Optimal strength training for runners

You guys are way beyond my level. I'm a big fan of "just running" which is to say running without worrying too much about every little detail unless there is discomfort or pain. I kinda like to think the same thing about "just lifting", though I can understand the dedication to efficiency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee
You guys are way beyond my level. I'm a big fan of "just running" which is to say running without worrying too much about every little detail unless there is discomfort or pain. I kinda like to think the same thing about "just lifting", though I can understand the dedication to efficiency.
Yah, for years I followed a 'just lift' approach, although lifting will always involve more conceptualization than running because you have to decide what exercises to do, how often to do them, with which other exercises to do them, at what weight, and for more or less how many reps and sets. A lot of this can be done by feel, and until very recently, that's how I did it.

But you get to a certain plateau, or you experience certain problems, like you say, or maybe you read or talk to someone and you find out there might be a better way, and it gets you thinking. That's what's happened to me through my participation in Abide's thread. I read around a bit, found out everyone insists squats are the kind of lifts, even though I always hated them, and so took them more seriously, and yes, I agree now, squats are essential. Also, through reading, I've been exposed to the underlying physiology and logic of lifting, and it showed me that it makes the most sense to just do the big, heavy lifts for the most part.

For the last few months I've been making really good gains on a fairly consistent basis.

As for the 1RMs and rep-counts we've been discussing, the main reason for me to think about implementing more discipline with a stricter logic is that I never seem to be able to get in all that I think is essential to a good, general st regimen. I've also become convinced that a variety of rep-counts will probably get the best results. Hopefully, after another few weeks I'll have a pretty good routine established again and can go back to fairly mindless workouts. In fact, it my be even more relaxing and mindless than before because the whole workout--sets and reps and exercise order--will be laid out for me, allowing me to daydream about other things.

I also have a fetish for technical jargon, so it's been fun learning from Abide and his links and learning the lifter's shorthand.

But in any case, I agree that everyone has to find an MO that keeps them coming back for more. With running, a 'just run' approach seems to work best for me, but it was fun messing with Garmins and a stricter weekly running routine for a while. I even tried cadence-counting, but that only lasted a few blocks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Josh16
You will also note that if you do a lot of reading on the subject, you will variety of information with a lot of it being contradictory to other information. At one point, you select the information you feel makes the most sense to you.

An example of that, for me at least, is you should change your routine every month, 2 month, 3 month or whatever time they tell you. What makes sense to me is this : If your routine covers all muscle groups adequately and you like your routine (I'm talking exercises here, not intensity or volume), I don't see a reason to change it. For my body, a contraction is a contraction. My body doesn't know if I'm doing this exercise with cables or with dumbbells.
That's just one example of the principles I adhere to because it makes sense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee
You will also note that if you do a lot of reading on the subject, you will variety of information with a lot of it being contradictory to other information. At one point, you select the information you feel makes the most sense to you.

An example of that, for me at least, is you should change your routine every month, 2 month, 3 month or whatever time they tell you. What makes sense to me is this : If your routine covers all muscle groups adequately and you like your routine (I'm talking exercises here, not intensity or volume), I don't see a reason to change it. For my body, a contraction is a contraction. My body doesn't know if I'm doing this exercise with cables or with dumbbells.
That's just one example of the principles I adhere to because it makes sense to me.
Yah, it's also a good example of having to translate out of pro-style protocols to our more humble needs and goals. If I get bored, I'll change, but I don't lift for entertainment. I lift for health and well-being. If it's a little boring, who cares, right? The variety protocol is for advanced lifters who have plateaued. Same with most assistance lifts. Until you plateau, they're largely unnecessary, unless you need to work on a specific weak point or problem area. On the other hand, if adding variety helps you motivate, then definitely do it!

A really egregious example of poor translation from elite to recreational is the 180-cadence rule in running, which was based on the observation that elite endurance runners tend to have a cadence of 180 or above. No one bothers to mention that they run twice as fast as us!

I do think, however, that there is a certain common denominator to a lot of the st material, if you focus on the big boys and ignore all the health & fitness wannabes. If you shave away all the variation in training protocols, it seems like almost everyone agrees that you gotta do the basic lifts, do them heavy and at lower reps. Everything else is details.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Josh16
Yes, the basic lifts are important and should definitely not be ignored. I also saw the variety protocol as sort of a way to force people to keep paying for personal trainers. (conspiracy theory, I know!)

I'm still on the edge about the one rep max, but it's probably just a mental blocking about form and safety. I don't question the logic behind it, though I do think the one rep max is more of weightlifting thing than a bodybuilding one, right? And it does make all the sense in the world in the context of weight lifting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee
Yes, the basic lifts are important and should definitely not be ignored. I also saw the variety protocol as sort of a way to force people to keep paying for personal trainers. (conspiracy theory, I know!)

