Where are we at with barbell endurance?

North Coast Miller

More than 2500 posts
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.
In those sorts of worst case scenarios, any improvement in recovery rate will have to come from several contributors - a group effort beginning with top end strength.

Really, you have to define what sort of 'test' is going to be used as a pass/fail.

Intervals with a high %RM (relatively), even if done with a totally different implement have potential to seriously improve recovery time. But that's not the same as uninterrupted endurance test.
 

Anna C

More than 5000 posts
Elite Certified Instructor
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.
Sure, some good points there.

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.
Yeah, I agree to a large extent, which is what I said in Post #4 in this thread.

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.
The Strong Endurance manual is a book-length discussion. There's talk of a book about to come out, but I don't know if any of that will be in it, or have any insight into what it's going to be.

As for complexes and chains, I did experiement with these quite a bit in late 2016 and early 2017; you're welcome to peruse my training log, starting about here. I was practicing various overhead kettlebell movements to prep for SFG II (snatch, double snatch, press, push press, jerk, double jerk, bent press, windmill, plus all the SFG I moves), and mixing them and training A+A style worked out great for me.

At the time, my primary objective was to get in quality practice with all the moves I had to be ready to learn and test, and do it in such a way that kept my stress low and stamina high. So the question for you if you want to experiment with compex/chain/different implements/rest intervals, etc. etc.. is, what is it that you want to accomplish, and how will you measure whether you were successful?
 

watchnerd

Triple-Digit Post Count
Really, you have to define what sort of 'test' is going to be used as a pass/fail.
For me, the worst case test is a competition scenario where I have to follow myself on a competition lifting platform for all 3 attempts and no other lifters in between to give additional rest time.

So it would look like:

Snatch 1: 90-95% max

30 seconds: attendants add more weight to bar
30 seconds: max time I can spend on platform before attempting lift
Total rest: 60 seconds

Snatch 2: 100% max

60 seconds of rest again

Snatch 3: PR attempt, >100% max


The pass fail would be if my results success/fail at the lift with 60 seconds of rest would be the same as with, say, 3 minutes of rest.
 

Bro Mo

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Snatch 1: 90-95% max

30 seconds: attendants add more weight to bar
30 seconds: max time I can spend on platform before attempting lift
Total rest: 60 seconds

Snatch 2: 100% max

60 seconds of rest again

Snatch 3: PR attempt, >100% max
In an instance like this, do you think you would be better served by training single set strength endurance with lower weight, low sets, and higher reps per set or training strength stamina with higher weight, higher sets, and lower reps per set?

I've heard of super total meets that include the 3 big power lifts in addition to the O lifts. Worst case, that could mean 15 very high intensity efforts in a day with little rest.
 
Last edited:

Bro Mo

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
tried to mix high intensity and volume, the impact came in recovery starting to decline and overtraining symptoms starting to manifest
Do you think it could it have been overcome if specifically trying to train a resistance to it?
 

North Coast Miller

More than 2500 posts
For me, the worst case test is a competition scenario where I have to follow myself on a competition lifting platform for all 3 attempts and no other lifters in between to give additional rest time.

So it would look like:

Snatch 1: 90-95% max

30 seconds: attendants add more weight to bar
30 seconds: max time I can spend on platform before attempting lift
Total rest: 60 seconds

Snatch 2: 100% max

60 seconds of rest again

Snatch 3: PR attempt, >100% max


The pass fail would be if my results success/fail at the lift with 60 seconds of rest would be the same as with, say, 3 minutes of rest.

And this environment the relatively higher intensity (effort) ballistic built endurance fails to assist recovery? Am wondering about the higher load grind type of endurance from...activities like those sandbag cleans you mentioned earlier might be of better assistance. What of Isometrics? They are a good way to challenge CNS without frying it.

