Re: GATP & Critical Thinking-Paavolainen study

[Guest guest]

thank you for the reference- after reading the study, I would like to

point a very important factor mostly overlooked when this study is quoted as a

reference for strength training for endurance athletes.

***********************************************

" Explosive- strength training sessions lasted for 15 – 90 min and consisted

of various sprints (5 – 10) · (20 – 100 m) and jumping exercises

[alternative jumps, bilateral countermovement, drop and

hurdle jumps, and 1-legged, 5-jump (5J) tests] without addi-

tional weight---- "

******************************

This is not traditional resistance training but basically interval training with

some plyometric type work. RG

**************************************

" or with the barbell on the shoulders and

leg-press and knee extensor-flexor exercises with low loads

but high or maximal movement velocities (30 – 200 contrac-

tions/training session and 5 – 20 repetitions/set). The load of

the exercises ranged between 0 and 40% of the one-repetition maximum. "

***************************************

In this case even when loads were used they were very low loads and certainlynot

the traditional resistance training regimen. RG

****************************

" Endurance training of both groups consisted of cross country or road running

for 0.5-2.0 hr at the intensity below 84% or above 16% the individual Lactate

threhold (LT).

Circuit training was similar in both groups; the C group

trained more often than did the E group, and training

consisted of speciï¬c abdominal and leg exercises with dozens

of repetitions at slow movement velocity and without any

external load. "

*****************************************

Even the circuit training is not with weights.

Based on previous posts on this forum the interpretation o was that traditional

resistance training was used in this study.

It is important to read the entire study and not just the summary.

Critical thinking requires more than a perusal of a summary or conclusion by the

author but a review of the entire study details.

Strength training in this study has little to do with traditional resistance

strength training. In my opinion this study should not be used to justify

weight training for endurance athletes.

The devil is in the details.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

========================================

________________________________

From: <paulr99@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:37:35 AM

Subject: Re: GATP & Critical Thinking

Giovanni, would 2 be enough? <g>

In this study they did get significance at p=0.05 and better, but my stats are

not good enough to know if the methods were acceptable.

Take a look if you like:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/86/5/1527

Gympie, Australia

> > I shouldn't be discussing the review of the Paavolainen study because

> the process is supposed to be anonymous. However, I think that since the

> study was published and had a significant impact on sport, coaches and

> sports science professionals might benefit from understanding the review

> and publication process.

> >

> > is correct that the Paavolainen had weaknesses. It didn't use

> 100 subjects or use stringent controls. However, anyone who has ever

> done studies training studies (let alone studies with good athletes)

> knows the difficulties associated with them. As a coach, I sometimes

> have trouble getting athletes to show up to practice, let alone getting

> them to do exactly what I tell them.

> >

> > The study offered an alternative to traditional training methods.

> Other studies are necessary to determine which methods work best on the

> playing field.

> >

> > As for the review process: I received a note from the editor telling

> me that the paper was going to be rejected. The authors had not seen the

> reviews. The editors and reviewers felt that the paper was too applied

> for the journal. However, the paper described training methods that

> and I described in 1984, in the first edition of our

> textbook Exercise Physiology: Human Bioenergetics and its Applications. .

> >

> > In one of the applied chapters, we discussed the importance of whole

> body strength and power exercises for sports. We believed in the

> concept. Granted, the information was based more on personal experience

> from competing and coaching than on hard data. We wrote this material at

> a time when endurance training centered on little more then building

> VO2max and strength training largely involved using isolated training

> exercises on weight machines.

> >

> > I felt that, despite the weaknesses of the Paavolainen paper, the

> information was important for sports training and should appear in a top

> journal.

> >

> > I convinced the editor that the concept had merit. The authors

> followed the suggestions of the editor and reviewers and the paper was

> accepted.

> >

> > We shouldn't be overly cynical about sports science research.

> >

> > 1) There is no money for this kind of research, so we do what we can.

> In spite of lack of support, research methods are getting much better in

> our field.

> >

> > 2) Controlling all the variables in athletes is impossible -

> particularly in a large group of them. We usually can't pay them, and

> they are more interested in winning and their social lives than insuring

> that we maintain strict scientific controls. Dr Yessis used to publish

> wonderful training studies conducted in the Soviet Union during the cold

> war (Soviet Sports Review). That kind of research is extremely difficult

> to do in the West with Generation Y kids.

> >

> > 3) Training does not produce linear responses. In the Paavolainen

> study, the control group did not improve, in spite of a vigorous

> training program.

> >

> > Anything can happen in a small group of athletes: they get

> overtrained; their girlfriends leave them; they have genetic

> polymorphisms that make it difficult for them to respond; they don't

> have the killer instinct necessary to improve and win. The Paavolainen

> study was not the Holy Grail of training studies, but it caused people

> to think and ask other questions. That is the process of science.

> >

> > The Supertraining group provides a tremendous service to the sports

> sciences and athletics. It brings together researchers, coaches,

> athletes, and people interested in fitness. These people come to the

> forum with different perspectives and backgrounds, but all have the

> desire to learn. It is good when people like question the status

> quo and conventional wisdom. That's how we make progress. lin

> Henry, one of my former professors at UC Berkeley who did much of the

> early research on specificity, once said, " If someone says 'Good

> morning,' ask them, 'where's your data. "

> >

> > Always have respect for other people in our field. Scientists

> typically think of coaches as stupid boneheads who act by instinct,

> while coaches think of scientists as dweeby nerds with no practical

> experience. Both groups have expertise that can benefit the other.

> >

> > Tom Fahey

> > California State University, Chico

> > USA

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

It seems there is confusion in this discussion between explosive

strength, maximum strength and resistance strength. To me they are

different types of strength and involve different types of fibers

working differently. The study clearly states explosive-strength

training, so comparing it to maximum-strength training or

resistance-strength training misses the point.

Giovanni Ciriani,

W.Hartford, CT - USA

>

> thank you for the reference- after reading the study, I would

like to point a very important factor mostly overlooked when this study

is quoted as a reference for strength training for endurance athletes.

>

> ***********************************************

> " Explosive- strength training sessions lasted for 15 †" 90 min

and consisted

> of various sprints (5 †" 10) · (20 †" 100 m) and

jumping exercises

> [alternative jumps, bilateral countermovement, drop and

> hurdle jumps, and 1-legged, 5-jump (5J) tests] without addi-

> tional weight---- "

> ******************************

> This is not traditional resistance training but basically interval

training with some plyometric type work. RG

>

>

> **************************************

> " or with the barbell on the shoulders and

> leg-press and knee extensor-flexor exercises with low loads

> but high or maximal movement velocities (30 †" 200 contrac-

> tions/training session and 5 †" 20 repetitions/set). The load of

> the exercises ranged between 0 and 40% of the one-repetition maximum. "

>

> ***************************************

> In this case even when loads were used they were very low loads and

certainlynot the traditional resistance training regimen. RG

>

> ****************************

> " Endurance training of both groups consisted of cross country or road

running for 0.5-2.0 hr at the intensity below 84% or above 16% the

individual Lactate threhold (LT).

>

> Circuit training was similar in both groups; the C group

> trained more often than did the E group, and training

> consisted of speciï¬c abdominal and leg exercises with dozens

> of repetitions at slow movement velocity and without any

> external load. "

>

> *****************************************

> Even the circuit training is not with weights.

>

> Based on previous posts on this forum the interpretation o was that

traditional resistance training was used in this study.

> It is important to read the entire study and not just the summary.

>

> Critical thinking requires more than a perusal of a summary or

conclusion by the author but a review of the entire study details.

>

> Strength training in this study has little to do with traditional

resistance strength training. In my opinion this study should not be

used to justify weight training for endurance athletes.

>

> The devil is in the details.

>

> Ralph Giarnella MD

> Southington Ct USA

>

> ========================================

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It seems there is confusion in this discussion between explosive

strength, maximum strength and resistance strength. To me they are

different types of strength and involve different types of fibers

working differently. The study clearly states explosive-strength

training, so comparing it to maximum-strength training or

resistance-strength training misses the point.

