Glad you don't disagree that its more injury-prone to lift heavy. Of course its all good if one has perfect form, but technically its impossible to keep it 100% of the time. Again anecdotally I had various smaller tendon/ligament issues when lifting at my max, every few months I had to stop for a week or two to heal. Since switching to what I described, I can do exactly the same, but no injury at all for 4 years.
But all bodies are unique, I found what works for me and my goals long term, if different approach works for you, stick to it.
And yeah, I hope no one is claiming that weight lifting trains your aerobic system.
The issue is when people claim that weight lifting is detrimental to cardio-related activities, which is what OP seems to be insinuating.
The difference is that I made a statement which is scientifically accepted as true, followed by an anecdote to support it:
"Heavy lifting actually trains both fast-twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers, as it takes your entire muscle to lift heavy. The reverse can not be said for higher-repetition lifting."
There's a reason why NFL running backs can run an entire game and still squat 600 lbs; basketball players are also some of the most active athletes but still put up huge lifting numbers. Reps in the 12-20 range do not increase muscular endurance any more than the 6-8 rep range. [1]
Also, professional athletes do both high rep and low rep weight training. The high rep build the strength but the low rep build the endurance to use the strength.
It does support my claims - but that was not the purpose of the study so you'll actually have to read beyond the abstract to see it
>Also, professional athletes do both high rep and low rep weight training. The high rep build the strength but the low rep build the endurance to use the strength.
I agree - which is why I don't believe that heavy weightlifting is detrimental to one's ability to do multi-hour hikes.
Kind of a false equivalence. Firstly, I'm not sure that long, arduous hikes are very relatable to e.g. moving around in old age, whereas doing a single squat is absolutely comparable to getting out of a chair for anyone. Secondly, my guess is that you'd be utterly useless if you had to carry a pack whose weight equalised the difference between your respective bodyweights.
If that were true bodybuilders would do great at marathons and triathlons.
It takes more than leg and back muscle to do great at marathons and triathlons. Aerobic development, VO2 max, lactate threshold are just as important. Further, you would want less weight (muscle mass) in the areas that are not required for your marathon. That's why many professional bikers and marathon runners intentionally neglect gaining upper body muscle.
Weight lifting won't train you to run a marathon, but it certainly isn't detrimental towards multi-hour hikes. Don't move the goal-posts on me :)
I was with you until you got here. A typical high-rep range for compound work should be between 8-12. 12-15 for auxiliary work. Most lifters would consider a rep range of between 3-5 to be low-rep.
>and you not only gain much better results in stamina (what good is it to be able to lift 100kg 3x times and you're done, when you need to move apartment for example or do multi-hour hike/anything else
Heavy lifting actually trains both fast-twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers, as it takes your entire muscle to lift heavy. The reverse can not be said for higher-repetition lifting. I've never trained in the mentioned rep range and anecdotally am able to do multi-hour hikes/anything else just fine. I find that the running/biking crowd loves to perpetuate this myth and generally does so with use of the phrase "meat-head".