Are We Training Wrong?

On 22/10/03 6:49 pm, "Ken Roberts" wrote:

Yes I gladly admit that I learned much of what I said first from Stephen
Seiler's very helpful (but not always easy) website:
http://home.hia.no/~stephens/

Peter Hoffman wrote:
I'd take the advice of the doer (Ulvang), not the theorist.

But not if the goals of the doer and the body-capabilities of the doer are
rather different from mine.

To me some interesting open questions a

(A) Should masters athletes do the intense short interval workouts required
to stimulate central cardio-vascular at least once every two weeks all year
long?

for the purpose of long-term (multi-year) health, and to slow the
(multi-year) decline of V)2max -- even if those workouts do not fit well
with the optimal periodization schedule for a single year? (I seem to
remember in one of his papers, Seiler mentions the idea of doing intense
central CV workouts regularly to maintain / enhance VO2max)

Quote from Ulvang: "I have long had an idea that interval training improves
max VO2. This is nothing revolutionary."

(B) Should masters athletes do intense strength-training exercises at least
once a week all year long?

for the purpose of slowing a possible long-term (multi-year) decline of
muscular strength -- even if that interferes with optimal race-peaking or
tapering or with low-body-weight for optimal race-performance _this_ year?

I agree with the earlier fasterskier article that performing a set of 120
reps on a weight machine is not real strength training -- rather it's a work
_interval_ performed on dryland apparatus. Doing an interval like can
result in great benefit to peripheral specific-muscle performance for racing
(as described elsewhere in this thread). It's just not strength training.

(C) During the key "build" period in November - December: Is it better for
race-performance to do three intensity workouts in some weeks? Or is it
better to get more rest in between, and do only two even-higher-intensity
workouts per week?

Ken






Just a question on transatlantic usage that has been puzzling me for a
while. Are 'masters' athletes just old farts (like me) who get out a bit,
fit old farts, or people who have achieved mastery of their sport? And what
do you call female masters? Mistresses?
Andy bolger

I don't agree with the report on strength training. They suggest using
heavier weights and fewer repetitions. In my experience, this only
adds bulk and extra weight.

I think strength training in that manner (low rep heavier weight) does
have a place for a cross country skier. For one, the US Ski team has
been advocating it for a period of time that nicely lines up with their
dramatic rise in the results (I'll admit that there are many other
factors in play, but it is a nice coincidence if nothing more). I think
that adding in some days of max strength in addition to traditional
exercises is important.
A combination of the two is needed (and that different people's strength
levels may benefit more from different training). For myself anyway, I
see a place for max strength. I'm built much like a bean pole and don't
have much power in either my upper or lower body. The addition of max
strength incresases the power available, making higher rep circuits that
much more effective.

I'm just about to start doing weight training, so we'll see what happens.

Paul

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:16:12 GMT, "Ken Roberts"
wrote:


(A) Should masters athletes do the intense short interval workouts
required
to stimulate central cardio-vascular at least once every two weeks
all year
long?

I won't comment on the physiology of it, but doing structured high
intensity intervals all year round would blow my mind. No way could I
maintain that. I doubt many people could.

If I believed in the high-intensity-all-year-round approach, much of
the high-intensity work would have to be in the form of competition or
games. And even then it would beat on my mind. Though I think some
people could tolerate it.

(B) Should masters athletes do intense strength-training exercises at
least
once a week all year long?

At least during the weeks of key competions, this should be avoided.


JT

The use of the term "masters" is not just a North American-ism, I think,
since the association is called the World Masters Ski Association, or
something close to that. But when translated to the other languages
I'm not sure---easily enough looked up. But I'd prefer not to, since
we can add another Wagner opera to the list : 'Die Meisterskier von
Nurnberg'. I went skiing in the woods a few times near there, over towards
the Czech border, in the days of the iron curtain.

Best, Peter

Just a quick reply to Ken R. The theorist whose advice I'd not follow was
not Ken, but rather the guy whom Ulvang is disputing with. It's
probably intellectual laziness, but I figure you can't go too wrong
trying to pretty much follow the program of someone like Ulvang, to the extent
you can know what it was, simply cutting down to something reasonable
in proportion, making allowance for old age and limited time.

But Ken's 3 questions are still interesting, if hard to answer with actual
data as opposed to theory.

