In other words conjugate training where all elements are emphasised BUT only if the players are recovered from the competing element.
I re-state that ALL ELEMENTS CANNOT BE WORKED IN THE SAME WEEK SO THAT EACH ELEMENT IS OPTIMALLY STIMULATED THEN OPTIMALLY RECOVERED unless ur working an biological freak!
There is still emphasis and periodisation even if only by degree, as CF’s vertical loading suggests.
Beginner athletes can improve everything at the same time…can elite athletes?
Problem with team sports is that individual performances can be hidden in the results.
With respect …
My point is a simple point and a straight forward contradiction of what you wrote - you cannot develop a team players aerobic capacity with strength training alone.
Where we’re missing each other is maybe on the definition of strength training.
I’m not talking about hypertrophy work, anerobic work or anything else. I’m talking high set, very low rep strength work. I appreciate you cannot isolate alone exactly what you want to train.
There is more to Utd’s trg than just playing football. Though during the season that may be correct.
The Man Utd training pre-season trg programme from 1 or 2 seasons ago and in pre-season it is very much a combo running and ball-work.
Is that an invite for tea?
Would it be fair to say that most confusion generally arises not in the maintaining of fitness but the devlopment of the aerobic system?
Most problems arise when you’re dealing with ameteur athletes or those athletes that used let them selves go in (what were longer) off-seasons and then they had to lose weight and get the ‘aerobic’ fitness back.
What were you like after 80 mins?
Also Charlie, Power et al. - apart from the obvious strength and contact demands - what are your thoughts on the aerobic vs anerobic differences between the various team contact sports like basketball, soccer, rugby etc?
Are they hugely/significantly different?
I would say soccer is the most aerobic of the 3 sports, with basketball more reliant on anaerobic metabolism and rugby the most anaerobic of the 3. However, playing position also has a big influence.
This is a difficult question to answer outright. As an example, during a rugby match the forwards probably cover more ground than the backs (aerobic) but are also involved in more activities that require strength (anaerobic), such as scrummaging, rucking and mauling. Therefore, training must be individualised, not just for playing position but for each players strengths and weaknesses. The coaches have their work cut out!
An example of a work to rest ratio in rugby for different positions a prop forward will usually be involved in a high intensity activity lasting 4 seconds with 34 seconds of low activity - where a full back will have an average of a 5 second high intensity activity with 115 seconds of low activity.
the performances and the physiques on this sports shows quite accurately which are the most anaerobic demanding…
Power, I’ll be really interested in knowing you soeed development phylosophy for rugby, in season and off season…maybe could start another thread
.
Some may find this helpful…
-------------------------------------------Anaerobic---------------------Aerobic--------
------------------------------------ATP-CP---------LA-O2-----------------O2--------
Baseball ------------------------------80------------20---------------------0-
Basketball-----------------------------85------------15---------------------0
Football-------------------------------60------------20---------------------20
American Football----------------------90------------10---------------------0
Lacrosse------------------------------60------------20---------------------20
Tennis--------------------------------70------------20---------------------10
Track 40 - 220 yd---------------------99------------1-----------------------0
SeanJos
I’ve seen a similar chart in Sport Speed by Dintimann and Ward. In fact, it looks the same. Could be from the same study?
Beginner athletes can improve everything at the same time…can elite athletes?
Soccer players are not at élite level in biomotor abilities development, probably the most developped BA is endurance while some attackers keep their natural speed by “non-training”.
What were you like after 80 mins?
I only play the last 5-10 minutes, and to be honest, that’s plenty for me…
Would you then apply some speed work with same work/rest ratio (somewhere in SPP), or would you let the game practice itself (tactics & techniques) cover this “special methabolic conditioning”, while you keep doing ordinary speed sessions (with grat recovery)? Tnx
SeanJos, regarding that analysis:
I will quote CF: „As for Tudor’s numbers, they are a good way to tell you what you don’t need to worry about.“
This analysis depends on time-frame during O2, CO2 are measured… For example, if the time frame in sprinting is 10sec, then the sprint is 100% anaerobic, and if the time frame is 1h, then sprint is 99% aerobic (yes, aerobic).
The more usefull data is time/motion analysis of particular player!!! And for aerobic/anaerobic debate, you should download Tim Noakes work from Br J Sport Med , or take a look at Homoeostasis Performance Model thread
I belive this would be interesting to post regarding basketball analysis (time/motion).
Gambetta, V. (2003). Getting in the Game. Training & Conditioning, 13.4, May/June 2003. Downloaded 14. mart 2006.
http://www.momentummedia.com/articles/tc/tc1304/getgame.htm
McInnes at al (1995). Elite basketball players spend 75% of playing time with a heart rate greater than 85% of its maximum. Coache’s infoservice. WEB PAGE. Downloaded 14. mart 2006. http://cis.squirming.net/category/basketball/16/
Miller, S. (downloaded 2006.). Physical Demands for Different Positions. Coache’s infoservice. WEB PAGE. Downloaded 14. mart 2006. http://cis.squirming.net/category/basketball/22/
I used this for my lates seminar work (again?) regarding testing in basketball… Also I found work where bLA levels in basketball after quarters are about 4-6mmol/l… Then why some coaches do suicide drills? I belive that suicides can stimulate aerobic (yes, aerobic) development as a side effect rather than LA production and tolerance (which is not needed in BA according the analysis I have)
BTW, great thread
Reading the analysis I posted above, my tiny brain come accross 5 different types of metabolic conditioning. Note that metabolic DOESNT mean special designed speed work with work/rest ration, but rather classify different types of preparations (speed, aerobic endurance, tactics, techniques etc.). So, every type of preparation (with variations within) can fall into one metabolic zone! The issue is what metabolic conditionig is needed for basketball game and how zones are distributed over season.
