Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?

On 2008-03-01, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Where as weight training will
>> deplete your glycogen stores so that your cardio will take you into fat
>> burning phase much quicker making both modes of training more effective.
>
> More effective way of wasting your training effort, probably.

That's an over simplification.

It really depends on the workouts. Any kind of *intense* workout will suffer if
it follows another workout. But you can do a recovery jog any time -- after weights,
after a hard set of intervals, etc.

Likewise, you probably could do a weights workout after a run, but you'd really need
to lower your expectations.

> If you
> want good mile times, you need to run relatively fresh, not after you
> depleted yourself off all glycogen (and reason) with heavy squats. If you

Sure, doing a set of squats before a race is just plain dumb. But doing a set of squats
before an easy jog is just fine.

> want heavy lifts, cardio is a waste of recovery resources. If you need
> both, separate workouts or a mixed routine would work better. Whatever

Well, sort of. One key difference between running and weight training is that
running usually includes a lot of easy aerobic running.

> you do after you already gave your best for the day is probably just a
> filler anyway, so either separate workouts or a balanced blend should give
> better results.

Here's a sample program:

day 1: weights, recovery run
day 2: interval workout
day 3: weights, recovery run
day 4: tempo run
day 5: weights (including primary leg workout), recovery run
day 6: recovery run or day off
day 7: long run

Cheers,
--
Elflord

On 2008-03-03, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Seems plausible. But going the other way around, that is training with
> weights after a long ride, also seems like a reasonable training
> strategy. It's like you ride a race and do a sprint to the finish line,
> isn't it?

No, it's quite different (you're not on a bike!). Cross training isn't specific, so
trying to simulate race conditions in cross training exercises is not effective.

It's a stretch to claim that a finishing sprint requires special
"finishing-sprint-specific" training anyway (you don't need to be at the end of
a long workout to train the physiological mechanisms of interest)

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
> On 2008-03-01, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Where as weight training will
>>> deplete your glycogen stores so that your cardio will take you into fat
>>> burning phase much quicker making both modes of training more effective.
>>
>> More effective way of wasting your training effort, probably.
>
> That's an over simplification.
>
> It really depends on the workouts. Any kind of *intense* workout will suffer if
> it follows another workout. But you can do a recovery jog any time -- after weights,
> after a hard set of intervals, etc.
>
> Likewise, you probably could do a weights workout after a run, but you'd really need
> to lower your expectations.
>
>> If you
>> want good mile times, you need to run relatively fresh, not after you
>> depleted yourself off all glycogen (and reason) with heavy squats. If you
>
> Sure, doing a set of squats before a race is just plain dumb. But doing a set of squats
> before an easy jog is just fine.

Actually that's what I originally suggested. Whatever you do first is
stimulated best, whatever you do later will suffer, so it's a simple
matter of priorities. Whatever you want more, do first.

>> want heavy lifts, cardio is a waste of recovery resources. If you need
>> both, separate workouts or a mixed routine would work better. Whatever
>
> Well, sort of. One key difference between running and weight training is that
> running usually includes a lot of easy aerobic running.
>
>> you do after you already gave your best for the day is probably just a
>> filler anyway, so either separate workouts or a balanced blend should give
>> better results.
>
> Here's a sample program:
>
> day 1: weights, recovery run
> day 2: interval workout
> day 3: weights, recovery run
> day 4: tempo run
> day 5: weights (including primary leg workout), recovery run
> day 6: recovery run or day off
> day 7: long run
>
> Cheers,

Can you say, that running after weights will work any better than
running on a different session, even the same day? Or, can you tell
that an easy jog to the gym will kill progress in the weight room?
Or if combining weights with interval type training, like Yuri Sedyk
(sp?) used to do, when he did a set of front squats in between 400 m
laps will surely work worse?

Well, if we are already splitting hairs, I'll try my best. Most runners
who need weights would be people who need more speed than endurance, so
quite probably recovery runs aren't going to make whole lot of a
difference anyway, so why do them at all? And if they are needed, why
do them after weights? After weights we need to rest and eat something,
not go for a jog.

There is this school of thought, which tell you to sip energy and
protein drinks throughout your training session and especially
afterwards. It's probably an extreme approach, and not worth an effort
for most people, but going for a run after weight session is also an
extreme, just the other way around.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
> On 2008-03-03, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Seems plausible. But going the other way around, that is training with
>> weights after a long ride, also seems like a reasonable training
>> strategy. It's like you ride a race and do a sprint to the finish line,
>> isn't it?
>
> No, it's quite different (you're not on a bike!).

So you won't fall over and injure yourself, even if you really give
everything you got.

> Cross training isn't specific, so
> trying to simulate race conditions in cross training exercises is not effective.

How do you know? It's like saying that it makes no sense to follow all
the procedure of lifting competition in training, but Bulgarians used to
train that way and used to dominate the weightlifting competitions too.