Just one question related to the matter of "more intense training implies
bigger long term health benefits". I'm wondering whether the range of
intensities studied for that were more like walks-in-the-park--LSD for us,
as opposed to our idea of LSD being the low end---intensity at 95%MHR for
the high end. Does anyone know that study well enough to answer that?

Best, Peter

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote
doing structured high intensity intervals all
year round would blow my mind.

When you put it that way, I'd have to agree.

What I was thinking of was like one high-intensity workout say every 10-14
days during the off-season. Not a _focus_ on high intensity all year long.

If I believed in the high-intensity-all-year-round
approach, much of the high-intensity work would
have to be in the form of competition or games.

I like the sound of that. I was just hearing some local lore about novice
inline skaters showing good endurance racing results -- coming from a
background of roller-hockey.

The guy I know who did the most awesome long-distance road-skate tours (e.g.
NYC to Albany) was also into playing roller-hockey.

Ken

P.S. If don't show up for any ski races after this winter because I joined
an ice hockey team, it's all your fault.

Peter Hoffman asked:
Just one question related to the matter of "more
intense training implies bigger long term health benefits".
I'm wondering whether the range of intensities studied
for that were more like walks-in-the-park--LSD for us

Good question. In absolute power rate, I'd bet the typical workout in the
study was much less than typical for this newsgroup.

But comparing relative intensities already requires some theory. Exercise
intensity relative to that person's current lactate threshold? Or intensity
relative to that person's genetically-possible VO2max?

That old "aerobics" idea of 120 beats per minute for half an hour might be
at least a "tempo" or "sub-threshold" workout in terms of a non-athlete's
current Lactate Threshold -- although at our level of training 120 bpm
sounds like slow-distance.

And I'd suspect there's strongly diminishing returns in long-term health
benefit at the level of intensities practiced by elite athletes.

Learning from Ulvang?

Relative comparisons with those training stories from elite-animal athletes
is tricky too. Like "We went out for a recreational distance workout . . .
maintained speed over a few of those (you know) little hills . . . then I
noticed we had reached the border with Sweden . . . so I remembered that
lunch view spot just over a couple of those (you know) gentle fjells, so we
jogged up and down those . . . then we still had to get back home again . .
.. "

One thing I've gotten from stories of super endurance athletes is that any
half-reasonable relevant exercise generates big rapid performance gains, way
beyond anything that ever happens for me. They do need a well-designed
training program to try to beat the other super athletes. They don't need a
special program to easily beat me, once they decide to practice my sport for
a month or two.

Ken

wrote in message o.ca...

The use of the term "masters" is not just a North American-ism, I think,
since the association is called the World Masters Ski Association, or
something close to that.

I´d imagine it to be an original Americanism, though. In
many other sports the Association is that of "Veterans",
which BTW is the word used in the Nordic countries, while
the Germans, possibly to avoid any confusion with veterans
of war, have their "Senioren" sports - which, I suppose,
would cause confusion with "senior citizens" in the U.S.:-)

(FWIW the age in which one enters the ranks of Masters/
Veterans/Seniors appears to differ quite a bit: in some
countries as early as 30, in some 35 and in others (incl.
Finland) at 40.)


But when translated to the other languages I'm not sure---easily enough
looked up. But I'd prefer not to, since we can add another Wagner opera
to the list : 'Die Meisterskier von Nurnberg'.

Those Meisters would be "workers or artisans (officially)
qualified to teach apprentices", first and foremost, but
their actual trade could these days well be skiing:-)

In Finnish, a "mestarihiihtäjä" could only be someone like
Eero Mäntyranta: a (usually retired) multiple champion.


BTW it´s not readily apparent to me what origin the U.S.
usage of the word has or from which particular meaning
it stems from.

As a wild guess: younger veterans didn´t feel like being
"Veterans", not quite yet anyway, and employed a new word,
which then spread like a prairie fire because it made all
old farts feel better about themselves:-)


Anders

Janne G wrote in message ...

Rob you have to take a look at the event that you are going to compete in
and adjust your training accordingly. Look at biathlon, they ski for 10min
and then stop to shoot for 1min and then skiis for 10min, doesn't this look
like "natural" intervalls to you? To me it does and this also reflect
the training methodes used. The problems with doing much intervalls is
the ability to cope with the intensity all the time, to have ability to
recover the body in a short time between sessions, othervice you come
up short with a overtraining syndrom.

