Where are we at with barbell endurance?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 5559
  • Start date

kennycro@@aol.com

Level 6 Valued Member
please post links including post numbers to the other posts you're talking about.
Steve,

Technique Trading and Development

In previous multiple posts, I have provide a research and anecdotal sources on this topic. So, I am not sure as to why I need to re-post it.

Secondly, in providing previous research data that contradicts something that StrongFirst advocates, the push back reply was along the line of...

"We don't say you're wrong, only that we know what we do works."

It did not follow, "there's a difference between giving detailed reasons why a certain approach isn't what you'd choose to do on the one hand..." The StrongFirst method was accepted as "We know what we do works", end of discussion.

Dr Craig Marker

Craig is definitely one of the StrongFirst's Shining Stars.

As Craig so aptly stated, "Your feelings don’t matter! That is, your subjective feeling of the effectiveness of a workout is not important as what science tells us..." Source: HIIT versus HIRT

In other works, some training methods and protocols are wrong and misguided.

With that stated, let look at...

What Works and What Works Better

Training, everything in life, needs to be based on scientific research (as Craig Marker stated) combined with anecdotal data.

Research often works backward; it see what works and then tried to understand what drives it. Often the research results in, "We know it works but we don't can only guess as to why".

However, just because something works doesn't mean it is the most effective method in obtaining results.

As an example, driving a nail with a crescent wrench falls into the "We know what we do works" category. However, using a hammer is more effective.

Why not "Work smarter than harder"?

Board Objective

My primary objective (as most on this site) is to provide and share factual research and empirical data that maximize training goals rather than derailing them.

It bother me (as I believe it does with most on this site) when incorrect information is passed on to other due to "Altered Facts" rather than "Scientific Facts".

Since this topic is exhausted, I'm putting it to bed.

Kenny Croxdale

 
Last edited:

kennycro@@aol.com

Level 6 Valued Member
...the weightlifting technique used to handle 85% max loads is applicable to low load wattage output ...
Precisely what source of research information are you basing this statement on? It is misinformation

Power Output

1) Traditional Strength Training Exercises: Research has demonstrated that Traditional Strength Training Exercise (Squats, Bench Press, Deadlift) register the highest Power Outputs with load of 48 - 62% of a 1 Repetition Max.

400 lb Squat Example

That means Squatting with 192 to 248 lb will elicit the greatest Power Output.

2) Olympic Lift Movements: Research shows that the greatest Power Output registered is with load of 70 - 80% of a 1 Repetition Max.

300 lb Olympic Jerk Example

That means performing a Jerk with 210 to 240 lbs will produce the greatest Power Output.

1) With that said, 85% of 1 RM Jerks will still fall into some of the highest Power Outputs for some lifters.

2) There isn't going to be much of a decrease in Power Output for most lifter preforming the Jerk with 85% of 1 RM, 255 lbs.

As I noted in my previous post, it misleading information passed on to other that I find annoying. That because some individual will believe it, then build their training program that built on a house of cards.

There was some addition misinformation in the post, the I will try and address at a later time.

Kenny Croxdale
 

Steve Freides

Staff
Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
@kennycro@@aol.com, I did not ask you to repost - you referenced "previous multiple posts" and I asked you to provide links to those posts. I regularly ask people to post links to what they're talking about on our forum because not everyone remembers, or remembers accurately, what was said in an earlier post or article and some may not have seen the earlier post or article at all. It is a courtesy we try to provide so that everyone, even later-comers to a thread, can all know we're talking about the same thing.

-S-
 

Steve Freides

Staff
Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
From STRONGFIRST FAQ | StrongFirst

What is StrongFirst’s view of other training systems?
“I’m not saying you are wrong. I just know I’m right.” (Steve Baccari)

This means that discussions of science are welcomed but using the word "wrong" to describe another system is not. If we need to discuss what this means for acceptable and unacceptable language on the forum, please start a new thread in the Members Only section and tag me, and I will be glad to participate.

-S-
 

Deleted member 5559

Guest
Precisely what source of research information are you basing this statement on? It is misinformation
I was basing it on your previous post. My understanding was hitting a 60mph fast ball doesn't mean you can hit a 90mph fast ball but the inverse is true meaning being able to hit a 90mph fast ball enables you to hit a 60mph fast ball.

Therefore being able to snatch 85% (heavy) well enables you to snatch 60% (not as heavy) well but snatching 60% (not as heavy) well doesn't mean you can snatch 85% (heavy) well. Did I misunderstand what you mean by the inverse being true?
The Inverse Is True

The muscle firing sequence change with the percentage of the load; other factors also take place.

Back To The Baseball Analogy

As I previously stated, learning to hit a 60 mph baseball won't make you good at hitting a 90 mph fast ball.

