General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Some Interesting Research Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2013-02-27 10:29 AM

Elite
2608
2000500100
Denver, Colorado
Subject: Some Interesting Research
This was a review of some studies, and the text below is yet another review of the review. In addition, I can see other problems with the data, namely, the improvements noted were only for a 1.5 mile run. Still, I thought I would share and let everyone make up their own mind and/or promote discussion.

What I found particularly interesting was the overall conclusion:

The reviewer concluded that the additon of heavy leg resistance exercises to an existng aerobic training regimen appeared most promising for improving aerobic fitness in USAF personnel to help them pass the annual fitness test.

The Influence of Nontraditional Training Modalities on
Physical Performance: Review of the Literature, by O’Hara,
Serres, Traver, Wright, Vojta and Eveland, in Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine, 2012

The Review

The reviewer begins by notng that the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines for improving muscular strength, endurance and aerobic ftness are currently used by the Air Force (USAF) to produce fitness instructions for their personnel. As a result, USAF ftness assessment is based around four tests: waist circumference, a 1.5-mile run, a 1-mile walk, and push-ups and sit-ups for 1-minute. The walking test is performed where there is medical reason why personnel are unable to perform the run.
Failure to pass the test leads to a requirement to go through a 42 – 90 day reconditoning period before a retest is performed.

The reviewer explains that it is estmated that 90% of active duty airmen in the USAF pass their annual fitness test. However, the remaining 10–15% struggle to pass the annual fitness test despite following instructons based on ACSM recommendations for physical training. The guidelines specify that individuals should exercise for a minimum of 3 – 5 tmes weekly, at an exercise intensity that is 60 – 90% of age-adjusted predicted maximum heart rate (220 – age in years) for a total of 150 – 300 minutes per week of moderate or vigorous actvity. For resistance exercise, it is also recommended that individuals perform a minimum of 8 – 10 separate exercises that train all major muscle groups, including the arms, chest, back, shoulders, abdomen, and legs. It is suggested that minimum of one set of 8 – 12 repetitions is performed to fatgue for these exercises. Consequently, traditonal USAF training typically involves
mainly aerobic actvity, such as running, 3 – 5 times weekly at 60 – 90% of maximum heart rate for 30 – 60 minutes followed by muscular strength and endurance training, usually push-ups and sit-ups. Consequently, there is an interest in alternatve methods of
training that may produce better results. Such alternatve methods include heavy resistance training, kettlebell training, CrossFit and agility training.

What did the reviewer do?

The reviewer investgated four forms of non-traditonal training modalites, including heavy leg resistance training for the legs, CrossFit training, kettlebell training, and agility training.

Heavy resistance training for the legs

The reviewer suggest that heavy leg resistance training may better prepare individuals to meet USAF ftness standards. Based on various studies involving concurrent resistance and aerobic training, where the aerobic training is less than traditonal USAF training methods, the reviewer suggests that these methods can provide an improved preparation for the tests than current approaches. Moreover, studies show that heavy resistance training with the legs leads to increased muscle fber type recruitment as well as a higher
lactate threshold and consequently improved endurance performance.

CrossFit training

CrossFit training has not been studied in the academic literature. However, it is characterized by high intensity, circuit-training type actvity, with short rest intervals between sets and high exercise heart rates. Proponents of this type of training suggest that the neuroendocrine responses to this form of exercise lead to beneficial anatomical adaptatons. However, the literature regarding the relatonship between the neuroendocrine responses to exercise and subsequent adaptatons is currently conficting and it is not certain that such adaptations are affected by the release of diferent hormones following exercise. Moreover, the frequent and high-intensity nature of the program, combined with the relatve difculty of some of the exercises, has drawn many critcisms from within the strength and conditioning community.

Kettlebell training

The reviewer notes that one of the main attractions of kettlebell training programs is their simplicity. A small number of studies have been carried out in respect of investgating typical, dynamic kettlebell routnes and the heart rates and percentage of VO2-max involved in performing them. The studies certainly indicate that kettlebell training is capable of improving aerobic performance.

Agility training

The reviewer explains that agility training, such as those programs involving reactve drills, directonal force change drills, foot speed drills, agility ladder runs, and hurdle crossings have also been used to help improve physical ftness. In this case, the reviewer notes two studies that have been performed on service personnel and found that it is able to improve various measurements of both cognitive and physical performance, including aerobic capacity.

What did the reviewer conclude?

The reviewer concluded that the addition of heavy leg resistance exercises to an existng aerobic training regimen appeared most promising for improving aerobic fitness in USAF personnel to help them pass the annual fitness test.

KEY POINTS

Concurrent resistance and aerobic training may be superior to traditonal methods for helping service personnel pass their annual fitness test.


This document is copyright Strength and Conditoning Research Limited, 2012. Bret and Chris both work very hard to bring you this information. Help us to contnue our work by not sharing it with your friends, however temptng it may be. Thank you.

PLEASE NOTE: I did in fact pay for this material and this is the only article that I shared with anyone.


2013-02-27 5:15 PM
in reply to: #4638932

User image

Pro
6011
50001000
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania
Subject: RE: Some Interesting Research

Mike, I think you make a good point about it only being a 1.5 mile run.  I don't know what the test standard is, but I'd guess it's about 12 minutes.  At that duration, it's mostly an aerobic effort, but it would still have a significant enough of an anaerobic component to it, that I doesn't surprise me that heavy leg strength training could provide a measurable performance improvement.

The million dollar question in my mind, though, is if they had added additional specific run training instead of adding strength training, what would the result have been?

 

2013-02-28 7:40 AM
in reply to: #4638932

User image

Expert
1028
100025
Detroit, MI. Kinda.
Subject: RE: Some Interesting Research

It's been 20 years since (gasp - just realizing that I'm kindof a grown up!) Air Force Basic training for me, but it was a 1.5 mile run in 12 minutes. At the time, we had no situp or pushup test, but we did them in PT.