> It's a stretch to claim that a finishing sprint requires special
> "finishing-sprint-specific" training anyway (you don't need to be at the end of
> a long workout to train the physiological mechanisms of interest)

Here I thought more about psychology than physiology. Lifting heavy
when you are tired is more about being tough than strong. We must
override some inhibitory reaction which our body uses, probably to spare
energy. It doesn't know that the finish line is just several seconds
away, but we know. And if you know what you want, you should probably
train for it.

Just because it is so hard to lift after an exhausting ride one should
probably do it. That is if there is a similarity between a lift and a
sprint, but we know already that there is one. Lifting is simply safer.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2008-03-04 Homer Simpson napisa³(a):
>
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5hou95-464.ln1@bakters.bandit.home...
>>
>> Not really. If you count in all the preparation to a final sprint, it
>> would take at least several minutes. I used to watch bicycle racing as
>> a kid every year and I remember that much.
>
> Yes the jockeying for just the right spot in the sprint would take some
> time. You didn't want to be right in front because then everyone would draft
> you then do their sprints as you began to wear down, you didn't want to be
> too far back because when they took off you wouldn't jump fast enough to
> catch them. But the sprint itself would only take seconds. About the same
> amount of time it takes to do a set on weights....

So what's wrong with progressing with weights up to your target and
giving an all out effort? It seems similar enough.

> plus I was talking about
> weight training on light riding days. If you weight train after the ride you
> will not have the energy you need to train effectively enough to even be
> wasting your time in the gym. It is always better to lift before cardio.

We train with weights to build muscles. Why do you think that purely
catabolic cardio is the best follower of an anabolic workout? It seems
to defy the very purpose of weight training.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>> On 2008-03-03, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Seems plausible. But going the other way around, that is training with
>>> weights after a long ride, also seems like a reasonable training
>>> strategy. It's like you ride a race and do a sprint to the finish line,
>>> isn't it?
>>
>> No, it's quite different (you're not on a bike!).
>
> So you won't fall over and injure yourself, even if you really give
> everything you got.

The point is, it's non-specific.

>> Cross training isn't specific, so
>> trying to simulate race conditions in cross training exercises is not effective.
>
> How do you know?

Definition of cross training is that it's not specific. You can try as hard as you
like to make weight lifting like cycling, but cycling will still be more like cycling
than weights.

> It's like saying that it makes no sense to follow all
> the procedure of lifting competition in training, but Bulgarians used to

No, it's not like saying that at all. Weightlifting is specific to weightlifting, but
weightlifting is not specific to cycling!

> Here I thought more about psychology than physiology. Lifting heavy

OK, but if you're looking at it from this perspective, it's much better to use
the chosen activity. Much easier to visualize *riding* towards the finish line
if you're actually on a bike (and preferably riding towards some object) !

> Just because it is so hard to lift after an exhausting ride one should
> probably do it. That is if there is a similarity between a lift and a
> sprint, but we know already that there is one. Lifting is simply safer.

The safety argument is a pretty non-compelling one. There are ways one can impose
"lab conditions" on a bike ride without losing specificity (e.g. ride on a bike
trainer or a spinning bike)

Cheers,
--
Elflord

On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Sure, doing a set of squats before a race is just plain dumb. But doing a
>> set of squats before an easy jog is just fine.
>
> Actually that's what I originally suggested. Whatever you do first is
> stimulated best, whatever you do later will suffer,

> so it's a simple
> matter of priorities. Whatever you want more, do first.

That's overly simplistic, because the notion of "stimulate best" does not
hold up well to scrutiny.

Low intensity exercise does not require "best" stimulus. This notion only makes
sense in the context of near-maximal exercise, which the easy run ain't.

The easy jog might be extremely important -- if you're a distance runner (800m and
up), getting in easy mileage is *very* important, but you can do it after a
race, after a workout, etc.

>>> want heavy lifts, cardio is a waste of recovery resources. If you need
>>> both, separate workouts or a mixed routine would work better. Whatever
>>
>> Well, sort of. One key difference between running and weight training is that
>> running usually includes a lot of easy aerobic running.
>>
>>> you do after you already gave your best for the day is probably just a
>>> filler anyway, so either separate workouts or a balanced blend should give
>>> better results.
>>
>> Here's a sample program:
>>
>> day 1: weights, recovery run
>> day 2: interval workout
>> day 3: weights, recovery run
>> day 4: tempo run
>> day 5: weights (including primary leg workout), recovery run
>> day 6: recovery run or day off
>> day 7: long run
>>
>> Cheers,
>
> Can you say, that running after weights will work any better than
> running on a different session, even the same day?

No, that would be just fine, but probably not as time-efficient for many people.

> Or, can you tell that an easy jog to the gym will kill progress in the weight
> room?

Depends on how long the easy jog is. Anything more than an hour will probably
hurt.

> Or if combining weights with interval type training, like Yuri Sedyk
> (sp?) used to do, when he did a set of front squats in between 400 m
> laps will surely work worse?

Can't comment without knowing more about the 400m laps and the squats. If he's
jogging those laps, it's probably fine. If he's running hard, that's like
super-setting. I wouldn't really recommend that.

