Running and weight lifting

read the latest issue of Running Times. Pretty much says that for long distance runners there is very little if any advantage to lifting weights.

I have to say this was GREAT news to me. I've been screaming this for years. And my point is this:

I realize that lifting weights would make you a more physically fit person, but for your av. runner they would be best served using those few precious hours they have to work out, by running more. Unless you are in college or have the dream schedule you are forced to chose between running or lifting, if you are intrested in being a better runner, go run. If you are trying to have big pecs and a big guns, lift just don't expect it to help you qualify for Boston.

Research can be skewed numerous ways to prove a persons point; especially their own point of view! In my own travels I felt lifting weights made a big difference, even though I tell people otherwise, because it does take more time and energy. An example, I hurt my knee (hip imbalance) and was out of running for 9 months. To feel somewhat in shape I started lifting weights and joined a local gym. I went in there everday except Sundays and lifted by butt off; I understood weightlifting by reading books/magazines and learned not to overdo it and not go in there trying to impress others. I actually started putting some muscle mass on and bulked up to 185lbs which is way above my racing weight of 155-160lbs. When I did start running again once I corrected my problem, I was able to run 100 mile week after 100 mile week for months without any problems or noticeable fatigue. When I ceased lifting I could tell the difference in my running as I would fatigue faster. The muscle mass did slow me down, but I was strong and able to lay a good aerobic base. I feel if you lift and run you will be a good runner because of being mentally strong and being able to use your upper body to keep your arms moving and continue the forward motion; the biggest thing I noticed was the abs and how that played a huge role in keeping the posture good and not falling apart like some runners at the end of races; I noticed I didn't strain to gasp for air either like others did. I think if you run and lift you need a good balance and use lighter weights and medicine ball type workouts for core type strength, instead of bulking up.

Nick

The real focus of any "weightlifting" for a distance runner should be to develop core strength, the kind that will help you maintain good form. The ladies go after the ripped, muscular guys, but they also go after the guys who win races. Take your pick.

Haven't seen the latest issue of RunningTimes, but the research relating lifting to running performance doesn't tell the whole story. Truthfully, there's not enough research done on it.

Back in the 80's, there was some stuff done by Hickson et al examining the role of high weight, low rep lifting for the legs on cycling performance and running performance. They actually found it did improve running performance in the short term (3-4 minute runs) but not for a 10K time trial. However, they didn't use elite runners, just recreational people... And the mode of training (heavy squats, leg presses, etc.) isn't running specific.

Plyometrics training has been shown to improve running economy. I think Paavolenien et al did that study... I think there's only one or two studies showing that, but nothing to contradict it.

Up at Dartmouth, there was a study examining whole body weight training and running economy (by Johnston, I think), and they actually found improvements... The study still had some design flaws - it was whole body training, so perhaps eliminating either the upper or lower body training may have produced the same results. Ironically, I think they talked about this study in RunningTimes (wouldn't be the first time there's a contradiction

I coached a girl this past season who ran times a little faster than that, but she'll be running at a good D1 school this fall.

One recent study, don't remember who it is by, found that swiss ball core training did not improve running economy in runners... I think they were high school runners, not elite level.

Many of the studies which have examined running and strength training don't focus much on the running performance, but rather on whether it is detrimental to strength training or not. Some of them do examine VO2max as well, but that is nearly useless in that respect... Strength training is not intended to improve VO2max. The whole "concurrent strength and endurance training" literature really doesn't tell much of the story - the methodologies usually aren't specific to race performance.

There is not a single published study which has examined upper body lifting on running performance. I really believe it does help, especially when done correctly and with function in mind, but absolutely nothing is published. It's all anecdotal stuff, and it may be right, but there is no proof either way (that it does or doesn't help). Except for the plyometrics and heavy training studies mentioned above, there's not a heck of a lot examining performance on lower body training.

I agree - runners benefit the most from running. But lifting is important and can improve performance - we just don't have overwhelming scientific proof yet.

Sorry about that - part of the message got screwed up - something copied and pasted from another message (the D1 running thing)...

Generally you should only lift as an addition to your running after you have done all the running you can - if your goal is to run fast. Everyone's different though so I'd ignore all the studies out there and see what works for you. I read Steve Spence used to lift heavy weights with low reps - not something you'd expect from a marathoner but it worked for him.

as long as it dosent hurt your running im fine with weightlifting its always good to have a musclar body especially when your a guy in hs when theres 1. girls 2.sooner or later youll get into a fist fight in hs you dont want to get totally destoryed...being strong will never hurt u.

