Fitness Transfer from Rowing to Running

[Shane Skowron]

I would agree that Tabata intervals are mostly pretty silly for calisthenic exercises.

But for endurance exercise (running, swimming, cycling, rowing, etc) I don't think we need individual studies to demonstrate that it is an effective means of training for anaerobic and aerobic benefit. There are other studies shown that interval training is effective. Tabata may or may not be better than other interval schemes. But this doesn't matter since it shouldn't be considered the holy grail of interval training, but rather be employed as just another tool in the training repertoire.

[Jonathan Silverman]

Thanks for helping me understand all of this...

so since a tabata protocol was used for aerobic activities as a way to incr. aerobic and anaerobic ability...

then i think the way to incorporate it into front squats would be..

first front squat 2-3 reps for 10-12 sets until you feel your heart is like pounding in your chest, and then right away

drop the weight really light and shoot for 7-12 reps or more tabata protocol wise.

and then my conclusion is in a month you will be able to do heavier 4-6 reps than somebody who doesn't do this.


what do you guys think?

basically what my logic is this:
tabata = incr aerobic & anaerobic capacity in an aerobic excercise and not include incr. aerobic & anaerobic capacity within anaerobic excercise. so to get tabatas benefits for weight training we kinda gotta trick the body into thinking its doing an aerobic excercise. im talking about a new subjective protocol that incorporates the tabata protocol for anaerobic work.

[Donald Lee]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Silverman

Thanks for helping me understand all of this...

so since a tabata protocol was used for aerobic activities as a way to incr. aerobic and anaerobic ability...

then i think the way to incorporate it into front squats would be..

first front squat 2-3 reps for 10-12 sets until you feel your heart is like pounding in your chest, and then right away

drop the weight really light and shoot for 7-12 reps or more tabata protocol wise.

and then my conclusion is in a month you will be able to do heavier 4-6 reps than somebody who doesn't do this.


what do you guys think?

basically what my logic is this:
tabata = incr aerobic & anaerobic capacity in an aerobic excercise and not include incr. aerobic & anaerobic capacity within anaerobic excercise. so to get tabatas benefits for weight training we kinda gotta trick the body into thinking its doing an aerobic excercise. im talking about a new subjective protocol that incorporates the tabata protocol for anaerobic work.

If you just want some basic aerobic capacity, something like that could work. The Tabata research indicated increases in V02 Max as their indicator of aerobic fitness. V02 Max is important for the shorter endurance events, but power outut at lactate threshold becomes the primary indicator of aerobic performance during longer events. Tabata intervals would do very little for that beyond a basic threshold.

[Donald Lee]

Originally Posted by Mike Prevost

Most adaptations that affect performance are inside of the muscles. The central adaptations are less important when it comes to performance. For example, only a small percentage of the most fit athletes actually desaturate (less than 98-100% oxygen saturation on hemaglobin) at max exercise levels. Even these athletes are rarely doing any event at this intensity level, even in a shorter event like a 5K. As a result, we are almost never limited by central adaptations, which argues for a focus on training specificity if you want to perform.

Mike,

I posted what you wrote on another forum and got this response:

There has been a debate for years in exercise physiology about whether the limiting factor in aerobic performance comes from the cardiovascular supply side or oxygen utilization within the muscles themselves. There are arguments for both sides within the literature and I don't think there is really a clear answer yet but regardless, performance depends on both supply and utilization as well as contractile properties of the muscles, technique and skill, etc. It's probably a bit simplistic to say there is any one piece of the physiological puzzle that is single most important. When it comes to performance, it's all important.

[Andew Cattermole]

"There has been a debate for years in exercise physiology about whether the limiting factor in aerobic performance comes from the cardiovascular supply side or oxygen utilization within the muscles themselves. There are arguments for both sides within the literature and I don't think there is really a clear answer yet but regardless, performance depends on both supply and utilization as well as contractile properties of the muscles, technique and skill, etc. It's probably a bit simplistic to say there is any one piece of the physiological puzzle that is single most important. When it comes to performance, it's all important."

Can I ask which forum? as that's a great reply

[Mike Prevost]

Originally Posted by Donald Lee

Mike,

I posted what you wrote on another forum and got this response:

Donald

Seems like a well thought out reply but it is wrong. Only Dr. Tim Noakes and his lab believe that there is a limiter besides the cardiovascular side. The other 99.9% of exercise physiologists are pretty clear on this, and the research supports it....the limiter for VO2 max is the supply of oxygen to working muscles. If you could supply more oxygen, the muscles would use it and you would see an increase in VO2 max.

The situation gets a bit more complicated when you try to test VO2 max in a modality other than running. But even that does not invalidate the finding that VO2 max is limited by the cardiovascular system.

In the context of my post however.....VO2 max is not really that important when it comes to predicting performance. THis is because most events are not run at VO2 max intensities. THerefore it is metabolic adaptations inside of the muscles that will primarily determine performance. This is why power or pace at lactate threshold are considered better predictors than VO2 max.

[Shane Skowron]

Originally Posted by Mike Prevost

In the context of my post however.....VO2 max is not really that important when it comes to predicting performance.

Correct.

Originally Posted by Mike Prevost

THis is because most events are not run at VO2 max intensities.

Really? The 5000 meters is 95% of VO2Max and the 3000 meters is right about 100% of VO2Max.
So you must mean every event above 5k?

[Donald Lee]

Originally Posted by Mike Prevost

Donald

Seems like a well thought out reply but it is wrong. Only Dr. Tim Noakes and his lab believe that there is a limiter besides the cardiovascular side. The other 99.9% of exercise physiologists are pretty clear on this, and the research supports it....the limiter for VO2 max is the supply of oxygen to working muscles. If you could supply more oxygen, the muscles would use it and you would see an increase in VO2 max.

The situation gets a bit more complicated when you try to test VO2 max in a modality other than running. But even that does not invalidate the finding that VO2 max is limited by the cardiovascular system.

In the context of my post however.....VO2 max is not really that important when it comes to predicting performance. THis is because most events are not run at VO2 max intensities. THerefore it is metabolic adaptations inside of the muscles that will primarily determine performance. This is why power or pace at lactate threshold are considered better predictors than VO2 max.

I don't get what you're saying, Mike. I mean, I don't get how you're trying to argue against what Joel over at www.8weeksout.com was saying. How does what you're saying relate to the central vs. peripheral adaptation contributions for endurance events?

[Steven Low]

Originally Posted by Shane Skowron

Correct.



Really? The 5000 meters is 95% of VO2Max and the 3000 meters is right about 100% of VO2Max.
So you must mean every event above 5k?

No, because everyone (the elite guys) is grouped up towards the end of most of the long distance races. So ability to sustain high lac threshold intensities... aka the sprint to the finish... determines who wins. Not Vo2max.

[Shane Skowron]

Originally Posted by Steven Low

No, because everyone (the elite guys) is grouped up towards the end of most of the long distance races. So ability to sustain high lac threshold intensities... aka the sprint to the finish... determines who wins. Not Vo2max.

I get that. But I don't get how "most events are not run at VO2 Max intensities."