> Well, if we are already splitting hairs, I'll try my best. Most runners
> who need weights would be people who need more speed than endurance, so

I'm not at all clear on what you mean by "need" weights. 800m runners and
milers make considerable use of weights, and they do mileage. It's not
uncommon for 5k runners to lift either. If you're going to play hair-splitting
games, you can't start with such a sloppily constructed premise.

> quite probably recovery runs aren't going to make whole lot of a
> difference anyway, so why do them at all? And if they are needed, why
> do them after weights? After weights we need to rest and eat something,
> not go for a jog.
>
> There is this school of thought, which tell you to sip energy and
> protein drinks throughout your training session and especially
> afterwards. It's probably an extreme approach, and not worth an effort
> for most people, but going for a run after weight session is also an
> extreme, just the other way around.

Not analogous, because it may be more convenient to do the run just after the
weights than it is to do it in a separate session. Doing it in a separate
session is also OK.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> plus I was talking about
>> weight training on light riding days. If you weight train after the ride you
>> will not have the energy you need to train effectively enough to even be
>> wasting your time in the gym. It is always better to lift before cardio.
>
> We train with weights to build muscles.

Who's "we" ? If you're a competitive cyclist or endurance athlete, you probably
are not lifting weights to bulk up.

> Why do you think that purely
> catabolic cardio is the best follower of an anabolic workout? It seems
> to defy the very purpose of weight training.

If you're a bodybuilder, that may be so.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>>>
>>> No, it's quite different (you're not on a bike!).
>>
>> So you won't fall over and injure yourself, even if you really give
>> everything you got.
>
> The point is, it's non-specific.

Olympic lifting also isn't specific for people who need jumping, but
they do it. It spares joint trauma while providing very effective
stimulus, so it's a good tool.

>>> Cross training isn't specific, so
>>> trying to simulate race conditions in cross training exercises is not effective.
>>
>> How do you know?
>
> Definition of cross training is that it's not specific. You can try as hard as you
> like to make weight lifting like cycling, but cycling will still be more like cycling
> than weights.

How do you know, that "trying to simulate race conditions in cross
training exercises is not effective"?

[...]
>> Here I thought more about psychology than physiology. Lifting heavy
>
> OK, but if you're looking at it from this perspective, it's much better to use
> the chosen activity. Much easier to visualize *riding* towards the finish line
> if you're actually on a bike (and preferably riding towards some object) !

Probable. So what?

>> Just because it is so hard to lift after an exhausting ride one should
>> probably do it. That is if there is a similarity between a lift and a
>> sprint, but we know already that there is one. Lifting is simply safer.
>
> The safety argument is a pretty non-compelling one. There are ways one can impose
> "lab conditions" on a bike ride without losing specificity (e.g. ride on a bike
> trainer or a spinning bike)

Honestly, I doubt that it would work equally well. Lack of direct
feedback, or something, but I can't visualize that somebody would be
able to motivate himself equally hard without having a bar to move or
someone to chase.

When you lift while tired every set feels very hard, but when you add
some weight, you still somehow manage to lift it. Sometimes you even
beat your PR on a bad day. It happens. Very strange, but it probably
happened to everybody here at least once.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> plus I was talking about
>>> weight training on light riding days. If you weight train after the ride you
>>> will not have the energy you need to train effectively enough to even be
>>> wasting your time in the gym. It is always better to lift before cardio.
>>
>> We train with weights to build muscles.
>
> Who's "we" ? If you're a competitive cyclist or endurance athlete, you probably
> are not lifting weights to bulk up.

Of course you do. You just call it differently, but you definitely do
not care about max lift as much as about muscular endurance. You get
muscular endurance by building "fluffy" size. Ever wondered from where
the phrase "marathon workouts" came?

>> Why do you think that purely
>> catabolic cardio is the best follower of an anabolic workout? It seems
>> to defy the very purpose of weight training.
>
> If you're a bodybuilder, that may be so.

Otherwise you build pure strength, which allows you to lift a barbell
once?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> plus I was talking about
>>>> weight training on light riding days. If you weight train after the ride you
>>>> will not have the energy you need to train effectively enough to even be
>>>> wasting your time in the gym. It is always better to lift before cardio.
>>>
>>> We train with weights to build muscles.
>>
>> Who's "we" ? If you're a competitive cyclist or endurance athlete, you probably
>> are not lifting weights to bulk up.
>
> Of course you do.

Of course you don't. Lighter is faster. You don't want to build mass.

Weight training for endurance athletes is largely about neuromuscular efficiency.

>>> Why do you think that purely
>>> catabolic cardio is the best follower of an anabolic workout? It seems
>>> to defy the very purpose of weight training.
>>
>> If you're a bodybuilder, that may be so.
>
> Otherwise you build pure strength, which allows you to lift a barbell
> once?

It also allows you to run or cycle more efficiently.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>>>>
>>>> No, it's quite different (you're not on a bike!).
>>>
>>> So you won't fall over and injure yourself, even if you really give
>>> everything you got.
>>
>> The point is, it's non-specific.
>
> Olympic lifting also isn't specific for people who need jumping, but
> they do it. It spares joint trauma while providing very effective
> stimulus, so it's a good tool.