OTOH Audun Svartdal is of the opinion that many "tur-
løpere" don´t get enough return from their training
input and that the training methods used by Norwegian
biathletes are transferable to longer races and whom
Jeff would call "cit racers":
http://www.birkebeiner.no/rennet/trening.html

There we have:

"Easy long distance/recovery", Intensity 1: 1.0-2.5 hrs
continuous work (occasionally up to 5-6 hrs); preferably
a combination of sports and techniques.

"Threshold training", Intensity 2: intervals around the
anaerobic/lactate threshold, 5-10min with 1-2min recovery
for a net duration of (from 30-35min at first) 45-75min.

"Max 02 training", Intensity 3: intervals above the threshold,
3-5min with 3-4min recovery for a net of (15-20min) 20-30min.

"Speed training", Intensity 5, full effort for 15-30s at a
time with 3-4min recovery, 6-10 times, preferably within a
shorter distance session.


"The difference between threshold and max O2 training is
crucial." In the former, the elimination of lactate should
match its production, and should increase the duration and
the repeats, not to accumulate lactate. "It is also very
effective technique training."

"The goal of Max o2 training is a high speed and a high HR.
A too high concentration of lactate will result in a reduced
speed and decreased HR."

After two months (here May and June) of relatively large
amounts of easy, varying training with a gradual adption
of threshold and max o2 training, there is one session of
each per week beginning from June. Towards the autumn (if
"utover hausten" means that...) 2-3 Intensity 2-3 sessions
per week, including tests and competitions.


(In case I misunderstood, -translated or -sed something,
corrections and additions are welcome!)


Anders

To answer your "a" and "b" questions i have to say that it must depend on

1. your sport, there is hardly any reason for a sprinter to train LSD if the goal
is to be fast in a 1min race except when in the ofseasoon for the sake of
just recovering. If you are a sprinter and whant to excell in that sport
you also have let translate over to the training.

2. your intention with your training, if you do whant to be in the top level
you can't afford to loose to much in the ofseason, But if you are a "citizen
racer"
then you have a life outside the sporting zone also to keep up with.

3. your overall fitness, if you don't have the platform of training before
you can't start with high intensity training (HIT) and think that you can avoid
injurys.

4. your body configuration, if you have a configuration that is moresuited for
sprint then you can train more high intensity training and get away with it.


I for example have discover that i recover fast from HIT and react fast on that
type of
training so in past time i have seen that i have train rather much of this type of
training and therefore allways bonked at the longer races, so i have radically
changed my strategy.
Facts: fast reactions on HIT, bonking on longer races.
Training: I need more LSD to survive the whole race and with fast reactions on HIT
i don't need to do so much of those in the early seasoon, so i concentrate on LSD
to start with and as i comes nearer to the races i start pick up more and more
of the HIT training and sacrifice the LSD.

When discussing the "c" i vill explain something first. The concept of using 3-4
weeks cycles in the training comes from that a form top normally sustain for about
2weeks after initiated. This means one hard week to get a local formtop and then
train more easy on that local fromtop for 2 weeks after and then do it again.
So if you plan your training right you can train at a higher intensity without
sacrfifying
the concept of LSD, the LSD is just done at a higher absolute power but AT THE
SAME
RELATIV INTENSITY.
To do more intensity sessions concentrated will give you a bigger formtop (if
done correctly) just do it so you can use it to something good, do a good race
for instance.

Ken Roberts wrote:
To me some interesting open questions a

(A) Should masters athletes do the intense short interval workouts required
to stimulate central cardio-vascular at least once every two weeks all year
long?

for the purpose of long-term (multi-year) health, and to slow the
(multi-year) decline of V)2max -- even if those workouts do not fit well
with the optimal periodization schedule for a single year? (I seem to
remember in one of his papers, Seiler mentions the idea of doing intense
central CV workouts regularly to maintain / enhance VO2max)

Quote from Ulvang: "I have long had an idea that interval training improves
max VO2. This is nothing revolutionary."

(B) Should masters athletes do intense strength-training exercises at least
once a week all year long?

(C) During the key "build" period in November - December: Is it better for
race-performance to do three intensity workouts in some weeks? Or is it
better to get more rest in between, and do only two even-higher-intensity
workouts per week?

Ken

--

Forward in all directions

Janne G