I'm still on the edge about the one rep max, but it's probably just a mental blocking about form and safety. I don't question the logic behind it, though I do think the one rep max is more of weightlifting thing than a bodybuilding one, right? And it does make all the sense in the world in the context of weight lifting.
Yeah, completely agree. The endless variety approach is part and parcel of the whole health/fitness/nutrition industry. "You're ignoring X, so here's five tips to overcome your inadequacy!" This in turn is part of the wider 'magic pill' solutions proposed for so many modern maladies.

As for the maxes, my understanding is that we're really taking about two kinds of maxes--a true 1RM and a training max or a "single," as has come to light in recent discussions. A true 1RM is the maximal amount you can lift with good form and, hopefully, without hurting yourself. It applies to powerlifters and weightlifters in competition, but also serves as a baseline for calculating training sets and reps: http://exrx.net/Calculators/OneRepMax.html.

A training max or single, I think, should be something like 90-95% of what you could do, either actually or hypothetically, as a true 1RM. At 90-95%1RM you avoid risking injury or prolonged recovery, yet get most of the benefit you get from doing a true 1RM. The benefit is that when you lift at close to your maximal capacity, you recruit a maximal amount of muscle fiber. Your body is lazy and will try to make it easier to do this next time, by becoming stronger. You can also do something similar with higher reps, provided that the last rep of the set is close to your capacity. It shouldn't be easy to do more reps past that. So 5RM means the maximal weight you can do for five straight reps. Your body will also adapt to this, but apparently, the more reps you do, the more your body will adapt by adding fiber, whereas in lower rep ranges you can get stronger without adding a lot of mass (which we want to avoid as runners). There are other complications to this picture, like avoiding lactate build-up with higher reps (which will interfere with your ability to recover adequately to do more sets), but that's the basic argument for doing low-rep, high-weight sets.

I've found that the heaviest lifts, the bilateral ones that utilize the primer movers, are the ones best suited for training at low reps. Exercises that utilize smaller muscles, or ones that are unilateral, seem better in the 3-8 rep range.

One thing a lot of people seem to agree with, is that at novice levels, it's better to do lighter and higher reps at a greater frequency, and then as you get stronger, do heavier and lower reps with decreased frequency. A top bodybuilder like Dorian Yates may only do one max effort set once every 9-10 days, because he's capable of generating so much intensity, and needs so much time to recovery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Josh16
I've been thinking that about upper vs lower body workouts. It seems that for the lower body, there are a good amount of activities at various intensities and levels of resistance, running, hill work, stairs, squats, etc.

Whereas for the upper body perhaps they are more limited to things such as swimming and weight training. I wonder if there are exercises that are of intermediate resistance and intensity, such as hill work or stair training but for the upper body? Perhaps, the limbs are meant to be exercised differently?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee
I've been thinking that about upper vs lower body workouts. It seems that for the lower body, there are a good amount of activities at various intensities and levels of resistance, running, hill work, stairs, squats, etc.

Whereas for the upper body perhaps they are more limited to things such as swimming and weight training. I wonder if there are exercises that are of intermediate resistance and intensity, such as hill work or stair training but for the upper body? Perhaps, the limbs are meant to be exercised differently?
Climbing a tree or rope, medicine ball stuff, bear walks. Check out Kemme Fitness or other functional fitness sites. Most of what is called functional fitness is good old-fashioned conditioning or medium intensity work, it seems to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
Idea: since the overhead press is kind of similar to the 1-db bentover row, in the sense that it's hard for me to do a 1RM with good form, I'm thinking maybe I could do the singles as push presses, and then the 3x3 and 3x5 straight sets as strict overhead presses. Or even do all of them as push presses to maximize weight at the top of the lift, while potentially sparing my shoulders any undue stress while initiating the lift. Thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
I'll detail yesterday's workout and my ongoing attempt to refine my rep-counts on the other thread in a bit. But basically, yes, I'm with you. For the big lifts, I like 2-3 x 1 x 90-95% 1RM until it starts to get easy, and then bump up 10-20lbs. Doing a true 1RM is for setting the baseline percentages, and/or having a friendly contest with your BRS training partner(s).

I do like the 1rm concept it will be interesting to see the differences between doing straight sets vs. increasing sets. When you look at both our plans they look more like a wave method rather than a max effort method. I don't think either of us are doing an eye bulging 1RM effort.

Yeah those guys have some good ideas but so much gets lost in the high school jock shtick it cheapens their message and content. I do suspect they are a product of their audience unfortunately. Although this may just mean I am getting old...

