What’s your point exactly?
You don’t do Aerobic-type or Tempo-type training? Is that what your saying? -No23
My point is that ‘steady state’ activity is a poor way of increasing fitness.
We use tempo runs for recovery but certainly no ‘aerobic’ days - I hope your not saying you do… are you ?
SeanJos
Apart from simply re-stating the obvious and rehasing comments - Read my posts again before rushing to post and see if you can find where I mentioned or made any previousd reference to steady-state runs at all.
To be quite frank about it - you’re full of nonsense …
What you have said above is that ‘properly’ conducted strength sessions increase cardiovascular fitness more than Tempo runs or steady state running?
Are you for real?
I agree with seanjos a hard anaerobic training session will probably do more for your aerobic fitness than easy tempo or steady state running. Recovery between high intensity intermittent bouts of exercise is dependant on the aerobic energy system, therefore, you get adaptations to both energy systems in 1 workout. Meaning more time to recover and adapt.
Remember, you don’t get fitter, stronger or faster through training - its through recovering/adapting from training.
I think he is talking of the “properly” conducted strength session a la artur jones…leg extesion till puke, leg press till puke…squat till puke,the n upper body…however…all the adaptations have a certain carryover to other…but one cannot be a jack of all trades…specificity has its role…also remeber that those scientific proof that some jedis have,are more mith than other…
Mp,
What is aerobic fitness in your opinion and how is it measured?
What kind of physiological adaptations do you get from aerobic training via resting between bouts of hard anaerobic training?
Can you define hard anaerobic training as it should be used to improve aerobic fitness, still IYO?
Would you expect some improvement in performance with “aerobic athletes” training this way?
We use tempo runs
We as… WHO?
Were you asleep your first year at uni ? Well I wasn’t, so i’ll fill you in on what you missed.
Your question and obvious confusion on this subject stems from a misunderstanding of the function of the cardiovascular system:-
It is the cardiovascular system that supports the muscular system–not the other way round.
The skeletal muscles are the window through which optimal loading of the entire metabolic system (including the cardiovascular) takes place.
Therefore… improvements in strength will correlate to improvements in CV function!!! :eek: I know shocking…
The best way to train the vascular system is to build flexibility into its response by using short bouts of elevation followed by sudden recovery, then demanding activity again. Tempo runs fit the bill but simply do not provide the intensity needed for any notable improvement and should be thought of only as recovery day runs.
As for jogging and stationary cycling blah blah. That’s a different thread.
SeanJos
SeanJos,
Although I have a feeling you missed physiology classes a bit too many times, I have the following questions for you:
How does an improvement of say… 30Kg in the Squat 1RM elicit or even correlate with the improvement of cardiovascular functions?
Please define cardiovascular functions and how you would measure such improvement/correlation.
What do you mean by “flexibility of the (cardio)vascular system response”? How would you measure an improvement in said “flexibility”?
Do you know the difference between cardiovascular and vascular?
Just to help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vascular
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiovascular .
I’m enjoying this thread because it opens up a whole series of valid questions.
I’m just going to throw in a few brief thoughts and you guys can go at it. Ironically, I think everyone is right here!
1: Training response takes place after the stimulus so the type of training may not be as important as the overall strength of the stimulus (height x breadth).
2: Much of training response is improved cellular efficiency.
3: Weights can be both synergistic and antagonistic to circulatory growth. It has been suggested by Omega Wave analysis that bodybuilding type work (cross section) may create favourable conditions when combined with tempo etc, while max strength work will tend to restrict them, requiring tempo type work as a mediating influence.
In any event, a balanced program that maximizes strength improvement will maximise the contribution to the sports cardiac requirements.
In my program, the balance over the training year between the two types of lifting is close to 50/50 and intersperced (see the seasonal plan in Vancouver 2004 DVD).
4: For team sports, cardio requirements are covered by the sport itself in season.
5: Cardiac response in speed and power events is reliant on the ability to accelerate the heart rate rather than big changes in stroke volume and this is best facilitated by workloads that causes a variable response rather than by steady state work.
That’s completely different to what he’s saying.
Please read his posts mpgelsei … ‘properly conducted strength sessions’ … where does he say anerobic sessions?