We also got no guidance...I was one of those that struggled with every aspect of PT.  We started at 1/2 mile 5 days/week.  Every week we added one lap of the track per day until we hit 6 laps.  Those of us that struggled could optionally go to the track on saturdays for extra.  Again..no guidance.  By the end of basic, I could barely pass my 1.5 miles in 12:00.  I'm certain I'd have benefited from maybe doing some 200's one day/week and longer, slower runs another day. 


2013-02-28 10:10 AM
in reply to: #4640128

Elite
2608
2000500100
Denver, Colorado
Subject: RE: Some Interesting Research
Zero2Athlete - 2013-02-28 7:40 AM

It's been 20 years since (gasp - just realizing that I'm kindof a grown up!) Air Force Basic training for me, but it was a 1.5 mile run in 12 minutes. At the time, we had no situp or pushup test, but we did them in PT.

We also got no guidance...I was one of those that struggled with every aspect of PT.  We started at 1/2 mile 5 days/week.  Every week we added one lap of the track per day until we hit 6 laps.  Those of us that struggled could optionally go to the track on saturdays for extra.  Again..no guidance.  By the end of basic, I could barely pass my 1.5 miles in 12:00.  I'm certain I'd have benefited from maybe doing some 200's one day/week and longer, slower runs another day. 




I was Army and we had a 2 mile run. I got the best results by doing some over-distance work (3-4 mile runs) one day and 400m intervals on another day. Funny, because at the time I wasn't reading research studies and such (this was pre-Internet, yeah, I'm getting old too) and this type of workout for whatever reason seemed to "make sense."

Perhaps the heavy squats produced adaptations similar to intervals? The study says they did 8-10 reps. With a heavy enough load that can take close to 30 seconds, which is close to what a high-intensity interval set should last. But I'm just theorizing here.
2013-03-02 8:42 PM
in reply to: #4638932

User image

Expert
764
5001001002525
Subject: RE: Some Interesting Research
The test standard varies depending on age. It also awards points based on time, rather than having just a maximum time for the 1.5 miles. Here are the charts based on age: http://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110804-054.pdf

Based on my experience, the people I saw failing the test (n=4) were the ones who aren't putting the right (or any) intensity into their exercise regimen in the first place, and they were eating too much. I agree that adding strength training would be an improvement, but I think adding direction on how to properly strength train and manage diet in the first place would be even better.
2013-03-03 8:16 AM
in reply to: #4640358


23

Subject: RE: Some Interesting Research

MikeTheBear - 2013-02-28 11:10 AM

 I was Army and we had a 2 mile run. I got the best results by doing some over-distance work (3-4 mile runs) one day and 400m intervals on another day. Funny, because at the time I wasn't reading research studies and such (this was pre-Internet, yeah, I'm getting old too) and this type of workout for whatever reason seemed to "make sense." Perhaps the heavy squats produced adaptations similar to intervals? The study says they did 8-10 reps. With a heavy enough load that can take close to 30 seconds, which is close to what a high-intensity interval set should last. But I'm just theorizing here.

My guess would be that absolute increases in maximum force production (leg strength) reduces the incremental effort of each stride.

If you think about it, even a 1.5-2 mile run involves a fairly significant power peak during each stride- a resistance trained leg is capable of reaching a higher power peak faster as the muscle contracts, which means less wasted energy due to inefficient motor unit recruitment patterns.  

So a squatter's leg quickly returns sufficient power for the stride during the amortization/push off phase- possibly in half the time of the non-squatter's leg.  Which means less energy burned per step.  400 repeats would probably have a similar effect.

Just my $0.02.



2013-03-03 10:58 PM
in reply to: #4644131

Elite
2608
2000500100
Denver, Colorado
Subject: RE: Some Interesting Research
AlexViada - 2013-03-03 8:16 AM

MikeTheBear - 2013-02-28 11:10 AM

 I was Army and we had a 2 mile run. I got the best results by doing some over-distance work (3-4 mile runs) one day and 400m intervals on another day. Funny, because at the time I wasn't reading research studies and such (this was pre-Internet, yeah, I'm getting old too) and this type of workout for whatever reason seemed to "make sense." Perhaps the heavy squats produced adaptations similar to intervals? The study says they did 8-10 reps. With a heavy enough load that can take close to 30 seconds, which is close to what a high-intensity interval set should last. But I'm just theorizing here.

My guess would be that absolute increases in maximum force production (leg strength) reduces the incremental effort of each stride.

If you think about it, even a 1.5-2 mile run involves a fairly significant power peak during each stride- a resistance trained leg is capable of reaching a higher power peak faster as the muscle contracts, which means less wasted energy due to inefficient motor unit recruitment patterns.  

So a squatter's leg quickly returns sufficient power for the stride during the amortization/push off phase- possibly in half the time of the non-squatter's leg.  Which means less energy burned per step.  400 repeats would probably have a similar effect.

Just my $0.02.



Alex, nice to see you here. I previously posted a link to your site here: http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp...

Not to many people can do both strength and endurance. Your accomplishments are impressive.
2013-03-04 11:46 AM
in reply to: #4638932


23

Subject: RE: Some Interesting Research

Hey, no kidding.    Cool stuff, always very glad to see it's interesting to folks.  Actually have a series up there on combining strength and endurance training which some folks might find useful.

lol @ the guy saying I need bike fitting classes...  so true.  Six bike fits by pretty reputable folks, and my anatomy still seems to defy anything resembling a textbook fit.

Much appreciated- just doing what everyone here is doing- pushing myself to do new things. Respect to all!  Great forum here, glad I found it.

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Some Interesting Research Rss Feed