Am very curious about this across a range of activities,
 

watchnerd

Triple-Digit Post Count
And this environment the relatively higher intensity (effort) ballistic built endurance fails to assist recovery? Am wondering about the higher load grind type of endurance from...activities like those sandbag cleans you mentioned earlier might be of better assistance. What of Isometrics? They are a good way to challenge CNS without frying it.

Am very curious about this across a range of activities,
Based on both standard coaching practices and personal experience:

--Isometrics help with stabilizing lockout for lifts overhead
--Grinds in O-lifting (mainly squats and pulls) are used to increase the maximum *potential* weight lifted in the competition lifts (snatch, clean&jerk). There are standard calculators to compute this:

Queensland Weightlifting Association

--Endurance training definitely helps reduce rest time between grinds.
--In worst case competition scenarios (~60 seconds rest), endurance training doesn't seem to help back-to-back >85% snatches much, probably because:

a) The energy depletion is just too high (my snatch is about 70-75% of my bodyweight, for lifters better at the snatch than me, it's 80-100+% of bodyweight) and the tank gets pretty drained

b) The rest period is too short for aerobic recovery to refill that tank more than partially

This could mean either:

a) 10-20 minutes of 'repeatable ballistic' KB swings (per Marker method) conditioning isn't maximal intensity enough to train the same energy system in the same way that maximal competition quick lifts tax it

b) The solution to a) is to do something 'harder, but different', like sandbags, for max singles, maybe for 60 seconds rest, 5-10 times.

c) But the problem with b) is that it might raise heart rate too much and start using the glycolitic energy system
 
Last edited:

watchnerd

Triple-Digit Post Count
Do you think it could it have been overcome if specifically trying to train a resistance to it?
Not without superior genetics or drugs, no.

The Bulgarians used to train their lifters with high intensity, repeatedly, and their lifters were known for having very short careers and retiring very young....and that's the ones that survived the massive weed out process that started when they were children.

They had much higher injury rates than the Russians, but they also had a deep bench of backups, so didn't really care -- toss one lifter aside, replace him with another.

Now that they're not a Communist country with a weightlifting puppy mill to feed the beast, and drug testing has gotten better, their method isn't working....and they're not winning gold like they used to.
 
Last edited:

Snowman

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
a sample of one and will be observational data rather than experimental anyway
I'll second Al, and say that the only data that really matters in your case is yours. Even if you knew what the results would probably be, you wouldn't really know how well you would respond until you tried it anyways. Some people are hyper- or hypo- responders to different training, and some kinds of personalities just can't stick to certain types of training programs. It's a bit of a black box, and the only way to really know what you'll get out of it is to put something into it.

I don't understand CNS fatigue well or whether it can be improved or resistant to fatigue just like anything else.
It's all based on biochemical processes, and it seems like most of those processes can be trained to a higher degree of efficiency. In the case of CNS fatigue we're talking about production and clearance of neurotransmitters. Probably. CNS fatigue is one of those somewhat wishy washy terms, everybody basically knows what it feels like, but nobody has a really clear definition of what it is or what exactly causes it. I would bet money that recovery from CNS fatigue can be improved, but I have absolutely no idea how much potential for improvement there is.
 

watchnerd

Triple-Digit Post Count
I would bet money that recovery from CNS fatigue can be improved, but I have absolutely no idea how much potential for improvement there is.
Or why one would bother if one can get similar training outcomes using less taxing methods.

This whole question was well-researched by the Russians (we know because we have access to their books, and probably the Chinese, too) and contrasted with the programs of the Bulgarians.

The current national program run by the Chinese is probably the largest strength and conditioning experiment ever run, encompassing thousands of trainees and spanning over a decade. They don't train to max out CNS repeatedly in training.

Given how much they care about winning gold, if CNS limit training was effective, I'd expect them to do it.
 

Antti

More than 2500 posts
Can anyone give any links to good studies about CNS fatigue and overtraining when it comes to lifters instead of endurance athletes?
 