Giovanni Ciriani,

W.Hartford, CT - USA

>

> thank you for the reference- after reading the study, I would

like to point a very important factor mostly overlooked when this study

is quoted as a reference for strength training for endurance athletes.

>

> ***********************************************

> " Explosive- strength training sessions lasted for 15 †" 90 min

and consisted

> of various sprints (5 †" 10) · (20 †" 100 m) and

jumping exercises

> [alternative jumps, bilateral countermovement, drop and

> hurdle jumps, and 1-legged, 5-jump (5J) tests] without addi-

> tional weight---- "

> ******************************

> This is not traditional resistance training but basically interval

training with some plyometric type work. RG

>

>

> **************************************

> " or with the barbell on the shoulders and

> leg-press and knee extensor-flexor exercises with low loads

> but high or maximal movement velocities (30 †" 200 contrac-

> tions/training session and 5 †" 20 repetitions/set). The load of

> the exercises ranged between 0 and 40% of the one-repetition maximum. "

>

> ***************************************

> In this case even when loads were used they were very low loads and

certainlynot the traditional resistance training regimen. RG

>

> ****************************

> " Endurance training of both groups consisted of cross country or road

running for 0.5-2.0 hr at the intensity below 84% or above 16% the

individual Lactate threhold (LT).

>

> Circuit training was similar in both groups; the C group

> trained more often than did the E group, and training

> consisted of speciï¬c abdominal and leg exercises with dozens

> of repetitions at slow movement velocity and without any

> external load. "

>

> *****************************************

> Even the circuit training is not with weights.

>

> Based on previous posts on this forum the interpretation o was that

traditional resistance training was used in this study.

> It is important to read the entire study and not just the summary.

>

> Critical thinking requires more than a perusal of a summary or

conclusion by the author but a review of the entire study details.

>

> Strength training in this study has little to do with traditional

resistance strength training. In my opinion this study should not be

used to justify weight training for endurance athletes.

>

> The devil is in the details.

>

> Ralph Giarnella MD

> Southington Ct USA

>

> ========================================

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

That is exactly point that I am making. This study has been cited in the past

to justify the use of resistance-strength training to train endurance

athletes. Obviously the indivduals citing this study read only the title and not

the details.

The authors discussed clearly that the mechanism at work in improving the

experimental group was not increased absolute strength or hypertrophy but

improvements in neuromuscular characteristics.

****************************************

" The present 9-wk explosive-type strength training

resulted in considerable improvements in selected neu-

romuscular characteristics, although a large volume of

endurance training was performed concomitantly.

This was demonstrated by the signiï¬cant improvements in

V20 m and 5J and by the shortening of the CTs during the

CVLs of the 5K, whereas no changes were observed in

the ground reaction forces or maximal force of the

trained muscles. These results support our previous

ï¬ndings (35) that in well-trained endurance athletes

training-induced improvements in neuromuscular char-

acteristics may not be fully inhibited by simultaneous

explosive-strength and endurance training.

It has been suggested (3, 26) that the nervous system

plays an important role in regulating muscle stiffness

and utilization of muscle elasticity during stretch-

shortening cycle exercises, in which high contraction

velocities are used.

The present increases in neuromuscular performance characteristics might

primarily be

due to neural adaptations, although no electromyo-

graphic measurements in the muscles were done to

support this suggestion.

Although the loads used in the present explosive-strength training were low,

the

muscles are known to be highly activated because of the

maximal movement velocity utilized (13). It has been

shown that this type of explosive-strength training

results in increases in the amount of neural input to the

muscles observable during rapid dynamic and isomet-

ric actions (e.g., Refs. 14, 15), suggesting that the

increase in net excitation of motoneurons could result

from increased excitatory input, reduced inhibitory

input, or both (39). It is likely that training-induced

alterations in neural control during stretch-shortening

cycle exercises such as running and jumping may take

place in both voluntary activation and inhibitory and/or

facilitatory reflexes (13, 25, 26, 39).

Although neural activation of the trained muscles during explosive-type

strength training is very high, the time of this activa-

tion during each single muscle action is usually so short

that training-induced muscular hypertrophy and maxi-

mal strength development take place to a drastically

smaller degree than during typical heavy-resistance

training (13)..

Consequently, it has been suggested (35)

that, during relatively short training periods of some

weeks, the improvements in sprinting and/or explosive-

force-production capacity, especially in endurance ath-

letes, might primarily come from neural adaptations

without observable muscle hypertrophy "

*************************************************

The use of sprints as a means of improving overall speed is not all that new in

training endurance athletes- Speed work has been incorporated for years

especially for the middle distance runners. In cycling speed intervals are

commonly used.

When Bannister trained before breaking the 4 minute barrier he

incorporated speed intervals which unhear of at that time.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

________________________________

From: Giovanni M. Ciriani <Giovanni.Ciriani@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:29:51 PM

Subject: Re: GATP & Critical Thinking-Paavolainen study

It seems there is confusion in this discussion between explosive

strength, maximum strength and resistance strength. To me they are

different types of strength and involve different types of fibers

working differently. The study clearly states explosive-strength

training, so comparing it to maximum-strength training or

resistance-strength training misses the point.

Giovanni Ciriani,

W.Hartford, CT - USA

>

> thank you for the reference- after reading the study, I would

like to point a very important factor mostly overlooked when this study

is quoted as a reference for strength training for endurance athletes.

>

> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********

> " Explosive- strength training sessions lasted for 15 鈥 " 90 min

and consisted

> of various sprints (5 鈥 " 10) 路 (20 鈥 " 100 m) and

jumping exercises

> [alternative jumps, bilateral countermovement, drop and

> hurdle jumps, and 1-legged, 5-jump (5J) tests] without addi-

> tional weight---- "

> ************ ********* *********

> This is not traditional resistance training but basically interval

training with some plyometric type work. RG

>

>

> ************ ********* ********* ********

> " or with the barbell on the shoulders and

> leg-press and knee extensor-é“¿ä¿¥xor exercises with low loads

> but high or maximal movement velocities (30 鈥 " 200 contrac-

> tions/training session and 5 鈥 " 20 repetitions/ set). The load of

> the exercises ranged between 0 and 40% of the one-repetition maximum. "

>

> ************ ********* ********* *********

> In this case even when loads were used they were very low loads and

certainlynot the traditional resistance training regimen. RG

>

> ************ ********* *******

> " Endurance training of both groups consisted of cross country or road

running for 0.5-2.0 hr at the intensity below 84% or above 16% the

individual Lactate threhold (LT).

>

> Circuit training was similar in both groups; the C group

> trained more often than did the E group, and training

> consisted of speci铿乧 abdominal and leg exercises with dozens

> of repetitions at slow movement velocity and without any

> external load. "

>

> ************ ********* ********* ********* **

> Even the circuit training is not with weights.

>

> Based on previous posts on this forum the interpretation o was that

traditional resistance training was used in this study.

> It is important to read the entire study and not just the summary.

>

> Critical thinking requires more than a perusal of a summary or

conclusion by the author but a review of the entire study details.

>

> Strength training in this study has little to do with traditional

resistance strength training. In my opinion this study should not be

used to justify weight training for endurance athletes.

>

> The devil is in the details.

>

> Ralph Giarnella MD

> Southington Ct USA

>

> ============ ========= ========= ========= =

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

That is exactly point that I am making. This study has been cited in the past

to justify the use of resistance-strength training to train endurance

athletes. Obviously the indivduals citing this study read only the title and not

the details.

The authors discussed clearly that the mechanism at work in improving the

experimental group was not increased absolute strength or hypertrophy but

improvements in neuromuscular characteristics.

****************************************

" The present 9-wk explosive-type strength training

resulted in considerable improvements in selected neu-

romuscular characteristics, although a large volume of

endurance training was performed concomitantly.