I'm not saying that cross training isn't a worthwhile tool, I'm saying
that it's non-specific. Serious jumpers don't try to simulate their competition
event when they perform olympic lifts. They don't try to emulate long-jumping
and high-jumping movements when they perform those lifts (imagine trying to
long jump with a bar over your head!) They just do standard OL movements.

>> Definition of cross training is that it's not specific. You can try as hard as you
>> like to make weight lifting like cycling, but cycling will still be more like cycling
>> than weights.
>
> How do you know, that "trying to simulate race conditions in cross
> training exercises is not effective"?

Well, it's non-specific by definition. You're using completely different muscular
activation patterns (which kills specificity in that department), and you're doing
an activity that doesn't bear any resemblance to a race (so you don't gain any
benefits as far as visualization is concerned)

Additionally, physiological state (e.g. oxygen uptake, blood lactate levels, and
local muscular fatigue) are completely different.

So it's not a good simulation of a race. The physiological variables of interest
don't match up.

>>> Here I thought more about psychology than physiology. Lifting heavy
>>
>> OK, but if you're looking at it from this perspective, it's much better to use
>> the chosen activity. Much easier to visualize *riding* towards the finish line
>> if you're actually on a bike (and preferably riding towards some object) !
>
> Probable. So what?

So you're argument is about psychology, and I'm pointing out that from a psychological
cross training doesn't really cut it. You need to be in a situation resembling race
conditions (either an actual race, or at least an interval workout with well matched
training partners, and a competitive mindset)

>> The safety argument is a pretty non-compelling one. There are ways one can impose
>> "lab conditions" on a bike ride without losing specificity (e.g. ride on a bike
>> trainer or a spinning bike)
>
> Honestly, I doubt that it would work equally well. Lack of direct
> feedback, or something, but I can't visualize that somebody would be
> able to motivate himself equally hard without having a bar to move or
> someone to chase.

Bike trainers can provide direct feedback (power output, etc). That works well
enough for most workouts. It's considerably more specific than lifting weights.

> When you lift while tired every set feels very hard, but when you add
> some weight, you still somehow manage to lift it. Sometimes you even
> beat your PR on a bad day.

You don't need to go to the weights room to get an intense workout where you feel
like you're working hard.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k3cv95-46d.ln1@bakters.bandit.home...
> Dnia 2008-03-04 Homer Simpson napisa³(a):
>>
>> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:5hou95-464.ln1@bakters.bandit.home...
>>>
>>> Not really. If you count in all the preparation to a final sprint, it
>>> would take at least several minutes. I used to watch bicycle racing as
>>> a kid every year and I remember that much.
>>
>> Yes the jockeying for just the right spot in the sprint would take some
>> time. You didn't want to be right in front because then everyone would
>> draft
>> you then do their sprints as you began to wear down, you didn't want to
>> be
>> too far back because when they took off you wouldn't jump fast enough to
>> catch them. But the sprint itself would only take seconds. About the same
>> amount of time it takes to do a set on weights....
>
> So what's wrong with progressing with weights up to your target and
> giving an all out effort? It seems similar enough.

I don't understand this question. You will have to help me out on this one.

>
>> plus I was talking about
>> weight training on light riding days. If you weight train after the ride
>> you
>> will not have the energy you need to train effectively enough to even be
>> wasting your time in the gym. It is always better to lift before cardio.
>
> We train with weights to build muscles. Why do you think that purely
> catabolic cardio is the best follower of an anabolic workout? It seems
> to defy the very purpose of weight training.
>
> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

You defy the purpose of weight lifting far more by doing cardio before you
train so that you aren't fresh. And again you do the weight training before
a "light" ride not before a training ride. The cardio is not as catabolic
that way.

Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>>> Definition of cross training is that it's not specific. You can try as hard as you
>>> like to make weight lifting like cycling, but cycling will still be more like cycling
>>> than weights.
>>
>> How do you know, that "trying to simulate race conditions in cross
>> training exercises is not effective"?
>
> Well, it's non-specific by definition. You're using completely different muscular
> activation patterns (which kills specificity in that department), and you're doing
> an activity that doesn't bear any resemblance to a race (so you don't gain any
> benefits as far as visualization is concerned)

Sure.

> Additionally, physiological state (e.g. oxygen uptake, blood lactate levels, and
> local muscular fatigue) are completely different.

They don't need to be. They usually are quite different, but it's
possible to simulate race conditions to some extent. You say that it
will not work. So how do you know it will not result in improved
performance?

> So it's not a good simulation of a race. The physiological variables of interest
> don't match up.

It's called simulation for a reason. Only race "simulates" race
conditions with perfect accuracy.

[...]
>> Honestly, I doubt that it would work equally well. Lack of direct
>> feedback, or something, but I can't visualize that somebody would be
>> able to motivate himself equally hard without having a bar to move or
>> someone to chase.
>
> Bike trainers can provide direct feedback (power output, etc). That works well
> enough for most workouts. It's considerably more specific than lifting weights.

