Does an Athlete at 190 Lbs have more endurance than he would have at 225 Lbs ? I am talking about equally conditioned.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Does an Athlete at 190 Lbs have more endurance than he would have at 225 Lbs ? I am talking about equally conditioned. [/quote]
It depends what you mean by conditioning. If you’re talking about cardio vascular conditioning then I’d say “yes” he would have better conditioning at 190lbs.
VO2 max is a test for determining the amount of oxygen that an individual can uptake, per minute, and is used as a determinant of cardiovascular fitness. This test includes weight in part of its’ calculation. The heavier the individual the lower the VO2 max and therefore cv fitness.
It’s easy to see in real life situations. Elite marathon runners aren’t skinny for the hell of it and light weight boxers punch at a rate than would have a heavyweight blowing in 3 rounds.
Wheels
[quote]steelwheels wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Does an Athlete at 190 Lbs have more endurance than he would have at 225 Lbs ? I am talking about equally conditioned.
It depends what you mean by conditioning. If you’re talking about cardio vascular conditioning then I’d say “yes” he would have better conditioning at 190lbs.
VO2 max is a test for determining the amount of oxygen that an individual can uptake, per minute, and is used as a determinant of cardiovascular fitness. This test includes weight in part of its’ calculation. The heavier the individual the lower the VO2 max and therefore cv fitness.
It’s easy to see in real life situations. Elite marathon runners aren’t skinny for the hell of it and light weight boxers punch at a rate than would have a heavyweight blowing in 3 rounds.
Wheels
[/quote]
It depends what kind of endurance and how you’re testing/displaying it. In fact, if an athlete gained tons of muscular weight, their relative and absolute VO2 could go up because fat isn’t metabolically active tissue, so incidentally, I don’t take it as a particularly good measure of endurance for the purposes of this discussion.
The point about the boxer is probably valid, however, the heavyweight will throw fewer punches, true, but the punches he throws in the later rounds will be harder then the ones the flyweight threw in the first.
In otherwords, even if he is more fatigable, because his baseline of strength was higher, he will likely retain more absolute strength.
More to the point, please explain what you mean by endurance and in what context.
Thank you for your in put. I will follow up on the VO2 angle
Also, the weight in itself might be a factor. If he’s running, the heavier guy is at a disadvantage.
But if he’s riding a bicycle (not uphill) or just moving weights, the body weight is much less a factor.
Considering what most people look at as “endurance” realm. Someone who is 190 lbs is still pretty damn heavy for an endurance athlete.
I’m ~165lbs at my race weight and that is still considered heavy. The biggest factor (as mentioned) is uphill.
The relative VO2 max is definitely a factor as mentioned. Absolute VO2 max is what you’d look at to be equally conditioned but the relative VO2 max would be different. Incidentally, Lactate Threshold is more of an indicator of endurance ability and that is generally a HR based issue. Someone who is heavier is typically going to have a higher HR because the amount of tissue the heart has to pump blood through as opposed to a leaner individual.
Plus its very hard to have a 225lb person who is slow twitch dominant. Slow twitch fibers are not very responsive to hypertrophy training so chances are the bigger person (at the same body fat) will be using mostly fast twitch fibers which will fatigue much faster.
My question is because over the last 20 years I have put on 50 lbs. Most of it is muscle, but I could lose some fat. But in those 20 years my endurance has suffered immensely. 20 years ago I mostly trained my slow twitch muscles .Today I train mostly my type 2 muscle fiber.
My jobs are physical by nature but the one is totally physical. 20 years ago I could do that job 12 hrs straight, get up and do it again tomorrow. But today 3 or 4 hours is a full day.
I was wondering if it is because I seldom train my slow twitch muscles. Or if were a weight issue.
[quote]TriGWU wrote:
I’m ~165lbs at my race weight and that is still considered heavy. The biggest factor (as mentioned) is uphill.
[/quote]
Not to hijak… but wasnt lance around 170? Well, he’s a freak. I’m just sayin haha.
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
TriGWU wrote:
I’m ~165lbs at my race weight and that is still considered heavy. The biggest factor (as mentioned) is uphill.
Not to hijak… but wasnt lance around 170? Well, he’s a freak. I’m just sayin haha.
[/quote]
I think he’s gotten progressively lighter as he get’s “better” and he races significantly lighter then his regular street weight.
I’m basing this off a lecture I heard from Dr. Coyle several months ago and it may be inaccurate. Correct me if I’m wrong.
[quote]conorh wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
TriGWU wrote:
I’m ~165lbs at my race weight and that is still considered heavy. The biggest factor (as mentioned) is uphill.
Not to hijak… but wasnt lance around 170? Well, he’s a freak. I’m just sayin haha.
I think he’s gotten progressively lighter as he get’s “better” and he races significantly lighter then his regular street weight.
I’m basing this off a lecture I heard from Dr. Coyle several months ago and it may be inaccurate. Correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]
Yea I’ll second that, I thought Lances competitive weight was alot lighter than 170, more like 150.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
My question is because over the last 20 years I have put on 50 lbs. Most of it is muscle, but I could lose some fat. But in those 20 years my endurance has suffered immensely. 20 years ago I mostly trained my slow twitch muscles .Today I train mostly my type 2 muscle fiber.
My jobs are physical by nature but the one is totally physical. 20 years ago I could do that job 12 hrs straight, get up and do it again tomorrow. But today 3 or 4 hours is a full day.
I was wondering if it is because I seldom train my slow twitch muscles. Or if were a weight issue.
[/quote]
I can’t give much science here, but I think there is one part that maybe you’re ignoring. What about the factor of the 20 years? I’m no doctor, but I’m betting that has as much or more to do with it than the additional muscle.
[quote]awesomepossom wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
My question is because over the last 20 years I have put on 50 lbs. Most of it is muscle, but I could lose some fat. But in those 20 years my endurance has suffered immensely. 20 years ago I mostly trained my slow twitch muscles .Today I train mostly my type 2 muscle fiber.
My jobs are physical by nature but the one is totally physical. 20 years ago I could do that job 12 hrs straight, get up and do it again tomorrow. But today 3 or 4 hours is a full day.
I was wondering if it is because I seldom train my slow twitch muscles. Or if were a weight issue.
[/quote]
I can’t give much science here, but I think there is one part that maybe you’re ignoring. What about the factor of the 20 years? I’m no doctor, but I’m betting that has as much or more to do with it than the additional muscle.
Believe me I am not ignoring 20 years. I think I will focus on an aerobic workout for a while and see if that will help my endurance. Then if necessary I will lose some weight