This was demonstrated by the signiï¬cant improvements in

V20 m and 5J and by the shortening of the CTs during the

CVLs of the 5K, whereas no changes were observed in

the ground reaction forces or maximal force of the

trained muscles. These results support our previous

ï¬ndings (35) that in well-trained endurance athletes

training-induced improvements in neuromuscular char-

acteristics may not be fully inhibited by simultaneous

explosive-strength and endurance training.

It has been suggested (3, 26) that the nervous system

plays an important role in regulating muscle stiffness

and utilization of muscle elasticity during stretch-

shortening cycle exercises, in which high contraction

velocities are used.

The present increases in neuromuscular performance characteristics might

primarily be

due to neural adaptations, although no electromyo-

graphic measurements in the muscles were done to

support this suggestion.

Although the loads used in the present explosive-strength training were low,

the

muscles are known to be highly activated because of the

maximal movement velocity utilized (13). It has been

shown that this type of explosive-strength training

results in increases in the amount of neural input to the

muscles observable during rapid dynamic and isomet-

ric actions (e.g., Refs. 14, 15), suggesting that the

increase in net excitation of motoneurons could result

from increased excitatory input, reduced inhibitory

input, or both (39). It is likely that training-induced

alterations in neural control during stretch-shortening

cycle exercises such as running and jumping may take

place in both voluntary activation and inhibitory and/or

facilitatory reflexes (13, 25, 26, 39).

Although neural activation of the trained muscles during explosive-type

strength training is very high, the time of this activa-

tion during each single muscle action is usually so short

that training-induced muscular hypertrophy and maxi-

mal strength development take place to a drastically

smaller degree than during typical heavy-resistance

training (13)..

Consequently, it has been suggested (35)

that, during relatively short training periods of some

weeks, the improvements in sprinting and/or explosive-

force-production capacity, especially in endurance ath-

letes, might primarily come from neural adaptations

without observable muscle hypertrophy "

*************************************************

The use of sprints as a means of improving overall speed is not all that new in

training endurance athletes- Speed work has been incorporated for years

especially for the middle distance runners. In cycling speed intervals are

commonly used.

When Bannister trained before breaking the 4 minute barrier he

incorporated speed intervals which unhear of at that time.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

________________________________

From: Giovanni M. Ciriani <Giovanni.Ciriani@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:29:51 PM

Subject: Re: GATP & Critical Thinking-Paavolainen study

It seems there is confusion in this discussion between explosive

strength, maximum strength and resistance strength. To me they are

different types of strength and involve different types of fibers

working differently. The study clearly states explosive-strength

training, so comparing it to maximum-strength training or

resistance-strength training misses the point.

Giovanni Ciriani,

W.Hartford, CT - USA

>

> thank you for the reference- after reading the study, I would

like to point a very important factor mostly overlooked when this study

is quoted as a reference for strength training for endurance athletes.

>

> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********

> " Explosive- strength training sessions lasted for 15 鈥 " 90 min

and consisted

> of various sprints (5 鈥 " 10) 路 (20 鈥 " 100 m) and

jumping exercises

> [alternative jumps, bilateral countermovement, drop and

> hurdle jumps, and 1-legged, 5-jump (5J) tests] without addi-

> tional weight---- "

> ************ ********* *********

> This is not traditional resistance training but basically interval

training with some plyometric type work. RG

>

>

> ************ ********* ********* ********

> " or with the barbell on the shoulders and

> leg-press and knee extensor-é“¿ä¿¥xor exercises with low loads

> but high or maximal movement velocities (30 鈥 " 200 contrac-

> tions/training session and 5 鈥 " 20 repetitions/ set). The load of

> the exercises ranged between 0 and 40% of the one-repetition maximum. "

>

> ************ ********* ********* *********

> In this case even when loads were used they were very low loads and

certainlynot the traditional resistance training regimen. RG

>

> ************ ********* *******

> " Endurance training of both groups consisted of cross country or road

running for 0.5-2.0 hr at the intensity below 84% or above 16% the

individual Lactate threhold (LT).

>

> Circuit training was similar in both groups; the C group

> trained more often than did the E group, and training

> consisted of speci铿乧 abdominal and leg exercises with dozens

> of repetitions at slow movement velocity and without any

> external load. "

>

> ************ ********* ********* ********* **

> Even the circuit training is not with weights.

>

> Based on previous posts on this forum the interpretation o was that

traditional resistance training was used in this study.

> It is important to read the entire study and not just the summary.

>

> Critical thinking requires more than a perusal of a summary or

conclusion by the author but a review of the entire study details.

>

> Strength training in this study has little to do with traditional

resistance strength training. In my opinion this study should not be

used to justify weight training for endurance athletes.

>

> The devil is in the details.

>

> Ralph Giarnella MD

> Southington Ct USA

>

> ============ ========= ========= ========= =

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Understanding the details of a study is

important, but you then need to take those details and the results and

determine what conclusions to draw. 

That is where the “art of coaching†comes in.  Otherwise, coaches are just

left with copying the protocol

used in a study and that usually isn’t workable.

 

In the Paavolainen study, the sprints can

be viewed as interval training, but they can also be characterized as a

plyometric

activity.  In either case, the

sprint/jumps protocol involved greater rate of force development than just

distance running. 

 

The light, fast paced weight training

also would have addressed RFD.  In

addition to improved 5K times, the experimental group also improved the maximal

isometric force of their leg extensors so even at 40% loads strength did

improve.   The study also cites another study in

which female runners improved times using heavy weight training.

 

Ultimately, explosive lifting with light

weights, plyometric type work and speed work resulted in improved running

economy and muscle power and produced better 5K times in the experimental

group.  Since strength is a

component of RFD, it seems reasonable for coaches to conclude that the protocol

used was not ideal and that heavy weights coupled with fast plyos and/or light

weights might be a better way of improving strength, RFD and running economy. I

don’t think many people use the study to justify “traditional weight

trainingâ€

of the 3x10 rep variety.

Jon Haddan

Irvine, CA

===========================

From: Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn@...>

Subject: Re: GATP & Critical Thinking-Paavolainen study

Supertraining

Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 9:50 AM

 

thank you for the reference- after reading the study, I

would like to point a very important factor mostly overlooked when this study is

quoted as a reference for strength training for endurance athletes.

************ ********* ********* ********* ********

" Explosive- strength training sessions lasted for 15 – 90 min and consisted

of various sprints (5 – 10) · (20 – 100 m) and jumping exercises

[alternative jumps, bilateral countermovement, drop and

hurdle jumps, and 1-legged, 5-jump (5J) tests] without addi-

tional weight---- "

************ ********* *********

This is not traditional resistance training but basically interval training with

some plyometric type work. RG

************ ********* ********* ********

" or with the barbell on the shoulders and

leg-press and knee extensor-flexor exercises with low loads

but high or maximal movement velocities (30 – 200 contrac-

tions/training session and 5 – 20 repetitions/ set). The load of

the exercises ranged between 0 and 40% of the one-repetition maximum. "

************ ********* ********* *********

In this case even when loads were used they were very low loads and certainlynot

the traditional resistance training regimen. RG

************ ********* *******

" Endurance training of both groups consisted of cross country or road running

for 0.5-2.0 hr at the intensity below 84% or above 16% the individual Lactate

threhold (LT).

Circuit training was similar in both groups; the C group

trained more often than did the E group, and training

consisted of speciï¬c abdominal and leg exercises with dozens

of repetitions at slow movement velocity and without any

external load. "

************ ********* ********* ********* **

Even the circuit training is not with weights.

Based on previous posts on this forum the interpretation o was that traditional

resistance training was used in this study.

It is important to read the entire study and not just the summary.

Critical thinking requires more than a perusal of a summary or conclusion by the

author but a review of the entire study details.

Strength training in this study has little to do with traditional resistance

strength training. In my opinion this study should not be used to justify

weight training for endurance athletes.