It may be more specific, but I didn't doubt that. I doubted that it
would work any better, which isn't the same thing.

>> When you lift while tired every set feels very hard, but when you add
>> some weight, you still somehow manage to lift it. Sometimes you even
>> beat your PR on a bad day.
>
> You don't need to go to the weights room to get an intense workout where you feel
> like you're working hard.

Perceived effort doesn't work here. You feel that you work hard even
with relatively light weights, but you still can do much more. You need
objective and direct feedback to make it happen.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>>> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> We train with weights to build muscles.
>>>
>>> Who's "we" ? If you're a competitive cyclist or endurance athlete, you probably
>>> are not lifting weights to bulk up.
>>
>> Of course you do.
>
> Of course you don't. Lighter is faster. You don't want to build mass.

Of course you want to build mass. Or, to put it differently, you want
to have as much needed muscles as possible at as low body weight as
possible. Usually it means stimulating muscle mass gains.

> Weight training for endurance athletes is largely about neuromuscular efficiency.

This sounds as much a nonsense as anything I read today, but maybe I'm
the stupid one here, so could you elaborate?

>>> If you're a bodybuilder, that may be so.
>>
>> Otherwise you build pure strength, which allows you to lift a barbell
>> once?
>
> It also allows you to run or cycle more efficiently.

Is somebody able to even hint at proving that thing (I'm not sure it
deserves to be called a hypothesis)?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2008-03-04 Homer Simpson napisa³(a):
>
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:k3cv95-46d.ln1@bakters.bandit.home...
>>>
>>> Yes the jockeying for just the right spot in the sprint would take some
>>> time. You didn't want to be right in front because then everyone would
>>> draft
>>> you then do their sprints as you began to wear down, you didn't want to
>>> be
>>> too far back because when they took off you wouldn't jump fast enough to
>>> catch them. But the sprint itself would only take seconds. About the same
>>> amount of time it takes to do a set on weights....
>>
>> So what's wrong with progressing with weights up to your target and
>> giving an all out effort? It seems similar enough.
>
> I don't understand this question. You will have to help me out on this one.

First you run a long race, then you increase energy expenditure for
several minutes, then you sprint all out to the finish line. Which
looks similar to having an easy(ish) ride, then going to the weight room
and doing an upward progression of weights. You start light and add
pounds until you reach failure. You do all that while already tired by
a ride. If you train yourself to "deliver" even if you are tired you
should be able to push yourself harder at the final stages of a race.

Leave less in a tank, so to speak.

>> We train with weights to build muscles. Why do you think that purely
>> catabolic cardio is the best follower of an anabolic workout? It seems
>> to defy the very purpose of weight training.
>>
>> --
>> Andrzej Rosa 1127R
>
> You defy the purpose of weight lifting far more by doing cardio before you
> train so that you aren't fresh.

Possible (and I actually believe it to be true). But now we see that
there is a compromise here, not one and only answer.

> And again you do the weight training before
> a "light" ride not before a training ride. The cardio is not as catabolic
> that way.

Sure. But it wouldn't harm your gym performance in a big way too.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>>>> Definition of cross training is that it's not specific. You can try as hard as you
>>>> like to make weight lifting like cycling, but cycling will still be more like cycling
>>>> than weights.
>>>
>>> How do you know, that "trying to simulate race conditions in cross
>>> training exercises is not effective"?
>>
>> Well, it's non-specific by definition. You're using completely different muscular
>> activation patterns (which kills specificity in that department), and you're doing
>> an activity that doesn't bear any resemblance to a race (so you don't gain any
>> benefits as far as visualization is concerned)
>
> Sure.
>
>> Additionally, physiological state (e.g. oxygen uptake, blood lactate levels, and
>> local muscular fatigue) are completely different.
>
> They don't need to be. They usually are quite different, but it's
> possible to simulate race conditions to some extent. You say that it

But your example doesn't simulate race conditions to any extent. A steady paced
aerobic effort is a closer match to race conditions on nearly all the key
physiological variables (oxygen uptake, blood lactate level, body temperature,
muscle activation patterns).

> will not work. So how do you know it will not result in improved
> performance?

I can't prove that it won't. But the burden of proof is not upon me. It's enough to
argue that you're proposing something that is highly non-specific and then trying to
argue that it is highly specific.

>> So it's not a good simulation of a race. The physiological variables of interest
>> don't match up.
>
> It's called simulation for a reason. Only race "simulates" race
> conditions with perfect accuracy.

To be a good simulation, it needs to simulate race conditions with better
accuracy than obvious alternatives (e.g. actually performing the race
activity).

>> Bike trainers can provide direct feedback (power output, etc). That works well
>> enough for most workouts. It's considerably more specific than lifting weights.
>
> It may be more specific, but I didn't doubt that. I doubted that it
> would work any better, which isn't the same thing.

