Percy Cerutty Weight Lifting

What you're thinking of as low reps is 10-12. What he's thinking of as high reps is 10-12. AKA hypertrophy zone. Lifting in very low reps (1-5 but moreso 1-3) and/or very high reps (15-20+) is not going to put as much muscle on you. However, like 90% of building muscle is recovery, not the workout(s). So...

Anyway I think Cerutty was correct. That is the range for POWER which is of the most importance at the end of a race. That's how you get true speed.

Just make sure when you are lifting weights that you are standing on concrete or it doesn't count.

Keep it on the crete.

There was a study--several decades ago, now--that indicated many reps/low weight significantly improved performance. Though its authors later repudiated the study's conclusions, unfortunately it was seized upon by many people.

The way to gain strength without a significant increase in bulk (at least for most people) is low reps--as someone said, 1-5 reps or better 1-3, though usually it's good to avoid singles--and a limited number of sets.

Precisely because they are handled rather easily with an athlete's current strength, sets of, say, 30-50 reps are of little value in most exercises. Sets in the 10-20 rep range will build some strength, but also tend to build muscle--unnecessary added weight.

NB: I still think that low- or medium-weight sets with 10-15 repetitions can be helpful when you're learning proper form, but you should be able to learn good basic form in almost any exercise in a couple of weeks. Thereafter, high weight/low reps/few sets.

How do you start an athlete on this type of training who is new to it?

If you are trying to lift close to your maximum for the first time is it more likely that you could get hurt?

Pete Magill discusses weight lifting in his May 2012 article in Running Times, entitled All Crossed Up.

Two other related articles:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/cross-training-by-lifting-weights/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/health/16best.html?ref=health

theohiostate wrote:

Pete Magill discusses weight lifting in his May 2012 article in Running Times, entitled All Crossed Up.

Two other related articles:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/cross-training-by-lifting-weights/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/health/16best.html?ref=health

I can't find the Magill article. These other articles are interesting but only really advocate for a lifting program rather than address high reps. vs. low reps.

tiger tiger burning bright wrote:

......, sets of, say, 30-50 reps are of little value in most exercises. Sets in the 10-20 rep range will build some strength, but also tend to build muscle--unnecessary added weight.

.

High reps provide endurance don't they? Is that worthless? 30-50 reps is essentially equivalent to 200m-400m repeats (counting footsteps).

somedude with a question wrote:

theohiostate wrote:

Pete Magill discusses weight lifting in his May 2012 article in Running Times, entitled All Crossed Up.

Two other related articles:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/cross-training-by-lifting-weights/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/health/16best.html?ref=health

I can't find the Magill article. These other articles are interesting but only really advocate for a lifting program rather than address high reps. vs. low reps.

I don't know if the Magill article has been posted yet. The first link I sent mentions a study where the subjects half-squat heavy weights x 3/wk. I'm assuming low reps, but I could be wrong.

There are four prevailing opinions about runners and lifting:

1) runners shouldn't lift at all. This is what lydiard thought, but judging by the fact that top athletes in literally all other sports lift, this seems a bit backward.

2) runners need endurance, so they should lift high reps (12-15+)

3) runners are already training endurance in their running workouts, so they need pure strength (5 reps or less)

4) runners should avoid slow weight lifting and only do explosive strength like plyos and Olympic lifts

I personally believe that runners ought to do explosive strength, but most lack the basic muscular strength to benefit from that so they need some low rep lifting first. And that circuits of high rep exer ises done back to back can improve lactate tolerance and improve your kick. But that's just me.

Said it before and I'll say it gain, the Percy Cerutty system is the best I've every seen. If more athletes would adopt his system, they would see better results. As far as I'm concerned, fok the overdistance B-shit. For most it doesn't work and leads to burnout and/or career ending injuries.

Middle Distance Coach wrote:

Said it before and I'll say it gain, the Percy Cerutty system is the best I've every seen. If more athletes would adopt his system, they would see better results. As far as I'm concerned, fok the overdistance B-shit. For most it doesn't work and leads to burnout and/or career ending injuries.

