From Theory to Training: strength training for endurance

kieranapexdelta
May 12
13 min read

Practical Implementation and guidelines for programming strengt training for endurance.

two men riding mountain bikes in the mountains

Whilst this article won't include detailed training programs or specific sessions to follow, I want to provide a resource and guide to putting the theory into practice. This will layout some of the main considerations I take when putting together a training plan for any individuals I work with in my own coaching, or in my own training.

My aim is that this will give you a better understanding of the process and give you the necessary tools to better implement strength training elements to your endurance training program. There are enough free and cheap programs online to satisfy that need if you are just looking for a general set of sessions to follow. I don't pass any judgement as anything done with consistency has the potential to provide benefit and gains. Rather, I hope that this gives you the ability to more critically analyse and approach strength training for endurance; Whether you are seeking out a coach, be that me or anyone else, or looking for a program to follow.

Programming guidelines in strength training for endurance:

Volume, Intensity, Frequency:

Volume, intensity and frequency are the actual building blocks of any program, be that strength, endurance, or any other physical quality. They are separate variables but interrelated by how they affect each other. Their interdependent relationship means changes made to one will affect or require changes in another to facilitate a program that is effective and viable.

Explaining fully how these variables shape training is far beyond the scope of this resource alone, so instead I will distill them down to providing an explanation of what they are, how they connect together, and recommendation for the endurance athlete. They will all be given in the context of strength training, but it is important to understand that they apply across any physical training quality or program.

Volume:

Volume is the measure of the total work being performed in any given unit of time (typically this would be in a single session, but could equally be across a week, month, year or any period of time). In strength training we usually measure this in a number of ways: Total reps (sets x reps), Volume-Load (sets x reps x load), or in single units of the number of reps/sets of any specific exercise.

Intensity:

We can differentiate intensity to both subjective and objective measures.

Subjectively, we could determine it by how 'hard' the training felt, or perceived fatigue afterwards. Objectively, we look at load or effort relative to a maximal output. We measure this as a percentage of a rep max (eg: 80% of a 1 Rep Maximum), or in a rating of perceived exertion (RPE. Usually measured with 10 as a max) where we look more out how much more you could have done (eg: an RPE 8, would represent a weight that you could likely have done 2 more reps at, if an RPE 10 was no reps left).

Frequency:

This is the organisation element between volume and intensity. As a variable it is how often we are training and how often we are distributing the specific volume and intensities stressors across a period of training. Again, this might be on a micro scale in a single training week, or longer over multiple weeks or months. We use frequency to manage the relationship between stress from training (which is defined by the volumes and intensities we are including), and recovery so that we are creating adaptations without negatively overtraining.

How do they connect together?:

If we think of volume and intensity as sliding scales, where we go from low to high, then they typically will follow an inverse relationship. When volumes are high, intensity would usually have to be lower and vice versa. Whilst we could push both to one end or the other simultaneously, in the context of strength for endurance this is unlikely to be an effective method and would lead to excessive fatigue and interference with endurance training. If we are training at very high intensities in our strength work, measured by working at high relative percentages compared to a 1 Rep Max (>90%) then we would need longer to recover and would not be able to do very high volumes of training alongside our endurance work. On the counter side, if we did very low intensities of work (<40-50% 1 rep max) then we would need to do very high volumes to gain any benefits, which equally could affect endurance training.

Its important to note here how intensity is linked to the specificity principle. The adaptations we will get from our strength training are closely linked to the intensity of the training we are doing. It is not as clear cut as saying that anything outside of a very specific percentage of max will not lead to strength gains, we work within general ranges that should guide intensity. It is generally accepted that any loads below 60% of max are going to cause little adaptation to strength and are more shifted towards muscular endurance. This is seen in the circuit training style of strength training for endurance and is not an efficient use of time if strength gains are the outcome you are chasing.

Frequency links here along the lines of what we discussed in the reversibility principle section, but also in the context of recovery from training. If we included strength training at an appropriate intensity and volume but only did a session every 4 weeks, we would not be training frequently enough to build or even maintain any strength qualities. On the other end, if we are strength training every day (this is obviously at the more extreme opposite end) then we would be likely to affect our recovery and so impact any other endurance training we would need to be doing, or we would need to be training at very low intensities and volumes. Which as mentioned, would be largely ineffective and just extra junk volume in the wider program.

Recommendations for strength training for the endurance athlete:

There is no one-size-fits-all approach here (remember the individualisation principle), but these recommendations are where I would start before making adaptations to a program based on what the person needs on an individual level.

Volume:

Less is more, until proven otherwise or if progress has stalled.
Typically, 3-5 sets is more than enough volume for any exercise. We may lean toward the higher end for the higher intensity work to ensure enough volume but this is not always necessary.
Even 1 or 2 sets done well, with the right level of intensity can work very well in many cases.
For strength 3-6 reps works well, for more secondary or accessory movements I tend towards the 8-15 rep range (depending on the exercise and the intended outcome).