I think you need to provide evidence (or at least an argument) that specificity
will not be observed in this case. If the latter, don't expect me to buy it (-;

>
>>> When you lift while tired every set feels very hard, but when you add
>>> some weight, you still somehow manage to lift it. Sometimes you even
>>> beat your PR on a bad day.
>>
>> You don't need to go to the weights room to get an intense workout where you feel
>> like you're working hard.
>
> Perceived effort doesn't work here. You feel that you work hard even
> with relatively light weights, but you still can do much more. You need
> objective and direct feedback to make it happen.

The ideal feedback is a well matched training partner who is performing the workout
alongside you. But failing that, an ergometer still provides objective and direct
feedback.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>>>> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> We train with weights to build muscles.
>>>>
>>>> Who's "we" ? If you're a competitive cyclist or endurance athlete, you probably
>>>> are not lifting weights to bulk up.
>>>
>>> Of course you do.
>>
>> Of course you don't. Lighter is faster. You don't want to build mass.
>
> Of course you want to build mass. Or, to put it differently, you want
> to have as much needed muscles as possible at as low body weight as
> possible. Usually it means stimulating muscle mass gains.

Endurance runners use their hamstrings, quads and calves, yet it is not in their
interests to make these muscles as large as possible.

>> Weight training for endurance athletes is largely about neuromuscular efficiency.
>
> This sounds as much a nonsense as anything I read today, but maybe I'm
> the stupid one here, so could you elaborate?

Take a look at this:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/86/5/1527

and this:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/conten...e2=tf_ipsecsha

The idea is that it's possible to make gains from strength training without
hypertrophy.

>>>> If you're a bodybuilder, that may be so.
>>>
>>> Otherwise you build pure strength, which allows you to lift a barbell
>>> once?
>>
>> It also allows you to run or cycle more efficiently.
>
> Is somebody able to even hint at proving that thing (I'm not sure it
> deserves to be called a hypothesis)?

Pace for an all-out endurance run consists of two factors -- how fast you can move
oxygen around (VO2), and how much distance you can cover per unit oxygen (running
economy). Strength training has been shown to improve the latter in trained endurance
athletes, but not the former.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u851a5-9vc.ln1@bakters.bandit.home...
> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>>>> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> We train with weights to build muscles.
>>>>
>>>> Who's "we" ? If you're a competitive cyclist or endurance athlete, you
>>>> probably
>>>> are not lifting weights to bulk up.
>>>
>>> Of course you do.
>>
>> Of course you don't. Lighter is faster. You don't want to build mass.
>
> Of course you want to build mass. Or, to put it differently, you want
> to have as much needed muscles as possible at as low body weight as
> possible. Usually it means stimulating muscle mass gains.
>
>> Weight training for endurance athletes is largely about neuromuscular
>> efficiency.
>
> This sounds as much a nonsense as anything I read today, but maybe I'm
> the stupid one here, so could you elaborate?
>
>>>> If you're a bodybuilder, that may be so.
>>>
>>> Otherwise you build pure strength, which allows you to lift a barbell
>>> once?
>>
>> It also allows you to run or cycle more efficiently.
>
> Is somebody able to even hint at proving that thing (I'm not sure it
> deserves to be called a hypothesis)?

Its not hypothesis..it is fact.
Here are some websites where you can read up on it.
http://www.shapeyou.com/weights_first.html
http://www.familiesonlinemagazine.co...loss/32830.php
http://www.healthboards.com/ubb/Foru...ML/000734.html
http://www.fit1on1.com/fithome/article2.html
http://www.wholefitness.com/basicworkout.html
http://www.delimaworkout.com/FAQ/index.html
When I typed in Cardio before weights I came up with this
http://www.bodybuilding-tips.net/s20/t7811.html

"Elflord" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrnfsrumh.n2t.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>>> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>>>>> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> We train with weights to build muscles.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who's "we" ? If you're a competitive cyclist or endurance athlete, you
>>>>> probably
>>>>> are not lifting weights to bulk up.
>>>>
>>>> Of course you do.
>>>
>>> Of course you don't. Lighter is faster. You don't want to build mass.
>>
>> Of course you want to build mass. Or, to put it differently, you want
>> to have as much needed muscles as possible at as low body weight as
>> possible. Usually it means stimulating muscle mass gains.
>
> Endurance runners use their hamstrings, quads and calves, yet it is not in
> their
> interests to make these muscles as large as possible.
>
>>> Weight training for endurance athletes is largely about neuromuscular
>>> efficiency.
>>
>> This sounds as much a nonsense as anything I read today, but maybe I'm
>> the stupid one here, so could you elaborate?
>
> Take a look at this:
>
> http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/86/5/1527
>
> and this:
>
> http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/conten...e2=tf_ipsecsha
>
> The idea is that it's possible to make gains from strength training
> without
> hypertrophy.
>
>>>>> If you're a bodybuilder, that may be so.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise you build pure strength, which allows you to lift a barbell
>>>> once?
>>>
>>> It also allows you to run or cycle more efficiently.
>>
>> Is somebody able to even hint at proving that thing (I'm not sure it
>> deserves to be called a hypothesis)?
>
> Pace for an all-out endurance run consists of two factors -- how fast you
> can move
> oxygen around (VO2), and how much distance you can cover per unit oxygen
> (running
> economy). Strength training has been shown to improve the latter in
> trained endurance
> athletes, but not the former.
>
> Cheers,
> --
>

This was some interesting stuff. I am not surprised that there were
measurable results for the cyclists but inconclusive for the runners. The
cyclist is working against more resistance pushing the pedals than the
runner is by simply carrying his body. Though I would think the added
strength would make a measurable difference in a sprinter.