By the way today I tried out P-rows and Y-rows and the P-rows were significantly easier for me? It's strange how different lifts can be for us?
 
Idea: since the overhead press is kind of similar to the 1-db bentover row, in the sense that it's hard for me to do a 1RM with good form, I'm thinking maybe I could do the singles as push presses, and then the 3x3 and 3x5 straight sets as strict overhead presses. Or even do all of them as push presses to maximize weight at the top of the lift, while potentially sparing my shoulders any undue stress while initiating the lift. Thoughts?

I don't think this is a bad idea. In fact I tried something similar a couple of years ago. I don't think it helped the press all that much, but at the time I was pressing about 170 at 185BW, so it may have been lost in the mix? I do really like them though.

The push press (or jerk) done correctly is a very hip dominant lift and unless you limit the hip snap you will have very little shoulder impact except at the very top of the lift. It is great for getting a feeling for being under heavy weight. However depending on your stalling point on the press it may just be building up the wrong functionality. Bascially you might be focusing on the wrong lift.

Take me for example in the press I have no problem initiating the lift or pressing the lift out where I have problems is when the bar gets up to my nose. If I break the lift down in my mind (which may be wrong) there are three major points where different muscle groups are the primary movers. At initiation its chest dominant, at the nose level its triceps and above the head its shoulders. So what I should be doing is really heavy close grip bench presses. Once that gets up to par with the others then I can shift focus.

I don't know what your stalling point is but if you are noticing a lot of pain/irritation at the beginning it might be a good idea to add in some incline presses to the mix, ot maybe some weighted dips? Or if its at the lockout point, push presses are a good way to go.
 
You mean like using a neutral grip? I tried that today for my deadlift with dumbbells and I thought it worked well enough.

Yeah a neutral grip, it will kind of mimick lifting in a trap bar. Keeping the dumbbells that far out in front like he shows messes with the positioning for me. Its fine for lighter weights but when it gets heavy... It would be equivalent to deadlifting with the bar too far in front of you rather than riding up your shins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
I've been thinking that about upper vs lower body workouts. It seems that for the lower body, there are a good amount of activities at various intensities and levels of resistance, running, hill work, stairs, squats, etc.

Whereas for the upper body perhaps they are more limited to things such as swimming and weight training. I wonder if there are exercises that are of intermediate resistance and intensity, such as hill work or stair training but for the upper body? Perhaps, the limbs are meant to be exercised differently
Climbing a tree or rope, medicine ball stuff, bear walks. Check out Kemme Fitness or other functional fitness sites. Most of what is called functional fitness is good old-fashioned conditioning or medium intensity work, it seems to me.

I think one of the most potent upper body complexes is doing a pull up and push up couplet, or inverted rows and push ups if pull ups aren't feasible

So you could do something like this:

Pull ups x 3
Push ups x 6
rest 30 seconds
repeat 5-10 times

Increasing ladders are cool too with these.

Bear crawls like Lee said, handstands and hand stand walks, you can swing on monkey bars. I think shadow boxing or hitting a heavy bag work pretty well too. Fast ashtanga sun salutations like the pic here http://wholebodywisdom.blogspot.com/2012/11/what-is-ashtanga-yoga.html
 
Push press sounds complicated? http://breakingmuscle.com/olympic-weightlifting/the-push-press-peculiarities-and-pitfalls

I do the DB clean and press, in a way similar to the medicine ball clean and press video that I posted. I don't feel that technique or form is an impediment. Lifting the weight from the floor generates some momentum. I feel that it's a more fluid movement that uses the whole body.
Yah, I used to do something similar, starting with deadlifts, then power cleans, then clean and press, decreasing weight as I went up. It's a good combo.

Thanks for the article, I knew I could count on you to find a good analysis!

I do like the 1rm concept it will be interesting to see the differences between doing straight sets vs. increasing sets. When you look at both our plans they look more like a wave method rather than a max effort method. I don't think either of us are doing an eye bulging 1RM effort.

Yeah those guys have some good ideas but so much gets lost in the high school jock shtick it cheapens their message and content. I do suspect they are a product of their audience unfortunately. Although this may just mean I am getting old...

By the way today I tried out P-rows and Y-rows and the P-rows were significantly easier for me? It's strange how different lifts can be for us?
Interesting, I've never heard of wave loading. I guess you could say I'm riding a single wave, crashing to the shore, whereas in this article at least, each exercise has multiple waves: http://www.muscleandfitness.com/workouts/workout-routines/wave-load-big-strength-gains?page=1

I might have to try it sometime after I've been doing my 3x1/3x3/2x5 scheme for a while and have gotten nearly all the benefit I'm going to get out of it. Or not. I'm kind of allergic to complicated set/rep schemes. I like simply working up to my single, and then taking weight off for back-off sets. The 3x1/3x3/2x5 scheme is just an attempt to become more systematic about something I've always done for the bench and other heavy lifts.

