Muscular strength and endurance.

[Goosey]

This continues to be a source of confusion for most, do you beleive, that if you get stronger, your muscular endurance will improve proportionally, and if you improve your local muscular endurance, the strength of those muscles will improve proportionally?

People claim you must do high reps and low weight for muscular
endurance and low reps and high weight for strength.

What are your thoughts on the matter or personal experience with this.

 

[judgey]

This continues to be a source of confusion for most, do you beleive, that if you get stronger, your muscular endurance will improve proportionally, and if you improve your local muscular endurance, the strength of those muscles will improve proportionally?

People claim you must do high reps and low weight for muscular
endurance and low reps and high weight for strength.

What are your thoughts on the matter or personal experience with this.

All I know is that a 50kg lady can deadlift 180kg. So personally, I'll continue to steer clear of 'strength' training (other than maybe 5x5's on deadlifts, to avoid injury risks from form breakdowns.. that and heavy deadlifting, unlike squatting, is more 'fun' for me).

 

[Goosey]

All I know is that a 50kg lady can deadlift 180kg. So personally, I'll continue to steer clear of 'strength' training (other than maybe 5x5's on deadlifts, to avoid injury risks from form breakdowns.. that and heavy deadlifting, unlike squatting, is more 'fun' for me).

I dont understand, what are you saying judgey?

 

[jj80]

Training with low reps vs high reps and strength? There's a direct link between your 10rm and 1rm, and even a link between your 1rm and capability to do more reps than that.

For 1rm, Wendler suggests using 1rm Max = Weight + Reps x Weight * 3 /100

NFL players found a way to predict their 1rm max on bench based off the number of times they could rep 225lbs PAST 10 reps - 1 Rep Max = 221.8 lb. + 6.81 x Reps @ 2254 ( NFL 225 Test Accurate at Predicting 1RM Bench Press | Breaking Muscle )

These formulas are all approximate but also reasonably accurate. I believe you can get more complex if you know your physiology by going into the body's energy systems.. ATP system and all that...

Training wise, from what I've seen, to get stronger you need to get bigger. You can become more efficient by improving your CNS ability to use all your muscular potential by training with low reps but there comes a point where it's more efficient to introduce hypertrophy (higher rep) work to build size.

I'm trying to work out the best set/rep/break between sets for muscular hypertrophy at the moment... Tuscherer says in an article 'Likewise, if you are planning a hypertrophy cycle, you know you are trying to stimulate an acute lack of ATP in the muscle fiber (a leading theory of what stimulates hypertrophy). If you have been doing your physiology homework, you also know that this means you will need a set to require high effort (8+… really 9+ RPE’s) and last ~30-40 seconds. This will likely put you in the 6-12 rep range, depending on the Range of Motion and Tempo of the lift. Sprinkle in some RTS-style fatigue management to get the perfect number of sets and viola, you’re doing some serious hypertrophy work!'

 

[spartacus]

My experince is that i get some correlation to my training with moderate weights (whether through higher reps or shorter rests) and maximal strength.

In fact, i could do no training over 80% max for months, and use my 80% or 70% max reps to predict my max weight as long as reps increase.

I always get about 10 on 80% and 20 on 70%, and whether i train often or not with heavier weights, the 90% plus weights always seem to correlate.


It could well be that I have never done a lot of over 85% weight training, so my argument may be flawed. Truth is i hate training heavy with lots of rest; bores me to tears.

But if someone used to trainig heavy, and very rarely lighter weights, probably will be less correlation (like a 100m runner trying to run 400m).

 

[judgey]

...

Training wise, from what I've seen, to get stronger you need to get bigger. You can become more efficient by improving your CNS ability to use all your muscular potential by training with low reps but there comes a point where it's more efficient to introduce hypertrophy (higher rep) work to build size.

...

This is what I was getting at Goose - having seen that little 50kg lady deadlift 180, it feels like you don't necessarily need to get bigger to get stronger.

I can deadlift more at 79/80 then I could at 90. Maybe I have more LBM now?


/edit - truth be told I didn't understand your post so I assumed this is the route you were going down..

