Barbell Where are we at with barbell endurance?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 5559
  • Start date
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Al Ciampa

Level 7 Valued Member
Certified Instructor
To operate at 90%+ for extended durations. Wrestling tounament for example: max effort, hour later max effort, hour later max effort, hour later max effort, next day max effort, hour later max effort, etc.
Then you’re asking about peaking strategies, yes? How to use low rep, long duration barbell sets to peak? You seem to be framing a base training strategy in a peaking question. Or am I misunderstanding you?
 

Snowman

Level 6 Valued Member
How would 50/20 be different from A+A? Or could it be modified? Would you want to? Or should that be the domain of KBs and not BBs?

I think long sessions of singles, doubles, and triples with any of the main BB lifts would have a similar effect as KB A+A work, but it would still be different.
The following is 100% theory and not based on recent experience or data:
Kettlebell ballistics let you drain PCr stores pretty quickly, and then your body has to refill them. With barbell work, it seems less likely to drain them all the way as quickly. You could do longer sets to drain them completely (15+ seconds), which would generate a fair amount of acid and interfere with how much volume you could accumulate, or you could do 10 second sets that never really drained the tanks. This is the nature of any kind of grind, and one reason why grinds (BB, KB, or otherwise) seem to be second choice for A+A. You could do Oly lifts, but resetting between each rep is an issue that just isn't there with KBs (maybe hang power snatches would be alright?). In other words, doing A+A with a barbell is just going to be a slightly different stimulus. My guess is that A+A with a barbell would be more effective at building strength, and less effective and training endurance. Not better, not worse, just different.
I will say, given the success I've had with A+A, if I was in a situation where I had no kettlebell, but still had a barbell, my first inclination would be to start experimenting with long deadlift sessions comprised of heavy doubles and triples.
 

Deleted member 5559

Guest
Then you’re asking about peaking strategies, yes? How to use low rep, long duration barbell sets to peak? You seem to be framing a base training strategy in a peaking question. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Yes, I suppose it would be more for peaking. Honestly, I dont even understand me yet and am developing the question(s) as the discussion unfolds.

Edit: these are articles I came across during the genesis of this thought experiment
  1. Singles Club
  2. Strength Endurance: Be Stronger Longer
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Al Ciampa

Level 7 Valued Member
Certified Instructor
I think long sessions of singles, doubles, and triples with any of the main BB lifts would have a similar effect as KB A+A work, but it would still be different.
The following is 100% theory and not based on recent experience or data:
Kettlebell ballistics let you drain PCr stores pretty quickly, and then your body has to refill them. With barbell work, it seems less likely to drain them all the way as quickly. You could do longer sets to drain them completely (15+ seconds), which would generate a fair amount of acid and interfere with how much volume you could accumulate, or you could do 10 second sets that never really drained the tanks. This is the nature of any kind of grind, and one reason why grinds (BB, KB, or otherwise) seem to be second choice for A+A. You could do Oly lifts, but resetting between each rep is an issue that just isn't there with KBs (maybe hang power snatches would be alright?). In other words, doing A+A with a barbell is just going to be a slightly different stimulus. My guess is that A+A with a barbell would be more effective at building strength, and less effective and training endurance. Not better, not worse, just different.
I will say, given the success I've had with A+A, if I was in a situation where I had no kettlebell, but still had a barbell, my first inclination would be to start experimenting with long deadlift sessions comprised of heavy doubles and triples.
I’d have to completely agree with this, and add two points:
1. I suspect that there would be a lot of value to running an “A+A-like” protocol with the barbell once in a while.
2. The BB doesn’t offer unilateral loading which is in my opinion the hidden diamond of KB ballistics, especially with the snatch lift.
Yes, I suppose it would be more for peaking. Honestly, I dont even understand me yet and am developing the question(s) as the discussion unfolds.

Edit: these are articles I came across during the genesis of this thought experiment
  1. Singles Club
  2. Strength Endurance: Be Stronger Longer
In peaking, the main work is already done; you are merely polishing it through lactate tolerance.

So perhaps the question is: what should I do for base training? Which might lead to, are you being patient enough to maintain your approach to base training?