The devil is in the details.

[Guest guest]

Understanding the details of a study is

important, but you then need to take those details and the results and

determine what conclusions to draw. 

That is where the “art of coaching†comes in.  Otherwise, coaches are just

left with copying the protocol

used in a study and that usually isn’t workable.

 

In the Paavolainen study, the sprints can

be viewed as interval training, but they can also be characterized as a

plyometric

activity.  In either case, the

sprint/jumps protocol involved greater rate of force development than just

distance running. 

 

The light, fast paced weight training

also would have addressed RFD.  In

addition to improved 5K times, the experimental group also improved the maximal

isometric force of their leg extensors so even at 40% loads strength did

improve.   The study also cites another study in

which female runners improved times using heavy weight training.

 

Ultimately, explosive lifting with light

weights, plyometric type work and speed work resulted in improved running

economy and muscle power and produced better 5K times in the experimental

group.  Since strength is a

component of RFD, it seems reasonable for coaches to conclude that the protocol

used was not ideal and that heavy weights coupled with fast plyos and/or light

weights might be a better way of improving strength, RFD and running economy. I

don’t think many people use the study to justify “traditional weight

trainingâ€

of the 3x10 rep variety.

Jon Haddan

Irvine, CA

===========================

From: Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn@...>

Subject: Re: GATP & Critical Thinking-Paavolainen study

Supertraining

Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 9:50 AM

 

thank you for the reference- after reading the study, I

would like to point a very important factor mostly overlooked when this study is

quoted as a reference for strength training for endurance athletes.

************ ********* ********* ********* ********

" Explosive- strength training sessions lasted for 15 – 90 min and consisted

of various sprints (5 – 10) · (20 – 100 m) and jumping exercises

[alternative jumps, bilateral countermovement, drop and

hurdle jumps, and 1-legged, 5-jump (5J) tests] without addi-

tional weight---- "

************ ********* *********

This is not traditional resistance training but basically interval training with

some plyometric type work. RG

************ ********* ********* ********

" or with the barbell on the shoulders and

leg-press and knee extensor-flexor exercises with low loads

but high or maximal movement velocities (30 – 200 contrac-

tions/training session and 5 – 20 repetitions/ set). The load of

the exercises ranged between 0 and 40% of the one-repetition maximum. "

************ ********* ********* *********

In this case even when loads were used they were very low loads and certainlynot

the traditional resistance training regimen. RG

************ ********* *******

" Endurance training of both groups consisted of cross country or road running

for 0.5-2.0 hr at the intensity below 84% or above 16% the individual Lactate

threhold (LT).

Circuit training was similar in both groups; the C group

trained more often than did the E group, and training

consisted of speciï¬c abdominal and leg exercises with dozens

of repetitions at slow movement velocity and without any

external load. "

************ ********* ********* ********* **

Even the circuit training is not with weights.

Based on previous posts on this forum the interpretation o was that traditional

resistance training was used in this study.

It is important to read the entire study and not just the summary.

Critical thinking requires more than a perusal of a summary or conclusion by the

author but a review of the entire study details.

Strength training in this study has little to do with traditional resistance

strength training. In my opinion this study should not be used to justify

weight training for endurance athletes.

The devil is in the details.

[Guest guest]

Jon, there have been several discussions on this very forum within the last 2-3

years in which heavy weight training was being recommended for endurance

athletes and this very study was used to justify the recommendation.

Based on this particular study I don't think that you can jump to the conclusion

that using heavy weights will provide better results. The authors state that

the improvement was due to neural adaptations.

*************************************************

" In conclusion, simultaneous explosive-strength train-

ing, including sprinting and endurance training, pro-

duced a signiï¬cant improvement in the 5-km running

performance by well-trained endurance athletes with-

out changes in VË™ O2 max or other aerobic power variables.

This improvement is suggested to be due to improved

neuromuscular characteristics that were transferred

into improved muscle power and RE. "

****************************************

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

________________________________

From: Jon Haddan <jon_haddan@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:06:42 PM

Subject: Re: Re: GATP & Critical Thinking-Paavolainen study

Understanding the details of a study is

important, but you then need to take those details and the results and

determine what conclusions to draw.

That is where the “art of coaching†comes in. Otherwise, coaches are just

left with copying the protocol

used in a study and that usually isn’t workable.

In the Paavolainen study, the sprints can

be viewed as interval training, but they can also be characterized as a

plyometric

activity. In either case, the

sprint/jumps protocol involved greater rate of force development than just

distance running.

The light, fast paced weight training

also would have addressed RFD. In

addition to improved 5K times, the experimental group also improved the maximal

isometric force of their leg extensors so even at 40% loads strength did

improve. The study also cites another study in

which female runners improved times using heavy weight training.

Ultimately, explosive lifting with light

weights, plyometric type work and speed work resulted in improved running

economy and muscle power and produced better 5K times in the experimental

group. Since strength is a

component of RFD, it seems reasonable for coaches to conclude that the protocol

used was not ideal and that heavy weights coupled with fast plyos and/or light

weights might be a better way of improving strength, RFD and running economy. I

don’t think many people use the study to justify “traditional weight

trainingâ€

of the 3x10 rep variety.

Jon Haddan

Irvine, CA

============ ========= ======

From: Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn (DOT) com>

Subject: Re: GATP & Critical Thinking-Paavolaine n study

Supertraining

Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 9:50 AM

thank you for the reference- after reading the study, I would like to

point a very important factor mostly overlooked when this study is quoted as a

reference for strength training for endurance athletes.

************ ********* ********* ********* ********

" Explosive- strength training sessions lasted for 15 – 90 min and consisted

of various sprints (5 – 10) · (20 – 100 m) and jumping exercises

[alternative jumps, bilateral countermovement, drop and

hurdle jumps, and 1-legged, 5-jump (5J) tests] without addi-

tional weight---- "

************ ********* *********

This is not traditional resistance training but basically interval training with

some plyometric type work. RG

************ ********* ********* ********

" or with the barbell on the shoulders and

leg-press and knee extensor-flexor exercises with low loads

but high or maximal movement velocities (30 – 200 contrac-

tions/training session and 5 – 20 repetitions/ set). The load of

the exercises ranged between 0 and 40% of the one-repetition maximum. "

************ ********* ********* *********

In this case even when loads were used they were very low loads and certainlynot

the traditional resistance training regimen. RG

************ ********* *******

" Endurance training of both groups consisted of cross country or road running

for 0..5-2.0 hr at the intensity below 84% or above 16% the individual Lactate

threhold (LT).

Circuit training was similar in both groups; the C group

trained more often than did the E group, and training

consisted of speciï¬c abdominal and leg exercises with dozens

of repetitions at slow movement velocity and without any

external load. "

************ ********* ********* ********* **

Even the circuit training is not with weights.

Based on previous posts on this forum the interpretation o was that traditional

resistance training was used in this study.

It is important to read the entire study and not just the summary.

Critical thinking requires more than a perusal of a summary or conclusion by the

author but a review of the entire study details.

Strength training in this study has little to do with traditional resistance

strength training. In my opinion this study should not be used to justify

weight training for endurance athletes.

The devil is in the details.

[Guest guest]

Jon, there have been several discussions on this very forum within the last 2-3

years in which heavy weight training was being recommended for endurance

athletes and this very study was used to justify the recommendation.

Based on this particular study I don't think that you can jump to the conclusion

that using heavy weights will provide better results. The authors state that

the improvement was due to neural adaptations.

*************************************************

" In conclusion, simultaneous explosive-strength train-

ing, including sprinting and endurance training, pro-

duced a signiï¬cant improvement in the 5-km running

performance by well-trained endurance athletes with-

out changes in VË™ O2 max or other aerobic power variables.

