Cardio

I was thinking the same thing. The whole point isn't so much to have a great aerobic system so much as a quickly recovering one. That way, you're ready for the next flurry or takedown or submission attempt ect ect. Some think differently of that like certain boxers but there is a reason you see people like GSP who are at 85 percent when others at at 100. Its pretty awesome.

I do agree that aerobics can be great for recovery. And if you aren't trying to reach a high (elite) level or other things then it is probably more beneficial than not.

I'd say Jack Lalanne in his day was an excellent strength and gymnastic athlete with amazing endurance.

Nice article: http://startingstrength.com/articles/ja ... _starr.pdf

So it's possible to have both but be that as it may ...

I don't think you can really have aerobic energy generation just for recovery - if it's generating energy from pyruvate

that's aerobic energy that will be used. Right? So the two are really one and the same. The more aerobic energy that

can be used, the longer your strength can last. The longer you can last.

As an aside, building on what Slizz said earlier about the two types of heart function improvements from intervals and steady-state,

I read an interesting distinction on lyle mcdonalds site betewwn aerobic peak and capacity. The former is a heart adaptation, the latter is a muscular adaptation. Steady state improves both. Interval training only improves heart function, it doesn't affect muscular aerobic capacity (the ability of muscles to use oxegen). My take-home from that is if one is concerned about de-training their muscular strength, aerobic intervals should not. He refers to there being a flipping of consensus in this matter a few times, but apparently steady state cardio alone has the potential to increase aerobic enzymes, capillary and mitochondrial density in the skeletal muscles, which is Phillip's concern.

Having improved cardiac ability alone helps recovery, but not as much as having both. But if someone is hyper-concerned about strength, it appears that aerobic intervals would not convert trigger muscle adaptations. It seems that the moderate amount of steady-state recommened by Coach Sommer for most people here offers the best of both worlds.

FutureisNow said:

I'd say Jack Lalanne in his day was an excellent strength and gymnastic athlete with amazing endurance.

Nice article: http://startingstrength.com/articles/ja ... _starr.pdf

So it's possible to have both but be that as it may ...

I don't think you can really have aerobic energy generation just for recovery - if it's generating energy from pyruvate

that's aerobic energy that will be used. Right? So the two are really one and the same. The more aerobic energy that

can be used, the longer your strength can last. The longer you can last.

As an aside, building on what Slizz said earlier about the two types of heart function improvements from intervals and steady-state,

I read an interesting distinction on lyle mcdonalds site betewwn aerobic peak and capacity. The former is a heart adaptation, the latter is a muscular adaptation. Steady state improves both. Interval training only improves heart function, it doesn't affect muscular aerobic capacity (the ability of muscles to use oxegen). My take-home from that is if one is concerned about de-training their muscular strength, aerobic intervals should not. He refers to there being a flipping of consensus in this matter a few times, but apparently steady state cardio alone has the potential to increase aerobic enzymes, capillary and mitochondrial density in the skeletal muscles, which is Phillip's concern.

Having improved cardiac ability alone helps recovery, but not as much as having both. But if someone is hyper-concerned about strength, it appears that aerobic intervals would not convert trigger muscle adaptations. It seems that the moderate amount of steady-state recommened by Coach Sommer for most people here offers the best of both worlds.

Technically the function is the same, aerobic rephosphorylation is aerobic rephosporylation. The training method is just very different!

There are multiple heart adaptations, and steady state work does a better job of eliciting an enlargement of the structural heart chamber volume than muscular thickening of the walls. Moderate to high intensity interval work does a better job of thickening the musculature of the heart, which is quite a bit different.

If anything, you have the two functions backwards... Interval work is much better at eliciting muscular O2 uptake and CO2 discharge and removal because higher levels of BOTH are required to deal with the high levels of lactate resulting from the work. The lactate is shuttled to the aerobic fibers (as well as the solid organs) for processing, where aerobic muscular adaptations are also seen from the purely anaerobic work. That's why you get an enormous boost to your aerobic endurance as well as your anaerobic endurance with interval work, while long steady state work is much more of an aerobic endurance enhancer and not so much of an anaerobic endurance enhancer.

The steady state work should increase aerobic enzymes MORE than interval work, but that also decreases anaerobic enzymes at the same time and a fighter needs a very high level of anaerobic enzymes more than they need aerobic enzymes.

Steady state work is necessary to max out aerobic performance, but that is not what a fighter needs. A fight is literally a long series of intervals with very low level work in between that actually enhances lactate processing and aerobic rephosphorylation of creatine phosphate. The adaptations that interval work elicits are the most specific to fighters. The aerobic work is really just for heart chamber enlargement purposes and for general recovery, and should be treated as such. Having developed the ability to go 15 3 minute rounds at full speed simultaneously through this type of training without losing any speed or ability (I used to have to spar with a different person every 2 rounds, and could keep them all on their heels) when I was 18-19, I can and will personally attest to how well this works. It was something of an accident, I suppose, that this is how my training worked out but that's how it was.