Most folks on this forum and in fitness in general can’t see their training past the next 6-8 weeks and so never really base train properly. I’d go out on a limb and say that it is the relative few who properly base train.

“Exercising” is absolutely great but doesn’t lead to expected results. “Training” is something completely different.
 

Deleted member 5559

Guest
...Kettlebell ballistics let you drain PCr stores pretty quickly, and then your body has to refill them. With barbell work, it seems less likely to drain them all the way as quickly....
What about an alternate benefit than PCr depletion?

My guess is that A+A with a barbell would be more effective at building strength, and less effective and training endurance.
Why? Its often said that to train endurance just get stronger so the percent of max is less but how does one go from 6x1 @ 90% twice per week to multiple times per day? Would recovery ability be trained in some fashion differently than the base training effects?

you are merely polishing it through lactate tolerance.

Is this why GTG doesnt work very well for endurance - in my experience anyway compared to something like FPP? Is lactate tolerance and hydrogen buffering the only (most important) physiological trait to train for peaking?

So perhaps the question is: what should I do for base training? Which might lead to, are you being patient enough to maintain your approach to base training?

Most folks on this forum and in fitness in general can’t see their training past the next 6-8 weeks and so never really base train properly. I’d go out on a limb and say that it is the relative few who properly base train.
For context, this is conceptually for 1 month that will arrive 11 months from now after that 11 month base period of primarily LED and lots of easy volume at 70-80%
 

North Coast Miller

Level 8 Valued Member
Is this why GTG doesnt work very well for endurance - in my experience anyway compared to something like FPP? Is lactate tolerance and hydrogen buffering the only (most important) physiological trait to train for peaking?

No expert, but a lot of fatigue is simply accumulation of inorganic phosphate, not lactic acid or hydrogen ion. Not that it functionally makes a big difference.

Improving ability to use pyruvate in the mitochondria also allows higher ATP recharge via anaerobic glycolysis, Carbs provide fuel for fast and slow twitch, but the anaerobic production is limited by mitochondrial throughput IIRC.

Since most of the phosphate build-up is from the CrP pathway, it becomes pretty important to endurance if you can make good use of Cho if you're training endurance at high %RM. The faster ATP recharge rate of pyruvate (compared to fat) also means the CrP can be recharged faster as well. Don't know if it is the most important, you have to do one rep at a given load before you can do a dozen.


Great links BTW, esp the first one

 

Snowman

Level 6 Valued Member
What about an alternate benefit than PCr depletion?
I think, regardless of how thoroughly you drain PCr stores, you'll get the same kind of benefit from aerobic recovery. That is, your body is learning to efficiently restock PCr stores using the aerobic system, and is also creating a more efficient aerobic system by doing so. It's just a matter of stimulus potency. The faster and more completely you can empty PCr stores, the more potent the stimulus, and the fewer repeats you have to do (fewer is this case is still quite a few o_O). It seems like we can do this better with explosive movements than with grinds, but grinds will still do it. Hence why you would still get the same kind of aerobic conditioning effect from grind-based A+A, it just wouldn't be as potent.

Why? Its often said that to train endurance just get stronger so the percent of max is less but how does one go from 6x1 @ 90% twice per week to multiple times per day? Would recovery ability be trained in some fashion differently than the base training effects?
Ooh, good question. Not sure how my answer will measure up, but...
I think you would have to back off the intensity so that you could do a high number of sets. If you went too heavy, the effects on your connective tissue and CNS would likely fry you before you could get in enough volume to elicit an aerobic training effect. That's perhaps another thing that naturally biases us towards KB ballistics for A+A training; we rarely think in terms of %1RM, and instead think of 5RM, 10RM, etc. I did recently try to do some of my A+A snatches with weight that was too heavy for me; it was not productive, to say the least.
At the end of the day, though, you're still doing a lot of volume with moderate weight, good bar speed, and efficient technique, so the strength will come.
I think, as you implied, some of the benefit of A+A/Strong Endurance training is not just the effect of improving recovery from set to set, but also from day to day and week to week. The body learns to handle lots of heavy volume on Monday, and then do it again on Tuesday or Wednesday. Part of that is aerobic efficiency, part of that is improved tissue quality and repair mechanisms, and part of it is black magic (that is to say, sh*t I don't understand). Understandably, these things take a long time to develop, and I think that goes back to Al's comment about what constitutes proper base training.