This improvement is suggested to be due to improved

neuromuscular characteristics that were transferred

into improved muscle power and RE. "

****************************************

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

________________________________

From: Jon Haddan <jon_haddan@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:06:42 PM

Subject: Re: Re: GATP & Critical Thinking-Paavolainen study

Understanding the details of a study is

important, but you then need to take those details and the results and

determine what conclusions to draw.

That is where the “art of coaching†comes in. Otherwise, coaches are just

left with copying the protocol

used in a study and that usually isn’t workable.

In the Paavolainen study, the sprints can

be viewed as interval training, but they can also be characterized as a

plyometric

activity. In either case, the

sprint/jumps protocol involved greater rate of force development than just

distance running.

The light, fast paced weight training

also would have addressed RFD. In

addition to improved 5K times, the experimental group also improved the maximal

isometric force of their leg extensors so even at 40% loads strength did

improve. The study also cites another study in

which female runners improved times using heavy weight training.

Ultimately, explosive lifting with light

weights, plyometric type work and speed work resulted in improved running

economy and muscle power and produced better 5K times in the experimental

group. Since strength is a

component of RFD, it seems reasonable for coaches to conclude that the protocol

used was not ideal and that heavy weights coupled with fast plyos and/or light

weights might be a better way of improving strength, RFD and running economy. I

don’t think many people use the study to justify “traditional weight

trainingâ€

of the 3x10 rep variety.

Jon Haddan

Irvine, CA

============ ========= ======

From: Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn (DOT) com>

Subject: Re: GATP & Critical Thinking-Paavolaine n study

Supertraining

Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 9:50 AM

thank you for the reference- after reading the study, I would like to

point a very important factor mostly overlooked when this study is quoted as a

reference for strength training for endurance athletes.

************ ********* ********* ********* ********

" Explosive- strength training sessions lasted for 15 – 90 min and consisted

of various sprints (5 – 10) · (20 – 100 m) and jumping exercises

[alternative jumps, bilateral countermovement, drop and

hurdle jumps, and 1-legged, 5-jump (5J) tests] without addi-

tional weight---- "

************ ********* *********

This is not traditional resistance training but basically interval training with

some plyometric type work. RG

************ ********* ********* ********

" or with the barbell on the shoulders and

leg-press and knee extensor-flexor exercises with low loads

but high or maximal movement velocities (30 – 200 contrac-

tions/training session and 5 – 20 repetitions/ set). The load of

the exercises ranged between 0 and 40% of the one-repetition maximum. "

************ ********* ********* *********

In this case even when loads were used they were very low loads and certainlynot

the traditional resistance training regimen. RG

************ ********* *******

" Endurance training of both groups consisted of cross country or road running

for 0..5-2.0 hr at the intensity below 84% or above 16% the individual Lactate

threhold (LT).

Circuit training was similar in both groups; the C group

trained more often than did the E group, and training

consisted of speciï¬c abdominal and leg exercises with dozens

of repetitions at slow movement velocity and without any

external load. "

************ ********* ********* ********* **

Even the circuit training is not with weights.

Based on previous posts on this forum the interpretation o was that traditional

resistance training was used in this study.

It is important to read the entire study and not just the summary.

Critical thinking requires more than a perusal of a summary or conclusion by the

author but a review of the entire study details.

Strength training in this study has little to do with traditional resistance

strength training. In my opinion this study should not be used to justify

weight training for endurance athletes.

The devil is in the details.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/14/2009 3:03:23 A.M. Central America Standard T,

ragiarn@... writes:

When Bannister trained before breaking the 4 minute barrier he

incorporated speed intervals which unhear of at that time.

****

Although what constitutes speed intervals may have changed over the years,

the path Bannister took to achieve a sub four minute mile were indeed

unique. Forum members will enjoy Neal Bascomb's book: The Perfect Mile:Three

Athletes, One Goal, and Less Than Four Minutes to Achieve It.

In his review of that book, Dr. Winnett notes the following:

" ...since Bannister primarily raced miles and half miles, there was no

reason to run 10 400-meter repeats. With a short interval between repeats,

training would have been more specific to the goals and likely more effective.

Then too, Bannister’s training also could have been more effective if he

trained less frequently to allow for more recovery time. "

Bannister's minimalist approach was based on the practicalities of his

situation as medical student and, as Bascomb points out in his book, " Shirking

his studies for the sake of athletics was out of the question. "

Bascomb points out that Bannister had little time to devote to training.

" During lunch, his only break in a day of making rounds, studying, and

writing papers--he hurried from the hospital with his running gear. " He had

about thirty-five minutes to train, after which he showered and grabbed

something to eat before returning to the hospital.

" His theory of training was simple, " notes Bascomb. " He needed to run the

same distances faster each week. This meant grinding out harder and harder

sessions on the track. "

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/14/2009 3:03:23 A.M. Central America Standard T,

ragiarn@... writes:

When Bannister trained before breaking the 4 minute barrier he

incorporated speed intervals which unhear of at that time.

****

Although what constitutes speed intervals may have changed over the years,

the path Bannister took to achieve a sub four minute mile were indeed

unique. Forum members will enjoy Neal Bascomb's book: The Perfect Mile:Three

Athletes, One Goal, and Less Than Four Minutes to Achieve It.

In his review of that book, Dr. Winnett notes the following:

" ...since Bannister primarily raced miles and half miles, there was no

reason to run 10 400-meter repeats. With a short interval between repeats,

training would have been more specific to the goals and likely more effective.

Then too, Bannister’s training also could have been more effective if he

trained less frequently to allow for more recovery time. "

Bannister's minimalist approach was based on the practicalities of his

situation as medical student and, as Bascomb points out in his book, " Shirking

his studies for the sake of athletics was out of the question. "

Bascomb points out that Bannister had little time to devote to training.

" During lunch, his only break in a day of making rounds, studying, and

writing papers--he hurried from the hospital with his running gear. " He had

about thirty-five minutes to train, after which he showered and grabbed

something to eat before returning to the hospital.

" His theory of training was simple, " notes Bascomb. " He needed to run the

same distances faster each week. This meant grinding out harder and harder

sessions on the track. "

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

Ralph,

The individuals citing the study to advocate resistance-strength

training, didn't even read the title, which already contains the words

" explosive strength " . Or they mistake the two concepts. Or both.

Giovanni Ciriani - W.Hartford, CT - USA

> >

> > thank you for the reference- after reading the study, I would

> like to point a very important factor mostly overlooked when this

study

> is quoted as a reference for strength training for endurance athletes.

> >

> > ************ ********* ********* ********* ********

> > " Explosive- strength training sessions lasted for 15 鈥 " 90 min

> and consisted

> > of various sprints (5 鈥 " 10) 路 (20 鈥 " 100 m) and

> jumping exercises

> > [alternative jumps, bilateral countermovement, drop and

> > hurdle jumps, and 1-legged, 5-jump (5J) tests] without addi-

> > tional weight---- "

> > ************ ********* *********

> > This is not traditional resistance training but basically interval

> training with some plyometric type work. RG

> >

> >

> > ************ ********* ********* ********

> > " or with the barbell on the shoulders and

> > leg-press and knee extensor-é " ¿ä¿¥xor exercises with low loads

> > but high or maximal movement velocities (30 鈥 " 200 contrac-

> > tions/training session and 5 鈥 " 20 repetitions/ set). The load

of

> > the exercises ranged between 0 and 40% of the one-repetition

maximum. "

> >

> > ************ ********* ********* *********

> > In this case even when loads were used they were very low loads and

> certainlynot the traditional resistance training regimen. RG

> >

> > ************ ********* *******

> > " Endurance training of both groups consisted of cross country or

road

> running for 0.5-2.0 hr at the intensity below 84% or above 16% the

> individual Lactate threhold (LT).

> >

> > Circuit training was similar in both groups; the C group

> > trained more often than did the E group, and training

> > consisted of specié " ¿ä¹§ abdominal and leg exercises with dozens

> > of repetitions at slow movement velocity and without any

> > external load. "

> >

> > ************ ********* ********* ********* **

> > Even the circuit training is not with weights.