Dnia 2008-03-05 Elflord napisa³(a):
> On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>>
>>> Additionally, physiological state (e.g. oxygen uptake, blood lactate levels, and
>>> local muscular fatigue) are completely different.
>>
>> They don't need to be. They usually are quite different, but it's
>> possible to simulate race conditions to some extent. You say that it
>
> But your example doesn't simulate race conditions to any extent. A steady paced
> aerobic effort is a closer match to race conditions on nearly all the key
> physiological variables (oxygen uptake, blood lactate level, body temperature,
> muscle activation patterns).

If you are doing time trials. Rarely the same people win normal races
and time trials.

>> will not work. So how do you know it will not result in improved
>> performance?
>
> I can't prove that it won't. But the burden of proof is not upon me. It's enough to
> argue that you're proposing something that is highly non-specific and then trying to
> argue that it is highly specific.

I'm not saying it's highly specific anywhere. I'm saying, that it
resembles the race condition enough to possibly work. You say that it's
not worth an effort, so how do you know again?

IOW, I don't need to prove that I'm not sure. You are sure, so at least
give a hint why that stuff shouldn't work.

>>> So it's not a good simulation of a race. The physiological variables of interest
>>> don't match up.
>>
>> It's called simulation for a reason. Only race "simulates" race
>> conditions with perfect accuracy.
>
> To be a good simulation, it needs to simulate race conditions with better
> accuracy than obvious alternatives (e.g. actually performing the race
> activity).

No! Good training strategy is the one which improves performance, not
the one which simulates better or what not.

But I accept this as an argument. According to you, this approach
shouldn't work, because at the end of a race people don't lift weights.
Is that true?

>>> Bike trainers can provide direct feedback (power output, etc). That works well
>>> enough for most workouts. It's considerably more specific than lifting weights.
>>
>> It may be more specific, but I didn't doubt that. I doubted that it
>> would work any better, which isn't the same thing.
>
> I think you need to provide evidence (or at least an argument) that specificity
> will not be observed in this case. If the latter, don't expect me to buy it (-;

Damn, I'm not saying it's less specific. I simply doubt that it works
equally well. I doubt that people will push themselves as hard as you
do during weight training.

>>> You don't need to go to the weights room to get an intense workout where you feel
>>> like you're working hard.
>>
>> Perceived effort doesn't work here. You feel that you work hard even
>> with relatively light weights, but you still can do much more. You need
>> objective and direct feedback to make it happen.
>
> The ideal feedback is a well matched training partner who is performing the workout
> alongside you.

People come and go, but 300lbs is always 300lbs. (I quote someone here,
but I mean that you can't judge progress against people. People vary,
numbers don't.)

> But failing that, an ergometer still provides objective and direct
> feedback.

Does this ergo thing give you a feeling of achievement? Does it
challenge you the way a bar is challenging you? Do you want to show it
who is the boss? If so, then you may be right.

Or I may be wrong. I don't know if this would work either, but it's a
testable hypotheses. What is yours?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2008-03-05 Homer Simpson napisa³(a):
>
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:u851a5-9vc.ln1@bakters.bandit.home...
>> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>>> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>>>>> On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> We train with weights to build muscles.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who's "we" ? If you're a competitive cyclist or endurance athlete, you
>>>>> probably
>>>>> are not lifting weights to bulk up.
>>>>
>>>> Of course you do.
>>>
>>> Of course you don't. Lighter is faster. You don't want to build mass.
>>
>> Of course you want to build mass. Or, to put it differently, you want
>> to have as much needed muscles as possible at as low body weight as
>> possible. Usually it means stimulating muscle mass gains.
>>
>>> Weight training for endurance athletes is largely about neuromuscular
>>> efficiency.
>>
>> This sounds as much a nonsense as anything I read today, but maybe I'm
>> the stupid one here, so could you elaborate?
>>
>>>>> If you're a bodybuilder, that may be so.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise you build pure strength, which allows you to lift a barbell
>>>> once?
>>>
>>> It also allows you to run or cycle more efficiently.
>>
>> Is somebody able to even hint at proving that thing (I'm not sure it
>> deserves to be called a hypothesis)?
>
> Its not hypothesis..it is fact.
> Here are some websites where you can read up on it.
> http://www.shapeyou.com/weights_first.html

You don't even know what I was asking about.