All this talk makes me want to do some experimenting while I still have access to a gym for a few more weeks. Not enough time to elicit significant adaptations, but maybe enough time to get a feel for it.
 

Steve Freides

Staff
Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
1. I suspect that there would be a lot of value to running an “A+A-like” protocol with the barbell once in a while.
A couple of days ago, I did 17 DL singles on the minute with a 74% 1RM weight. Is this the sort of thing you have in mind?

I'm guessing it might need to be longer than 17 minutes, and I'm also thinking that the deadlift might not be the best choice of lift, but I liked it and was thinking about trying it again - but it doesn't seem like something one would/could/should do on a regular basis - one week, maybe even less often, seems about right to me.

-S-
 

Deleted member 5559

Guest
A couple of days ago, I did 17 DL singles on the minute with a 74% 1RM weight. Is this the sort of thing you have in mind?

I'm guessing it might need to be longer than 17 minutes, and I'm also thinking that the deadlift might not be the best choice of lift, but I liked it and was thinking about trying it again - but it doesn't seem like something one would/could/should do on a regular basis - one week, maybe even less often, seems about right to me.

-S-
I'm finding I can either squat and press on the same day or deadlift but not combine deadlift with anything else on the same day. While I'm only touching a barbell twice per week total, I think one could do each twice per week if broken out:
Mon: Back Squat/Bench Press
Wed: Sumo Deadlift
Fri: Front Squat/Press
Sat: Conventional DL​

I'm finding so far that I can do about 8 singles with 30sec rest between before taking a longer rest (3-5min) and doing another 8 singles. I haven't tried expanding to more clusters of 8 singles yet though as the experimentation is only to plan a more structured approach at the end of the year.
 

Deleted member 5559

Guest
If you went too heavy, the effects on your connective tissue and CNS would likely fry you before you could get in enough volume to elicit an aerobic training effect.
I think this type of training would be intended for training CNS fatigue, connective tissue, etc. rather than for aerobic affect anyway so it probably wouldn't be that bad considering.
 

Snowman

Level 6 Valued Member
I think this type of training would be intended for training CNS fatigue, connective tissue, etc. rather than for aerobic affect anyway so it probably wouldn't be that bad considering.
I agree.

I experimented with sets of 3 at around 65-70% 1RM today after a shortened snatch session. It was definitely different. Not bad, though. Not as much heavy breathing going on; rest periods were more dictated by how long it took to feel comfortable getting tight again, not by how long it took to bring my heart rate back down. I'll do this for 2 out of my 3 weekly A+A sessions for at least a couple weeks (the third one usually end up being at home, no barbell). I don't want to make too many assumptions about it before my body's had a chance to make some initial adaptations.
I went by feel and then did the math afterwards. It looks like I ended up doing about twice the volume that I would have done for a normal strength-building deadlift session.
 

North Coast Miller

Level 8 Valued Member
I think this type of training would be intended for training CNS fatigue, connective tissue, etc. rather than for aerobic affect anyway so it probably wouldn't be that bad considering.

In that case I'd imagine you'd want to use fairly high %RM, 85% or so with those clusters and use it as supplemental work once/week.

I guess it all comes down to the goal - non-specific strength endurance, or endurance specific to a particular lift.

As the %RM goes down and volume goes up with increased rest periods, I'd expect less carryover - sounds more like a recovery/movement programming strategy. Clusters of singles or doubles with fairly heavy load and reduced rest seems like it would work better, per your trial run. Take the longer break between clusters, 20 - 30 seconds between repeats and a couple minutes between clusters. This way you get the volume, keep intensity high(er), and still use heavy load. This to be done not often, as recovery has more to do with intensity than volume most of the time.
 

Deleted member 5559

Guest
In that case I'd imagine you'd want to use fairly high %RM, 85% or so with those clusters and use it as supplemental work once/week.
Yes, I'm experimenting with 85-90%.