> >

> > Based on previous posts on this forum the interpretation o was that

> traditional resistance training was used in this study.

> > It is important to read the entire study and not just the summary.

> >

> > Critical thinking requires more than a perusal of a summary or

> conclusion by the author but a review of the entire study details.

> >

> > Strength training in this study has little to do with traditional

> resistance strength training. In my opinion this study should not be

> used to justify weight training for endurance athletes.

> >

> > The devil is in the details.

> >

> > Ralph Giarnella MD

> > Southington Ct USA

> >

> > ============ ========= ========= ========= =

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ralph,

The individuals citing the study to advocate resistance-strength

training, didn't even read the title, which already contains the words

" explosive strength " . Or they mistake the two concepts. Or both.

Giovanni Ciriani - W.Hartford, CT - USA

> >

> > thank you for the reference- after reading the study, I would

> like to point a very important factor mostly overlooked when this

study

> is quoted as a reference for strength training for endurance athletes.

> >

> > ************ ********* ********* ********* ********

> > " Explosive- strength training sessions lasted for 15 鈥 " 90 min

> and consisted

> > of various sprints (5 鈥 " 10) 路 (20 鈥 " 100 m) and

> jumping exercises

> > [alternative jumps, bilateral countermovement, drop and

> > hurdle jumps, and 1-legged, 5-jump (5J) tests] without addi-

> > tional weight---- "

> > ************ ********* *********

> > This is not traditional resistance training but basically interval

> training with some plyometric type work. RG

> >

> >

> > ************ ********* ********* ********

> > " or with the barbell on the shoulders and

> > leg-press and knee extensor-é " ¿ä¿¥xor exercises with low loads

> > but high or maximal movement velocities (30 鈥 " 200 contrac-

> > tions/training session and 5 鈥 " 20 repetitions/ set). The load

of

> > the exercises ranged between 0 and 40% of the one-repetition

maximum. "

> >

> > ************ ********* ********* *********

> > In this case even when loads were used they were very low loads and

> certainlynot the traditional resistance training regimen. RG

> >

> > ************ ********* *******

> > " Endurance training of both groups consisted of cross country or

road

> running for 0.5-2.0 hr at the intensity below 84% or above 16% the

> individual Lactate threhold (LT).

> >

> > Circuit training was similar in both groups; the C group

> > trained more often than did the E group, and training

> > consisted of specié " ¿ä¹§ abdominal and leg exercises with dozens

> > of repetitions at slow movement velocity and without any

> > external load. "

> >

> > ************ ********* ********* ********* **

> > Even the circuit training is not with weights.

> >

> > Based on previous posts on this forum the interpretation o was that

> traditional resistance training was used in this study.

> > It is important to read the entire study and not just the summary.

> >

> > Critical thinking requires more than a perusal of a summary or

> conclusion by the author but a review of the entire study details.

> >

> > Strength training in this study has little to do with traditional

> resistance strength training. In my opinion this study should not be

> used to justify weight training for endurance athletes.

> >

> > The devil is in the details.

> >

> > Ralph Giarnella MD

> > Southington Ct USA

> >

> > ============ ========= ========= ========= =

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/14/2009 3:04:52 A.M. Central America Standard T,

jon_haddan@... writes:

Since strength is a

component of RFD, it seems reasonable for coaches to conclude that the

protocol

used was not ideal and that heavy weights coupled with fast plyos and/or

light

weights might be a better way of improving strength, RFD and running

economy. I

don’t think many people use the study to justify “traditional weight

trainingâ€

of the 3x10 rep variety.

*******

Here is some history behind the 'evolution' to a different way of thinking

about endurance training, which Jon alluded to in his post.

Back in 2001, when Owen wrote about his 'neural approach' to

improvements in distance running, which led to an analysis of various studies

on the subject of strength training for endurance athletes, I believe he

pursued that path after considering the results of Boit, a 28:15 10K

Kenyan runner who entered the 10K cross country skiing race in the 1998

Winter Olympics. Before that race, Owen noted that opinion was divided on how

Boit would do. After all, he had outstanding endurance running

credentials. As a result, some theorized that he would do quite well over the

same

distance on skis--especially if both running and cross country skiing

depends to a great extent on the " expansiveness of an athlete's cardiovascular

system and the aerobic propensities of her or her leg muscles. "

Those who were skeptical felt that Boit would be no match for Finnish and

Norwegian athletes who had been skiing since early childhood.

The skeptics were right. Boit finished the course in 47:25, dead last in

the field, almost eight full minutes behind the 91st place finisher, and

twenty minutes behind Bjorn Daehlie of Norway, the gold medalist.

Why did Boit say after the race? " Skiing is not like running. "

Owen's response:

" Precisely! In all endurance sports, the nervous system has a huge impact

on performance. You can have a super-sized heart, lots of capillaries

surrounding your leg-muscle cells, a mountain of mitochondria inside your

muscles, and an enormous supply of aerobic enzymes. But you'll still never be

an elite athlete in any particular endurance sport unless your nervous

system can control your muscular system in the most efficient manner possible. "

Owen believed that coaches needed to look more closely at other factors

influencing performance. " When we indicate that running is a neural thing,

we are simply saying that running is an activity in which the nervous system

plays a critically important role in determining how fast and how far

athletes can run, and that endurance athletes need to train their nervous

systems in a highly specific way if they want to achieve their best possible

performances. Unfortunately, the development of optimal nervous-system

functioning during running is something that has been almost totally neglected

in

traditional training programs for endurance runners. "

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/14/2009 3:04:52 A.M. Central America Standard T,

jon_haddan@... writes:

Since strength is a

component of RFD, it seems reasonable for coaches to conclude that the

protocol

used was not ideal and that heavy weights coupled with fast plyos and/or

light

weights might be a better way of improving strength, RFD and running

economy. I

don’t think many people use the study to justify “traditional weight

trainingâ€

of the 3x10 rep variety.

*******

Here is some history behind the 'evolution' to a different way of thinking

about endurance training, which Jon alluded to in his post.

Back in 2001, when Owen wrote about his 'neural approach' to

improvements in distance running, which led to an analysis of various studies

on the subject of strength training for endurance athletes, I believe he

pursued that path after considering the results of Boit, a 28:15 10K

Kenyan runner who entered the 10K cross country skiing race in the 1998

Winter Olympics. Before that race, Owen noted that opinion was divided on how

Boit would do. After all, he had outstanding endurance running

credentials. As a result, some theorized that he would do quite well over the

same

distance on skis--especially if both running and cross country skiing

depends to a great extent on the " expansiveness of an athlete's cardiovascular

system and the aerobic propensities of her or her leg muscles. "

Those who were skeptical felt that Boit would be no match for Finnish and

Norwegian athletes who had been skiing since early childhood.

The skeptics were right. Boit finished the course in 47:25, dead last in

the field, almost eight full minutes behind the 91st place finisher, and

twenty minutes behind Bjorn Daehlie of Norway, the gold medalist.

Why did Boit say after the race? " Skiing is not like running. "

Owen's response:

" Precisely! In all endurance sports, the nervous system has a huge impact

on performance. You can have a super-sized heart, lots of capillaries

surrounding your leg-muscle cells, a mountain of mitochondria inside your

muscles, and an enormous supply of aerobic enzymes. But you'll still never be

an elite athlete in any particular endurance sport unless your nervous

system can control your muscular system in the most efficient manner possible. "

Owen believed that coaches needed to look more closely at other factors

influencing performance. " When we indicate that running is a neural thing,

we are simply saying that running is an activity in which the nervous system

plays a critically important role in determining how fast and how far

athletes can run, and that endurance athletes need to train their nervous

systems in a highly specific way if they want to achieve their best possible

performances. Unfortunately, the development of optimal nervous-system

functioning during running is something that has been almost totally neglected

in

traditional training programs for endurance runners. "

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

Chapter 9 in the latest edition of

Strength and Power in Sport which is edited by Paavo Komi. Chapter 9 is

written by Walter Herzog and Rachid Ait-Haddou from the University of

Calgary.