From what I read in his book it seems he supported a higher mileage approach in the "build up season" of 90-100 miles per week for middle distance running.

Overall volume is lower than say Lydiard but he still advocated for runs of 30-35 miles to give you "stamina".

HMMMM

a question wrote:

How do you start an athlete on this type of training who is new to it?

I've usually done this:

1) Week 1: two or three sessions (on nonconsecutive days) of one set, ten reps, per exercise.

2) Week 2: two sets, ten reps.

3) Week 3: three sets, ten reps.

I generally start people with light to moderate weights (even an empty bar--even a broomstick!), paying a lot of attention to proper form; but if they show good form, I start moving the weights up a little from one session to the next, even during this intro phase. (Seeing progress keeps people alert and motivated.)

After these first three weeks, they'll have gained sound technique, some strength, and little or no hypertrophy. At this point, I'd move them right into the low reps/limited sets routine, but:

a) would not make a *huge* jump in weight: obviously they'd expect an increased weight if they're now doing only 3-5 reps/set, instead of 10 reps, and they'll get an increase; but I still want them to keep their good form and be able to see progress (weight increase) over the next several weeks, and

b) once they do get to fairly high weights on their "work sets," I may have them do a warmup set on each exercise: moderate weight, 10-15 reps, say, then moving to their three sets of three reps (or whatever their workout on a given exercise is).

Your premise about runners not lifting is very flawed. Cerutty was a genius way ahead of his time (still ahead).

Years ago when I was racing 5K and 10K in college, I was a Lydiard LSD disciple- 100 to 120 mile weeks, and then 2 things happened- First, over a summer my training partner discovered Cerutty. He was 150 lbs, bench pressing 225, and dropped his 5000 meter time from 15:15 to 14:42. I started lifting Cerutty style and dropped my 10000 meter time from 32:20 to 30:53 in 6 mos. Nothing changed in my work outs except the lifting. Cerutty lifting creates better body posture so you are able to keep your oxygen levels up. But, I was still doing the stupid LSD mileage, so I leveled off about 30:40 for my 10000.

Second, I graduated and got a real job which meant I didn't have the time to put in that many miles anymore- I decreased to 60 to 70 per week, with a high percentage of harder, faster running. 6 mos later I was running sub 29:30.

Lydiard is a bad method of training if you are a serious racer. LSD if fine if you are in it for the enjoyment of running. But, not for racing.

Your premise about runners not lifting is very flawed. Cerutty was a genius way ahead of his time (still ahead).

Years ago when I was racing 5K and 10K in college, I was a Lydiard LSD disciple- 100 to 120 mile weeks, and then 2 things happened- First, over a summer my training partner discovered Cerutty. He was 150 lbs, bench pressing 225, and dropped his 5000 meter time from 15:15 to 14:42. I started lifting Cerutty style and dropped my 10000 meter time from 32:20 to 30:53 in 6 mos. Nothing changed in my work outs except the lifting. Cerutty lifting creates better body posture so you are able to keep your oxygen levels up. But, I was still doing the stupid LSD mileage, so I leveled off about 30:40 for my 10000.

Second, I graduated and got a real job which meant I didn't have the time to put in that many miles anymore- I decreased to 60 to 70 per week, with a high percentage of harder, faster running. 6 mos later I was running sub 29:30.

Lydiard is a bad method of training if you are a serious racer. LSD if fine if you are in it for the enjoyment of running. But, not for racing.

Hey clown did you ever consider that maybe those 120 mile weeks are what enabled you to run sub-30 six or twelve months on down the road?

Lydiard advocated 100 miles as an optimum and this was at strong aerobic paces, supplemented by jogging. There is absolutely no reason why an athlete can't run fast times off 60-70 miles and Lydiard would have said so too. A fusion of cerutty and lydiard is possibly the holy grail for the aspiring athlete.