Bodyweight squats solve everything?

well,, wrote:

just run yo wrote:

Late 20s (running ~15 years). I get injured as much as anyone else, no more or less I don't think. The risk is obviously always gonna be there when you push the envelope in your training. I realize the thread is about injury prevention--I meant running itself is all the strength work you need to get your body strong enough to handle running. If you have some studies or something showing that extra strength training prevents injury though, please go ahead and post it. Seriously, I am happy to learn something. My feeling is that in like malmo and HRE's glory days, most people just ran, and somehow their legs didn't fall off, so that's what I go with because I like to keep my training as simple as possible.

This thread isn´t about elite runners in their prime.

BTW: malmo tore his plantar fascia and had to give up track running. His knees are also shot these days.

well,, wrote:

just run yo wrote:

Late 20s (running ~15 years). I get injured as much as anyone else, no more or less I don't think. The risk is obviously always gonna be there when you push the envelope in your training. I realize the thread is about injury prevention--I meant running itself is all the strength work you need to get your body strong enough to handle running. If you have some studies or something showing that extra strength training prevents injury though, please go ahead and post it. Seriously, I am happy to learn something. My feeling is that in like malmo and HRE's glory days, most people just ran, and somehow their legs didn't fall off, so that's what I go with because I like to keep my training as simple as possible.

This thread isn´t about elite runners in their prime.

BTW: malmo tore his plantar fascia and had to give up track running. His knees are also shot these days.

Sub-8 Mile wrote:

bigmig19 wrote:

I never understand why BW squats are expected to build strength. If you have ever lifted weights you know that the squat takes advantage of a heck of lot of natural strength in ones legs. Most people can squat more weight than any other lift movement (except deadlift maybe, and that too uses legs). Im classic runner build and could squat 300lbs with ease. Bench, only 200. So how is it we are using BW and expecting the largest, strongest muscle in the body to build strength? By that logic running 6 miles a day should build superhuman leg strength from all the reps?

Here's one way to understand the answer - again I'm not 100% brain functioning so I'll try to make some sense.

There are different types of strength. The strength you get from lifting 3 sets of 8 reps (any exercise/lift) is different from the strength you get from 3 sets of 20 reps. And that's different from doing very high reps. Still different from that might be something like doing physical labor all day every day, like on a farm -- that's where you get what they call "farm strong."

Here's another way to think about it -- why is it a bad idea to run a hard workout like, say, 8 x 200m fast with 3-5 min rec on just 10 miles per week (say, four 2-mile runs and then this session)? Many would say that you don't have the mileage to support it. What does that mean? From personal experience, it means not enough easy/moderate effort running steps to build proper muscular and connective tissue strength to do this session, which if done regularly may well result in injury under these circumstances.

Back to your question about running 6 miles per day -- let's day 5 days per week, one of which includes a 4-mi tempo effort. Now that 8 x 200m (done on a sixth day) is far less risky. The point here is, mileage isn't exclusively all about aerobic fitness. Running is a moderately plyometric activity and as such, running many many steps over a good number of miles does in fact build strength. Not stronger in the way where you would squat tons more or get a massively higher vertical leap, but stronger for the relevant muscles/tissues/movements.

Going along with that, think about the long-to-short long sprinter programs, or the long-to-short components of an ends-to-middle approach. Why start with 1200m repeats that go down to 1000m, 800, 600, 400? And why start with 12 x 200m and go down to 10, 8, 6, 4 repeats? In part, yes conditioning/fitness. But also, doing those longer/higher reps at a slower pace builds a lot of physical strength. So when in comes time to rip 3 x 200m or 3 x 300m, the athlete can do it hard, without so much risk of injury, and quite possibly faster than without this background of strength.

bigmig19 wrote: Why dont wall sits build strength? Same reason BW squats dont.

hmm, I'd say that's different, not the same. Isotonic vs isometric exercises each can build strength if done properly. Depends on what kind of results you're looking for.

gahh. gonna stop being longwinded now. I hope I made some sense.

runnerboy70 wrote:

Sub-8 Mile wrote:

Here's one way to understand the answer - again I'm not 100% brain functioning so I'll try to make some sense.

There are different types of strength. The strength you get from lifting 3 sets of 8 reps (any exercise/lift) is different from the strength you get from 3 sets of 20 reps. And that's different from doing very high reps. Still different from that might be something like doing physical labor all day every day, like on a farm -- that's where you get what they call "farm strong."

Here's another way to think about it -- why is it a bad idea to run a hard workout like, say, 8 x 200m fast with 3-5 min rec on just 10 miles per week (say, four 2-mile runs and then this session)? Many would say that you don't have the mileage to support it. What does that mean? From personal experience, it means not enough easy/moderate effort running steps to build proper muscular and connective tissue strength to do this session, which if done regularly may well result in injury under these circumstances.

Back to your question about running 6 miles per day -- let's day 5 days per week, one of which includes a 4-mi tempo effort. Now that 8 x 200m (done on a sixth day) is far less risky. The point here is, mileage isn't exclusively all about aerobic fitness. Running is a moderately plyometric activity and as such, running many many steps over a good number of miles does in fact build strength. Not stronger in the way where you would squat tons more or get a massively higher vertical leap, but stronger for the relevant muscles/tissues/movements.

Going along with that, think about the long-to-short long sprinter programs, or the long-to-short components of an ends-to-middle approach. Why start with 1200m repeats that go down to 1000m, 800, 600, 400? And why start with 12 x 200m and go down to 10, 8, 6, 4 repeats? In part, yes conditioning/fitness. But also, doing those longer/higher reps at a slower pace builds a lot of physical strength. So when in comes time to rip 3 x 200m or 3 x 300m, the athlete can do it hard, without so much risk of injury, and quite possibly faster than without this background of strength.

hmm, I'd say that's different, not the same. Isotonic vs isometric exercises each can build strength if done properly. Depends on what kind of results you're looking for.

gahh. gonna stop being longwinded now. I hope I made some sense.

The actual definition of strength is exerting maximal force against a load...The max load that you can do one repitition with.

https://www.livestrong.com/article/115549-define-strength-power-muscular-endurance/