The reverse it true. Learning to hit a 90 mph fast ball won't make you good at hitting a 60 mph baseball. A large part of that has to do with the timing and the muscle recruitment is slightly different.
 

watchnerd

Level 6 Valued Member
So if this thread is no longer about just barbells, and includes odd objects like sand bags, what is the training goal that is being attempted?

And if it's AGT / A+A training, what is insufficient about the KB methods that have already explored?

Or are people just wanting to play with new toys?
 

Steve Freides

Staff
Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
@watchnerd, this is a thread whose subject matter has broadened as it's grown to 6 pages and over 100 posts.

Whether someone is "just wanting to play with new toys" or explore a different modality of strength training for the benefits it may offer - that distinction is in the eye of the beholder.

-S-
 

Deleted member 5559

Guest
I started the thread with barbells in mind because it is the most accessible to explore near max effort grind stamina for me. I see deadlifts singles at 85% as a different animal than 5x snatch but want to understand more of how/why. The A+A work for KB ballistics only really seems to be equivalent to other ballistic power movements and less to grinds. I think there is value in exploring strength endurance and I see two sides of that coin:
  1. the muscle endurance side of increasing single set reps like max reps push-ups and pull-ups
  2. the duration/stamina side of repeated low rep high intensity effort like wrestling steers all day
Edit: I'd like to know if those two things have transferability to the other and to what extent. Is it a one way valve of sorts. Does stamina enable endurance or does endurance enable stamina? Are they equally transferable or does one enable the other better than the inverse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Snowman

Level 6 Valued Member
So if this thread is no longer about just barbells, and includes odd objects like sand bags, what is the training goal that is being attempted?
I think it's more a question of grinds vs. ballistics; the implement being used is a secondary consideration. I won't dig into that because I think we had a pretty good discussion about it right around the end of page 2 and beginning of page 3.
With respects to ballistics, I think you can further break them into easily repeatable ballistics (KB ballistics and sprinting, for example) and ballistics that require a "reset" of sorts (barbell or odd implement lifts). This has been discussed in regard to the rate of PCr depletion.

And if it's AGT / A+A training, what is insufficient about the KB methods that have already explored?
Nothing. It's not so much a question of doing it better as doing something different while applying similar principles, and wondering what the effects will be. Experimentation and discussion purely for curiosity's sake.

Or are people just wanting to play with new toys?
That too. As much as I've been able to tone down my training ADD in the last few years, it's still fun to investigate a shiny object every now and then.

Admittedly, I thought this thread had petered out by the end of page 3. I was pretty surprised to check back and see things still being discussed. But hey, that's what a forum is for...
 

Steve Freides

Staff
Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
Strong Endurance and All-Terrain Conditioning would be good places to ask some of these questions. I know the word we've been given is that explosive/ballistic exercise is best for this purpose but I don't know how far behind something like, e.g., barbell lifts done for maximum speed, would be in terms of effectiveness.

-S-
 

Deleted member 5559

Guest
...how far behind something like, e.g., barbell lifts done for maximum speed, would be in terms of effectiveness.
I imagine it's not a matter of behind as much a matter of different direction being heavy grinds anyway? I imagine the grinds would be a different effectiveness and hard to judge behind-ness...if that's a word.

Unfortunately, an event is a quite costly venue for asking these questions too. Also unfortunate is this phase won't happen for quite a while in my upcoming year of training and even then its a sample of one and will be observational data rather than experimental anyway.
 

watchnerd

Level 6 Valued Member
The A+A work for KB ballistics only really seems to be equivalent to other ballistic power movements and less to grinds.
I don't quite follow this reasoning.

The Hybrid Conditioning System by Marker specifies 10 swings EMOM, starting from 10 minutes worth and peaking at over 20 minutes worth.

For me, 10 swings takes about 17 seconds.

A set of 5 heavy squats takes me a similar amount of time (15-20).

So the KB AGT training seems to fit grinds pretty well from a time scale.

As compared to BB ballistics....my snatch probably takes me about 3 seconds. Even if I do doubles, that's 6 seconds total.
 

Al Ciampa

Level 7 Valued Member
Certified Instructor
Also unfortunate is this phase won't happen for quite a while in my upcoming year of training and even then its a sample of one and will be observational data rather than experimental anyway.
All of this is observational. And until any observations are made, this thread can do little more than wonder.

Brian, instead of asking questions with no answer, write a protocol and ask for participation. Journal the results.
 

Anna C

Level 9 Valued Member
Elite Certified Instructor
I don't quite follow this reasoning.

The Hybrid Conditioning System by Marker specifies 10 swings EMOM, starting from 10 minutes worth and peaking at over 20 minutes worth.

For me, 10 swings takes about 17 seconds.

A set of 5 heavy squats takes me a similar amount of time (15-20).

So the KB AGT training seems to fit grinds pretty well from a time scale.

