The physiology of training strength/endurance

  • Thread starter Thread starter imported_deolmstead
  • Start date Start date
I

imported_deolmstead

Guest
When I first joined my gym (the local Y) a little over a year ago, the trainer who showed me around and set me up with my first program gave me the following dichotomy:

If you train at high weight / low reps, you will increase your strength. This will bulk your muscles faster, but the muscles will lack definition.

If you train at low weight / high reps, you will increase your endurance. This won't bulk your muscles, but will tone your muscles and help you look "cut."

At the time, this reflected the conventional wisdom I'd long accepted as true. Since then, however, I've done a lot of research on my own via sites like this one, and I'm not at all sure this is true anymore.

While I don't doubt that you can specifically train for strength or endurance, it seems to me that "tone" has a lot more to do with genetics and bodyfat than your program.

Since I lift for both vanity and to improve my rockclimbing, I want both strength and endurance. So I've been running 20-week cycles where I do a 10-week bulk concentrating on strength and a 10-week cut concentrating on endurance/maintenance.

But I was wondering if this school of thought is now outdated, or if it's still accepted as truth?
 
We must define "tone" before we use the term. I don't know what it means and it never makes sense when I hear it used. Strength and muscle definition are unrelated. Body fat is directly related to muscle definition. The more there is, the less defined muscles are. The only thing I know of that helps to look "cut" is eating less (to cut fat) and/or doing more (again to cut fat).

Concerning your training and results. Are you getting the results you want? If yes, why would you want to change? Training is not a fashion. Training either works or it doesn't. It all depends on your specific goal. If your goal is strength, then train for that. If you goal is endurance, then train for that. Training is specific to the activity you want to perform in. Being lean while it may look good at first glance serves a specific purpose in mountain climbing. It allows the climber to save energy. Fat is only more weight to carry around. If you want to train for size (much bigger than perhaps you are now) then the method that allows you to gain that kind of size may not be compatible with the type of activity you perform, in this case climbing.

If you're just bored and want to do something different, take a break from training for two weeks. See how you feel after that. If you feel good, think of incorporating that in between your 10 weeks cycles of bulking/cutting.
 
Like Martin said, definition depends on body fat levels and, at competition level, how much water is retained in the skin. It is not dependant on the rep ranges you use.

Whilst strength is linked to muscular size, a certain amount of strength improvement can be gained from lifting heavy weights without adding size, especially if you are not used to training with heavy loads.

Assuming you only consume enough calories to maintain your body weight thoughout the cycle then any strength gains will be mainly neural in nature. Once you are past the initial newbie gains any further strength gains won't come that easily or quickly but they are possible.

If you want both strength and endurance (not an easy combination) then you could do a cycle where you perform heavy work for a few body parts each session along with higher rep work for the remaining body parts; alternate this each session so that you are training each body part with a heavy load once a week. The rest of the time you can work with lighter loads/higher reps.

Hope that makes some sense?
 
I never saw a fat, out of shape rock climber - but I know one who is built about like Sly Stallone who got that way eating and climbing, so as Martin said, your sports-specific routines are best for what you do. (Sly had a bit of help, but you get the idea.)
I wouldn't be focusing on hamstrings as much as abs. I'd really work pullups more than presses, etc. etc.
If you have a large climb or a contest, I'd want to be maxed out for that and plan the mid to end of a workout cycle to coincide with it, so my strength and endurance would be at their best. Even one week after a cycle you would do well.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If you train at high weight / low reps, you will increase your strength. This will bulk your muscles faster, but the muscles will lack definition.

If you train at low weight / high reps, you will increase your endurance. This won't bulk your muscles, but will tone your muscles and help you look &quot;cut.&quot;</div>

These are still true, but you have to redefine them as Martin Levac suggested. You can still bulk on the low weight / high reps routine as long as you are eating, but putting on muscle favors higher loads which is where HST comes in. HST increases the load nearly every workout promoting continuous muscle growth.
 
What I'm proving now with what I currently do is that high volume doesn't just give you endurance. I've NEVER grown like I am now on a non-bulking type diet. I alternate weeks between working close to my maxes very deliberately, and doing strict volume work the next. The thing is, as the guys who have responded thus far have all said in one way or another - how you train, how you eat, your current body composition, etc. all are factors in the results that you see. That's for the vanity side of you.

