Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
The science doesn't say that. If you take a random group of coach potatoes and put them in an exercise program they can build both strength and endurance easily. I disagree with the absolute assertion that putting on muscle mass will not negatively affect your ability to run long distances.
If you want to seriously train for a long distance run, you can't carry significant weight. It's just simple physics.
|
Feel free to link a study backing your assertion.
Besides, like you mentioned we're talking about an untrained population where doing anything will be beneficial. And elite runners are only supplementing with strengthening due to both time and injury management rather than a fear of negatively affecting their times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
Can you explain this science? The ncbi study you noted does not say what you think it says. It talks about naturally losing muscle as you age...over 50. And runners tend to keep more muscle than non runners and therefore run faster. That's a lot different from what you seem to be implying....more muscle equals faster running.
|
The study was looking at fat free mass as a predictor of running performance in runners over the age of 35 and found no correlation.
Edit: ignoring fat free mass and instead discussing strength training, here is the review I was looking for
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...tematic_review
Some improvements in running economy in some studies, no change in others. But no 'harmful' effects on performance.