Steve Freides

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Senior Certified Instructor
Yeah, I get that....but time and effort are related. That's why intensity and volume are inverse to each other.
The things that are different are, in fact, different. Intensity is not a single variable that can be thought of equally across all forms of resistance training. Training that improves health isn't always the same as training that improves performance. And so on.

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.
That said, the basic principle being used in S&S and A+A and Strong Endurance is simple enough. Use energy system #1 intensely but briefly, avoid using energy system #2 (yes, there are exceptions), and recover from your bout of energy system #1 using energy system #3. So, in that sense, you are likely doing something good for yourself if you're following that model.

-S-
 

watchnerd

Triple-Digit Post Count
The things that are different are, in fact, different. Intensity is not a single variable that can be thought of equally across all forms of resistance training. Training that improves health isn't always the same as training that improves performance. And so on.
Who said it was the same variable?

But the concept of intensity, as a measure of resistance as related to maximum effort, is a universal pillar of strength and conditioning studies. And a standard term of art.

And its relation to volume is also universal, for a given exercise.

Take a pushup:

Low intensity = knees pushup
Medium intensity = standard pushup
Higher intensity = decline pushup
Very high intensity = one arm pushup

The inverse relationship to volume (i.e. it's a lot easier to do higher volumes of low intensity exercises) applies to bodyweight as much as it does to barbells or kettlebells.

Lastly, of course, improving health is a totally different, and multi-variable axis, from performance. I wasn't claiming increasing intensity necessarily improved health -- in fact, many of the comments I made spoke to the fact that too much intensity, especially combined with high volume, increases injury rates.

I'm genuinely not understanding what you think I said....
 

vegpedlr

More than 500 posts
People often use “intensity” and “difficulty” interchangeably which can cause confusion. In endurance training, intensity refers to %VO2Max. But the long session of the week can be as difficult, and require as much recovery as a shorter, “harder” interval session, even though the long session is low intensity.
 

North Coast Miller

More than 2500 posts
When it comes to resistance training I like to use the Clarence Bass definition of the percentage of momentary muscular effort being exerted.

Intensity in Resistance Training

The % of maximum momentary capacity.

Crossed with volume to me this makes more sense than %RM, which doesn't really describe quality of effort.

More volume (sets) with heavier load with less intensity yields a larger adaptive response than the same volume with less intensity at lower load, but more intensity with the lighter load at lower volume yields a larger adaptive response then the same volume with the heavier load at lower intensity.

...but time and effort are related. That's why intensity and volume are inverse to each other.
 
Last edited:

Anna C

More than 5000 posts
Elite Certified Instructor
Intensity is % of 1rm in a specific lift.
+1... Another vote here for a the simple definition. Clarity in the definition and use of terms makes discussion much more productive.
 

North Coast Miller

More than 2500 posts
Intensity is % of 1rm in a specific lift.
Where does volume enter in?

Example:
4 reps to failure with 160lbs
how many 2 rep sets with 160lbs to equal the adaptive response of that single set? My guess is at least 3. All done with the same %RM.
You cannot equate volume to response without accounting for momentary capacity expended.

A single set to an 8RM is more intense than four 2 reps sets using your 6RM. Four 2 reps sets with your 4RM will be more intense than the 8RM to failure, but eight singles with your 4RM will probably not. There's an intersection of volume and intensity with different loads, but it can't all be adequately described using only %RM. In this case we're using the same rep count across differing %RM and still not getting the same level of effort.

Though it is an easy way to generalize, which is super helpful in open discussions.
 

Bro Mo

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
This makes me think of how cats can engage all their muscle instantaneously. Humans I think take like 30sec which fatigues some muscle before others even start. Cats can jump over and over every day. If they can engage all their muscle in 1 sec and do it thirty times would they have the same muscle fatigue as a human taking 30sec to lift once.

Does lifting speed have a higher relationship to fatigue than load but we only observe that time difference due to the load? How does one train speed of engagement without the fatigue from time under tension? Is this why some loads are sweet spots?
 
Top Bottom