all posts post new thread

Bodyweight "Running is the fastest way to get in shape"

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Running did me a lot of good over the years, mostly loved it for the “runner’s high” - but strength training consitently has definitely contributed more to my overall fitness than running has. Both have their benefits for sure.
 
I feel better after cardio work compared to strength training. I bike on my Schwinn airdyne.
 
I bike on my Schwinn airdyne.

Biking Carryover

Biking is essentially performing a one leg Squat or Leg Press. It has more carryover to Strength Training.

Concentric Contraction

The Eccentric component in lifting produce more trauma. The more trauma created the longer the recovery time necessary, "Wound Healing".

There isn't an Eccentric component to Biking. It is an Concentric Action, as is Rowing. Thus, it allows for faster recovery.

Running

1) It works for conditioning but there isn't much carryover to Strength Training Exercises.

2) There is a huge Eccentric component to it. The impart force of running is 3 - 5 times your body weight. That means a 150 lb Runner will encounter 450 to 750 lb with each foot strike.

Magnify that by a mile. It is enormous.

3) Distance Running kills Lower Body Strength. Research shows Endurance
Training is "Site Specific".

That means the muscle you engage in Endurance Training decrease in Strength.

Thus, running kills Lower Body Strength but minimally affects Upper Body Strength.

Running Solution For Lifters

For someone who to maintain their Lower Body Strength with Running, the solution is running bleachers. Running the bleachers essentially is the same as riding a bike.

Kenny Croxdale
 
Last edited:
Define lower body "strength"? It takes a little strength to run 200 miles, and you wont accomplish that without running a little first.
Yes, it may be a different type of strength then heavy squat strength, but the value of either is subjective.
 
Define lower body "strength"? It takes a little strength to run 200 miles, and you wont accomplish that without running a little first.
Yes, it may be a different type of strength then heavy squat strength, but the value of either is subjective.
One thing I know is that it takes a lot of 'upper body' strength to run 200 miles... by upper body, I mean from the neck up...
 
Well, for me it's all about that. I have been fighting a running battle with my brain for 53 years. Unless that is right, nothing is accomplished.
I may be wrong, and its probably because I am someone who runs, but I just bristle a little when I read someone say running makes you weak. Upper body strength, lower body strength, or mind strength. The "strongest" people I know run.
But that may not fit anyone else's definition of strength.
 
I just bristle a little when I read someone say running makes you weak.

Distance Running

Distance Running decrease strength and muscle mass; specifically in the legs.

That based on research and anecdotal data.

With that said, any type of Endurance Training decreases strength.

Research has also demonstrated that strength decrease is site specific to the muscle being trained.

For Endurance Runner that means a decrease in leg strength while being able to maintain upper body strength.

Bodybuilding/Hypertrophy Training

This method increase muscle mass at the expense of strength.

The "strongest" people I know run.

Type of Runners

Endurance runners don't possess much strength; definitely, no leg strength.

Sprinters are fairly strong and powerful and posses great speed. That in part because the foundation of Power and Speed are built on Limit Strength; the ability to produce more force.

Kenny Croxdale

 
Last edited:
I will let you inform Special Forces type folks that they are not strong.

We will have to agree, to disagree, I am afraid.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Kenny was trying to imply that a SF soldier is not strong, those guys have to excel at anything without any previous specialized training. They need a good base of fitness (which running provides) and better overall strength than almost anyone. they train to be capable at anything that could come up.

Compare that to a civilian who specializes in a few big compound lifts and the guy who specializes would probably outdo them in the few chosen lifts but if the civilian was asked to keep up with the SF soldier for a few days, they'd struggle to keep up.

I've been a professional road and track cyclist at different stages of my cycling career and I've witnessed first hand what Kenny was trying articulate with his previous post. Endurance work will eat into your strength gains every time and I've seen the results on a dynamometer many times when riders have switched from road cycling (endurance) to track cycling or vice versa.

Volume is a strength killer, when you train for endurance your physiology changes to adapt to endurance (V02 max, lactate tolerance etc) and if you train limit strength your physiology adapts to that. There is some middle ground but in general you get good at what you specialize in.
 
I don't think Kenny was trying to imply that a SF soldier is not strong, those guys have to excel at anything without any previous specialized training. They need a good base of fitness (which running provides) and better overall strength than almost anyone. they train to be capable at anything that could come up.

Compare that to a civilian who specializes in a few big compound lifts and the guy who specializes would probably outdo them in the few chosen lifts but if the civilian was asked to keep up with the SF soldier for a few days, they'd struggle to keep up.

I've been a professional road and track cyclist at different stages of my cycling career and I've witnessed first hand what Kenny was trying articulate with his previous post. Endurance work will eat into your strength gains every time and I've seen the results on a dynamometer many times when riders have switched from road cycling (endurance) to track cycling or vice versa.

Volume is a strength killer, when you train for endurance your physiology changes to adapt to endurance (V02 max, lactate tolerance etc) and if you train limit strength your physiology adapts to that. There is some middle ground but in general you get good at what you specialize in.
Whenever these types of discussion ensue we always have to dance around semantics and definitions. Endurance and strength attributes both exist on a continuum(s). There is Halfthor Bjornson strength at one end, and Kilian Jornet endurance at the other end. And lots of folks in between, and nobody living at both ends. Most of us are pretty far from either end by any real and serious standard of definition...
 
@WhatWouldHulkDo

This. It is a rare genetic freak who can squat 700# and run a half marathon. Most of us will never come close - but will be able to be plenty strong and endurant for what we need to get done.