What do you think of my coments above, remembering that this is team sport training?
I think that you’ve given me alot to think about!!!
Seriously though … and correct me if I’m taking it up wrong … there is a valid reason to incorporate more hypertrophy-type work to develop cellular efficency especially for team-sports.
Also this would be of less value/importance for sprinters (?)
However one question is - if the strength training is acting as an antagonist to circulatory growth why exactly is this? Or why do you think it is? Are we talking increased inter and intramuscular pressure or simply the bodies metabolic demands?
Another point is the tempo-work for team-sports.
I’ve been relying on amlost exclusively strength work and variations of applications of strength work to develop that aspect of the power component for team sports (using Tempo to develop the Cv demands)- which obviously takes careful management due to its demands on the CNS and musculature.
I’ve avoided hypertrophy work more or less sue to attempting to limt unwanted body mass etc and essentailly get best bang for buck in the gym.
However I could with valid reason now include more hypertrophy work to develop the circulatory system but also in a more systematic approach allowing the CNS recover and yet get benefit.
Charlie,
I was tested recently with the Omega Wave and my hypertrophy workouts resulted in high anaerobic values (close to 160) and low aerobic value (110).
I am not doing any aerobic whatsoever and I think it is reflected by those value and by my performance when I eventually play a little with my soccer players, I can smoke them… just for two sprints.
When I think of team sport I think of soccer, where the aerobic component is probably more important than in rugby.
If I am not mistaken even Val considers soccer foundamentally a alactic sport (both aerobic and anaerobic), and I tend to agree.
For istance, I think centerfields in soccer would not get away with just anaerobic work.
A properly conducted strength session IS anaerobic. I thought that went without saying.
The words aerobic and anaerobic are referring to their respective metabolic pathways. You cannot turn off either of these pathways by merely increasing/decreasing the intensity of an activity. As mpgelsei pointed out.
Endurance for athletics is the result of three factors:skill,muscular strength and genetics. Consider that in a resting state the lungs can saturate with oxygen the blood moving through them during the first third of the total transit time. At maximal exertion, saturation speed might slow to one half of the total transit time. Even with some compromise of pulmonary function (injury,flu or allergy to girlfriends cat) the lungs can usually still perform their job. It is the muscle’s ability to use the nutrients delivered to it that needs training. This is most efficiently addressed by strength-training. And it just so happens that the most effective form of increasing strength is high intensity training.
To answer sprinterouge about midfielders (centrefielders ??) I live a stone’s throw from Man United’s Carrington complex, for match fitness they simply play in games nothing additional.
SeanJos
p.s if you have google earth I can show you my house 
Even though I use a conjugated approach with my players it is done on a completly individual basis. And if a number of players are going to participate in a speed session it is done when the player’s CNS can cope with the demands and also the next day will be relatively easy. Also if I feel the player needs to put some beef on I observe when we can apply maximum hypertrophy work mixed in with some strength.
It’s been interested reading some of the posts on this topic especially from ANAEROBIC believing that the players would become overtrained. Well as I’ve said above all strength & speed program’s are designed individually which takes up to 10 hours of planning for each session and as I’ve got 40 players in a squad it does take a lot of specialised skill in program design.
Also being a qualified nutritionist I know my players are well nourished and well hydrated as Charles Poliquin once told me there is no such thing as being overtrained it’s simply being under recovered!!!
Remember though, the long season works the aerobic system as required and the difference is that aerobic fitness can be improved over a very long period and, conversely, this fitness can be held for a prolonged period- at least long enough to cover the short off- season available.
On the other hand, Max Strength and Explosive Power are quick to gain and also quick to loose unless continually stimulated.
Aerobic and alactic speed and explosive qualities are not that conflicted- the very qualities needed for soccer. The problem arises when extensive amounts of lactic anaerobic work are done despite the fact they are not needed in the game.
Charlie,
Agreed on everything you just wrote.
The off season and the in season for soccer differs depending on the level of the team and the country; so different planning would be necessary according to that.
Seanjos,
To be quite frank about it - you’re full of nonsense …
Alright… but what is it you disagree with ? It’s better to put forth an argument than an insult.
SeanJos