Intensity:

For strength the 75-90% of max range works well. Below 70% we see less strength benefits. Much above 90% and we are limited on how much volume we can accumulate without excessive fatigue.
Any and all intensities can have a time and place in training, IF applied in the right way.
Power and speed work is a separate consideration and should generally be done at much lighter weights or bodyweight until progress is needed or technical competency is achieved with more complex movements.
Training to failure (a relative max intensity, either as a max weight, or max reps at a given weight) has a time and place in training. It is not for very session or every time you are doing any exercise. The fatigue and recovery cost is higher for potentially little extra reward.

Frequency:

As mentioned previously, we should be looking to train speed and power to some capacity every 1-2 weeks at least. Including some simple elements in every strength session.
Heavy strength work should be included every at least every 1-2 weeks also. A strength session every 10-14 days could be appropriate at times of travel or very high endurance volume but more frequent training would be more useful in most cases.
1-2 strength sessions weekly works well for most, a 3rd session could be beneficial at certain times (off-season) or with more advanced athletes but is by no means necessary.
2 sessions, executed well, with appropriate intensities and volumes, will be a good starting point for nearly everyone. The actual structure of those sessions is where the individualisation comes in and might look very different between people.

Balancing Strength and Endurance

Scheduling a week, balancing all the elements together:

The aim of any training program is to optimise performance in the outcome metrics we track. In this context, it is improving our endurance performance with the benefits of strength work. Including strength training as an additional element requires some level of planning and appreciation of the potential influence of one on the other. This is often where talk of interference effects come in as if we are not appropriately balancing these elements then we could begin to see one negatively impacting the other, ultimately meaning we are leaving potential performance gains out.

This section will focus on providing practical tips on planning out a training week to best fit the elements together.

Tip 1: Consolidating Stressors:

All training creates stress on our bodies, which fatigues and pushes our body away from its baseline. Our body does not necessarily differentiate between the stress that comes from strength or endurance or any other type of training it just knows that we have created stress. How this stress fatigues and challenges our bodies is different, endurance training can produce more cardiovascularly taxing stress, whereas strength training can work more on stressing our muscles and nervous systems. There can also be some crossover here though. Higher volumes of strength training can produce stress similar to more threshold type endurance training. Whereas sprints or high speed endurance work can produce similar stress to high load strength training.

Consolidating stressors works by recognising some of these similarities and leaning into them by grouping together certain elements in a training program so that we are providing similar stressors even across both strength and endurance sessions. How this looks practically is that we can look to group together our more high intensity components and group together our more high volume components.

Across a week this means we might work from higher to lower intensity across the week as volume climbs across the week. We do our heavy strength or power training at the start of the week alongside our fast interval work. Then we might group together a more accessory or higher volume strength session with our longer endurance work towards the end of the week. Essentially we look at components that are more similar in their stress effect on the body and do them in closer proximity to reduced the variety of different stresses our body has to experience and recover from at any one time.

Tip 2: Modulating High vs Low output days:

Linked in with the concepts of training stresses, a good way to manage different training components is to designate higher and lower output days. Whilst these all remain as important training sessions, we look to have our higher output days be more challenging and lower output days be less challenging. This can be used for both strength and endurance work and allows us to look at training in a more holistic way rather than as many different, non-related elements.

High output days might include our heavy strength work, high speed or power elements, or our harder endurance sessions either because of pace or very high volumes.

Low output days would include any accessory work or just generally lower intensity strength work, easy endurance sessions or anything minimally taxing that would require a lower recovery demand.

Tip 3: Separating strength and endurance:

Whilst not always possible or feasible within an individuals schedule where impossible it is best to try and separate strength and endurance components out in a program. Still keeping with the ideas of consolidating stressors and modulating high and low output sessions, we can potentially promote more favourable adaptive response by limiting excessive fatigue between sessions. By separating endurance and strength components by at least 6-8 hours, and ideally placing sessions on separate days we can limit any interference between these sessions. Where possible it is best to incorporate this rest between sessions, time to recover and refuel, and also structure training to have strength work performed first before endurance training. The only change to this would be where any endurance session of high importance or quality might be a priority on a day where both strength and endurance have to be trained together.

This is not an absolute necessity but is more so a favourable way to structure training when possible. It may not always be possible and it should be recognised that individual schedules are the ultimate dictator in training program layout. In these instances, it is not a deal breaking element, only away to limit any potential interference between sessions.

Tip 4: Longer training microcycle:

Training program design can sometimes feel limited in application within a typical 7 day week period. There can be an obsession to fit in every possible training element into a relatively narrow time frame which is not well suited to both including the training and also adequately recovering. As we have seen previously, most elements of training only need to be trained every 7-14 days to be maintained and built upon. Within this understanding, we can often extend out our training microcycle to a 10-14 day period. Whilst our endurance training may stay fixed on a weekly basis, we can spread out our strength work to ensure we are getting in all of the relevant movement patterns and training without having to fit in excessive amounts of volume into individual sessions or across a single week.