In that wave article, they mention the same logic as Rippetoe does, that the heavier lift primes the neuromuscular system for subsequent back-off sets:
1RM to 5x5.jpg

Yah, a lot of the meathead sites have that style of writing. Like you said, it's probably the young male audience. They have to do a little dance to keep the tadpoles engaged.

What was your difference between the P-/90-Row and the Y-/120-Row? I found the 90-row easier by just 20 pounds on Monday, but that could change as I get more comfortable with the 120-Row. I also felt like 90-rows worked best at five reps, whereas the 120-Rows worked better at three reps. But that too could change.
I don't think this is a bad idea. In fact I tried something similar a couple of years ago. I don't think it helped the press all that much, but at the time I was pressing about 170 at 185BW, so it may have been lost in the mix? I do really like them though.

The push press (or jerk) done correctly is a very hip dominant lift and unless you limit the hip snap you will have very little shoulder impact except at the very top of the lift. It is great for getting a feeling for being under heavy weight. However depending on your stalling point on the press it may just be building up the wrong functionality. Basically you might be focusing on the wrong lift.

Take me for example in the press I have no problem initiating the lift or pressing the lift out where I have problems is when the bar gets up to my nose. If I break the lift down in my mind (which may be wrong) there are three major points where different muscle groups are the primary movers. At initiation its chest dominant, at the nose level its triceps and above the head its shoulders. So what I should be doing is really heavy close grip bench presses. Once that gets up to par with the others then I can shift focus.

I don't know what your stalling point is but if you are noticing a lot of pain/irritation at the beginning it might be a good idea to add in some incline presses to the mix, to maybe some weighted dips? Or if its at the lockout point, push presses are a good way to go.

Thanks for the pointers. I'll keep them in mind when I next do the presses on Friday. Today I'll be working on the squat and bench. I want to be a little more analytical about the bench today, keeping in mind some of the stuff we discussed last week, especially leg position and tight lats/scapulae.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
What was your difference between the P-/90-Row and the Y-/120-Row? I found the 90-row easier by just 20 pounds on Monday, but that could change as I get more comfortable with the 120-Row. I also felt like 90-rows worked best at five reps, whereas the 120-Rows worked better at three reps. But that too could change.

I haven't done them in a while so I did 60kgs for both, it just felt significantly easier. I think as you indicated on the other thread returning it to the ground might be why but I am not sure? Its possible my lats are also significantly stronger from that direction?

Dang I thought I invented the wave protocol... I was thinking more about the sets of one if you go 1x1 then 2x1 the next day etc... it simulates a wave vs. hitting an actual PR then calling it quits. It's similar to the laddering scheme I like where the actual prior workout results indicate progression rather than a previous PR.
 
I haven't done them in a while so I did 60kgs for both, it just felt significantly easier. I think as you indicated on the other thread returning it to the ground might be why but I am not sure? Its possible my lats are also significantly stronger from that direction?

Dang I thought I invented the wave protocol... I was thinking more about the sets of one if you go 1x1 then 2x1 the next day etc... it simulates a wave vs. hitting an actual PR then calling it quits. It's similar to the laddering scheme I like where the actual prior workout results indicate progression rather than a previous PR.
I should try to video tape myself to see exactly what kind of angle I have for both variants. I'm probably more like a 135-degree angle than a 120-degree angle for the Yates Row. I think I will stick with the 90-/120-Row nomenclature though, as it seems more descriptively adequate, while also not tying me down to doing them exactly how Pendlay and Yates do them, not that it matters much though. I also like calling the trap-bar a "hex-bar", since you can use for a lot of stuff besides shrugs or trap work.

In general, I think the 90-degree angle makes the row more of a lat isolation exercise, whereas with a 120-/135-degree angle, you bring in more supporting muscles, like the traps and rhomboids. Like we've discussed, the back seems to respond best to a lot of different angles, grips, and bars/cables, much more so than the front.

Did you also find yourself wanting to do the 120-row for fewer reps than the 90-row?
 
Yeah a neutral grip, it will kind of mimick lifting in a trap bar. Keeping the dumbbells that far out in front like he shows messes with the positioning for me. Its fine for lighter weights but when it gets heavy... It would be equivalent to deadlifting with the bar too far in front of you rather than riding up your shins.
I'm in the same boat. I tried his method and it didn't work for me. I had to look for something else and I am very pleased with neutral grip deadlifts.