Research that Dr. Herzog has performed indicates that the force-length

relationship of a muscle will adapt to the particular activity the

individual performs. In runners, the in-vivo force-length relationship

of the Rectus Femoris muscle is exactly opposite that of a cyclist. In

runners, in-vivo measurements of the force-length relationship of the

Rectus Femoris muscle revealed a positive slope while for cyclists the

force-length relationship had a negative slope. This occurs because in

running the rf. muscle undergoes a SSC and larger force is required at

longer muscle lengths whereas for cyclists, the rf. muscle only shortens

and force is produced at shorter muscle lengths.

It was concluded that the specific mechanical muscle adaptations that

occur in response to chronic running versus chronic cycling would

prevent a champion in cycling from becoming a champion in running and

vice versa.

======================

Carruthers

Wakefield, UK

[Guest guest]

Chapter 9 in the latest edition of

Strength and Power in Sport which is edited by Paavo Komi. Chapter 9 is

written by Walter Herzog and Rachid Ait-Haddou from the University of

Calgary.

Research that Dr. Herzog has performed indicates that the force-length

relationship of a muscle will adapt to the particular activity the

individual performs. In runners, the in-vivo force-length relationship

of the Rectus Femoris muscle is exactly opposite that of a cyclist. In

runners, in-vivo measurements of the force-length relationship of the

Rectus Femoris muscle revealed a positive slope while for cyclists the

force-length relationship had a negative slope. This occurs because in

running the rf. muscle undergoes a SSC and larger force is required at

longer muscle lengths whereas for cyclists, the rf. muscle only shortens

and force is produced at shorter muscle lengths.

It was concluded that the specific mechanical muscle adaptations that

occur in response to chronic running versus chronic cycling would

prevent a champion in cycling from becoming a champion in running and

vice versa.

======================

Carruthers

Wakefield, UK

[Guest guest]

There are two recent studies, that have shown evidence of muscle-fiber

type composition modification through the use of electrical muscle

stimulation (EMS).

1. Maffiuletti NA, Zory R, Miotti D, et al. Neuromuscular

adaptations to electrostimulation resistance training

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16428910> . Am J Phys Med Rehabil.

2006;85(2):167-75.

2. Nuhr M, Crevenna R, Gohlsch B, et al. Functional and biochemical

properties of chronically stimulated human skeletal muscle

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12665986> . Eur J Appl Physiol.

2003;89(2):202-8.

For those who are interested in an overview of this subject, there is an

excellent short article summarizing the state of the art in EMS.

3. Maffiuletti NA. The use of electrostimulation exercise in competitive

sport. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2006;1(4):406-7.

Giovanni Ciriani - W.Hartford, CT - USA

>

>

> In a message dated 8/14/2009 3:04:52 A.M. Central America Standard T,

> jon_haddan@... writes:

>

> Since strength is a

> component of RFD, it seems reasonable for coaches to conclude that

the

> protocol

> used was not ideal and that heavy weights coupled with fast plyos

and/or

> light

> weights might be a better way of improving strength, RFD and running

> economy. I

> don’t think many people use the study to justify

“traditional weight

> trainingâ€

> of the 3x10 rep variety.

>

> *******

> Here is some history behind the 'evolution' to a different way of

thinking

> about endurance training, which Jon alluded to in his post.

>

> Back in 2001, when Owen wrote about his 'neural approach' to

> improvements in distance running, which led to an analysis of various

studies

> on the subject of strength training for endurance athletes, I

believe he

> pursued that path after considering the results of Boit, a

28:15 10K

> Kenyan runner who entered the 10K cross country skiing race in the

1998

> Winter Olympics. Before that race, Owen noted that opinion was

divided on how

> Boit would do. After all, he had outstanding endurance running

> credentials. As a result, some theorized that he would do quite well

over the same

> distance on skis--especially if both running and cross country skiing

> depends to a great extent on the " expansiveness of an athlete's

cardiovascular

> system and the aerobic propensities of her or her leg muscles. "

>

> Those who were skeptical felt that Boit would be no match for Finnish

and

> Norwegian athletes who had been skiing since early childhood.

>

> The skeptics were right. Boit finished the course in 47:25, dead last

in

> the field, almost eight full minutes behind the 91st place finisher,

and

> twenty minutes behind Bjorn Daehlie of Norway, the gold medalist.

>

> Why did Boit say after the race? " Skiing is not like running. "

>

> Owen's response:

>

> " Precisely! In all endurance sports, the nervous system has a huge

impact

> on performance. You can have a super-sized heart, lots of

capillaries

> surrounding your leg-muscle cells, a mountain of mitochondria inside

your

> muscles, and an enormous supply of aerobic enzymes. But you'll still

never be

> an elite athlete in any particular endurance sport unless your nervous

> system can control your muscular system in the most efficient manner

possible. "

>

> Owen believed that coaches needed to look more closely at other

factors

> influencing performance. " When we indicate that running is a neural

thing,

> we are simply saying that running is an activity in which the nervous

system

> plays a critically important role in determining how fast and how far

> athletes can run, and that endurance athletes need to train their

nervous

> systems in a highly specific way if they want to achieve their best

possible

> performances. Unfortunately, the development of optimal

nervous-system

> functioning during running is something that has been almost totally

neglected in

> traditional training programs for endurance runners. "

>

> Ken Jakalski

> Lisle High School

> Lisle, IL USA

>

[Guest guest]

There are two recent studies, that have shown evidence of muscle-fiber

type composition modification through the use of electrical muscle

stimulation (EMS).

1. Maffiuletti NA, Zory R, Miotti D, et al. Neuromuscular

adaptations to electrostimulation resistance training

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16428910> . Am J Phys Med Rehabil.

2006;85(2):167-75.

2. Nuhr M, Crevenna R, Gohlsch B, et al. Functional and biochemical

properties of chronically stimulated human skeletal muscle

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12665986> . Eur J Appl Physiol.

2003;89(2):202-8.

For those who are interested in an overview of this subject, there is an

excellent short article summarizing the state of the art in EMS.

3. Maffiuletti NA. The use of electrostimulation exercise in competitive

sport. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2006;1(4):406-7.

Giovanni Ciriani - W.Hartford, CT - USA

>

>

> In a message dated 8/14/2009 3:04:52 A.M. Central America Standard T,

> jon_haddan@... writes:

>

> Since strength is a

> component of RFD, it seems reasonable for coaches to conclude that

the

> protocol

> used was not ideal and that heavy weights coupled with fast plyos

and/or

> light

> weights might be a better way of improving strength, RFD and running

> economy. I

> don’t think many people use the study to justify

“traditional weight

> trainingâ€

> of the 3x10 rep variety.

>

> *******

> Here is some history behind the 'evolution' to a different way of

thinking

> about endurance training, which Jon alluded to in his post.

>

> Back in 2001, when Owen wrote about his 'neural approach' to

> improvements in distance running, which led to an analysis of various

studies

> on the subject of strength training for endurance athletes, I

believe he

> pursued that path after considering the results of Boit, a

28:15 10K

> Kenyan runner who entered the 10K cross country skiing race in the

1998

> Winter Olympics. Before that race, Owen noted that opinion was

divided on how

> Boit would do. After all, he had outstanding endurance running

> credentials. As a result, some theorized that he would do quite well

over the same

> distance on skis--especially if both running and cross country skiing

> depends to a great extent on the " expansiveness of an athlete's

cardiovascular

> system and the aerobic propensities of her or her leg muscles. "

>

> Those who were skeptical felt that Boit would be no match for Finnish

and

> Norwegian athletes who had been skiing since early childhood.

