If this is all true... how would you change your workout?

[Cmart]

I've heard many people say this, using the analogy of a rope ladder we're you're trying to raise all the rungs.

strength
power
endurance
whatever

They say that if you train for whatever, the only rung raised will be whatever. If you train for endurance you'll raise endurance and whatever, since it's the rung hanging from endurance. But if you train strength, you'll raise all the rungs hanging from it.

I can't count the number of times I've heard this analogy. The only source I can site from memory is Charles Staley's EDT book.

So since your "power" rung hangs under your "strength" rung, training that results in increased power will not have the side effect of increasing strength? Are you sure you have this model represented correctly?

 

[JosephDredd]

So since your "power" rung hangs under your "strength" rung, training that results in increased power will not have the side effect of increasing strength? Are you sure you have this model represented correctly?

No, I made up everything except strength and endurance, which is why it had a half-assed "whatever". I don't remember what the rungs on the ladder they used were labeled as.

 

[JosephDredd]

mysterious double post edited out

 

[corpse]

what is the difference inside the muscle between developing strength or endurance?

where is the physiological difference in adaption between lifting my 10rm over and over until it becomes my 12rm

or increasing my 1rm so my old 10rm becomes my new 12rm?

english is not my first language so be patient, please.

 

[Sano]

I don't think anyone here, or anyone involved in powerlifting that I know, has ever said this. In fact, typically the closer one's training takes them to testing their 1RM (like a meet) the more their cardio falls to the wayside.

But do go ahead and give me your source that justifies you saying something like this.

This video was posted in a thread a few weeks ago:



A recent example of both someone here and someone highly regarded in the PL community making that claim.

 

[JimRussel]

This video was posted in a thread a few weeks ago:



A recent example of both someone here and someone highly regarded in the PL community making that claim.

Lol pwned

 

[Sano]

Not at all.

It's not always black and white, a lot of it depends on where you're starting off, what your strengths and weaknesses are. Also depends on how effective your "conversion" training is. Running a progressive structured push-up program after a few blocks of maximal strength will probably give you better results than randomly doing Bag work throughout the week with no structured progress.

That being said, the relationship between max-strength and muscular endurance is fairly well established:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19620916/

Hey man, a little late response. I agree with a lot of what you are saying I just want to clarify what I mean about different adaptions and why I think that the relationship between maximal strength and muscular endurance is not entirely as it's laid out. I'll use the study as an example.

Well made and solid methodology. Still it has some major flaws in how it draws its conclusion.

I think it's safe to say that it sufficiently proved that the subjects who had a higher 1RM in the benchpress, were able to do more reps with 40kg in 40 seconds. That makes total sense as it's a lower percentage of their 1RM. However, and this is where it gets interesting, that is somewhat misleading.

It's definitely true that increasing your absolute strength will increase the reps with a set weight, but, the litterature shows that maximal strength training has a negative correlation with repetitions at the same relative percentage of 1RM. This is called the strength-endurance continuum:

This is a very interesting study on that subject, by Schoenfeld and Contreras:

So while you will be able to bench the same weight more times, you will actually bench the relative percentage of your 1RM less. This also makes total sense considering the physiological changes I mentioned earlier (capillaries, oxidative enzymes, specific fiber adaptions and hypertrophy, so forth).

Does this matter? In endurance sports, yes.

Another thing that is important to note is that in the study you posted, two factors were primary in regards to benching 40kg more times. One was 1RM, another was BW. When adjusting for BW and relative strength, the correlation was actually non-significant. Meaning that absolute strength was the most important factor, ie, being heavy and strong. If you take muscular endurance out of the vacuum of benchpressing, and over to something where you have to propell yourself forward for long periods of time, increasing your BW is the worst thing you can do. There is a reason why having a BMI of about 19-20 is optimal for long distance runners: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090183

Point being, if you want to be an endurance athlete, don't train like a powerlifter.

Anyway, obviously it depends on the activity you want to do. We've already talked about balancing your training and using different modalities at different times! There's a lot of space between the ends of the spectrum.

If you want to geek out a bit on the strength-endurance continuum: https://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/perspectives/strength-endurance-continuum/

 

[Genghiz]

Well made and solid methodology. Still it has some major flaws in how it draws its conclusion.




Point being, if you want to be an endurance athlete, don't train like a powerlifter.

/

Good info, thanks for posting!

I don't see any flaws in the study. The primary message is sound. That's just one of many studies that show the relationship between muscular endurance and max strength.

I do agree with not training like a PLer if you're an endurance athlete, that shouldn't really be the take-away. I see it as if you're an endurance athlete you shouldn't neglect the role max-strength plays in strength-endurance.