For the rock climbing side of you - I'd think that upper body strength coupled with strict endurance training would be essential for you. When you're hanging there off the mountain, some part of you is applying constant tension, right? Your grip maybe? Your back and deltoids must get destroyed during a long climb. So - destroy them in the gym in the same way you use them on a mountain. See if that makes a positive change. If not, change things up slightly and constantly try to find what works. This is truly a game of trial and error that everyone has to play however they see fit. If there's one thing I've learned since being on this site, there's no one right answer for any particular question.

So - try and picture what you do the most when you climb - very specifically, what motions are involved, what static behaviors, etc. Find equipment or lifts to come close to mimic those motions and behaviors, and train the hell out of 'em. Try high volume work using your bodyweight wherever possible and see what happens. Maybe medium volume (again, near bodyweight) works better? Who really knows, right? Give yourself the chance to see what works best for YOU.

The stout vanity side of you will enjoy the results just as the climber in you will.

Regardless, good luck man.
 
Same thing, colby. High reps is high volume, just as is lots of sets of something. At the end of the day, volume equates with the number of reps done, which is exactly what I meant. So, high volume = lots of reps, regardless of set count.
 
This may be a bit off topic but I thought it might be worth mentioning.

I'm a firm believer that you get better at something by doing it over and over in specific ways. If you can do the actual activity you are trying to improve at with added resistance it will be more beneficial than trying to mimic the movements in the gym.

So for rock climbing why not use a weight vest while doing your practice climbs? You could gradually increase the weight as your climbing strength improves. I don't see that any different than a sprinter pulling a weight sled.

Trying to mimic your climbing moves in the gym is still a great idea. But I think if you can make your actual climbing during practice sessions harder than normal you will benefit more than trying to mimic the climbing movements.
 
Thanks, guys.

I've been lifting &quot;seriously&quot; for about 30 weeks now (before that it was just to burn calories for a large weight loss), and the only thing I've really come to understand is that this stuff takes a helluva long time to understand. It takes such a long time just to figure out how your body works and what it responds well to.

I'm nearing the end of a 10-week cut that I would say has been successful - I've dropped a pound a week while maintaining or increasing weights and not losing any size in my arms or legs. That's following a 10-week bulk that...well...seems to have failed pretty badly. At least I gained far more adipose tissue than I intended.

So now I'm around the corner from another 10-week bulk, and I'm considering my options. Truer words were never spoken than when Martin said &quot;fat is just more weight to carry around&quot; - it's amazing what a difference those 10 pounds makes on the wall. Such a difference that I'm loathe to start another caloric-surplus cycle, but I know it's necessary to get stronger. I think I just need to be a lot more disciplined in the type of calories I take in, and stress my muscles a lot more frequently and vigorously, so they'll use those surplus calories.

So my current plan for the next bulk is to concentrate purely on strength, and then, when it comes time to cut, move to endurance. I've read about &quot;strength-endurance&quot; workouts (five sets of a few very slow reps of middle weight), but those just take forever. I haven't seen anything yet to convince me not to do this, but I won't know how successful it was for another 20 weeks.

Edit to respond to Bulldog: I've seen people climbing with weights, but they tend to be the very advanced climbers. For the rest of us, we can just choose a climb with a big overhang or a negative incline, or simply a higher-rated climb, to stress the muscles more. And while I love my climbing gym, it's on the other side of town and I don't have a car, while the Y is right around the corner, so I only do the climbing gym once or twice a week.
 
<div>
(_tim @ Oct. 03 2007,11:26)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Same thing, colby.  High reps is high volume, just as is lots of sets of something.  At the end of the day, volume equates with the number of reps done, which is exactly what I meant.  So, high volume = lots of reps, regardless of set count.</div>
Not.
Sorry to disagree, but volume is reps x load.
If I do a 23-ton workout in one hour with low reps, it's the same as a 23-ton workout in 1-1/2 hours with high reps. The volume is equal.
 
Touche. That's not how I look at it, but I'll submit to quad's logic seeing as both he and colby seemingly think alike and both have been around here a heck of a lot longer than me.

