Uphill Lunges for Strong Endurance, Health, and Fat Loss

[Ege]

Pavel and Strong first are absolutely brilliant but I just feel a bit disappointed that this is being labelled as groundbreaking or revolutionary when training just under anaerobic threshold for a few minutes recovering and going again has been used in endurance sports for practically forever. A + A on the other hand is a great way to improve power whilst also getting some endurance as a 'what the hell effect'.

GTG, A+A, S&S, Easy Strength, Build Strong, Iron Cardio, etc are all groundbreaking programs/protocols to me. But not everyone should agree w me.

 

[psmith]

While it is good to try to understand some of the underlying mechanisms of some training protocols, it might also be a slippery slope as well.

If you want to spare yourself the cognitive hazard of reading the study or thinking too much about your training, feel free.

Pavel and Strong first are absolutely brilliant but I just feel a bit disappointed that this is being labelled as groundbreaking or revolutionary when training just under anaerobic threshold for a few minutes recovering and going again has been used in endurance sports for practically forever. A + A on the other hand is a great way to improve power whilst also getting some endurance as a 'what the hell effect'.

Eh, I mean, look at ETK and the old DD stuff, there's always been a lot of sizzle with the steak.

I think if you're going to compare this to something that already exists in endurance sport, though, it's most like what the Uphill Athlete guys call muscular endurance work (and I believe they got it from Joe Friel, who described it in the context of big gear work for triathletes.). Submaximal but not indefinitely sustainable, usually done as intervals, increased force production requirements (uphill, longer ROM), lower cadence (i.e., than running), the Uphill Athlete guys even talk about using it for time-crunched athletes, and this is a perfectly reasonable implementation (although I dunno about 4x/week and only one long session.).

 

[JamesH11]

GTG, A+A, S&S, Easy Strength, Build Strong, Iron Cardio, etc are all groundbreaking programs/protocols to me. But not everyone should agree w me.

I agree they absolutely are amazing programs/protocols! Just this one seems seems to be trying to sell something that isn't really anything at all special, it's just threshold training, being uphill and less impact you can arguably do a bit more of it than flat running for example

 

[HarryBergers]

While it is good to try to understand some of the underlying mechanisms of some training protocols, it might also be a slippery slope as well. If one ask enough of how or why questions, he will hit to one of these barriers. Either the barrier of his comprehension capability based on his knowledge on the topic or based on the limitations of our understanding of human biology.

Feynman, one of the greatest scientist ever lived explains this very nicely although on a different topic.



A fun fact, scientists don’t know how hypertrophy exactly works. This is true for many human adaptations. If we ask any coach a few why and how questions about hypertrophy he will very quickly hit to the limit of scientists understanding of hypertrophy. This will not change the value of that coaches hypertrophy program.

Pavel does an extraordinary job in describing the logic behind some of the groundbreaking plans and protocols. But we like it or not he is bounded by human understanding of human biology. And it is surprisingly limited than general publics assumptions.

At some point, we have to say, okay, if it works it works…

More like 7.5 minutes of Feynman avoiding the question altogether, lol. Textbook Frankfurtian BS wizardry. He couldn't even admit that we basically don't know, he had to insult the intelligence of the interviewer instead...

 

[HarryBergers]

That pdf is hard to read..

We would need a subject matter expert on "traditional training means for biathletes[4]."

Luckily, the reference is listed at the bottom of the pdf snip:


^ seems to be a protocol calling out all the things that are uncertain. I have to sift through a few search results, but I bet the answer lies ahead.

I've attached Google translation. Pull quote:

(sorry for pdf spacing)

What I take from this is that we can't really say how hard they were going. We don't have aggregate data on time in zone or whatever, and it doesn't say anything like "athletes were instructed to take it easy/deliver maximal effort/hit a 5-7 RPE." "High-speed work" and "simulated jumps" could be quasi-steady state or intervals at any intensity or pure plyo work in the case of jumps, the "long" effort could be hard or easy or somewhere in between or bits of one and bits of another, we can't really say.

4. Myakinchenko, E.B. Development of local muscle endurance in cyclic sports / E.B. Myakinchenko, V.N. Seluyanov – M.: TVT Division, 2005. –338 p.

I can't find this source at all. I've been able to find similar. I've seen TVT Division referred to as TBT. Might be a government database of articles. Anybody know where this document lives?

 

[RAH1977]

I have gone full-on crazy with this plan. When I am at home, I have a hill that provides the necessary grade and distance to work for ~2min and gain 200 feet elevation at LT heartrate. When traveling, which I do a lot, I require a building with a stairwell that has 20 stories or more to allow 2Min of work. There are not a lot of hotels or parking garages that tall outside of medium/big cities, so when not at home or in a city with tall buildings, I have reverted to a program I used a lot in years past for "work capacity," which is a melding of this program with a Mountain Tactical Institute (MTI) program using shuttle runs in a SE style.

Essentially, I mark of ~25 yards, ~35 yards and ~50 yards. Then I start my timer for 2 minutes and run (not jog, but not sprint) between the 25-yard marks until my HR hits ~158 bpm. Then, I extend the runs out to the 35- and 50-yard marks as needed to keep my HR at LT (shorter distance = higher loading = higher HR). I then rest 3 min (walking around, shaking it out). I continue this until my HR does not get below 130 during a rest period, and then I stop. I did 6 rounds this morning, for a total of 30 min.

As the article below from MTI notes, the metabolic demand is not from running fast but the strength required to slow (eccentric loading) and the strength required to reaccelerate (concentric loading).

From the article: (Link)
“A shorter shuttle distance is more metabolically demanding,” the coach stated. He didn’t explain why, and I’ve since learned why. Each change of direction takes more strength … first the athlete must eccentrically slow down into the change, then, one stopped and looking the other direction, he must concentrically push off and get back up to speed. All this takes more leg strength, which means more metabolic demand.

I think the above meets the spirit of the SE, but I would love to hear others' opinions.

 

[Oaks]

I did a modified version of this on the stair stepper at the gym. Found a pace where I could keep my heart rate below threshold (however defined), pass talk test, avoid burn, etc., per the article. Two minutes taking two steps at a time, two minutes one step at a time "rest." I've been alternating between about six and ten work sets three times a week for about 5 weeks. During that time I've ridden my bike however and whenever I wanted -- no change to that part of my regimen.

After reading through this thread, I'm not sure if this program is novel or should even produce any results. However, at 48 years old I'm breaking records (mountain bike) I set 7-8 years ago when I was 20+ lbs lighter on my local trails that I've ridden hundreds of times. I suppose it could be the banana I had that morning, a good night's sleep, new tires, trail conditions or any of the near-infinite number of other variables. But I'll definitely be keeping this one in the toolbox. I've run S&S, C&J programs, the Giant, versions of IC, etc., over those years and my bike legs have never felt this strong.