Absolute Strength and Strength Endurance Similarity/Difference

  • Thread starter Deleted member 5559
  • Start date

Bret S.

Level 6 Valued Member
Certified Instructor
Assuming each participant can initially carry two 25 lb rocks up 20 times per hr. Can we say that all of our 'trainees' end up as Sean describes, that this is the end result of differing strategies and that is the progression result? I think it simplifies things to say 'this is where each person ended the 12 weeks and this is the end result of their chosen strategy'. Then we can start comparing..

Adam carries two 25-pound rocks (50 pounds total) in his arms all the way up without stopping, walks down, and does it again (no rest). He can do 20 repeats in an hour, so he does 1,000 pounds of work an hour.
For Adam, well let's face it, he's a blue collar punch the clock and wait for beer:30 kind of guy. He's strong but not exceptional.

Brian's chosen strategy is to explosively throw 100 pounds to each landing. He throws, walks up the stairs, throws again, etc. He can do 10 of these an hour, so he also does 1,000 pounds of work an hour.
Brian, OTH is an absolute beast, he's having to hinge/squat/press/put(as in shot) in an extremely violent and explosive display of raw power a 100 lb rock 10 feet up to the next landing. There are 3 landings plus the top deck, which means 40 beast tosses per hr or 320 beast tosses per day.

Charlie loads himself up with 250 pounds of rocks. He climbs the stairs carefully but not taking more time than needed, and rests (dropping the load) at each landing enough to be able to make it up the next landing, and is able to make the trip 4 times in an hour - so he is also doing 1,000 pounds of work an hour.
No doubt Charlie gains lots of raw strength and muscle.

I'm no expert on this and I think in terms of power production (watts per kg BW) Brian wins. This is my gut feeling and completely non scientific. It would be interesting to see an analysis done with respect to limit strength, strength endurance, force production and power production to see who falls where in each category.
 

Sean M

Level 6 Valued Member
Assuming each participant can initially carry two 25 lb rocks up 20 times per hr. Can we say that all of our 'trainees' end up as Sean describes, that this is the end result of differing strategies and that is the progression result? I think it simplifies things to say 'this is where each person ended the 12 weeks and this is the end result of their chosen strategy'. Then we can start comparing..
I was assuming that on their first day of work "off the couch" in their mom's basement, each one could either carry two 25lb rocks up 20 times an hour, throw 100 pounds 10 times an hour, or carry 250 pounds 4 times an hour. That's the baseline level of "carry endurance", explosiveness, and raw strength (respectively) because they are identical triplet brothers. (If 100 pounds 10 times in an hour is unrealistic, it's just for illustrative purposes to end up at 1,000 pounds of work an hour).

The question in my head is how 12 weeks of those chosen strategies would play out in both physique changes and athletic performance - as a thought experiment on how different training methods can produce different results. Is the edge one has over the others only magnified by training, or can it be 2+2=5? Could Adam hold his own in the TSC by just training progressively heavier and faster loaded stair-climbs? Would Brian's ever-increasing explosiveness and recover-ability translate to a heavier max deadlift that Adam (or even Charlie)? Would Charlie's ability to haul progressively heavier loads faster and with less rest between hauls enable him to beat Brian in a snatch test?
 

Bret S.

Level 6 Valued Member
Certified Instructor
So many variables.. For body comp changes assuming they eat the same diet and calories (5000/day) it may go like this:

Adam - Stays lean and strong but not overly muscled.

Brian - Gains slabs of lean muscle while being ripped like an Olympic middleweight lifter.

Charlie - Gains muscle (lots of it) more in the form of a leaner power lifter but not quite as lean as Brian and without as much shoulder development.

I don't know how they would stack up in the TSC continuum as TSC is specific and our participants would have to train for it having their respective baseline strength as a starting point. However if I had to battle any one of them Brian would be my last choice and the one I would want to avoid.
 

Sean M

Level 6 Valued Member
I don't know how they would stack up in the TSC continuum as TSC is specific and our participants would have to train for it having their respective baseline strength as a starting point.
That’s part of the thought experiment (for me): say they all had the exact same deadlift weight, pull-up reps, and snatch reps in 5:00 (or pick any other three tests that focus on the respective differences: endurance, power/explosiveness, and strength). At the end, after “training” by the different rock carrying methods, assuming 1 point for 1st place (per event), 2 points for 2nd, etc. - would one brother beat the others? This would clue us in to the “best” training modality for all-around strength: lifting a lot of weight, lifting less weight but explosively, and being able to carry a little bit of weight for a long time/distance.
 