>

> The skeptics were right. Boit finished the course in 47:25, dead last

in

> the field, almost eight full minutes behind the 91st place finisher,

and

> twenty minutes behind Bjorn Daehlie of Norway, the gold medalist.

>

> Why did Boit say after the race? " Skiing is not like running. "

>

> Owen's response:

>

> " Precisely! In all endurance sports, the nervous system has a huge

impact

> on performance. You can have a super-sized heart, lots of

capillaries

> surrounding your leg-muscle cells, a mountain of mitochondria inside

your

> muscles, and an enormous supply of aerobic enzymes. But you'll still

never be

> an elite athlete in any particular endurance sport unless your nervous

> system can control your muscular system in the most efficient manner

possible. "

>

> Owen believed that coaches needed to look more closely at other

factors

> influencing performance. " When we indicate that running is a neural

thing,

> we are simply saying that running is an activity in which the nervous

system

> plays a critically important role in determining how fast and how far

> athletes can run, and that endurance athletes need to train their

nervous

> systems in a highly specific way if they want to achieve their best

possible

> performances. Unfortunately, the development of optimal

nervous-system

> functioning during running is something that has been almost totally

neglected in

> traditional training programs for endurance runners. "

>

> Ken Jakalski

> Lisle High School

> Lisle, IL USA

>

[Guest guest]

Ralph,

Moving heavy weight as fast as possible also

results in increases in neural output and results in neural adaptations and

improvements in neuromuscular characteristics.  It does not necessarily lead to

hypertrophy, particularly among

endurance runners when done concurrently with endurance training.  It does,

however, lead to greater gains

in strength than moving light weights fast.

The improvements in muscle power as

reflected in faster 200 meter sprint times and 5 jump test scores for the E

group is ultimately what was credited with producing the faster 5K times

through improved running economy. The message I take from the study is spend

time improving muscle power because it leads to improvements in running economy

beyond what you might get by just putting in more miles.  The protocol used in

the program is but

one method.  There is no reason to

assume it is the best given what is otherwise known about how to develop power,

its relationship to strength, and the lack of evidence that endurance runners

actually bulk up.  That is why I

think some coaches have attempted to “improve†on the protocol.

I agree that the study did not examine a

protocol of heavy weights and plyos so it does not directly support the use of

heavy weights, but I guess one person’s “conclusion jumped to†is another

person’s “reasonable extrapolation.â€

Jon Haddan

Irvine, CA

=============================

From: Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn@...>

Subject: Re: GATP & Critical Thinking-Paavolainen study

Supertraining

Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 3:48 AM

Jon, there have been several discussions on this very forum

within the last 2-3 years in which heavy weight training was being recommended

for endurance athletes and this very study was used to justify the

recommendation.

Based on this particular study I don't think that you can jump to the conclusion

that using heavy weights will provide better results. The authors state that

the improvement was due to neural adaptations.

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *

" In conclusion, simultaneous explosive-strength train-

ing, including sprinting and endurance training, pro-

duced a signiï¬cant improvement in the 5-km running

performance by well-trained endurance athletes with-

out changes in VË™ O2 max or other aerobic power variables.

This improvement is suggested to be due to improved

neuromuscular characteristics that were transferred

into improved muscle power and RE. "

************ ********* ********* ********* *

[Guest guest]

Ralph,

Moving heavy weight as fast as possible also

results in increases in neural output and results in neural adaptations and

improvements in neuromuscular characteristics.  It does not necessarily lead to

hypertrophy, particularly among

endurance runners when done concurrently with endurance training.  It does,

however, lead to greater gains

in strength than moving light weights fast.

The improvements in muscle power as

reflected in faster 200 meter sprint times and 5 jump test scores for the E

group is ultimately what was credited with producing the faster 5K times

through improved running economy. The message I take from the study is spend

time improving muscle power because it leads to improvements in running economy

beyond what you might get by just putting in more miles.  The protocol used in

the program is but

one method.  There is no reason to

assume it is the best given what is otherwise known about how to develop power,

its relationship to strength, and the lack of evidence that endurance runners

actually bulk up.  That is why I

think some coaches have attempted to “improve†on the protocol.

I agree that the study did not examine a

protocol of heavy weights and plyos so it does not directly support the use of

heavy weights, but I guess one person’s “conclusion jumped to†is another

person’s “reasonable extrapolation.â€

Jon Haddan

Irvine, CA

=============================

From: Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn@...>

Subject: Re: GATP & Critical Thinking-Paavolainen study

Supertraining

Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 3:48 AM

Jon, there have been several discussions on this very forum

within the last 2-3 years in which heavy weight training was being recommended

for endurance athletes and this very study was used to justify the

recommendation.

Based on this particular study I don't think that you can jump to the conclusion

that using heavy weights will provide better results. The authors state that

the improvement was due to neural adaptations.

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *

" In conclusion, simultaneous explosive-strength train-

ing, including sprinting and endurance training, pro-

duced a signiï¬cant improvement in the 5-km running

performance by well-trained endurance athletes with-

out changes in VË™ O2 max or other aerobic power variables.

This improvement is suggested to be due to improved

neuromuscular characteristics that were transferred

into improved muscle power and RE. "

************ ********* ********* ********* *

[Guest guest]

My comments are not based on any data. Yesterday, I interviewed Clay

(decathlon gold medal winner) for an article in one of the popular fitness

magazines. He is very strong, but not very big (5-11 185 pounds; 180 cm, 84 kg).

Yet, he holds the decathlon record in the discus at more than 55 meter and has

thrown the shot and javelin 16.27 and 72 meters— all extremely fine

performances. He works on basic Olympic and power lifts but tries to minimize

weight gain. He centers his program around power and speed exercises. While his

throws are far from world class, it amazes me how a relatively small man can

perform so well in these events. Bruce Jenner and Dan O'Brien were larger

athletes but didn't throw as far.

Running fast (endurance or sprints) depends, in part, on how hard people can

push against the ground. It makes sense that power training can help endurance

athletes as well as small people trying to compete in events better suited to

larger people.

Tom Fahey

Dept of Kinesiology

California State University, Chico

===========================

Ralph,

Moving heavy weight as fast as possible also

results in increases in neural output and results in neural adaptations and

improvements in neuromuscular characteristics.  It does not necessarily lead to

hypertrophy, particularly among

endurance runners when done concurrently with endurance training.  It does,

however, lead to greater gains

in strength than moving light weights fast.

The improvements in muscle power as

reflected in faster 200 meter sprint times and 5 jump test scores for the E

group is ultimately what was credited with producing the faster 5K times

through improved running economy. The message I take from the study is spend

time improving muscle power because it leads to improvements in running economy

beyond what you might get by just putting in more miles.  The protocol used in

the program is but

one method.  There is no reason to

assume it is the best given what is otherwise known about how to develop power,

its relationship to strength, and the lack of evidence that endurance runners

actually bulk up.  That is why I

think some coaches have attempted to “improve†on the protocol.

I agree that the study did not examine a

protocol of heavy weights and plyos so it does not directly support the use of

heavy weights, but I guess one person’s “conclusion jumped to†is another

person’s “reasonable extrapolation.â€

Jon Haddan

Irvine, CA

=============================

From: Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn@...>

Subject: Re: GATP & Critical Thinking-Paavolainen study

Supertraining

Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 3:48 AM

Jon, there have been several discussions on this very forum

within the last 2-3 years in which heavy weight training was being recommended=2

0

for endurance athletes and this very study was used to justify the

recommendation.

Based on this particular study I don't think that you can jump to the conclusion

that using heavy weights will provide better results. The authors state that

the improvement was due to neural adaptations.

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *

" In conclusion, simultaneous explosive-strength train-

ing, including sprinting and endurance training, pro-

duced a signiï¬cant improvement in the 5-km running

performance by well-trained endurance athletes with-

out changes in VË™ O2 max or other aerobic power variables.

This improvement is suggested to be due to improved

neuromuscular characteristics that were transferred

into improved muscle power and RE. "

************ ********* ********* ********* *