Home   |   Contact   |   Help

Get Our Newsletter
Sign up for our free newsletter to get training tips and stay up to date on Catalyst Athletics, and get a FREE issue of the Performance Menu journal.

Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Training > Fitness, Strength & CrossFit

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-03-2009, 10:32 PM   #11
Donald Lee
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646

Originally Posted by Steven Low View Post
What are you trying to do? Just drop your run times? What's the distance?
I need to get my 3-mile time under 24 min to pass, but I need to get it at least in the mid 21 min range by May 22.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2009, 08:05 AM   #12
Gant Grimes
Super Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,373

Originally Posted by Derek Weaver View Post
Welcome to the board Mike. I guess this more or less fits the "broad time and modal domains" approach then...
No, not unless you're doing GPP. The majority of your sport training should reflect the time, intensity, and activity of your event.

Originally Posted by John Hansen View Post
Glad you posted that question, Anton.

I've been reading Jamieson's articles, and would like to see what other knowledgable people think. However, I have to ask if the folks that commented have actually read Jamieson's articles, or whether they just commented on Anton's summary?

I don't expect too many on this board to fully endorse his ideas, as they are very different from the CF/CA model. However, he's had some (a lot?) of success with top fighters, is releasing a DVD soon, and appears to be gaining some traction on the interweb, so perhaps a deeper, critical look at his ideas is warranted.
I like Joel's stuff. I've been reading him for a few months now.

Remember, this is for sport (even though that sport has a lot of crossover with GPP). CrossFit isn't ideal for fighters.

Read Robb Wolff's post yesterday.
"It should be more like birthday party than physics class." | Log | 70's Big

Last edited by Gant Grimes; 03-04-2009 at 08:08 AM.
Gant Grimes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2009, 06:52 PM   #13
George Mounce
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 945

Originally Posted by Mike Prevost View Post
Yes, definitely. The main point though is that performance fitness is in the muscles, not the heart. Unfortunately the fitness industry has been unduly influenced by the "cardiovascular training mafia." This has lead to ridiculous concepts like cross training, not for GPP, but for specific competition prep. For example, using swimming as a cross training activity to improve run performance. If you want to run better, you run, you don't swim. They both have a cardiovascular impact but swimming does little for run muscles, and fitness is in the muscles.

I am reminded of a post recently on another board where an injured runner inquired about using swimming to maintain his run cardiovascular fitness, so that when he was able to run again, he would have maintained his performance. Not going to work. Swimming does not work those run muscles enough to produce metabolic adaptations in them. However, water running does, mainly because it is recruiting and training a similar set of muscles, so they are metabolically challenged.

Long way of saying yes...it is all about recruiting and metabolically challenging the muscles across a variety of time and intensity domains. The heart will take care of itself.

I wonder though...what about all those people who got a heck of a lot better at running times...and hardly ran? I'm one of them. I didn't run at all and went from a 11:45 1.5 mile and a half to a 9:25...all without running. Heck most of my "engine training" is on a rower...not running. Yet my running steadily improves via rowing.

I think there is more to it then just doing something. I'm not arguing that you get better at running by running, you sure can. But it isn't the only way to skin the cat.

The engine is just as important as the transmission...you need both to get a car going.
George Mounce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2009, 09:39 PM   #14
Steven Low
Super Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,091

Originally Posted by Donald Lee View Post
I need to get my 3-mile time under 24 min to pass, but I need to get it at least in the mid 21 min range by May 22.
I'd personally do 2-3 days/week of 800m-1200m intervals/repetitions and 1 tempo run day... maybe one light recovery run day.
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 03-04-2009, 09:55 PM   #15
Donald Lee
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646

Originally Posted by Steven Low View Post
I'd personally do 2-3 days/week of 800m-1200m intervals/repetitions and 1 tempo run day... maybe one light recovery run day.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2009, 10:03 PM   #16
Donald Lee
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646

I've been reading more of Joel's stuff, especially his long Sherdog thread.

His approach is largely influenced by Soviet and East European texts, although he can't read German or Russian. He's also spent a bit of time with Siff.