Do you mean, "It is a rare genetic freak who can squat 700# and run a half marathon [in X min such as 90 min]"? I assume most healthy people could finish a half marathon, even an extreme strength athlete (even if they walked). Now their time may not be impressive. Conversely, I assume an extreme endurance athlete could perform a strength feat, like a deadlift (it just may not be an impressive number).
 
Why is it controversial that SOF guys who have to do a lot of endurance and strength endurance training often have limited max strength? A couple years ago the US Navy published some data on what physical fitness scores correlated the most with success on the BUD/S course and not surprisingly strength didn't play a massive role. People with deadlift 1RM in the 1.5-2.3xBW range successfully completed the course and they recommend that you work up to roughly 1.75xBW. Given that they recommend a BW bench press in the 10-15 rep range and 90-99 push ups I assume these people aren't all that heavy to begin with. So pretty modest strength goals that most healthy adults working an office job could achieve with not a lot of effort (compared to the training SOF guys do) in a relatively short period of time.

Here is a more in-depth article on this 3-year study: SPEEDS, REPS, AND DISTANCES THAT CORRELATE TO HELL WEEK SUCCESS
 
@WhatWouldHulkDo



Do you mean, "It is a rare genetic freak who can squat 700# and run a half marathon [in X min such as 90 min]"? I assume most healthy people could finish a half marathon, even an extreme strength athlete (even if they walked). Now their time may not be impressive. Conversely, I assume an extreme endurance athlete could perform a strength feat, like a deadlift (it just may not be an impressive number).

Right - it's all a question of where we set the bar. I hope we can all accept that endurance training interferes with your ability to realize your absolute maximum strength - and vice versa - but we can still get to a good place in both domains.
 
Why is it controversial that SOF guys who have to do a lot of endurance and strength endurance training often have limited max strength? A couple years ago the US Navy published some data on what physical fitness scores correlated the most with success on the BUD/S course and not surprisingly strength didn't play a massive role. People with deadlift 1RM in the 1.5-2.3xBW range successfully completed the course and they recommend that you work up to roughly 1.75xBW. Given that they recommend a BW bench press in the 10-15 rep range and 90-99 push ups I assume these people aren't all that heavy to begin with. So pretty modest strength goals that most healthy adults working an office job could achieve with not a lot of effort (compared to the training SOF guys do) in a relatively short period of time.

Here is a more in-depth article on this 3-year study: SPEEDS, REPS, AND DISTANCES THAT CORRELATE TO HELL WEEK SUCCESS
Really cool article! The crazy thing to me is that once you get through training (dependent upon your group/team) the physical demands needed to do your job properly can be vastly different than the training you just completed. meaning most operators aren't set up for success physically when they graduate.
 
A lot of great points raised here and a bit of conflation later in the thread.

To the OP it is a matter of GPP vs SPP. We have numerous physical attributes we can work on. We need to look at out the demand of our sport and our own genetics, scoring the importance of what we need to improve upon.

Then from here you can plan your GPP and SPP work.

So let's say hypothetically speaking you need to work on your aerobic capacity. Well then an easy run everyday between 20-40min monday to friday in the morning, at a conversational pace will do that. Building up the volume via time spent running slowly to 60min everyday.

Or maybe you have noticed poor muscular endurance in the pulling muscles when sparring against an opponent that likes to push the pace. Well then you may implement some threshold work on the rower.

However ultimately your sport is your SPP.

So the value of something is always relative. Details are really critical. There are very few broad strokes that work in all scinarios.

Also you are always in shape. Round is a shape...
 
Hello,

If we consider running as a GPP activity, supposed to be perform to maintain and or improve our aerobic base, today's release on SF's instagram (@strongfirst) is interesting:

[ARTICLE] A person who desires to be anti-fragile must train his or her cardiovascular and respiratory systems. If you prefer to get your “cardio” while lifting—or you are stuck indoors because of the quarantine—avoid “grinds” and go explosive. A “weight” does not have to be a barbell or a; it can be your own weight. To use the burpee as an example, you will need to make two radical changes from the way it is done in “metcon” gyms to make it aerobic. First, pop up like a spring. Second, rest between reps long enough to sustain an aerobic effort for over 30 minutes. The exercise will be aerobic if you can pass the talk test before every rep, until the very end, so adjust your rest periods accordingly.

How can accurately measure your own personal daily talk test to keep some measure of consistency from one training session to another and as a way to make sure you are using an accurate rate of perceived exertion for each session? Paul Tracogna shares his insights

PRIOR to your session, measure your initial Resting Counting Talk Test [CTT(rest)] as a baseline. Count numbers aloud until you need to stop and take a breath (today my CTT(rest) was 23, spoken as one thousand, two thousand, etc.)
-
Several studies show that for individuals with a CTT(rest)<25, moderate to vigorous intensity exercise—as recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine HRR guidelines—could be achieved by exercising at a level of 40-50% CTT(rest). For individuals with a CTT(rest) ≥25, exercising at a level of 30-40% CTT(rest) would place them in the moderate to vigorous exercise intensity range.
-
In the video, I am working at a rate of 40% CTT(rest)—9s—spoken aloud between reps. The first few minutes usually feel easy, so I did double burpees. When I felt like I was starting to struggle at my 40%, I changed to singles, still with 40% CTT(rest). At the end of 5 minutes of work, I was at 145bpm and I could have maintained that pace for 30 minutes with the same power.
-
Personally, I believe it is better to find your pace for 30 minutes with the appropriate CTT(rest) % for you rather than doing a shorter time (less rest between reps) with a lower percentage and having to stop. In that case you were clearly not aerobic.
-
Alternately you can set up an interval timer to go off every 9s or whatever CTT(rest)% you are using for the day. That way, you don’t have to count every rep; you could just check in at the top of the minute or every couple to make sure you are still on track.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom