Maggie's Farm

I think the big problem with their "resistance" training protocol was the exercise selection and its avoidance of compound exercises, using free weights and standing on your feet.

While I would have selected a different protocol, I have less of a problem with their set and rep scheme except that very few UNTRAINED people who are unaccustomed to grinding out barbell sets are going to exert themselves like the subjects doing the HIIT protocol.

Several things I didn't see mentioned (for the resistance training group): rest intervals (between exercises and between circuits) and a comparison of work between the three groups.

While some here have decried the resistance program as too "high rep", the real problem with their comparison seems to be more related to the work done and probably the intensity of effort. Certainly, most of us could design a barbell circuit that would be as taxing as any HIIT regimen - see barbell complexes by folks like Dan John where you pick up a moderately heavy barbell and do 6-8 exercises of 8-10 reps each in a continuous manner without stopping, then rest for 2 minutes and repeat for 4 cycles. Think that would provide more meaningful info for those of us you would like a little strength with our fitness regime. They could also add a "real" resistance training arm and look at a group doing something Bill Starr's 5x5 program using squat, cleans (or DL) and press (or something similar).

Nonetheless, the study is a good jumping off point and I hope someone more in tune with actual barbell training picks up the torch.

I didn't mean to imply that the circuit or complex was intended as an optimal program for strength. Rather that a circuit/complex as I described would be more likely to have similar results as HIIT than the "resistance training" program they designed using machine/isolation exercises.

My point with the 5X5 wasn't meant to pinpoint a particular program, but to point out that someone needs to look at a real resistance program - heavy compound movements - instead of what they call resistance training.

Regarding Bill Starr's 5X5 vs Starting Strength, I think if you look at Starr's original program, you'll see that it's quite similar to SS. If you look at the 1st edition of SS, you'll note that SS (for younger lifters) has even more work and less recovery than Starr's program. I assume you know that Rip learned much of what he does from his coach, Bill Starr.

I'm old school - started strength training in the 60's before it became commonplace with athletic programs, i.e. I remember when coaches would tell you it would make you "musclebound" and slow.

I learned from an "old fart" in the days when there were three Olympic lifts (snatch, C&J and press).

I agree with most of Rip's opinions (and Sullivan's as well) and think that their publications - especially Barbell Prescription) - have added a great deal to the public understanding of what strength training should be (versus the bodybuilding mags that most people equate with strength training).

Two areas where I think they perhaps fall short are:
(1) Not enough emphasis on mobility. Strength is great, but if you can't move the joint thru a full range of motion due to mobility issues, you're just as screwed as if you can't do the movement due to lack of strength. People like to train strength because results are easier to see - not so with mobility - and more impressive ("I can DL 400" sounds more impressive than "I can bend over and tie my shoes" - but functionally, the opposite is true).
(2) Strength endurance and power aren't emphasized enough. If you can pull 400 at age 65, but can't shovel snow for more than 5 minutes because your back fatigues, that's a problem if you live in areas with snow. As far as power is concerned, I see that as a bigger deficit in seniors than strength alone (and harder to regain).

If you're over 40 or in a "tactical" profession, e.g. law enforcement, military, etc., you might find either "Tactical Barbell" or "Ageless Athlete" to be of interest.

"I would think someone with a 405 lb deadlift could shovel snow longer than someone with a 225 lb deadlift, all else being equal. For the stronger guy, each shovel-full is going to feel lighter and be easier to move than for the weak guy. I can't think of why the stronger guy's back would tire sooner. How long would a distance runner last?"

That a stronger person should last longer than a less strong person sounds good in theory, but it doesn't play out in the real world - at least for trained people (MxS training versus adding in phases of endurance strength). The reason has to do with muscle physiology/biochemistry and energy systems. If your theory was true, we would see elite lifters winning the mile run or other endurance events....but we don't.

I agree that the stronger guy would last longer "all else being equal, but remember, if the less strong guy is less strong because he is also training strength endurance (i.e. adapting the enzymes and mitochondria inside his muscle cells) then all else is NOT equal.

In the end, how you design your training program depends on your objectives.

"And remember that power is force divided by time. You get stronger, your power output has no choice but to go up as well. You know who holds the 100m indoor rowing record? Brian Shaw, 2x world's strongest man (Comments not letting me embed a YouTube link). That's power."

As you get stronger, your ability to display power will go up...unless you get slower. Training at slow speeds (probably better stated as "not TRYING to move the weight as fast as possible even if it actually move slow") teaches you neurological system to do that movement slowly.

Here's an example (I used to be a wrestling coach): It was popular for a brief period of time to have wrestlers do certain moves (shooting for a takedown) using resistance bands to hold them back. NOTE: This was also tried with sprinters. The problem is that it screws up the mechanics of the movement and actually makes wrestlers and sprinters slower, i.e. less powerful.

100m row isn't power. It's more strength endurance - as is the world's strongest man competition - but closer to strength than to endurance on the strength/endurance continuum. The closer we get to the strength end of the spectrum, the more MxS matters (as expected). I'm willing to bet that Shaw would not fare so well in the 2000m row.

For pure power, let's look at C&J, Shot Put, vertical jump, etc.

Agreed. What they called resistance training was really not a meaningful strength program, nor was it even a well designed weight based circuit program. A properly designed circuit training program using free weights and compound exercises should have produced results no worse than their other conditioning programs. Even their HIIT protocol - 4 x 4 minutes - isn't what most of us would term high intensity.

Hopefully, someone will pick up where they left off and look at a real resistance training program, e.g. 5X5 with 3 or 4 compound exercises, and a real HIIT program (with the emphasis on high intensity).

1. Genetics.
2. Other shit, e.g. smoking, obesity, crappy diet, etc.