Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Training > Endurance

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-20-2007, 02:45 PM   #11
Paul Kayley
Member
 
Paul Kayley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
My understanding is that VO2max is a corralary (sp) and not a cause of high aerobic performance. It's not how much oxegen you take in it's what you do with it that counts. I think the limiting factors are much more likely to be capillary, mitochondia density, and the efficiency of the neuro muscular conections. Another point is that VO2max is not even an indicator of high performance it's the % of VO2max that your AT sits at that is the more meaningful number. I seem to remember the power running site has a bit to say about this if you have'nt already checked it out I highly recomend it.

BTW I have no idea who you are, whats your background?
Yes you are right, VO2max is more a measure of aerobic potential rather than of current aerobic ability.

As you say, performance in any given event is usually dependent upon many phsiological variables. In most normal endurance events, with a high VO2max one is simply more likely to succeed with the right training.

I know very little about neuro-muscular connection limitations... I think I remember writing a really boring essay once on acetyl-choline as a potential site of peripheral fatigue!

Capillary density and the extent of mitochondrial reticulum development are of course both very responsive to endurance training. Improving mitochondrial development beyond a certain stage does not appear to raise the fiber's QO2, thereafter the increased density appears to be related mainly to improved glycogen sparing via lipolysis.

My background... nothing special!
Paul Kayley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2007, 06:48 PM   #12
Pierre Auge
Senior Member
 
Pierre Auge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 529
Default

Paul Kayley,
seems its been a very long time since I've seen that name. I think before I even started posting on the CF message board, back before I was the stupid kid I am now.
__________________
NOTICE: Pierre Auge's opinions are subject to change at any time and without prior notice.

To give real service you must add something which cannot be bought or measured with money, and that is sincerity and integrity. - Douglas Adams
Pierre Auge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2009, 11:49 PM   #13
Ben Reynolds
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Kayley View Post
What are your thoughts on the relevance of resistance training to aerobic sports performance?

Have you experienced complimentary benefits? If yes, why do you think improved strength increases aerobic performance?
Ideally, training should incorporate both resistance and strength based movements just to make the body more adaptable to varying stimuli. I believe strength helps endurance to the extent that muscular fatigue takes longer to set in.

When I only trained burpees they were brutal. By incorporating ring dips, L-sit pullups, and pistols alongside my routine, muscular fatigue set in later and I could handle longer sets before reaching the anaerobic threshold. Just those three exercises filled in the gaps for me.
Ben Reynolds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 07:00 PM   #14
Tom Rawls
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 152
Default

Do any of the elite cyclists do strength training? Or do they let their climbs develop the strength they need?

Clearly, their sport demands that they limit upper body mass. No one wants to carry extra weight up the Alps. So that has some implications for their training and diet. And I expect their legs are largely slow-twitch.

I am skeptical of Robb's assertion that strength training 2-3 times per week would be valuable to road cyclists. But I'm also quick to admit, damned if I know for sure.

Stephen Seiler's site discusses the use of strength training for rowers (power/endurance athletes). It also goes into their muscle-fiber composition. He concludes that lifting is only marginally useful for endurance athletes who clearly also need to be strong, and he also notes that Olympic rowers are slow-twitch freaks. That's probably a genetic gift, in part, and a result of adaptations from many two-a-day sessions lasting 90-120 minutes. Seiler's stuff hasn't been changed for several years, so I don't know whether recent studies would lead him to refine his thinking about strength training.

Fritz Hagerman, exercise physiologist who has worked with Olympic rowers, has noted that some elite rowers pump heroic amounts of blood through their systems, thereby powering their aerobic engines. Other rowers are uncommonly efficient at extracting oxygen from the blood that is pumped. So two different physiological mechanisms--big pump or better utilization--result in elite endurance performance in a shell. Is is reasonable to think that cyclists would also fall into one or the other of those categories? (Along with having clever doctors and pharmacists.)

I never know whether the VO2 max conversation is useful. VO2 max is genetically limited (so I've read), and it doesn't take that much specific training to reach that limit (so I've read). You want to do some VO2 specific training, because this will allow your "lactate threshold" training to occur at faster paces, but overdo the VO2 stuff, and you'll fry yourself and not be able to do the important distance training that prepares you for longer races.

Of course, if your goal is something other than being an emaciated freak, then by all means lift, but I'm not sure you'll be improving your cycling performance.

One other piece of evidence suggesting strength training is irrelevant to cyclists: the physique of Michael Rasmussen, who was leading last year's TdF before being DQ'd

Tom Rawls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2009, 03:38 PM   #15
bryan butts
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1
Default

We can't look at Tour riders only. That would be like compairing Ultra Runners to 100m sprinters.
bryan butts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2009, 04:00 PM   #16
Steven Low
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,091
Default

This is what I think:

http://eshlow.blogspot.com/2009/06/w...for-elite.html
__________________
Posts NOT intended as professional medical, training or nutrition advice.
Site // Bodyweight Strength Training Article // Overcoming Gravity Bodyweight Book
Steven Low is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2009, 03:05 PM   #17
Donald Lee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646
Default

http://www.verkhoshansky.com/Booksho...1/Default.aspx

It addresses resistance training used for endurance running.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2009, 08:38 PM   #18
Tom Rawls
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 152
Default

Donald,

Is the book worth the money?
Tom Rawls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 11:56 PM   #19
Donald Lee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Rawls View Post
Donald,

Is the book worth the money?
The book is definitely an eye-opener. Verkhoshansky has some great ideas, although his breakthroughs are more in the explosive strength arena. It may be difficult for you to comprehend, as some of it was difficult for me to comprehend as well. The translation by his daughter was pretty good, so some of the difficulty just came from the fact that he doesn't fully explain everything and assumes that the reader understands the logic.

Even if you do have trouble understanding parts, I'd be more than happy to explain them to you. I think it could possibly be an educational interaction for everyone here on this board. I also asked questions to someone on another board who is well-read in Verkoshansky's works, so you could read that as well after reading the book.

The book has two primary aims: 1. Answering the question of how to increase both aerobic power and capacity so as to stay aerobic until the final kick at the end of a race. 2. Showing a model for implementing the block periodization model, which is not well understood by many in the West.

If those two aims interest you, then I suggest you purchase the book. Plus, Verkoshansky is one of the pioneers of periodization and the creator of shock training (aka. plyometrics). His works are worth the read, if you can understand what they're saying.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 05:58 PM   #20
Tom Rawls
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 152
Default

Thanks for the comprehensive answer, Donald. I expect much of what he has to say would elude me, but I might give it a try.
Tom Rawls is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.