If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Are We Training Wrong?
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Are We Training Wrong?
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Are We Training Wrong?
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Are We Training Wrong?
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Are We Training Wrong?
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Are We Training Wrong?
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Are We Training Wrong?
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Are We Training Wrong?
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Are We Training Wrong?
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Training Week Oct 13-19th | Rob Bradlee | Nordic Skiing | 6 | October 22nd 03 09:00 AM |
Extreme training [ For inspiration: a true viking breaks a record] | Jeff Potter | Nordic Skiing | 3 | September 14th 03 09:15 AM |
One pair for Racing, One Pair for training? | Jim Farrell | Nordic Skiing | 2 | September 8th 03 10:36 PM |
LT Training for Lance, Why Not Nordic Skiers? | Ken Roberts | Nordic Skiing | 4 | August 18th 03 04:41 PM |
Training hard | Bob Creasote | Nordic Skiing | 4 | August 15th 03 07:20 AM |