 

[nazzysmith]

Depends on what you mean by endurance...

Long distance atheletes will always have smaller muscles.... For their specific genetic make up...

 

[jj80]

The current accepted theory on disparities between size and strength is to do with activating all your muscle fibres at once as efficiently as possible (at the same time) to lift the weight. There's also theories on relative size differences between different parts of muscle fibres - myofibrullar (sp?) vs sarcoplasmic but I don't believe this has been conclusively proven.

Basically, you are never able to activate all your muscle fibres at once, unless you are put on an electric chair....

So at a certain bodyweight, you have a maximum strength potential. E.g., I might have the potential currently if I train with low reps to eventually hit a 140kg bench press (my current max is 130kg) without getting bigger. Currently I'm using 70% of my muscle fibres to hit 130, and I can get to 80% I can hit 140... this is very crude.... but you get the idea. If I train for another 5 years maybe I can hit 145kg max, but there is a limit, and I will never hit 150kg or 200kg (lol) without putting on significant size.

 

[Semillon]

I do believe that if you are stronger, your ability to perform repetitive physical tasks over a longer duration does improve as well, without specifically training for said endurance.

I have seen this personally with something as simple as a round of golf, before I started training for strength I would tire on the back 9 and be pretty sore the next day (infrequent player). Since training for strength, I do not tire nor am I sore the next day.

Similar with things like helping a mate landscaping his yard vs doing my own a few years back.

I realise neither of these are "endurance" tasks, however improving my strength made them a hell of a lot easier.

Being able to squat 130kg for 5 reps makes squatting 100kg for 10 reps much easier too

 

[Neddysmith]

Depends on what you mean by endurance...

Long distance atheletes will always have smaller muscles.... For their specific genetic make up...

This is what iw as thinking, comparing sprinting athletes to marathon or distance athletes eg (100m runner compared to marathon runner, or, track cyclist to road cyclist)

 

[judgey]

The current accepted theory on disparities between size and strength is to do with activating all your muscle fibres at once as efficiently as possible (at the same time) to lift the weight. There's also theories on relative size differences between different parts of muscle fibres - myofibrullar (sp?) vs sarcoplasmic but I don't believe this has been conclusively proven.

Basically, you are never able to activate all your muscle fibres at once, unless you are put on an electric chair....

So at a certain bodyweight, you have a maximum strength potential. E.g., I might have the potential currently if I train with low reps to eventually hit a 140kg bench press (my current max is 130kg) without getting bigger. Currently I'm using 70% of my muscle fibres to hit 130, and I can get to 80% I can hit 140... this is very crude.... but you get the idea. If I train for another 5 years maybe I can hit 145kg max, but there is a limit, and I will never hit 150kg or 200kg (lol) without putting on significant size.

This makes sense. Cheers.

 

[Goosey]

Nazzy, I believe there is no evidence which indicates a difference between strength and endurance; accurately measuring one of these factors clearly indicates the existing level of the other.

That is to say; if you know how much endurance a man has, then you should also know how strong he is – or vice versa.

But such a relationship between strength and endurance is only meaningful in individual cases; it does not hold true for the purpose of comparing one individual to that of another – thus you cannot fairly compare one man’s endurance to another man’s strength.

Secondly, I am using the term “endurance” only in the sense of “muscular endurance”, the ability of a muscle to perform repeatedly under a particular load – I am not momentarily concerned with cardiovascular endurance, which is an entirely different matter.

If you can press 150kg once and press 115kg ten rep's, you would consider your best single attempt as a measurment of your strength and your performance with ten reps as a measurment of your muscular endurance.

 

[miicah]

This is what I was getting at Goose - having seen that little 50kg lady deadlift 180, it feels like you don't necessarily need to get bigger to get stronger.

Well that 50kg woman is never going to deadlift 300kg. So to a point yeah you can be small and strong.

 

[Neddysmith]

Being able to squat 130kg for 5 reps makes squatting 100kg for 10 reps much easier too

I think this is true to a point.

IF i were to say train for squats but only ever squatted to maximum reps for say 40kg, i might be able to punch out 100reps with a lot of training at some point.