So - per my long winded response, when I say &quot;high volume&quot; please understand that I meant to say &quot;sets with lots of reps&quot; instead.
 
I'm about to start doing HIIT/Tabata training on off days. It occurs to me that it can be combined with a strength or size training program to increase fat utilization without increasing immediate energy consumption. If you were to eat a bit more for size gains, you could integrate something like that to mitigate surplus fat storage.

I'm not proposing to cut fat while gaining muscle size. At the point the OP seems to be, a suggestion of that kind is absurd. All I'm saying is to mitigate fat storage by increasing fat utilization.

Some information about HIIT/Tabata (I don't know how accurate this information is but it seems to fall in line with everything else I've read on the subject so it's a start):

http://cbass.com/FATBURN.HTM
 
I am curious if the phases in the cycle you are using are complimentary. Brian Haycock goes into phase order in &quot;Training for Size and Strength: Advanced Training Planning for Bodybuilders, Part 3&quot; on thinkmuscle.com. Are you familiar with periodization? Strength phases are much less than 10 weeks. Half that at the most, given what I've read thus far.

&quot;Tone&quot; as it is usually used in fitness conversations is a false concept. Muscles do many things depending on how they are exerted but they do not &quot;tone&quot; or &quot;get toned.&quot; When someone who is untrained begins resistance training of sufficient intensity, be it weights, pushups or rubberbands, the pennation angle of the muscle increases, its passive tension (sometimes called 'tonus') increases, and the amount of connective tissue about the muscle increases. If they train for more than 4 - 6 weeks hypertrophy begins. If the trainee is of sufficient leanness the shape of the muscle becomes visible. To the layperson this looks &quot;cut&quot; or &quot;toned.&quot; I have sat in the hot tub at my and other gyms many times listening to this sort of talk.

The gentlemen at the Y meant well, but you are not likely to find the caliber of knowledge you are looking for at most YMCA's.

The physique of the magazine bodybuilders is at odds with the physique requirement of a serious rock climber. I think you have to choose to be one or the other or decide to be a bit of both. Massive traps, huge quads, and thick pecs add nothing to rock climbing - they will just weigh you down. Like Quadancer said, I've never seen a fat or out of shape rock climber.

Try HIIT for fat loss. If you want to read a few things on HIIT I posted some links in the thread &quot;Lowest Bodyfat % you've reached?&quot; I may be asking for it, but I'm entertaining the notion that a smartly planned HIIT routine can reduce bodyfat without compromising muscle. The hGH release shifts metabolic preferences to lipids and carbohydrates, sparing proteins.

It takes 20 weeks to know if a strength-endurance program is working? Seems to me like if you are doing the right thing and you are doing it correctly you will see results on the wall faster than that. I don't climb walls but I did take up Static Contraction Training once. You do 3 sets of static holds per lift at 30 seconds per hold, failing at or near 30 seconds. Its relevant because doing very slow lifts approximates the effects of an isometric contraction. After 2 months of SCT I had the peculiar ability to exhaust senior Judo students when they attempted armbars, provided I caught on to them before my arm got past 110 degrees-ish. Based on that singular experience, I would be confident doing super slow lifts for climbing endurance. I say give strength-endurance lifting a try.
 
Curiously, I seem to have been doing HIIT mostly by accident, just because I like it. The Y has a great spin program with a couple instructors I really like, and the spin classes are by far the most kick-my-ass-to-the-ground cardio I've found, while still being a lot of fun. Since I also ride, I've been doing these classes twice a week after my regular workout.

I recently bought a HRM on sale out of curiosity, and have learned a couple interesting things. My weight routine takes about an hour, and burns between 330-400 calories. Spinning takes an hour, and burns 900-950 calories. During spin, my heartrate spends most of its time in the 170's, (85-90% max HR), with some spikes up to near 100% max HR during the intervals. This seems to correspond loosely with the description of HIIT in that link.

Not sure what that means, but hey, cool.

After a couple cycles, I know that losing weight for me is pretty easy, compared to gaining the RIGHT weight. Part of it is self-control - when bulking I need to be more disciplined about the type of calories I ingest - but part of it is finding the right program for me.
 
Back
Top