Mark O'Donovan

High-rep vs Low-rep strength training for endurance athletes 👇 A systematic review & meta-analysis from @FrankNugent10 🏋️ HRST = High rep strength training. >12 reps per set; <67% 1RM; short rest periods 🏋️‍♀️ LRST = Low rep strength training. <12 reps per set; >67% 1RM; >90s rest periods Aim: Evaluate effects of high-rep strength training (HRST) on endurance performance 📖 619 papers identified Criteria: ・ Competitive endurance athletes ・ HRST intervention >4 wks ・ Control / Low rep strength group ・ Outcome measure = TT or physiol. perform. marker (V̇O2max) ❗ Only 11 met study inclusion criteria Largely non-elite participants from: rowing, regional/national runners, triathlon Ave. HRST intervention = 8 wks 📊 Headline: No sig diff. on endurance performance for HRST 🆚 CON or LRST group For endurance performance HRST = LRST Thoughts: 1️⃣ Only 11 eligible studies! Remarkable the paucity of research on which we make "evidence based" decisions on Guess: *most* S&C coaches favour LRST yet many "traditional" endurance coaches may default to HRST. 2️⃣ Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence There's not much quality research & durations (5-8 wks) isn't enough to a) have positive effect of STR training & b) enough time to crossover to endurance benefits But... these could be effective methods over longer time periods 3️⃣ If all other things are equal, logic guides intervention choice. HRST likely = greater energy cost in athletes with already ↑ energy demands. HRST = likely higher physiological & psychological load If perf diffs btw HRST & LRST = negligible then is juice worth squeeze? 4️⃣ In athlete's w/ already high volumes of sport specific training (& high volumes of impact in many cases) is the mechanical loading and energy cost of high repetition training worth it?