He seems to train every aspect of conditioning separately: aerobic, anaerobic, muscular endurance, power, power-endurance, etc.

Circuit style weight training will offer some of the benefits of just doing the cardio but the pressure changes involved with lifting weight change the effects to some extent. There is less improvement in terms of pure cardiac output from doing that type of training than just the cardio. Personally my opinion is that you sholud use weight liting to become stronger, more explosive, or improve local muscular endurance and use cardio to improve cardiovascular system development. That's not to say circuit style training isn't useful, but don't try to improve your strength from doing cardio and don't think you're going to get great cardio from lifting weights. Each has it's own purpose, use it as such.
He places a heavy emphasis on the use of a heart-rate monitor. He emphasizes the development of cardiac output through training in the 120-150s HR and the development of aerobic muscular endurance by training 5-10s below your anaerobic threshold.

From purely the cardiac output side, he says we should have a resting HR of mid 40s to low 50s.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2009, 10:04 PM   #17
Donald Lee
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646

This is one of his first posts on Sherdog:

How you train (heart rates, volume, loading, etc.) determines exactly which type of cardiac adaptation takes place and is one of the most important factors that determines your conditioning levels.

First, it's important to understand that there are many properties of the heart that determine how well it functions and how well it's able to do its job.

The volume of your heart chambers (most importantly the size of the left ventricle), thickness of the cardiac walls, the specific isozymes of myocytes (types of cardiac muscle cells) the sympathetic vs. parasympathetic tone, etc. are all important regulatory factors that determine how much blood your heart is able to deliver.

Obviously the more blood your heart and vascular network is able to supply to your working muscles (cardiac output) the better your conditioning will be - up to the point that cardiac supply is no longer the limiting factor at least.

There are two categories of structural changes, known as concentric and eccentric hypertrophy, that take place in your heart as a result of how you train. Which category of hypertrophy you have plays a large role in your cardiac output and thus how well conditioned you are.

Eccentric hypertrophy is largely the result of high volume, low intensity, and low pressure training that typically takes place in endurance training programs. This kind of hypertrophy results in greater left ventricular volume and increased blood volume per stroke. This means that every time your heart beats it’s able to deliver a greater amount of blood and thus your resting and working heart rates are lower.

Concentric hypertrophy primarily takes place under high load, higher intensity, high pressure (high resistance) training like that of Powerlifters, Weightlifters, and Wrestlers. Concentric hypertrophy means the heart’s walls are thicker, meaning they are able to contract with greater velocity, but the chamber volumes themselves are often not any larger than average.

This means that although the heart may be stronger, cardiac output is not improved much, if at all, and the heart must work harder to deliver the necessary blood. The end result is your power can be higher, but you will fatigue much faster.

Keep in mind that thicker walls also means they are more resistant to stretching and makes it much more difficult to increase cardiac output.

Fighters who have the characteristics of eccentric hypertrophy will typically have fairly good endurance (although this depends on many other factors as well) but they will lack power, especially at higher intensities. Those with concentric properties will tend to have greater power but lack endurance and will gas much more quickly.

Training to improve your conditioning depends greatly on your specific cardiac system development. Fighters who have low cardiac output are limited by their heart’s ability to deliver oxygen and their conditioning methods should be completely different from those who have good cardiac output. Using the wrong training strategies can reduce your conditioning potential by causing too much concentric hypertrophy – as well as other negative adaptations.

The average person can get an idea of where their development lies by looking at their resting heart rate and their heart rate response to increasing intensity of activity. In my experience coaching, the optimal resting heart rates for fighters in the UFC (3-5 x 5 min rounds) is in the upper 40s to mid 50s beats per minute. Because of the longer 10 minute round, the well conditioned Pride fighters I worked with typically had lower resting heart rates (mid to upper 40s and low 50s). I also use a series of heart rate conditioning tests that are very informative as well.

Keep in mind this is only one part of the conditioning equation, but it is a very important part and is a good example of why following a generic conditioning program is unlikely to lead to the best results.