As compared to BB ballistics....my snatch probably takes me about 3 seconds. Even if I do doubles, that's 6 seconds total.
You're mixing apples, oranges, etc. here.

It's not just the time of the set. It's how hard you're working during that time (resting between efforts, relative rest of lockout vs. peak power generation part of the movement). It's how much of the effort during that time is power vs. just strength (barbell snatch or kettlebell swing vs. lactate-producing squats, for example). It's the muscle fibers recruited (fast fibers, intermediate, slow) and how they tend to use energy. So many things factor in. And because breathing and HR tend to be driven up by different factors between grinds and ballistics, these things can't be used to compare either. I realize I'm not clarifying anything here, just pointing out confounding factors, but hope that's helpful anyway.

Two factors that tend to confuse things, IMO:

1) A+A is a particular kind of AGT, in the minds of those of us who have followed Al Ciampa's A+A since he pioneered it. Craig Marker's protocols and articles are AGT, but not specifically A+A. There are many other AGT protocols, taught at Strong Endurance, in blog articles, and so forth. So when variations of these come up and people say "see, A+A can be this"... discussion tends to follow, and this point tends to be lost on some because so much of this work is not published or widely available.

2) A+A has energy-system adaptation targets, and performance/strength/power/endurance targets. Sometimes when we theorize what other forms of training might meet the second, we are forgetting about the first. And vice versa.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 5559

Guest
I think it's also relevant that each has different force/work/and power outputs/combinations.

Force = Mass * Acceleration
Work = Force * Distance
Power = Work/Time
  • Speed deadlift might have high force but low work and power
  • BB snatch might have high force and work but low power
  • KB might have moderate force and work but high power
  • Heavy deadlift might be high force but moderate work and power
Heavy KB snatches intuitively seem to uniquely require significant force and distance in a shorter time than most things. Perhaps long duration grinds like heavy deadlifts or squats would accomplish higher work but less power?
 

Deleted member 5559

Guest
As an aside: when CNS fatigue comes up as a reason to not perform high intensity for high volume, why? I don't understand CNS fatigue well or whether it can be improved or resistant to fatigue just like anything else.
 

North Coast Miller

Level 7 Valued Member
As an aside: when CNS fatigue comes up as a reason to not perform high intensity for high volume, why? I don't understand CNS fatigue well or whether it can be improved or resistant to fatigue just like anything else.
That's a good question. If talking about intensity as a %RM, I think using heavy load with a lot of frequency literally compromises the ability to do a lot of weekly volume. I won't even try to do Isometrics more than once a week for this reason - I don't think I can keep up with the quality of effort.

When intensity is measured as the available max momentary effort one is capable of, higher volume can be done but at lower %RM. This goes back to building volume with higher load but using less of your max momentary effort - low rep counts and long rest - it has to be spread out over longer time frame.
 

watchnerd

Level 6 Valued Member
You're mixing apples, oranges, etc. here.

It's not just the time of the set. It's how hard you're working during that time (resting between efforts, relative rest of lockout vs. peak power generation part of the movement). It's how much of the effort during that time is power vs. just strength (barbell snatch or kettlebell swing vs. lactate-producing squats, for example). It's the muscle fibers recruited (fast fibers, intermediate, slow) and how they tend to use energy. So many things factor in. And because breathing and HR tend to be driven up by different factors between grinds and ballistics, these things can't be used to compare either. I realize I'm not clarifying anything here, just pointing out confounding factors, but hope that's helpful anyway.
Yeah, I get that....but time and effort are related. That's why intensity and volume are inverse to each other.

From an effort and energy POV, I find 'repeatable ballistics' like the KB swing, done for reps, to be a very different animal from a >85% snatch, done for singles.

Now, one could argue that's just because the KB weight one uses for a Marker type is modest enough to do it for 10-20+ min and is thus low intensity to make it apples and oranges, but that's exactly my point.

So far, my subjective experience is that such conditioning helps my grinds a lot. But I haven't noticed in any improvement yet in recovering from a max barbell snatch if the rest interval is 'worst case' competition short.
 

watchnerd

Level 6 Valued Member
As an aside: when CNS fatigue comes up as a reason to not perform high intensity for high volume, why? I don't understand CNS fatigue well or whether it can be improved or resistant to fatigue just like anything else.
In the past, when I was younger and dumber and tried to mix high intensity and volume, the impact came in recovery starting to decline and overtraining symptoms starting to manifest (not sleeping well, feeling strung out, appetite declining, injuries increasing).
 

vegpedlr

Level 6 Valued Member
Do you the differences really matter? We may be comparing apples, oranges and mangoes, but in the end they’re all fruit. More alike than different.

I’d like to experiment with a complex or chain, but I don’t know when I could carve out the time. I wish there was a book length discussion of this. The blog articles are good, and the discussion is interesting, but they can only explain so much.
 
Top Bottom