darwin

Robb's Blog
Robb Wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2007, 09:52 AM   #3
Mike ODonnell
Senior Member
 
Mike ODonnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,596
Default

More strength output per pedal, foot, etc....equals more overall power...more overall speed...etc....

aka your sustainable race pace is now higher....than before with less strenght....that and more power to accelerate when you need it in a race...breakaway speed....

Even intervals can increase your aerobic strength due to the higher output....
__________________
Fitness Spotlight
The IF Life
Mike ODonnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2007, 11:56 AM   #4
Paul Kayley
Member
 
Paul Kayley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 40
Default

Morning Robb. Great to have somewhere new and different to discuss stuff. The website looks great.

IME, apart from the obvious injury prevention benefits, strength training is definately of benefit to some aerobic and endurance activities, especially in cycling for example, where peripheral performance limitation is more likely due to the restricted muscle mass involved in an enclosed range of motion. However, trying to explain the physiological reasons for this has for some time eluded me.

A rather simplistic but nontheless potentially valid reasoning - "The answer could be efficiency, could simply be the fact that if you increase near max strength, any submaximal force output requires less muscle fiber. That is, if you need 100 lbs of force to generate a certain wattage and your max is 100, you're working at 100% of your maximum. If your max is 200 lbs, that same 100 lbs of force is only 50% of maximum." This however does not take into account the significance of the anaerobic systems upon strength, nor the almost insignificant impact of the anaerobic systems upon maximal aerobic capacity or lactate threshold.

I believe that weights is likely to be far more beneficial to athletes whose limiter is not central VO2max but peripheral fatigue, due to a low LT resulting from a restricted range of endurance trained fibres. An individual with a high % of ST fibres, either from being genetically gifted or via long-term training and altered gene-expression, is more able to easily recruit more fibres due to their lower innervation threshold. The workload is therefore better distributed resulting in a lower respiration rate per cell, resulting in better fuel economy and a higher OBLA threshold.

It may be that weight training improves/increases muscle fibre recruitability and coordination of innervation, leading to a wider and more organised fibre 'team-effort'. Also, could it not be possible that neural adaptations lead to improved intermediate muscle fibre innervation thresholds... that is, for less percieved effort these fibres can be recruited resulting in their more frequent use during sport specific training. In effect, intermediate fibres' innervation thresholds are reduced to near ST innervation charateristics. Which in turn, during aerobic actvities, results in them becoming more aerobic and endurance trained, raising the LT, and in turn increasing time to exhaustion and functional power output.

Have you ever come across any research pertaining to the effects of resistance/strength training upon innervation thresholds of different muscle fibre types? I believe that the following is suggesting that they reduce... I have read the study a few times, but I'm still not 100% sure that this is their point? Perhaps they're suggesting that less innervation occurs for the same force output as a result of improved motor unit coordination follwing resistance training?

The sites of neural adaptation induced by resistance training in humans
Timothy J. Carroll, Stephan Riek and Richard G. Carson


Although it has long been supposed that resistance training causes adaptive changes in the CNS, the sites and nature of these adaptations have not previously been identified. In order to determine whether the neural adaptations to resistance training occur to a greater extent at cortical or subcortical sites in the CNS, we compared the effects of resistance training on the electromyographic (EMG) responses to transcranial magnetic (TMS) and electrical (TES) stimulation. Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded from the first dorsal interosseous muscle of 16 individuals before and after 4 weeks of resistance training for the index finger abductors (n = 8), or training involving finger abduction-adduction without external resistance (n = 8). TMS was delivered at rest at intensities from 5 % below the passive threshold to the maximal output of the stimulator. TMS and TES were also delivered at the active threshold intensity while the participants exerted torques ranging from 5 to 60 % of their maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) torque. The average latency of MEPs elicited by TES was significantly shorter than that of TMS MEPs (TES latency = 21.5 1.4 ms; TMS latency = 23.4 1.4 ms; P < 0.05), which indicates that the site of activation differed between the two forms of stimulation. Training resulted in a significant increase in MVC torque for the resistance-training group, but not the control group. There were no statistically significant changes in the corticospinal properties measured at rest for either group. For the active trials involving both TMS and TES, however, the slope of the relationship between MEP size and the torque exerted was significantly lower after training for the resistance-training group (P < 0.05). Thus, for a specific level of muscle activity, the magnitude of the EMG responses to both forms of transcranial stimulation were smaller following resistance training. These results suggest that resistance training changes the functional properties of spinal cord circuitry in humans, but does not substantially affect the organisation of the motor cortex.

(BTW dont buy that book I recommended as I've sent you my copy.)
Paul Kayley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2007, 12:20 PM   #5
Derek Simonds
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Deland, FL
Posts: 4,231
Default

Nice post Paul!