Dr.S wrote:

But lifting is important and can improve performance - we just don't have overwhelming scientific proof yet.

Sounds like you have your answer, now all you need is the proof that justifies your position. Sorry I'm not buying it.

First you need to read the article. It is based on research, not personal opinion.

Why this tendency to want to put distance runners in the gym? Everyone seems to think this just HAS to be benefical right, after all it's something we hate to do, and it's very hard, so that MUST be the Holy Grail. Well so far I haven't seen proof that a distance runner would gain more by spending the time in the gym pumpin iron, than simply running (that's including drills, hills, whatever..)

How many hours do you think Bill Rogers, or Lasse Virin spent in the gym? How about mondern day stars like Bekele, Meb, etc...?

Think about it like this: I have roughly 1.5-2 hours to workout a day. What will serve me better on my 10k next week, spending one of those days in gym or getting in a run?

I personally come from more of a weight training background, before I took up running for time. I find that if I skip weight training (especially for my legs) that they become fatigued much sooner in a long run AND I don't have nearly the push going up hills. Typically, I will work legs once per week, but NEVER on a hard running day. The few times I have, my legs were inoperable for days after wards and trying to push through put me in the worst burnt-out mode of my life. I actually like doing a solid leg workout the day after my longest run of the week, as I feel pumping the legs with blood aids in recovery (no science behind this, just feel). I will also NOT lift weights for the week before a race (half-mara. or less) and 2-3 weeks before a marathon (usually do my last workout the day after my final 23 miler, then start my taper). I wouldn't recommend going to failure on any of your sets, and keep the reps in the 12-20 range...definitely no less. This is what works for me after experimenting for 10 years, so you may be different.

Like all things, it depends.

If you really bulk up it's going to slow you down. Think of a body builder.

On the other hand, it's going to be difficult for you to add any significant mass if you are running a lot. Chances are that you're just going to get really defined. And that's not going to hurt you.

On balance, I don't think it could slow you personally down.

Jogger Esq wrote:

Like all things, it depends.

If you really bulk up it's going to slow you down. Think of a body builder.

On the other hand, it's going to be difficult for you to add any significant mass if you are running a lot. Chances are that you're just going to get really defined. And that's not going to hurt you.

On balance, I don't think it could slow you personally down.

I agree with you and especially doing push ups and situps aren't going to slow you down, but for many people who want to run fast, that extra 20 minutes a day is better spent getting another 20 miles in per week. Everyone's different though and has to find what work's best for them.

I'll definitely check the article out, see what they have to say. Maybe they have some studies I don't know about. But as far as I know, there is no good evidence either way that proper lifting improves or does not improve running performance. You can make a case either way based on the science, but the only way to know for sure is a good clinical trial, and there are not enough of them for a strong conclusion. Notice I say proper lifting - many exercises will have no functional carry-over to running.

Keep in mind, I presented the facts as we have them. There is good evidence that lifting works, per se, if you consider plyometrics into "weight training". And to do plyometrics safely, you need sufficient muscle strength, which can be built up through lifting.

It is not a requirement for training, people can run World Class without it, just like Rogers and Viren did. But if you look at Meb, or look at Webb, do you think they lift? What about Sebastian Coe, he lifted. As somebody pointed out before, Spence made huge improvements through it. I am not saying because those guys did they are right, I am just saying it is an equal argument - you can be world class with or without lifting. The big question is can it make you a better world class athlete? And, also for those of us who are not world class, can it make us better at whatever level we are at? There is not enough good evidence either way.

I agree with you though, running is the most important thing runners need to do, and if you have 1.5 to 2 hours to train daily, running is king. But if you can fit in another hour of training, maybe another run would be too much and you've wind up overtrained or injured... That is when you can SUPPLEMENT with lifting... just as you would supplement your training with physiotherapy, flexibility, proper nutrition, etc.

Jizzmo wrote:

Think about it like this: I have roughly 1.5-2 hours to workout a day. What will serve me better on my 10k next week, spending one of those days in gym or getting in a run?

I don't think anyone is talking about spending 2 hours lifting. I do 45 pushups a day which takes me about 2-3 minutes. I think that has a much better chance of making me faster then upping my milage from 45 to 47 miles/week.

Jizzmo wrote:

read the latest issue of Running Times. Pretty much says that for long distance runners there is very little if any advantage to lifting weights.