I have found good results with using a 2 week repeating cycle, essentially repeating an A and B week across the 14 day period. This means we can fit in more total movement variation and training, continue to make progress in these sessions, whilst also not doing too much in any one session or week.

Choosing exercises: Going from patterns to movements:

In the steps from broader theory and guiding principles, to actually planning out a session we will need to eventually select exercises that we should be including in a session. A truly comprehensive look at movement selection for an individual is beyond the scope of this resource but again, we will instead look at some of the considerations that lead us to select certain exercises over others within a training session or program for endurance performance.

Keep the goal, the goal:

This is an important consideration, we need to frame any decisions of exercises around what the intended goal is. If the goal is performance in our endurance discipline, then the exercises should serve that goal. Whilst we might look to make progress in the strength movements we are training, these are a means to an end. All this means really is that we should frame how we progress movement, and what we invest more time or energy into around the question 'Does this improve my endurance performance or make me more resilient?' If the answer is no, then it should be questioned whether the exercise should be included into a program.

Without this, we can end up with sessions full of good, but potentially irrelevant exercises for the intended goal. We are wasting time, energy and creating more recovery demand for very little return on that investment.

Some examples here, chasing max weights in the barbell back squat whilst a potentially valuable goal in getting stronger in the back squat, might not be the best way or exercise to build strength in a relative strength training novice looking to improve their performance in running. Instead, we might select a lower body focused exercise with a lower skill demand that can be loaded heavy still but with no need to go to a max effort. Something like a trapbar deadlift, leg press, or even goblet squat ,ight be more appropriate. Importantly, we should also note that the back squat might still be a valid and good option if that is the preferred movement or a technically good lift for an individual. This leads us to the next consideration.

Individual first, movements second:

Movement selection must be guided by the individual first and foremost. What is the most appropriate exercise for them given: their goals, their exercise history, their preferences, their other training, their access to equipment or gym kit and a potentially long list of other variables.

We shouldn't start at an exercise and then fit that to the individual. We should meet someone where they are at currently and choose the exercise that might best fit them at that time. This will change, progress, and potentially regress on an individual basis too.

A good rule of thumb, start at the lowest level needed to make progress, hammer that consistently, then progress. This might mean bodyweight training, dumbbells or machines, barbells. Whatever it is, start simple and build with time to complexity. Start lighter and build heavier. Meet yourself where you're at, don't jump ahead to more advanced options just for the sake of it.

Consistency with the basics:

You can go incredibly far on the absolute basics of strength training. Starting with the basic movement patterns mentioned before: Squat, hinge, push, pull, single arm/leg, and core.

Choose maybe 1 or 2 options that you are confident in technically for each and stick with them for 6-12 weeks. You'll make some great progress, and then you can either select slightly different variations or just repeat the process again. Do this for the next 3 years and you'll be stronger than ever and technically sound in all your lifting.

Complexity to strength training comes more from a space of coaches acting as entertainers than actual coaches. I am all for some level of novelty, enjoyment, and movement exploration in strength training. But the basics work, and this is how all of the best athletes have trained. They have consistently hammered the basics to a higher level than anyone else.

Output + Sensory exercises:

This is a good way to differentiate the outcome of exercises in a session and make movement selection a simpler process. We can break exercises up into output movements and sensory movements. Output exercises are our big rock movements, these are the big compound lifts (squat, bench press, deadlift variations) or machine movements. The intention with these is either to maximise load, or speed of movement. If the exercise does not lend itself well to either of these outcomes then it is likely not one to load heavy or move fast with (there will always be exceptions here that might not follow the rule)

Sensory exercises are those that typically fall within the 'accessories space' but this doesn't mean they should be easy or are not as important. Here the intention is to feel certain muscles or achieve certain positions. We can still load these heavy but this is relative as they may not be the most suitable exercises for maximal strength output. Movements like some pushing and pulling work, core movements, or single arm/leg exercises can be good choices here.

This is a reductionist view of exercise still and should be viewed as a good general guide but not a hard rule. Exercises don't always fit into just the output or sensory categories and we might use them in different ways when needed. It is however a helpful start point in assessing whether and exercise is a good choice based on the intended outcome of that exercise within the wider program.

This article aimed to layout some of the key considerations in going from the theory and science of strength training for endurance into the process of writing and planning out a program and its actual details. This is where a lot of the challenge and skill comes as a coach working with individuals, and a comprehensive dive into this would make this resource many times the length. Rather than provide cookie-cutter plans that are a very general approach without any consideration for the individual, this section instead lays out the steps we can take to planning out a program, progress them, and individualise the process.