I will have to reread it a couple of times to pick up all the details. I think that your 100% analogy and what MOD said I can definitely attest to. My 5K run time is steadily going down ever since I have started a consistent strength program.

My bike training has been much easier also.

Robb, interesting thought on the swimming. This year my swim training has been easier to get into. I think that it is a result of several things. Pull Ups and Jumping Pull Ups have increased my lat strength and my lat strength endurance. Doing the mass gain plan I have done a lot of pressing which has really strengthened my shoulders. Used to be early in the year my shoulders would be the most sore from swimming. And the final key is that interval work has really increased my ability to perform at or near LT for short periods of time across all activities.
__________________
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe, is in the end, of little consequence. The only thing of consequence is what we do. -John Ruskin

http://westvolusiawellness.com/
Derek Simonds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2007, 12:41 PM   #6
Mike ODonnell
Senior Member
 
Mike ODonnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,596
Default

Having my mountain bike *cough* turn into a single speed (if you call the derailer snapping off a good thing...and then rigging it to one speed till I buy a new bike) was one the best things to do for increasing my power stroke while biking....some hills still suck but I am able to crank out some serious speed now...suck factor is high....result factor is great... great for training but obviously not something I would use during a race.
__________________
Fitness Spotlight
The IF Life
Mike ODonnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2007, 01:14 PM   #7
Neal Winkler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 326
Default

Quote:
nor the almost insignificant impact of the anaerobic systems' impact upon maximal aerobic capacity or lactate threshold.
The anaeribic sysytem has little impact on maximal aerobic capacity and lactate threshold? I couldn't disagree more. Working in the anaerobic system, specifically the glycolic pathway, imporoves both VO2max and lactate threshold. That's what every study on HIIT shows.

Quote:
I believe that weights is likely to be far more beneficial to athletes whose limiter is not central VO2max
Assuming that VO2max is a performance limiter. I havn't done much research in this area but the power running site has a lot to say about this subject. If you havn't gone through this site, you'd be silly not to.

http://www.powerrunning.com

Quote:
It may be that weight training improves/increases muscle fibre recruitability and coordination of innervation, leading to a wider and more organised fibre 'team-effort'... In effect, intermediate fibres' innervation thresholds are reduced to near ST innervation charateristics. Which in turn, during aerobic actvities, results in them becoming more aerobic and endurance trained...
If I get what you're saying here, your assertion is that strength training decreases the amount of intensity that is required to activate higher threshold motor units, and thus cause the higher threshold motor units to perform aerobic work thus changing their fiber characteristics. But, that is the opposite of what happens. For example, if I get stronger, say, improve my squat from 100lbs. to 400lbs., doing a squat at 100lbs. when my max is 100lbs. will require immediate recruitment of my type IIB, whereas doing 100lbs when my max is 400lbs may only require my ST fibers unless I try and move the weight at maximal velocity.

So, on the contrary, increasing strength increases the level of intensity that is required for higher threshold motor units to get activated.

Furthermore, let's remember that what energy system we are using (and thus what motor units will be recruited) is first determined by the intensity, then the duration, of the activity. So, why would the body call upon the less fatigue resistant higher threshold motor units to do aerobic work if it didn't have to? The reason higher threshold motor units get called upon to do aerobic work is because the type 1's become fatigued. That's when repeated exposures to the aerobic stimulus begin to change their fiber characteristics.

You would have to be saying that strength training first causes you to become worse at aerobic activity (from calling upon less fatigue resistance type II fibers to do aerobic work) and only after subsequent training makes you better. But I think you'll find that strength training never makes someone worse at aerobic activity before it makes it better.
Neal Winkler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2007, 07:32 PM   #8
Motion MacIvor
New Member
 
Motion MacIvor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25
Default

One thing to consider is that the more efficent you become at a given movement, the more difficult it becomes to induce an adaptive response to training. If all you do is run for 2 hours at 150 BPM after a couple of months your fitness will stagnate and likely decline a bit. I dont want to imply any LSD prejudice so I'll point out that if all you do is tabata intervals the same thing will happen. Throwing in a bit of gym time in the off season will help you to break that plateau. This is one of the main reasons crossfit is such an effective progam it never allows you to become efficient at anything. It forces an adaptive response to each work out.

Another thing to consider is that maybe weights are'nt that helpfull when it comes to steady state aerobic events such as marathon and XC mtb. Road racing is an entirely different kettle of fish because it combines random bursts of extreme power with steady state aerobics. Some of the most successful XC mountain bikers I've known and trained with use almost no weights at all.
Motion MacIvor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2007, 09:26 AM   #9
Paul Kayley
Member
 
Paul Kayley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 40
Default

Firstly, great response Neal. You've got me scratching my head, which is what these forums are all about to me.

