PDA

View Full Version : Differences of endurance training vs anaerobic training for endurance


Dan Snyder
11-07-2006, 09:45 AM
This may be obvious but I'm curious to hear about what folks think about the unique effects of endurance training for endurance. It seems to me that the training effect of a several-hour effort trains one to endure a several-hour effort in ways that high intensity training can't. Of course there are numerous detriments to endurance specific training but are there any case studies where a sprinter for instance, ran an endurance race and performed similar to an endurance trained athlete? What are the detriments, if any, high intensity/interval training has for endurance trained athletes especially if endurance trained athletes were to train for an extended period anaerobically?

Greg Everett
11-07-2006, 10:26 AM
I think the key here is defining the duration in question. Brief, high-intensity interval type training will produce adequate results to a point. But once you start getting into longer events, specific LSD training is a must. I don't think that extended training is necessary to actually develop endurance in the sense of cardiopulmonary capacity, but more to condition body structures to endure that kind of extended, repetitive abuse, develop movement technique and economy, and to prepare the athlete mentally.

Another component is simply body comp as well--to be a successful endurance athlete, you simply cannot be large and muscular. Long term endurance training will eventually cause atrophy of type II muscle and even type I eventually to create a body of minimal mass and great capillary density. If muscularity is maintained through high intensity training, this is obviously counterproductive to high-end endurance athletics.

Robb Wolf
11-07-2006, 12:43 PM
Dan-
The Power running site has a nice perspective on this:
http://www.powerrunning.com/

Basicly sprint work, strength work and then trying to run your even AT race pace. Specificity is covered with the race pace efforts while power and foot turn over are improved with power and sprint work. I think this combo is where it's at for elite performance unless the event is very long in which case you want something like what Greg described, in which every non-essential scrap of tissue has been catabolized. Not a rosy picture but that may be what’s necessary for some events/activities.

I know Mark Twight commented that his long efforts (48-72hr climbs) improved Dramatically with the inclusion of CrossFit but he still needed the long efforts, almost more for mental toughness than physical performance.

Steve Shafley
11-07-2006, 01:35 PM
I remember Mark Twight talking about the physical rigors of being moving that long as something that needed to be considered:

-blister formation
-raw spots from clothing
-adequate hydration during the effort

Stuff like that.

Jeremy Jones
11-08-2006, 10:03 AM
As Shaf said, developing the propper 'wear' areas is also important. Some things are just not going to become tough enough without doing the extended efforts at least occationally.


Does anyone have some documentation on these super long distance runners (multi marathoner types) that have a lot of lean mass (compaired to their starving waif counterparts)?

Chris Forbis
11-08-2006, 02:37 PM
I have no documentation, but I'm sure you could find some stuff about Dean Karnazes with Google. He's pretty damn jacked for an ultra-marathoner.

Scott Kustes
11-08-2006, 03:23 PM
I have no documentation, but I'm sure you could find some stuff about Dean Karnazes with Google. He's pretty damn jacked for an ultra-marathoner.
http://www.ultramarathonman.com/flash/

Motion MacIvor
11-24-2006, 02:20 PM
IMHO the thing that makes lsd training so effective for long distance events is the eficiency it gives your movement. I forget where I saw it but there is a chart out there somewhere that shows power, cardio capacity, and eficiency. over several years power and cardio capacity will top out. Eficiency does not top out it continues to increase year after year (even if only by a single % or two). Yes intervals are important for building power and cardio capacity but once you top out the only way to become faster is to become more eficient so that you can put out higher power levels with less exertion. Cycling coaches have found that The training required for a road race (2-5 hrs) is also effective for events as short as 5 minutes. Racers who specialize in track and do not spend hours on the road doing LSD do not generaly have an advantage as soon as the event goes past five minutes.

Robb Wolf
11-25-2006, 09:45 AM
Motion-

I think that is the Seiler piece on the 2 waves of training adaptations. What he came to was intervals worked very well but at the elite levels efficiency was king. Intervals and power work obviously have their place but if one aspires to be elite in endurance efforts...you will have to log some efficiency hours. Even in this case if one uses intervals as a base and focuses the long efforts on establishing race pace and efficiency of movement, I think you have a powerful formula there. Straight from the power running site.

Dave Van Skike
12-11-2006, 03:04 PM
The need for long steady distance training to reinforce mechanics seems much more pronounced in technical endurance disciplines like X country skiing, swimming and speed skating where efficiency utterly rules.

In cycling it is wildly variable depending on the discipline and goal. For track events, I have not seen long steady distances be at all effective at improving mechanics or "endurance" for track specifically.




IMHO the thing that makes lsd training so effective for long distance events is the eficiency it gives your movement. I forget where I saw it but there is a chart out there somewhere that shows power, cardio capacity, and eficiency. over several years power and cardio capacity will top out. Eficiency does not top out it continues to increase year after year (even if only by a single % or two). Yes intervals are important for building power and cardio capacity but once you top out the only way to become faster is to become more eficient so that you can put out higher power levels with less exertion. Cycling coaches have found that The training required for a road race (2-5 hrs) is also effective for events as short as 5 minutes. Racers who specialize in track and do not spend hours on the road doing LSD do not generaly have an advantage as soon as the event goes past five minutes.

Motion MacIvor
12-18-2006, 05:40 PM
I think there is a distinction between technique and efficiency. XC sking and speed skating definetly require more technique than cycling but I think all sports benifit equally from improved eficiency (improved work output for a given energy input).
I have to admit that I have no track experience but my former coach had plenty including a WC bronze medal in the kilo. She was the person who told me coaches in europe were finding that if an elite road racer could last more than four or five minutes in a pursuit they would generaly win the race over the track specialist. I dont consider her word to be gospel if you have better information I'd love to hear it.

Dave Van Skike
12-19-2006, 11:40 AM
I think that example is totally spot on. The pursuit similar to super short crit. pretty different from many other track events, for a lot of those my experience is that very little efficiency is gained from long rides. that being said, we are talking the difference between 4-5 hours a week of tempo riding versus 12-25 hours that I would routinely do as a roadie.

Follow up point to this efficiency question, ran across a study of pedaqlign dynamics that suggested the only cyclist with truly mechanicaly "efficient" pedaling were elite mountainbikers who needed to be smooth to maximize traction. My observations were that the mountain bike race season absolutely killed my sprint, left me no snap for the track, but made me pretty smooth for sitdown climbing and small group breakaways.

I think there is a distinction between technique and efficiency. XC sking and speed skating definetly require more technique than cycling but I think all sports benifit equally from improved eficiency (improved work output for a given energy input).
I have to admit that I have no track experience but my former coach had plenty including a WC bronze medal in the kilo. She was the person who told me coaches in europe were finding that if an elite road racer could last more than four or five minutes in a pursuit they would generaly win the race over the track specialist. I dont consider her word to be gospel if you have better information I'd love to hear it.

Paul Kayley
05-24-2007, 12:57 PM
This may be obvious but I'm curious to hear about what folks think about the unique effects of endurance training for endurance. It seems to me that the training effect of a several-hour effort trains one to endure a several-hour effort in ways that high intensity training can't. Of course there are numerous detriments to endurance specific training but are there any case studies where a sprinter for instance, ran an endurance race and performed similar to an endurance trained athlete? What are the detriments, if any, high intensity/interval training has for endurance trained athletes especially if endurance trained athletes were to train for an extended period anaerobically?

Hi Dan, some interesting points made in this thread, and some curious suggestions. See my thoughts on endurance training in the following thread
http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1049

I believe that a differentiation should to be made between aerobic speed and endurance.