HOWEVER, if i was to train for strength and had my 1rm at 200kg would i have the endurance to squat 40kg for 100reps?

I would say no, i would initially find the 40kg squat much easier but i dont think i would be able to last the 100reps without the prior training to do so.

 

[Goosey]

The current accepted theory on disparities between size and strength is to do with activating all your muscle fibres at once as efficiently as possible (at the same time) to lift the weight. There's also theories on relative size differences between different parts of muscle fibres - myofibrullar (sp?) vs sarcoplasmic but I don't believe this has been conclusively proven.

Basically, you are never able to activate all your muscle fibres at once, unless you are put on an electric chair....

So at a certain bodyweight, you have a maximum strength potential. E.g., I might have the potential currently if I train with low reps to eventually hit a 140kg bench press (my current max is 130kg) without getting bigger. Currently I'm using 70% of my muscle fibres to hit 130, and I can get to 80% I can hit 140... this is very crude.... but you get the idea. If I train for another 5 years maybe I can hit 145kg max, but there is a limit, and I will never hit 150kg or 200kg (lol) without putting on significant size.

This is interesting, in that muscle fibres activate the way they do for a reason, (endurance), if all fired at once the muscle would fatigue instantly and in extreme cases literally rip of the bone as it is evident in people that suffer electric shock.

 

[spartacus]

There is obvious a correlation both ways, but the lifter who rarely does muscular endurance traning will struggle until he or she gets used to it.

In early 1990s trained with mate who was 2nd in mr universe. at time he coud do 190kg bench and I around 167.5kg, while he smashed me in heavy set of 6 reps in terms of weight, the next set on lighter weight I easily outrepped him.

I was used to training muscle endurance, he was not.

As goosey suggests, there will also be individual differences in terms of who is good at what sort of reps.

 

[Semillon]

I think this is true to a point.

IF i were to say train for squats but only ever squatted to maximum reps for say 40kg, i might be able to punch out 100reps with a lot of training at some point.

HOWEVER, if i was to train for strength and had my 1rm at 200kg would i have the endurance to squat 40kg for 100reps?

I would say no, i would initially find the 40kg squat much easier but i dont think i would be able to last the 100reps without the prior training to do so.

You are probably right.

I would say that training for strength has a significant carry-over into muscular endurance because it makes the repeatable task "easier". I would not say that training specifically for endurance has as much carry over for strength.

 

[Goosey]

There is obvious a correlation both ways, but the lifter who rarely does muscular endurance traning will struggle until he or she gets used to it.

In early 1990s trained with mate who was 2nd in mr universe. at time he coud do 190kg bench and I around 167.5kg, while he smashed me in heavy set of 6 reps in terms of weight, the next set on lighter weight I easily outrepped him.

I was used to training muscle endurance, he was not.

As goosey suggests, there will also be individual differences in terms of who is good at what sort of reps.

Yes I'm concerned with the individual not concerned with comparing one to another.

The other factors such as One ability to fire muscles fibre for example are other elements of strength and endurance which I believe cannot be changed.

 

[Neddysmith]

You are probably right.

I would say that training for strength has a significant carry-over into muscular endurance because it makes the repeatable task "easier". I would not say that training specifically for endurance has as much carry over for strength.

Yeah i would agree with this, as i like changing up my routines every now and then, i train high reps for sometimes upto 4 weeks in a row, when returning to strength training i notice i am considerably weaker initially until i get used to lifting the heavier weights again. But when i go back to higher rep stuff i find i can generally lift the higher reps at a slightly higher weight after strength training.

 

[spartacus]

Semillon, i dont think you are getting argument.

We are not talking endurance, but muscle endurance, say 10-20 reps on 65% to 80% weights.


Of course, you can train muscle endurance and get stronger if that is defined 65-80% max strenght level. I have for thirty years, and have benched 172.kg (touch an go), 155kg power clean, and 4 reps on 260kg deadlift without hardly doing them for years.

The year i did 6 reps ion 135kg bench in 1991 for first time, hardly ever went over 90kgs.

Point is you can train many ways and make moderate weights quite hard and intense which will have overload to max strength.