Gymnastics and General Physical Preparation

This is directed at anyone though I am very interested in reading Coach Sommer's opinion. Building the Gymnastic Body is an excellent book, for a beginner like myself it is a really good opportunity to get more Physically prepared for the rigours of sport.

On to the question: in the introduction Coach Sommer states that when he retired from Gymnastics and began to run and lift he was in great physical condition, even cardiovascularly. Later he states that Gymnastics imparts a high degree of GPP which is rarely attained in anything else. I can understand the obvious strength, power, agility, etc benefits gymnastics can provide, why do you think it provides such great cardio benefits also? running 20 miles on the spur of the moment is quite an accomplishment.

thank you for your time, looking forward to the rest of the books

The only cardio work that I notice is that I usually train for 2 or more hours a day! I work basic strength, floor, handstands (several types), rings etc. So I guess just the length of typical training sessions hit the cardiovascular system even though I usually dont focus on it specifically, I do jump rope to warm up though.

It's a proven fact than anaerobic conditioning imparts aerobic capacity. It won't impart you the ability to be a long distance runner but you'll still be able to hang, especially in the shorter runs of 1/2 mile to 3 miles. Not sure about 10k or 15k.

Excellent question.

I was also quite curious for a number of years as to why my gymnastics training allowed me to run so easily and with so little effort. Part of the benefits came from the gymnastics training itself and part of it came from the era in which I trained in as a young man. For example, spring floors were quite rare as I was coming up and as a consequence I tumbled on wrestling mats which were ultimately much better for the development of my plyometric and ballistic strength components.

Progressively developing my tumbling on the firmer surface gave me extremely strong achilles, knees, abs and lower back. In addition, I have always run with a forefoot strike, which allowed me to effectively use the specific structural strengths which I had developed through gymnastics. As an interesting side note, over the years I also came across a reference that connective tissues (ligaments and tendons etc) are best developed through pulses or micro-bursts of load (i.e. the bottom of a ring swing, rebounding, depth jumps, tumbling). The Dynamic Physique (not yet released) will deal with this component of the Gymnastic Bodies program in depth. I will also go over it extensively at the upcoming GB Seminar in May.

In addition, tumbling, swinging, giants, etc. all have a dynamic effect on the cardiovascular and lymphatic systems. I never had a difficulty cardiovascular wise with running; either while sprinting or for long distances (10+ miles). Although in high school, I was once running home from my evening job at about 11pm and was stopped by the police. They wanted to know what I had done and why the ?!*# I was running like a bat out of ?!*# through the neighborhood, what had I done and who was chasing me? After I convinced them that I was simply on my way home after work, they let me go. The interesting point is that when they stopped me, I was not even aware that I was practically sprinting - I was simply enjoying the run home.

I have also noticed that as I drifted away from gymnastics specific training and strength training that my running abilities deteriorated accordingly. What was once effortless, was certainly no longer so :cry:. And that was also while engaging in running specific training.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Hello Coach, thanks.

This addresses one of my questions as well. What I think you are expressing is that the kind of gymnastics conditioning that you did kept your body in an effortless condition for running, running possible being only a % of the intensity of the training you do in Gymnastics.

I would suggest that it is also the dynamic flexibility of the entire body from gynastic conditioning as well as the abdominal strength and arm strength that is provides, which runners suffer from lacking usually and get side stitches and sore arms, especially at higher miles.

Thank you for the thoughts.

Blairbob said:

It's a proven fact than anaerobic conditioning imparts aerobic capacity. It won't impart you the ability to be a long distance runner but you'll still be able to hang, especially in the shorter runs of 1/2 mile to 3 miles. Not sure about 10k or 15k.

This is incorrect.

Metabolically, anaerobic capacity does not translate to aerobic capacity and vice versa. The reason is because each energy system is discrete. Now, some parts of gymnasts like Coach Sommer said do require more "aerobic" capacity especially tumbling.

Well, let's look at the examples. Interval training/tabatas/metabolic conditioning -- all tax both anaerobic capacity FIRST and then aerobic capacity as you become fatigued. Lactate threshold raises but this does not confer aerobic benefits rather it allows your anaerobic system to operate longer before fatiguing. Rather, the aerobic benefit comes later when you're huffing and puffing and probably ready to puke (after a couple sprints most likely). If we look at an extreme in another direction such as heavy lifting, it's very easy to lose "aerobic" conditioning because it doesn't engage your oxidative pathways as much.

As we see an increase in DURATION of the exercise especially at high intensity, there is an increase in oxidative pathway being used because of the greater energy requirements. This is because the glycolytic pathway itself has a fairly limited amount of energy (e.g. runner's fatiguing in 400m race at ~300m).

So anyway what I'm trying to say is that some of gymnastics does require both anaerobic and aerobic conditioning. While the energy systems DO overlap, they are discrete entities. Anaerobic gain DOES NOT [necessarily] confer any aerobic gain at all.

Sometimes, I really hate you Steve and wish I could pick you up and throw you like a dwarf. However, your stronger in your upper body than me, and that makes me hate you more.

As an ex-runner, I must agree with Blairbob.

Even on very short events, a significant percentage of the energy is coming from the aerobic system.

Something like:

10 seconds = 90% anaerobic/10% aerobic

30 seconds = 80% anaerobic/20% aerobic

60 seconds = 70% anaerobic/30% aerobic

2 minutes = 50% anaerobic/50% aerobic

Distance running is all about raising lactate threshold and as you mentionned, interval training gives a nice short in the arm of your lactate threshold, especially with non-runners like gymnasts.