This is not entirely correct, and this gets into why I personally treat RT/RW and people like JK with a grain of salt (unless someone's interviewing an acknowledged expert like Gabriele Rosa).

First consider the following:

(1) Both Paula Radcliffe and Deena Kastor have attributed part of their success to their rather significant strength training programs. With Dr. Vigil also having an impact on Meb's training, Meb also has a strength training program.

(2) El Guerrouj and Coe both have well-documented weight programs.

(3) Geb and Bob Kennedy are known to have done sprints in the 60-150 meter range and plyometrics.

Certain coaches like Renato stay away from weights because of the injury risk. But for the top-tier athletes who do strength training, do you think their coaches are stupid? Who are you going to listen to--the people who have been successful at the championship level....or those who can't dream of getting there?

There is not a lot of evidence in favor of weight training for long distance runners, but it IS out there. Look here:

In the paper, good recreational runners with 5K times in the 18 minute range (which is probably what many letsrun posters are if they told the truth) decreased their running volume and replaced part of that volume with explosive strength training and their 5K times dropped by roughly 30 seconds (note: they REDUCED their mileage and they got faster).

The issue is NOT that weight lifting does not work, but that the catabolic nature of aerobic training gets in the way of the anabolic nature of weight training. So, lifting heavy weights only works for low mileage (<25 mpw) runners....but the same catabolic nature of running that means heavy weights don't work for higher mileage runners ALSO means that runners doing 40 mpw or more don't need to worry about gaining mass from weights.

The only weight method shown to work so far (for peformance) is to lift light weights rapidly. A distance runner MAY lift some heavy weights in the offseason/early base when the runner isn't doing a lot of running. Then, when the run training cranks up, the weight training is cranked down to lifting just 30-50% of 1RM max (which emphasizes power) but lifting it rapidly. A distance runner cannot do a sprinter or powerlifter's weight program and expect results. Weights can also be used for injury reduction and for specific strength for running hills (cross country and ultras) which will not show up in performance measured in flat courses. Weights are also sometimes used to reduce the loss of leg strength from marathoners doing long runs.

Note, the Paavolainen paper linked above is STILL one of the most read papers in the Journal of Applied Physiology six years after it was published, which I think says something about the technical competence of the people--I'm talking about people claiming some kind of expertise--who don't know about it or don't want to talk about it.

SPEED KILLS, your analytical ability sucks. Just because those elite athletes have lifted weights does not mean that their succeess is attributable to lifting weights.

Strength is not a limiting factor in distance running. The ability to produce energy is.

There IS evidence for SOME forms of strength training improving running performance. People who claim otherwise don't know what they're talking about. You can have success without doing it, but saying weight training doesn't work at all is FALSE.

I think lifting to maintain core strength, help prevent, and cure injuries becomes more important as we age and don't recover as well from tough runs. Generally, if you go to a PT, they can find that the injury stems from a lack of strength in some muscle.

i just had a similar experience as asicsrunner. Since about march, i've had some sort of hamstring, abductor, and hip tightness that gets worse with increased distance. After about 1.5 hrs, i'm so tight i can barely move. My plan was to go to a PT but first decided to go to the gym and work the heck out of my hams, hips, and butt muscles to see if this would help. After 2-3 weeks in the gym only 2x week, about 30 mins, I am feeling some significant improvement. For the first time in months, i wasn't sore after long run. This is the second time that i've been able to 'cure' myself in the gym (first time was hamstring trouble).

I'm not convinced that lifting will improve running performance, but i'm fairly convinced (yes, n of 1)that lifting can be really important to staying healthy enough to keep running.

I agree with Speed Kills.

Running, even distance running, is an explosive movement pattern. Every step you take, you need a certain amount of power/explosiveness to quickly absorb the impact of your body weight and then overcome gravity and push off the ground. By lifting weights(legs) and doing plyo's, you develop the an abundance in explosiveness and reduce the amount of energy needed to take powerful strides. You become more neuromuscularly efficient and can take faster and more powerful stides with less effort. Couple that explosiveness with good aerobic conidtioning(lots or distance work), and you have a winning combination.

Some people are very light AND have naturally powerful (not necessarily big) legs. Therefore, they don't need such power workouts as much because they already can naturally bounce along explosively without a lot of effort. Most others, especially aging runners, could use some power workouts. If they try them, they will find that they will run easier/with less effort at all paces (as long as they keep up their distance work too of course)