3 minute rounds on the pads, 1 minute rest. every 20-30 seconds we'd switch between doing hard kicks and fast hand combinations/movements with slower, more relaxed stuff that was more focused on honing reactions. I went through an hour of that every day. After about 6 months, 15 rounds was easy. Just another training day, and that's not counting all the other work we did.

I think the confusion is that the aerobic energy from the lactate->pyruvate->krebs cycle pathway and other aerobic sources is actually primarily being used to replenish the oxygen debt incurred by the intervals, and not actually fueling the main bouts of activity. The energy is actually being used in different processes than what you are thinking because of the nature of the activity itself. Energy system is the same, but what the energy is being used for is somewhat different. There's no question that the aerobic system is also fueling the downtime between high energy flurries, but the main purpose in a fight is recharging the CrP system for the next 5-10 seconds of hard work. Glycolysis doesn't really need recharging, the lactate just has to be shuttled out of the muscles and the increased vascularization of the muscle capillary beds is what facilitates that. This vascularization is caused primarily by the very high lactate levels incurred during moderate to high intensity interval training over a period of a few months. Technically it's 3-4 weeks to the first new capillary beds coming on line, but this keeps happening for a while as the intensity keeps rising.

It's asking for trouble when paraphrasing, as I probably overstated what I read in

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/traini ... art-2.html

The "VO2 Max (Aerobic Power)" section. It's part of an excellent interval/steady-state series.

He did not mention capillary beds - I added that. The citrate synthase enzyme was the marker in the muscles was not impacted

by interval training (at exactly which intensities are not stated) as you also mention.

From what I can find though - for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2646594/, contrary to their expectations, interval training that was performed did not increase the capillary density in the gastroc or soleus, whereas endurance training did (gastroc red only). There is no doubt that interval training at and above lactate threshold levels can improve buffering and and tolerance improving performance. Increases in blood flow can occur regardless of capillary bed increases, which may come about at different intensity/durations - there are so many possible intensities/durations when talking about "interval training" and I am no expert. And I am sure that what you say as much validity.

I do feel that ATP is ATP and if it's there it will be sucked up as from what I understand slow-twitch fibres are recruited along with faster twitch even during high-intensity exercise. It may not contribute to the peak power, but would allows moderate level activity to be maintained between peaks, while at the same time clearing lactate, allowing peaks to resume sooner.

I don't mean to be definitive here. You make a lot of good points. There are lots of variables. At a practical level, all we can do is train using our best understanding at the time, observe the results, make adjustments if we are not satisfied, and hopefully find what we are looking for eventually!

That business wit the gastrocs is very interesting, I have to say. I have always felt like the calves responded very differently from other parts of the body to training, which I think almost everyone alive has experienced as well.

As you say, in the end it's all about what works for an individual athlete. You try something, and then tweak it to fit the individual. Often you end up pretty far from the template you started with, but that's how it goes!

Edit: I also think that this study isn't a very good one to try and apply to human exercise, simply because what they did to the gastrocs did not take the gastrocs to anaerobic failure. That's what is required to elicit the vascularization response, which is the primary benefit of a beginning GVT-type program. Without extreme lactate and CO2 levels the body has no reason to produce blood vessels that would increase intramuscular and intermuscular blood flow volume in the area.

slizzardman said:

That business wit the gastrocs is very interesting, I have to say. I have always felt like the calves responded very differently from other parts of the body to training, which I think almost everyone alive has experienced as well.

As you say, in the end it's all about what works for an individual athlete. You try something, and then tweak it to fit the individual. Often you end up pretty far from the template you started with, but that's how it goes!

Edit: I also think that this study isn't a very good one to try and apply to human exercise, simply because what they did to the gastrocs did not take the gastrocs to anaerobic failure. That's what is required to elicit the vascularization response, which is the primary benefit of a beginning GVT-type program. Without extreme lactate and CO2 levels the body has no reason to produce blood vessels that would increase intramuscular and intermuscular blood flow volume in the area.

So if you could generate those blood flow improvements without increasing aerobic enzymes through anerobic intervals, that's good for those people who do want recovery improvements without focusing on aerobic. Although as you said before,some low intensity aerobic work won't trigger muscle fibre conversions and will only help overall recovery.

In my case from GB point of view I could use less mass in my legs and hips; I don't want to lose strength there paerticcuarly, but I don't want to gain any more mass there either.