How you train leads to very specific changes in the cardiovascular system, the central and peripheral nervous system, within the muscle tissue itself, etc. For some people following high volume low intensity GPP type programs will work miracles, for others they won’t do much at all.

Likewise, sometimes high intensity intervals are absolutely great, and sometimes they are completely the wrong thing to do and will do more harm than good in the long run.

The key is knowing when and how to use the right methods at the right times. Conditioning and training in general is a science, not a guessing game or a crapshoot.
Anybody have thoughts on this? His approach is antithetical to CrossFit's.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2009, 10:19 PM   #18
Donald Lee
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646

I thought this was interesting as well:

In the short run stimulants like caffeine can improve performance in certain situations, mainly long distance aerobic work, because it helps increase how much fat your body uses for fuel and thus spares glycogen. At the same time, however, it has negative effects for developing cardiac output becaus invariably your heart rate will end up getting too high during training and go well over 150 for most of the time. Chronic overactivation of the sympathetic system will also supress the parasympathetic drive that is vital for proper recovery and performance. In general, people who are chronically on stimulants of any kind will burn out, get injured, or just not perform very consistently.

Yes 120-150 is the general rate range to train in to improve cardiac output so if that's what you need to improve, that's the range you should be working in. There are a lot of different intervals that are used for different purposes, Fartlek is essentially continued running up close to the anaerobic threshold with short anaerobic busts thrown in. Its purpose is to help increase your anaerobic threshold and it can be effective if used properly. In general, you can only really improve aerobic and anaerobic conditioning at the same time if neither are very well developed. Once they reach a higher level it takes more focused training to maximally tax them enough to improve and you can't train them both to this level at the same time.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2009, 11:26 PM   #19
Anton Emery
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145

Cool stuff. I have alot of his long thread over at Sherdog. Not sure what to think, i need to think about it more. He also has a good article at EliteFTS where he talks about cardiovascular system training.


I am not really sure what to say, except i might do a bit of experimenting on myself. In the past when i stick to short, heavy metcons in the 3-5 minute range i function well in that time domain, but if i am in a grappling match and it goes longer i start to gas just like everyone else. Perhaps i am running to much in the glycotic domain in my metcons and not doing enough aerobic work?

Just some thoughts.

Anton Emery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 09:51 AM   #20
Brian Stone
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 502

I have only read the highlighted portions in this thread, not all the original source material. In general, though, I'm not terribly surprised at his conclusions.

A lot of the takeaway seems to be that aerobic training improves endurance at the cost of strength and anaerobic training improves strength at the cost of endurance. No real surprise there, generally speaking.

The main thrust of what may be antithetical to the CrossFit model is the idea that metcons/HIIT don't do much to improve overall aerobic conditioning. In fact, that's antithetical to a lot more than just CF.

Regardless, I'd be interested to see one of Coach Glassman's Power v. Time curves done out for athletes training in both styles and see where it takes. This is difficult as the model presented herein is not a one-size-fits-all system but rather based on the athletes' strengths and weaknesses. Be that as it may, the only real major difference I see between the two is the use of Aerobic vs. Intervals to improve overall long-term conditioning and what is more optimal in a cost/benefit sense.

Would be very interesting to see actual data from each system.
"Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best." —Henry Van Dyke

Brian Stone is offline   Reply With Quote

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 09:27 PM.

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

Receive emails with training tips, news updates, events info, sale notifications and more.

Submit your question to be answered by Greg Everett in the Performance Menu or on the website

Submit Your Question

Catalyst Athletics is a USA Weightlifting team of competitive Olympic-style weightlifters with multiple national team medals.

Read More
Olympic Weightlifting Book
Catalyst Athletics
Contact Us
Products & Services
Weightlifting Team
Performance Menu
Magazine Home
Subscriber Login
About the Program
Workout Archives
Exercise Demos
Text Only
Instructional Content
Exercise Demos
Video Gallery
Free Articles
Free Recipes
Recommended Books & DVDs
Olympic Weightlifting Guide
Discussion Forum
Weight Conversion Calculator