> http://www.familiesonlinemagazine.co...loss/32830.php
> http://www.healthboards.com/ubb/Foru...ML/000734.html
> http://www.fit1on1.com/fithome/article2.html
> http://www.wholefitness.com/basicworkout.html
> http://www.delimaworkout.com/FAQ/index.html
> When I typed in Cardio before weights I came up with this
> http://www.bodybuilding-tips.net/s20/t7811.html

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2008-03-05 Elflord napisa³(a):
> On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisa³(a):
>
>>> Weight training for endurance athletes is largely about neuromuscular efficiency.
>>
>> This sounds as much a nonsense as anything I read today, but maybe I'm
>> the stupid one here, so could you elaborate?
>
> Take a look at this:
>
> http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/86/5/1527

They don't know if running economy changed. They suspect it (which
seems crazy, actually).

> and this:
>
> http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/conten...e2=tf_ipsecsha
>
> The idea is that it's possible to make gains from strength training without
> hypertrophy.

That's obvious, but the whole line of thought seems vary crazy to me.
It's like those supplements they sell, where they show that it is used
somewhere during building muscles, so if you take it you get bigger
muscles. Equally far fetched reasoning.

>>>> Otherwise you build pure strength, which allows you to lift a barbell
>>>> once?
>>>
>>> It also allows you to run or cycle more efficiently.
>>
>> Is somebody able to even hint at proving that thing (I'm not sure it
>> deserves to be called a hypothesis)?
>
> Pace for an all-out endurance run consists of two factors -- how fast you can move
> oxygen around (VO2), and how much distance you can cover per unit oxygen (running
> economy). Strength training has been shown to improve the latter in trained endurance
> athletes, but not the former.

I found this stuff.
http://www.hpc.otago.ac.nz/resources...ain-review.pdf

Does it summarize current knowledge well enough, or something new popped
up?

As for now, I simply can't believe it. Literally. But I may be wrong.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> But your example doesn't simulate race conditions to any extent. A steady paced
>> aerobic effort is a closer match to race conditions on nearly all the key
>> physiological variables (oxygen uptake, blood lactate level, body temperature,
>> muscle activation patterns).
>
> If you are doing time trials. Rarely the same people win normal races
> and time trials.

Time trial or not, it's still a closer match.

>> I can't prove that it won't. But the burden of proof is not upon me. It's enough to
>> argue that you're proposing something that is highly non-specific and then trying to
>> argue that it is highly specific.
>
> I'm not saying it's highly specific anywhere. I'm saying, that it
> resembles the race condition enough to possibly work. You say that it's

You haven't shown that it resembles the race condition. I've provided a substantial list
of phsyiological variables to argue that it does not resemble the race condition.

>> To be a good simulation, it needs to simulate race conditions with better
>> accuracy than obvious alternatives (e.g. actually performing the race
>> activity).
>
> No! Good training strategy is the one which improves performance, not
> the one which simulates better or what not.

Ok, but you need to have some grounds for arguing that weights after a ride does
more to improve performance than a reasonable control condition (for example, weights
at any other time of the day).

To suggest that it simulates the end of a race isn't very convincing.

> But I accept this as an argument. According to you, this approach
> shouldn't work, because at the end of a race people don't lift weights.
> Is that true?

That is one reason. The other is that your aerobic system is working pretty hard
at the beginning of the end of the race, so when you do that burst, it's different
to doing it from a rested state -- you're already at 90% VO2 max, and now you have
to crank it up to 100%. With an aerobic workout, you are working at a lower intensity
than that. Glycogen depletion is only a very small part of your state at the
end of a race (and even then, that's only applicable in longer events) So it's
not just that the squats don't resemble the sprint, the stuff you do before the
squats in a typical aerobic endurance session (including a break before the
weights) does not get you to the state you're in before the finishing dash.

That's not to say that the set of squats won't do anything, it's that I don't see
how it's any more like a finishing sprint than a set of squats at any other
time of day.

>> I think you need to provide evidence (or at least an argument) that specificity
>> will not be observed in this case. If the latter, don't expect me to buy it (-;
>
> Damn, I'm not saying it's less specific. I simply doubt that it works
> equally well. I doubt that people will push themselves as hard as you
> do during weight training.

"Push themselves" is somewhat subjective. On the objective measures that count as
far as a finishing sprint is concerned -- for example, peak VO2 or total energy
output, you will go higher pushing a bike ergometer than you will with a set of
squats.

>> The ideal feedback is a well matched training partner who is performing the workout
>> alongside you.
>
> People come and go, but 300lbs is always 300lbs. (I quote someone here,
> but I mean that you can't judge progress against people. People vary,
> numbers don't.)

You can always time interval workouts, and this provides frequent feedback.
But how you stand up to your peers is a better measure of your readiness for the
next race. When you race, you race against people, not the clock.

>> But failing that, an ergometer still provides objective and direct
>> feedback.
>
> Does this ergo thing give you a feeling of achievement? Does it

Yes.

> challenge you the way a bar is challenging you? Do you want to show it
> who is the boss? If so, then you