I'll give you an example of what I mean. Do nothing but high rep "muscular endurance" body weight training for the next 8-12 weeks. Pick a few easily measured exercises like push-ups. Test your numbers before and after. Don't do any weight training at all. Don't do any high tension low rep bodyweight exercises like one armed push-ups either. For most people those types of exercises typically fall in the max-strength wheelhouse.

I think you might be surprised at the outcome, I'd be willing to wager your numbers will actually go down or stay roughly the same. Basically, you're neglecting max strength while you're focusing on muscle endurance, and over time it will diminish even as you keep pumping out push-ups. As MS levels go lower you'll start struggling with the push-ups & other ME exercises.

Now repeat the experiment but maintain a bare bones progressive maximal strength program on the side...no need to go overboard, use a minimal amount of exercises, twice a week. Like 531 2-Day or TB Fighter template. Continue the body weight training. Retest and compare your bodyweight numbers at the end of the 8-12 weeks.

This happened to me constantly years ago when I thought all-bodyweight was the correct way to train for Muay Thai, and I couldn't figure out why my ME continued to suck or plateau + drop lower. After learning what I was doing wrong from various sources and implementing the info I saw a pretty significant rise in ME.

N=1 of course, but my results are backed by the general research.

 

[Sano]

Good info, thanks for posting!

I don't see any flaws in the study. The primary message is sound. That's just one of many studies that show the relationship between muscular endurance and max strength.

I do agree with not training like a PLer if you're an endurance athlete, that shouldn't really be the take-away. I see it as if you're an endurance athlete you shouldn't neglect the role max-strength plays in strength-endurance.

I'll give you an example of what I mean. Do nothing but high rep "muscular endurance" body weight training for the next 8-12 weeks. Pick a few easily measured exercises like push-ups. Test your numbers before and after. Don't do any weight training at all. Don't do any high tension low rep bodyweight exercises like one armed push-ups either. For most people those types of exercises typically fall in the max-strength wheelhouse.

I think you might be surprised at the outcome, I'd be willing to wager your numbers will actually go down or stay roughly the same. Basically, you're neglecting max strength while you're focusing on muscle endurance, and over time it will diminish even as you keep pumping out push-ups. As MS levels go lower you'll start struggling with the push-ups & other ME exercises.

Now repeat the experiment but maintain a bare bones progressive maximal strength program on the side...no need to go overboard, use a minimal amount of exercises, twice a week. Like 531 2-Day or TB Fighter template. Continue the body weight training. Retest and compare your bodyweight numbers at the end of the 8-12 weeks.

This happened to me constantly years ago when I thought all-bodyweight was the correct way to train for Muay Thai, and I couldn't figure out why my ME continued to suck or plateau + drop lower. After learning what I was doing wrong from various sources and implementing the info I saw a pretty significant rise in ME.

N=1 of course, but my results are backed by the general research.

Funny you should mention pushups. After my concussion last year I couldn't really lift anything for a while, but I did the 22 a day for 22 days pushup thing for veterans. Nothing else. My pushups went from 35 max to 48. I've trained with several boxers who could do hundreds of pushup that I could easily outlift.

The reason why I think the study has flaws, is in that it creates a false narrative, or at least don't consider context.

I don't agree that the studies show the relationship of muscular indurance improving with max strength because it's misleading. It actually has a negative or zero correlation when you look at almost all studies. The reason it looks like it improves is because it doesn't take into consideration the relative load, but the absolute one. The majority of endurance trained athletes will have a greater repetition max at a given percentage of their maximal strength than a strength trained athelete. Like in this study using a leg press with weightlifter vs long distance runners:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...nt_in_endurance_and_strength_trained_athletes

Or these:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...dividuals_with_different_training_backgrounds
https://www.researchgate.net/public...tance_Training_Programs_in_College-Aged_Women

It depends on the sport really and where it lies on the strength-endurance continuum. Long distance runners and road cyclists have no need for anything that increases their BW, takes time out of their training, hinders their recovery or substantially increases their maximal strength. Sure they should to some basic strength training to prevent injuries, which most of them actually do, but they don't need to prioritize it, and honestly can't afford to. On the other hand power athletes will benefit a lot from maximal strength training.

When providing the context and mixing training methods, it's a lot more nuanced. Will mixing maximal strength work in with your endurance work make you able to do more pushups? I can totally see that happening as you'll get more absolute strength and hopefully still get the benefits from the endurance training. Makes sense it worked for you. If we include relative strength, not absolute, and relative BW will it increase your muscular endurance? I say most likely not.