Quote:
"The anaeribic sysytem has little impact on maximal aerobic capacity and lactate threshold? I couldn't disagree more. Working in the anaerobic system, specifically the glycolic pathway, imporoves both VO2max and lactate threshold."
Thats not exactly what I was meaning. Yes, I agree that training the type IIa fibres to become more aerobic, and potentially even training type IIb fibres to become more like the IIa fibres, will of course raise the LT and muscle specific oxygen uptake capacity (QO2). I am trying to understand what exactly are the mechanisms responsible in increasing strength which can be carried over into endurance performance?

Quote:
"Assuming that VO2max is a performance limiter."
From my research it would appear that in sports like swimming, biking, and running - provided an athlete is blessed with, or has trained a high muscle specific oxygen uptake capacity, then the limiter to maximal aerobic performance appears to be central VO2max, particularly cardiac output.

Quote:
If I get what you're saying here, your assertion is that strength training decreases the amount of intensity that is required to activate higher threshold motor units, and thus cause the higher threshold motor units to perform aerobic work thus changing their fiber characteristics. But, that is the opposite of what happens.
I am asking if it might be that with improved neural abilities (improved wiring conductivity if you want) will one be able to recruit a greater range and number of fibres for the same level of perceived exertion, compared with pre-strength training? And/or as you suggest, is it that in response to high resistance work that the ST contingent become more able to generate force somehow, therefore reducing the need for the higher fibres which 'feel' more difficult to recruit?

I would like to better understand what is physiologically responsible for the increases made in strength following training.... From what I can gather... first there are neural improvements - improved motor unit recruitment (although I cant find a definition of what precisely this means!), intramuscular coordination (defined as "the extent to which individual fibres in a muscle are voluntarily activated"-Zatsiorsky - does this mean that there is such a thing as a 'partial activation' of a muscle fibre... I thought they were 'all or nothing'!), intermuscular coordination (smoothness of action with no antagonistic opposition?), rate coding (speed of MU firing and repetition), MU synchronization (coordinated MU firing); then fibre hypertrophy (sarcoplasmic and/or myofibrillar depending upon type of strength training emphasis). I would like a better definition of what is really happening?

Quote:
For example, if I get stronger, say, improve my squat from 100lbs. to 400lbs., doing a squat at 100lbs. when my max is 100lbs. will require immediate recruitment of my type IIB, whereas doing 100lbs when my max is 400lbs may only require my ST fibers unless I try and move the weight at maximal velocity.

So, on the contrary, increasing strength increases the level of intensity that is required for higher threshold motor units to get activated.

I think what I'd like to know is why is it that following training to a new max of 400Lbs, the 100Lbs which previously was a maximal effort now feels easy? The untrained 100LBs effort will have involved all available fibres, and now it only requires the lower threshold fibres, mainly the ST and maybe some FTa? If this is the case, then strength training is somehow increasing the force generation abilities of the ST fibres, which is a very positive argument in its favour for endurance athletes.

Could this the case???
Paul Kayley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2007, 01:20 PM   #10
Motion MacIvor
New Member
 
Motion MacIvor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
From my research it would appear that in sports like swimming, biking, and running - provided an athlete is blessed with, or has trained a high muscle specific oxygen uptake capacity, then the limiter to maximal aerobic performance appears to be central VO2max, particularly cardiac output.
My understanding is that VO2max is a corralary (sp) and not a cause of high aerobic performance. It's not how much oxegen you take in it's what you do with it that counts. I think the limiting factors are much more likely to be capillary, mitochondia density, and the efficiency of the neuro muscular conections. Another point is that VO2max is not even an indicator of high performance it's the % of VO2max that your AT sits at that is the more meaningful number. I seem to remember the power running site has a bit to say about this if you have'nt already checked it out I highly recomend it.

BTW I have no idea who you are, whats your background?
Motion MacIvor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Subscribe to our Newsletter


Receive emails with training tips, news updates, events info, sale notifications and more.
ASK GREG

Submit your question to be answered by Greg Everett in the Performance Menu or on the website

Submit Your Question
WEIGHTLIFTING TEAM

Catalyst Athletics is a USA Weightlifting team of competitive Olympic-style weightlifters with multiple national team medals.

Read More
Olympic Weightlifting Book
Catalyst Athletics
Contact Us
About
Help
Newsletter
Products & Services
Gym
Store
Seminars
Weightlifting Team
Performance Menu
Magazine Home
Subscriber Login
Issues
Articles
Workouts
About the Program
Workout Archives
Exercise Demos
Text Only
Instructional Content
Exercise Demos
Video Gallery
Free Articles
Free Recipes
Resources
Recommended Books & DVDs
Olympic Weightlifting Guide
Discussion Forum
Weight Conversion Calculator