Yea, I just stopped working my legs for the past year and a half or so and have done occasional spats of work but nothing regular. I can still deadlift 455 for 2 reps without too much trouble, I didn't try to max the reps or anything. I am doing some single leg squat variation work with a front squat style load, and besides that it's just sled pulling (which I've been lazy about lately) and that's about it. Not hardly any work, but getting stronger slowly and I have lost quite a bit of leg mass compared to when I started GB. I am going to put it back on soon, I did like having a bigger butt. To each his own! I'm not planning on making much progress on pommel hahaha!

Aw come on Slizz. Pommel is the third most fun event. I just started it which means any chances of me ever oly lifting again are gone.

I'm going to learn some high bar stuff, that's for sure.

At first I wanted to do pommel (and everything else) but I think that rings, high bar and perhaps some PB if my shoulders let me will be plenty. Well, that and some basic tumbling!

Well maybe the legs will help you swing well then. Sounds like a cool mixture!

I don't like pb and hb as much because I feel like i am repeating ring training half the time. PH is just fun as a long term goal. Maybe I can get a few circles, russians,and flairs. Vault is okayish. Rings and tumbling are definitely where the fun is at though!

if i do like 1hr and a half of running which is like under 9miles i think, is it ok to do a gb strength based workout like 4hrs later?

edit:its more like 25kms which is like 15miles, is this too much running for optimal strength gain? coach said 9kms average is what chinese gymnast do so yeah

Anhkun, that is difficult to answer without the appropriate context. Example, when I used to train for marathons and triathlons, my 'easy' run was between 12 to 15 kms. in the morning. In the evening I would swim for an hour, or do some form of strength training.

If I ran that long now, 10 years later, I would need to go to bed at 7:00, probably after been carried up the stairs by my 100 lbs. wife.

That all being said, even when I was pretty fit, a 25 km. run would be a 'one workout' day, as recovering from that to do any other form of training would be extremely difficult.

So contextualize the running, in terms of your own fitness, and how you propose balancing it with GB training.

yours,

David

anhkun said:

if i do like 1hr and a half of running which is like under 9miles i think, is it ok to do a gb strength based workout like 4hrs later?

edit:its more like 25kms which is like 15miles, is this too much running for optimal strength gain? coach said 9kms average is what chinese gymnast do so yeah

David Barclay said:

Anhkun, that is difficult to answer without the appropriate context. Example, when I used to train for marathons and triathlons, my 'easy' run was between 12 to 15 kms. in the morning. In the evening I would swim for an hour, or do some form of strength training.

If I ran that long now, 10 years later, I would need to go to bed at 7:00, probably after been carried up the stairs by my 100 lbs. wife.

That all being said, even when I was pretty fit, a 25 km. run would be a 'one workout' day, as recovering from that to do any other form of training would be extremely difficult.

So contextualize the running, in terms of your own fitness, and how you propose balancing it with GB training.

yours,

David

ill try to give more info, as a Gen Y-er im basically a vampire choosing to sleep at like 3am and getting at least 8hrs sleep most of the time. i would be running once a week max and alternate it with sprints every 2-3weeks just to mix it up. i do tumbling at gymnastics facility once a week, gb based stuff the rest of the week and 1 off day

Just bringing this informative thread back to live again!

I do parkour regularily and I need my achillies to be in perfect shape. Currently I am using some Assics Onitsuka Tiger Ultimate 81 shoes which has little arch support. I do not know which would be better in this instance; minimalistic shoes with little cushioning or heel supported shoes with good cushioning.

This is both in terms of sprinting shorter distances, sucking up from landings and as providing a safety margin for bad and semibad landings, where unsupported shoes could lead to pain.

I guess that for parkour you´ll better use the cushioned, protected shoes. Maybe for running and strength training you may use the vibrams as a way to increase feet strength, but just for non impact training.

Since this thread was rejuvenated - has anyone read (or is doing) Maximum Aerobic Speed (MAS) training? Link is below.

One of the National Rugby League teams here in Australia (the Brisbane Broncos) uses it to some success, and the military uses it for building sound aerobic fitness.

I have been doing it for a few weeks now and thoroughly enjoy it. Whilst nothing ground-breaking, I thought it was a nice fresh way of looking at interval style training.

http://www.danbakerstrength.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Receng-trends-in-high-intensity-aerobic_training.pdf

Opinions welcome - I presently do this around two times per week. The intent is to stay with the same number and duration of intervals for the entire 3 week F1 cycle, being 5 sets of 5 minutes, and reduce to 3 sets in my fourth week to align my deload. Once the four week cycle is complete I think I will increase time (so 5 sets of six minutes) for another four week cycle (including the deload) and continue on like this.

-Callum

**EDIT** I should have mentioned - I do them all on the C2 Rowing Machine (man I love that thing), with a damper setting of 120-130.