View Single Post
  #64  
Old March 5th 08, 04:11 PM posted to misc.fitness.weights,rec.running,misc.fitness.aerobic,alt.support.diet
Andrzej Rosa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,359
Default Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?

Dnia 2008-03-05 Elflord napisał(a):
On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
Dnia 2008-03-05 Elflord napisał(a):
On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisał(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).


In the abstract, they say:

"The 5K time, RE, and VMART improved (P 0.05) in E, but no changes were observed
in C."


They say so, but data they gathered say that times in C group increased.

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/86/5/1527/F2

Roughly by the same amount too. If increase of times in control group
is insignificant so is decrease in studied group.

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.


I'm not going to try to argue that it's intuitive (-; It's quite surprising
that strength training would be of much use to endurance athletes, given the
variables of interest (economy, LT, VO2 max)


So you'd need quality data supporting such an outlandish claim, wouldn't
you?

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?


I can't speak for the global pool of current knowledge, but it looks consistent with
what I've read on the subject.

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


Sure, it's counter-intuitive.


Not just that. Take a look at by how much the _primary_ factors would
change in such a short training period. If you test people on exercises
they don't regularly do, the change of strength would be fairly
modest, especially if subjects only supplement their training with
weights and don't do full blown resistance training. Now, could you
distinguish between two random groups of people where one does explosive
training and the other does circuit training? Not easily, at best.
Both would increase their strength and explosive power, just by
differing amounts, and this difference would be pretty damn hard to see
in a double blind study. But it doesn't stop the authors of this paper
from putting a nice table where various training regimens are supposedly
giving nice and clear differences. I hardly buy it.

In the first link you can "see" something, but is it a double blind trial?
Absolutely and definitely not. Do they even mention the possibility of
placebo effect? Let me check... Nope.

So now we have an outlandish claim with fairly weak data supporting it,
which are misreported (change in E, no change in C) and the most
probable explanation for any measured difference is omitted in
discussion, to top it all.

It doesn't look entirely convincing to me.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R