I dont know how long one could do it. Ive only been doing it as a variety day recentl but intend to do it twice per week for a month. It seems that keeping the weekly INOL within normal parameters should work just fine though.
 

North Coast Miller

Level 8 Valued Member
Yes, I'm experimenting with 85-90%.

I dont know how long one could do it. Ive only been doing it as a variety day recentl but intend to do it twice per week for a month. It seems that keeping the weekly INOL within normal parameters should work just fine though.

Are you planning on using multiple clusters? I used (briefly) clusters in groups of 3 at 5 reps of 80%RM, these done for 3 sets with 20 second intervals. Honestly did not feel terribly fatigued at 2 times/week.
 

Deleted member 5559

Guest
Yes. Right now I've settled on (8x1 @ 85% [30"]) x2-4 [3']. So 2-4 clusters of 8 singles sets with 30 seconds between sets of singles and 3 minutes between clusters of 8x1. They don't appear to be too fatiguing and I feel pretty good after. I haven't ramped up the volume yet to 3 and 4 clusters though.
 

Snowman

Level 6 Valued Member
I wore a HRM for today's session, which was 10 sets of 4 snatches, 10 deadlift triples at 65%, and 4 deadlift doubles at 80%. The peak HR response from the triples at 65% was only about 5-10 BPM lower than the peak HR response for the sets 4 snatches. The interval from the start of one set to the next was about 80-85 seconds with both exercises. Actually, it averaged out to be exactly 83 seconds for both of them, so time-wise they seem pretty interchangeable.
The peak HR response for the heavier sets of two was 10-15 BPM lower than the snatches, which isn't too surprising.
Not to put too much stock in HR (which obviously isn't the only thing that matters), but I have reaffirmed my opinion that someone could get an effective A+A stimulus with a barbell, whether it's clustered singles like @Bro Mo is doing or repeats of triples.
I like it. Especially how much volume I can move in a session. Part of me just assumes that I must be accomplishing something useful by moving a lot of weight, as long as I don't jack myself up,
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 5559

Guest
@Snowman any chance you have an image of the HR to help me visualize what you describe above?
 

Snowman

Level 6 Valued Member
No problem. Of the three numbers in each box, ignore the min/km and distance. The box is just there to show what the peak HR was. My HR dropped down to 125-135 in between all the sets (closer to 125 most of the time).

Snatches-Sets of 4 @ 36 kg
Screen Shot 2019-01-25 at 7.52.48 PM.png
DL-Sets of 3 @ 65%. This was after the snatches. You can see my HR starts peaking almost as high as it did from the snatches, and the height of the peaks slowly starts to drop. I think the last half of these are probably more representative of what a pure barbell session would look like.
Screen Shot 2019-01-25 at 7.54.22 PM.png
DL-Sets of 2 @ 80%-I need to correct myself, the peak HR response to these was almost as high as the triples. I would have had to do more of them to get a good comparison, but I was getting to that point where fatigue was going to interfere with things.
Screen Shot 2019-01-25 at 7.57.40 PM.png
 

Anna C

Level 9 Valued Member
Elite Certified Instructor
I don't think the heart rates are necessarily meaningful in comparison.

Kettlebell quick/ballistic lifts are somewhere between steady state training and pure strength (not-fast barbell lifts), but consider this as quoted from this podcast (I've paraphrased for simplicity, but it's basically quoted from there, and I've heard similar explanations elsewhere) as an explanation of the extreme ends:

Heart rate and VO2 have a good relationship in steady state aerobic exercise.

Once you're doing resistance exercise, there's no relationship between heart rate and VO2.

The cardovascular response in aerobic exercise is driven by an increasing demand for oxygen.

When you're lifting, the heart rate goes up for a completely different reason. You're releasing catecholamines, i.e. adrenaline. This causes a heart rate increase, causes you to hyperventilate, but your heart/body is not necessarily demanding more oxygen.
@Snowman Interested in your thoughts on that, and if you agree...
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 5559

Guest
I do think it's harder to equate due to the delay in response and energy system demands but i definitely think the HR goes up to provide fuel and remove waste.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Top Bottom