This long discussion was born out of the fact that representatives of endurance sports approach me every now and then, understandably hoping that I will put together a gym program for them. There are cyclists, skiers and runners. To be honest, what an endurance athlete does in the gym, or, most importantly… what they should be doing… is, frankly, a question that falls into the realm of mystery for me. So far I have approached it by assessing the movement nature of the sport, taking that as a basis and building a solid full-body split 2 – 3 times a week, putting somewhat more emphasis, of course, on the movement chains or muscles that do the work in the main training sessions or competitions. The biggest mystery for me is the rep count an endurance athlete should actually be training with in the gym. So far, when choosing reps, I have honestly been going by clichés, a la “endurance guys in the gym do 25 – 50 reps per set, etc.”; as a rule that is how it is, and they do it, don’t they? The weirdest thing, in fact, is that endurance athletes usually don’t know themselves what they are doing in the gym, what they should be doing there, or why they do what they do. Or do they?
Speaking of program design in general, it is a completely different story when someone comes to me as a gym coach and says they need explosiveness, need to improve their jumping ability, build strength endurance, or even add a little body weight through muscle. In that case I can lean on a methodology aimed at developing a specific type of strength when putting the program together. With endurance athletes the whole thing somehow stays vague and unclear.
But let’s go back to the rep count that endurance athletes do in the gym. In fact, this rep count per set is the main topic of my piece. I know well that endurance athletes have always trained in the gym with 20 – 50 repetitions; well, it may vary a little, but broadly that is how it is. There is a lot of talk about developing muscular endurance, which uses long sets, 20/30 reps and up to even a couple of hundred reps. Here is a reference to the definition, also from the internet:
Muscular endurance (ÜKE) – muscular endurance training develops strength and metabolic processes. To develop the muscles, strength exercises are done with light weights, at a calm tempo and in long sets. The goal is a high rep count. Since sweating is part of the exercise, it also improves metabolic processes.
[url=http://www.jooksusober.ee/wiki/index.php?title=Treeningu_%C3%B5hialused#Lihasvastupidavus_.28.C3.9CKE.29]http://www.jooksusober.ee/wiki/index.php?title=Treeningu_%C3%B5hialused#Lihasvastupidavus_.28.C3.9CKE.29[/url]
This is where it gets interesting. Muscular endurance is one of the few terms that has stayed a bit unclear to me ever since my university days. What exactly is it, what happens in the muscles, who should be doing it, etc.? I understand perfectly well what starts happening in the muscles with extensive endurance training and with strength training, what improved intramuscular coordination mechanisms mean, and what has to happen in a muscle for it to hypertrophy, etc. But what is MUSCULAR ENDURANCE, and what changes in the muscle? It is clear that when we move/lift something, muscle metabolism does get affected. But what does this so-called muscular endurance, which comes from strength training and sets of 30 reps, give you that endurance training itself doesn’t? Honestly, I find it completely incomprehensible when I hear endurance athletes say they come to the gym to develop muscular endurance. What for? Doesn’t the chosen endurance discipline (a sustained activity of an endurance nature) already do that job? Why come to the gym to develop endurance? Why come to the weight room to develop what your main training already develops more than enough? I don’t get it. Thinking about this lately, I have increasingly come to the conclusion that the traditional approach of endurance athletes to strength training is somehow unfounded. An endurance athlete has to go to the gym too, that is clear. If no other argument can be found, then let the reason be at least to balance the muscles that carry no load in the main training against the muscles that carry a heavy load. But why, then, should a runner (or a cyclist or skier) do long sets in the gym?
It is incomprehensible to me. In my opinion, things should be exactly the opposite. After all, it has often been said that a person is whole and complete when all components have been developed. I think that performance in the chosen sport would benefit from respecting that principle too. If it is said that even a powerlifter and a sprinter need to do aerobic work, then a perfectly logical continuation of the story is that a long- and ultra-long-distance endurance athlete should do pure strength training, precisely pure strength training, in the rep range of 1 – 5 repetitions. Of course this (pure strength training) cannot be a large part of an endurance athlete’s training, but it is a small piece of a big puzzle… a puzzle called the complete and well-rounded development of the athlete. “All kinds of endurance” the endurance athlete gets from their main activity anyway, so to maximize their development potential, the only right thing, in my opinion, is to look into those areas of physical training that have so far been given a wide berth. Or how?
From what I have seen of endurance athletes training, what they typically do… is sets of 20 – 30 reps with very light weights. What does such a set stimulate in terms of metabolic processes in addition to, or more/better than, for example, the main training of a middle- or long-distance runner? Honestly, I don’t see the benefit. What happens when I take a set of that length to failure? What happens is probably the worst nightmare of every endurance athlete: body weight starts to climb, and climb properly. The result is massive sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, which for an endurance athlete essentially means lifeless, unnecessary muscle mass. Sets of exactly the length that endurance athletes do in the gym are in fact recommended to bodybuilders who have a problem with muscle mass and want a leap in development: “If nothing else makes your legs grow, do sets of 20 – 50 reps of squats and leg presses.” That is exactly how it is. And here lies, I think, the big paradox… that is, do a bodybuilder who wants muscle mass and an endurance athlete who doesn’t need excess muscle mass really do exactly the same kind of training to reach different goals? How is that possible? Why recommend to a runner who is trying to avoid muscle mass the same rep count per set in the gym as to bodybuilders, who with sets of the same length pile on a lot of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy very quickly (relatively speaking)? Nonsense, isn’t it? It isn’t logical, yet this is how it has always been done. Of course, a lot depends on nutrition, but we assume that the endurance athlete also pays attention to their nutrition and isn’t permanently in a calorie deficit. After all, 20 – 50 reps per set is the rep range that stimulates sarcoplasmic hypertrophy most powerfully of all. Even if we assume that the endurance athlete runs off a large part of the work done in the gym, they won’t run off all of it, and if they do and thereby cancel out most of what was done in the gym, then why go there at all, the question arises again? So, dear endurance athletes, if you do sets of 20 – 50 reps in the gym, get even somewhere near failure in those sets and eat properly, then be sure that instead of the hoped-for benefit, you are doing yourself considerable harm.
My view…
My view/question is this: why shouldn’t endurance athletes do precisely pure strength training? If we assume that an endurance athlete also eats consciously and isn’t only in a calorie deficit, then a rep range of 20/30 – 50 reps per set is the sweetest rep range of all for growing muscle mass through sarcoplasm volume. And that is the last thing an endurance athlete would want.
Aren’t sets like these taken to failure? To that I would ask: really, aren’t they? Second, such mere fiddling around has no benefit at all, since an endurance athlete gets a similar kind of effect from their main training, their endurance training, anyway.
It is also said that one reason endurance athletes are in the gym is to bring the muscles left out of the main activity up to speed with the rest of the body. For that, too, the same pure strength training, done at higher intensity and in short sets, is a wonderful fit. A bonus is improved sprint speed (power), which an endurance athlete also needs in the last part of a distance or right at the finish (on climbs too).
To be continued…
Author: Janar Rückenberg
Come and work out! ArtGym