But I think the answer to the initial question is high level strength providing high level of muscle endurance (the physiological reason involves muscle fiber type conversion, muscle innervation, mitochondrial density...).

(Edited with a source for the above numbers: Textbook of Work Physiology by Astrand, Rodahl)

Adrien said:

As an ex-runner, I must agree with Blairbob.

Even on very short events, a significant percentage of the energy is coming from the aerobic system.

Something like:

10 seconds = 90% anaerobic/10% aerobic

30 seconds = 80% anaerobic/20% aerobic

60 seconds = 70% anaerobic/30% aerobic

2 minutes = 50% anaerobic/50% aerobic

Distance running is all about raising lactate threshold and as you mentionned, interval training gives a nice short in the arm of your lactate threshold, especially with non-runners like gymnasts.

But I think the answer to the initial question is high level strength providing high level of muscle endurance (the physiological reason involves muscle fiber type conversion, muscle innervation, mitochondrial density...).

(Edited with a source for the above numbers: Textbook of Work Physiology by Astrand, Rodahl)

No, it's physiologically incorrect.

Raising anaerobic threshold does NOT confer benefits to aerobic threshold. Those numbers just prove that short term exercise has an aerobic component INDEPENDENT of the anaerobic one that also provides energy. Hence, training even in short periods of time can confer at least some aerobic benefit.

Also, in trained track athletes you'd be interested to know that the numbers above are incorrect. 400m for men 60 anaerobic/40 aerobic while 800m is 40 anaerobic/60 aerobic:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/t ... 2/art00010

Now this MAKES SENSE because in a 400m run at top speed ALL humans run out of anaerobic energy at approximately ~300m. So, if we are using some aerobic energy the whole time + a full 25% of energy near the end of the race for the last 100m from aerobic energy we're going to see number splits like this. NOT like from the book above...

In fact, I don't even know how they pull out stuff like that. I've seen values of like 50/50 anaerobic/aerobic for MILE runs before which is ABSURDLY wrong.

back to the original question - it would make sense that tumbling onto hard surfaces, plymetric movements, etc would strengthen the ankle and knee complex. Also the sheer nature of Gymnastic exercises and the fact they all utilise the core to a greater extent when compared to traditional weight lifting and body weight exercises, surely this would produce enhanced strengthened core benefits, i.e. a reduction in energy expenditure during running, increased strutural strength in the hip and lower back, etc.

I supposed it can also depend on the protocol being utilised during a workout. Coach how often do you focus on endurance type drills in sessions? I'm very curious about gymnastics and it's GPP benefits, it would essentially provide a means to consolidate one's training and simplify

Thank you

You are right, there is a lot of variance on such numbers in the literature. Yours suggest that 400m is even more aerobic than I thought. I guess the reason is the level of athlete tested that differ between studies: world-class 400m runners will tend to be more aerobic from 400m training.

Anaerobic capacity and aerobic capacity are indeed two different physiological variables, but impossible to isolate in training.

Flexibility given by gymnastics has a mixed popularity in the running world (a large part of the energy to push your feet of the group is elastic recoil in your ankle), but gymnastics strength/plyometric exercises like pistols, glute-ham raise, senders are very beneficial to running.

Look at the differences in their bodies from a 200 to a 400m runner and a 400 to an 800m runner and so forth.

joe_fitz said:

back to the original question - it would make sense that tumbling onto hard surfaces, plymetric movements, etc would strengthen the ankle and knee complex. Also the sheer nature of Gymnastic exercises and the fact they all utilise the core to a greater extent when compared to traditional weight lifting and body weight exercises, surely this would produce enhanced strengthened core benefits, i.e. a reduction in energy expenditure during running, increased strutural strength in the hip and lower back, etc.

I supposed it can also depend on the protocol being utilised during a workout. Coach how often do you focus on endurance type drills in sessions? I'm very curious about gymnastics and it's GPP benefits, it would essentially provide a means to consolidate one's training and simplify

Thank you

Something along the lines of tumbling a lot in a short period of time. Jumping max height on trampoline for a bit. Etc. Something that requires max effort power gets to be very taxing quickly.

You can add types of intervals and metabolic conditioning circuits with gymnastics exercises for example too.

Be creative.

Adrien said:

You are right, there is a lot of variance on such numbers in the literature. Yours suggest that 400m is even more aerobic than I thought. I guess the reason is the level of athlete tested that differ between studies: world-class 400m runners will tend to be more aerobic from 400m training.

I don't think so. The variances, I believe, depend on the method of measurements as there's a couple different ways to measure. Most older measurements tend to be more faulty too.

Theoretically speaking, if we think about what happens in a more novice runner they will have lower glycogen stores and a lower absolute intensity. Both of these factors will lead to decreased energy from the glycolytic pathway which means that the body requires more energy from the aerobic pathway. So in actuality there should be more energy required from the aerobic pathway than an elite runner. This makes sense because longer duration tends to be more aerobic.

Anaerobic capacity and aerobic capacity are indeed two different physiological variables, but impossible to isolate in training.

Flexibility given by gymnastics has a mixed popularity in the running world (a large part of the energy to push your feet of the group is elastic recoil in your ankle), but gymnastics strength/plyometric exercises like pistols, glute-ham raise, senders are very beneficial to running.

Agreed with both.