Deleted member 5559

Guest
If I changed the thought experiment a little to be exact triplets each tasked with throwing 100 lbs as many times as possible in an hour, the winner gets paid for the work of all three, the other two go home in poverty. How would you train them?
  1. Maximize the weight they are capable of throwing trying to get them to 200, 300, etc. (never training their endurance)
  2. Have them throw 100lbs for 10 minutes 6 times each day (never training for long periods)
  3. Have them throw 100lbs for 40 minutes 3 times every other day (not training as often but training most similarly to the task)
Would it be the same if the task needed to be completed one year from now compared to 3 weeks from now?
 

wespom9

Level 6 Valued Member
Certified Instructor
3 weeks from now:
I would do something like #3. Specificity before the task, proper taper to peak. Obviously we know but not much time to work with here.

1 year from now:
Spend some time on GPP. Maybe something like S&S
Next: I would focus highly on max strength for a good chunk of time
Slowly start to add strength/power endurance ~2 months prior to said event. Strong Endurance protocols, or "Simple to Serious Endurance" sound right here. Take that new strength and work up to the expected capacity. Taper & compete

For what it's worth, from your options I would probably rank #1 as the best option, #2 next then #3 last for the year long training scenario
 

North Coast Miller

Level 7 Valued Member
About | StrongFirst "“Strength is the foundation for developing the rest of physical qualities,” stated Prof. Leonid Matveev. To reach high levels of power, endurance, sport skill, and fat loss you must become strong first. Period."
Not to speak for Maxwell or anyone else, but in my experience strength is only as foundational as its need. Only when things like speed, timing and skill have all been maxed or nearly so will relative strength be a deciding factor. Depending on the activity of course. In many cases sub-max conditioning is more important. This from a perspective of striking forms of MA and blue collar labor.
 

North Coast Miller

Level 7 Valued Member
I think of strength endurance more in the rock climbing arena than sprinting, triathlon, or shotput.
Thats a fairly specific activity, lots of holding and static strength that won't be helped by traditional limit training or high rep work with much direct carryover- some to be sure but I suspect very superficial.
We have some active climbers on the forum who can speak directly to that sort of conditioning, I cannot.
 

offwidth

Level 9 Valued Member
Thats a fairly specific activity, lots of holding and static strength that won't be helped by traditional limit training or high rep work with much direct carryover- some to be sure but I suspect very superficial.
We have some active climbers on the forum who can speak directly to that sort of conditioning, I cannot.
Even rock climbing is exceptionally varied in nature, often times requiring a high degree of specifity in training for those seeking to perform at a high standard.
There is a world of difference from a powerful 6 move boulder problem, to a 30m redpoint attempt on a sport climb, to a day long hard multi-pitch big wall climb or link-up.
Power, strength, strength-endurance, endurance....
 

Waryrenn

Level 5 Valued Member
Why did it have to be a spiral staircase??
Horrible asymmetry developing. :confused:;)

In terms of relative strength development A= speed strength B= power strength C= limit strength

In terms of strength endurance, B seems closer to aglycolic training, therefore greatest impact on mitochondria..?

Love the question.
 

North Coast Miller

Level 7 Valued Member
Why did it have to be a spiral staircase??
Horrible asymmetry developing. :confused:;)

In terms of relative strength development A= speed strength B= power strength C= limit strength

In terms of strength endurance, B seems closer to aglycolic training, therefore greatest impact on mitochondria..?

Love the question.
Mitochondrial development is related to aerobics, either steady state or HIIT. Powerlifters and strength trained individuals in general have less mitochondrial density than untrained or strictly aerobic folk.

There are (it seems) a number of ways to get this done, not just oxidative. I am no expert, but the PCr pathway can scavenge from any excess ATP to get a quick partial recharge, not just fat oxidation.

Alactic glycolysis yields the higher amount of ATP/ time, and would seem to be the backbone of higher intensity endurance.

There's a level of specificity that just cannot be disregarded. Otherwise there are lots of ways to split training time attributes.
 
Top Bottom