 

[Genghiz]

Funny you should mention pushups. After my concussion last year I couldn't really lift anything for a while, but I did the 22 a day for 22 days pushup thing for veterans. Nothing else. My pushups went from 35 max to 48. I've trained with several boxers who could do hundreds of pushup that I could easily outlift.

22 days isn't long enough for max strength to deteriorate all that much, try it again for 2-3 months and don't touch a weight. 48 is good, but that's probably where you'll stay (or thereabouts) and could be indicative of roughly where your natural or baseline untrained max-strength levels lie. You did the "conversion" and ended up at 48. Now if you want to hit a number well beyond your natural capabilities (like 70-100) you'll have an easier time of it by improving max strength (either simultaneously or as a pre-cursor to ME specific trg). If you're happy hovering around your body's natural plateau then there's no need to do any max-strength training.

Ultimately it comes down to your individual strengths and weaknesses.

If you lift regularly and your ME sucks, chances are you need more volume/frequency (ME) or better "conversion" training.
If you don't lift at all, do a lot of ME work, but it seems to plateau at an unsatisfactory level, then chances are you'll benefit by improving max strength.
If your ME training is sub optimal or doesn't have enough volume or frequency, then it won't matter what you do in either scenario. All of this applies to power and explosiveness as well, not just ME.

Like I said, one easy way to find out...drop the weight training for 8-12 weeks and do nothing but ME. Test and repeat with the addition of max-strength.

I think I'm starting to stray off base here a little, so I'll restate my position. I am not saying all athletes should train like powerlifters or put a heavy emphasis on max-strength. I am saying neglecting max strength for most (most, there are outliers) athletes is a poor strategy if you want to maximize results, especially where ME & power/explosiveness are involved. The dose and where it lies on the priority list changes from sport to sport and athlete to athlete.

Ex. Most pro fight camps will contain a block of max strength training. Pro football players most definitely train max-strength. The dose varies between the two, but it's never neglected.

 

[selfcritical]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, but I'm not sure that conversion always works like that. The idea that higher max strength equals more muscular endurance, even with conversion training is not always the case. The rhetoric on that is usually that if you have more strength, then lifting sub-maximal loads gets easier and you can do more reps. While that is mostly true, it's not exactly the same as you improving your muscular endurance. The lower the weight gets, the less maximal strength matters as well.

Just look at the physiology of muscle fibers. Primarily doing max strength work fosters fast twitch attributes, meaning less myoglobin, less dense capillary network, less oxidative enzymes so forth. A little counterintuitive to real endurance work. Sure you can convert the charactiristics back, but I don't know if it's with added muscular endurance benefit. Keeping in line with the SAID principles in the OP.

Obviously nitpicking here. If you have a balanced S&C program with any sort of periodization it wont hold you back in the muscular endurance department and you'll still get all the benefits from maximal strength work. I also see a lot of benefit in doing GPP work or building a base and then working from there. I was just thinking about the PL crowd that thinks that upping your 1RM is endurance training too.

I think maximal strength is an important attribute in regards to power, but is given a little too much credit. It depends on where you are the the force velocity curve. Punching, kicking, throwing a ball, kicking a ball so forth it matters less and other attributes are equally or more important imo.

Lol it always sounds like I'm against heavy resistance training or something, but I'm actually not at all. Hope it doesn't come off that way, or like I'm being argumentative. I know you run a solid program!

As to power, it also seems to matter what your starting attributes. Relatively strong but slow people don't seem to get much faster as they get stronger. People who are really springy to begin with, especially if they don't have much maximal strength development seem to benefit immensely from periods of maximal strength increase. There was a recent study about using the inverse of people's strengths for developing vertical jump that looked really promising.

 

[Sano]

As to power, it also seems to matter what your starting attributes. Relatively strong but slow people don't seem to get much faster as they get stronger. People who are really springy to begin with, especially if they don't have much maximal strength development seem to benefit immensely from periods of maximal strength increase. There was a recent study about using the inverse of people's strengths for developing vertical jump that looked really promising.

Yeah that is a good point. Uhh, that sounds interesting, who was the author do you remember? Can you link it perhaps?

I know Chris Beardsley mentioned in the OP is working on a big project about explosiveness, so I'm very much looking forward to that.

 

[selfcritical]

I'll try to find it post-cooking. Also I need to organize my thoughts on ME, because from high-level kettlebell sport i know a lot of people with insane stupid muscular endurance, and i know at least some of their programming (like an 80kg male who can squat 100kg over 200 times without re-racking)