I know if all I did was sprint or leg press then decided to even go for a jog I wouldn't last very long. I used to do 5-20 minute instense crossfit type workouts and if I went to run a 5-10k which did come up in the flow of the crossfit workouts I'd barely finish and it would suck worse than the more intense workouts.
Gaining Muscle and Losing Fat (2015)
- Thread starter Baron
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure I follow. We may be getting into apples-and-oranges territory here. When I replaced treadmill cardio with bodyweight squats, as I was ironing out the details, I was doing hundreds at a "reasonable" pace. It was only when I created speed intervals that I was able to reduce it to a manageable number. At the end of each 25-rep speed interval, I was gasping for breath and my thighs burned. But at a simple, "brisk" pace I'm pretty sure I could do thousands. Keep in mind that, for a time, I was doing up to 600 with speed intervals on the weekend. So if we're going to compare bodyweight squats with cycling, then either both or neither will have to incorporate speed intervals.
As for McGuff's use of the leg press (and all other resistance exercises), he believes in the dreaded SuperSlow, so he's not big on endless reps.
Stamina. Running gets you in shape for running. It is somewhat performance-specific. I admit I'm not good at it. I can jog leisurely (but found I just don't like it), and I can sprint well. But I never trained to run. And I don't want to risk the associated joint injuries. There may be cardiovascular benefits associated with running or even jogging, or there may not, depending on whom you ask, but I just don't like either.
I hear ya. I was just asking, according to the book based on what McGuff says, should one be able to run or do more aerobic type work just as efficiently as if he was doing something like running? So if one was to do super slow leg press, could one perform "reasonably well" in let's say a thanksgiving day turkey trot sort of run, around 5k or so? Or would he say, like you (which I agree with) that running would need to be trained according to ones sport, which could be running itself.
From the article:
“If you have been subjected to proper physical training, you can actually make good use of the lactic acid that is produced. If you are intent on improving your aerobic capacity, it’s important to understand that your aerobic system performs at its highest level when recovering from lactic acidosis,” McGuff adds. “It is also important to understand that since muscle is the basic mechanical system being served by the aerobic system, as muscle strength improves, the necessary support systems (which include the aerobic system) must follow suit.”
To improve the ability of your aerobic system to use lactic acid as a fuel, McGuff says: Lift weights. And then, let your mitochondria take over from there. Get your aerobic benefit on the “drive home from the gym or off to lunch or back to work.”
Seems silly to me. Lift weights then you'll have the aerobic capacity to do what? Run? Play a sport? He says also lifting is anaerobic (which it is) and sure you'll get better at buffering lactic acid when lifting weights, but how do you get more efficient when using aerobic metabolism, if you never do anything aerobic? I'd bet even if I trained someone doing super slow leg presses that they would still perform poorly on even a 3min step test. If they did some aerobic work that step test result would show improvement versus just doing leg press work without any aerobic work. Now if we tested them first from a complete sedentary state, then performed weeks of leg pressing, sure that result would improve, but not as much as if they did aerobic work. I'd bet my life on it lol.
I see your point. I guess it's a trade-off. What are we prepared to do for what we want to get? We can't have everything in the store, so we choose what is most important to each of us and pay the price. Hopefully, we choose wisely. I admit I'd like to have the stamina to run distance. But as it stands now, it's just not worth the cost to me.
Yup. It's just about goals and the most efficient way to get there and keeping it fun. One last note with all the college athletic teams I worked with the soccer athletes generally could handle just about anything we threw at them, moreso than lax or baseball, whether anaerobic or aerobic. Baseball generally performed the worst.
It's kind of funny now that I'm really thinking about it. I've always found those that do more aerobic type of work have greater potential anaerobically but not necessarily the other way around how McGuff states. Think about the "jocks" back in high school. Those that could run and Jump etc., how did they perform versus the more meathead type more into lifting weights and just getting jacked? Who had more aerobic capacity? It's really two different things and both need to be incorporated in some way.
Interesting that you bring up the jock/meathead comparison. If memory serves, McGuff wrote how someone might want to take up swimming to develop a physique like a swimmer. However, he asserts that it is people who are built like swimmers who excel at swimming. Something along those lines, anyway. Genetic potential and all that. Perhaps we tend gravitate to what comes naturally to us and would not do as well at another activity.
Last edited:
Power praying?
Kinda miss the days of competitive oly lifting.
Power praying?
- Status