Metabolic conditioning for basketball
Intensity…Duration…Rest duration…Goal…Training emphasis
>95%…<6-8sec…Long(3-5min)…SAQ dev…Great
<75%…<30-60sec…Medium(durx3-4)…Aerobic dev…Medium
>95% + comb…<8-12sec…Short(20-30sec)…Spec BA end…Medium
>95%…<20-40sec…Long(>3-5min)…bLA prod…Small
>80%…<20-40sec…Short(<1min)…bLA toler…Small
According to analysis posted above (first link), the max duration of HI activity is 13-14sec with rest 21sec (average), so this would classify basketball as HIIE sport and this type of training can be called specific basketbal endurance. Tactical training can hit this zone, also special designed SAQ training with this work/rest ratio can hit this too, but I would stict it only to practice-tactics!
Aerobic work (tempo) can be done with interval running or specially designed SAQ poligons and exercises in place…
bLA production and toleration should be trained only with specific means (forget about bicycles) with MINIMAL volume. This includes specially designed tactical - technical work. Also, this kind of work can stimulate aerobic (yes aerobic) development (as shown with some studies). According to time/motion analysis, tihs kind of metabolic conditioning is not needed i gretaer volume.
Please, do not ask me where does strength training fall in… Because I didnt have time think on this too (but I believ it falls in SAQ zone).
Coach, should indentify what metabolic zone various preps hits, and accordingly should plan the best ration between then during seson. Conjugate method could be used, but I would rather use smoothed variant of conjugate sequence system (CSS with smoothed block of unidirectional loading).
I hope I didnt missed the subject of this thread… Scusi
Then why some coaches do suicide drills? I belive that suicides can stimulate aerobic (yes, aerobic) development as a side effect rather than LA production and tolerance (which is not needed in BA according the analysis I have)
If a sprinter produces 10+ mmol/l after a 5x50, 2’ R.I., how is it possible that suicides are just aerobic training means?
For istance, a marathoner does 90+% of his work under the AT.
The power world has gone on the Tabata study bandwagon, but if all you need to develop the aerobic energy system is a good anaerobic workout, then even Seanjos is right… LOL.
I think the matter is more complex than that.
Hi Sprinterogue,
You missunderstood me… sure thing that sucides develop bLA, but bLA toleration is not needed for basketball (according to data I have) and coaches are still recomending it…
On the other hand, it is proven that repeated sprints 30sec with (dont know study data exaclty) 30-60sec rest develop VO2max faster than any aerobic training… I was reffering to this study in my post! I hope we understand each other now… BTW, I am not against nor for Seanjos had said, as Charlie said you are both right… Aerobic capacity (measure as VO2max) can be better developd by repated sprints (anaerobic training), but the quiestion is how this training will affect other training components and how it will affect aerobic capacity when applyed during longer period of time…
Here are some links to effects of sprint training on aerobic capacity
http://www.powerrunning.com/Exercise%20Physiology/More%20Research%20on%20the%20Aerobic%20Benefit%20of%20Sprinting.htm
http://www.powerrunning.com/Exercise%20Physiology/The%20Surprising%20Aerobic%20Benefit%20of%20Sprinting.htm
Sprinterogue, things are way complex to be classified to simple aerobic-anaerobic… the more I learn and read, the more I dont belive in this classification… Please, take some time and read articles from Noakes at this page.
http://www.powerrunning.com/Exercise%20Physiology/Noakes/evidence%20for%20complex%20systems%20model.pdf
http://www.powerrunning.com/Exercise%20Physiology/Noakes/complex%20systems%20model%20of%20fatigue.pdf
http://www.powerrunning.com/Exercise%20Physiology/Noakes/from%20catastrophe%20to%20complexity.pdf
Please, I know you dont have much time, but thrust me, this is groundbreaking articles… I dont know how I lived without it! TNX Noakes
An example of some of the weight’s program’s that I’ve been prescribing over the last 3 weeks to build my player’s anaerobic conditioning and to give them a rest from heavy lifting is as follow’s:
A1 = 5 X 8 1 & 1/4 DB CHEST PRESSES
A2 = 5 X 20 KETTLE BELL SWINGS
A3 = 5 X 8 + TOWELL CHINS
A4 = 5 X 1 MIN HARD PUNCH BAG WORK
There’s 75 seconds rest between each exercise and once the player has completed 1 circuit he will rest for 2 minutes. The above example is obviously an upper body circuit and again it is designed to suit the player’s requirements.
it is proven that repeated sprints 30sec with (dont know study data exaclty) 30-60sec rest develop VO2max faster than any aerobic training…
Duxx,
Thank you for the links, I will surely read them later on.
The point is, IMO, that the above statement does NOT apply to all kind of athletes (that’s why I referred to the marathoner’s training).
What happens at physiological level with anaerobic work disrupt aerobic training adaptations, at least for the purely aerobic athletes. Thus, logically the above cannot be stated as a general rule when there is such large number of exceptions.
I was reffering to this study in my post!
That is the Tabata study.
My opinion is that anaerobic conditioning (or specific metabolic conditioning) should come from most specific means/exercises, and for rugby that would be running, SAQ and maybe wrestling (pushing, pulling, hog-of-war, sled work, tire flips, sand-bag work etc). I see that too many PT recomend this kind of circles (weight) for “anaerobic” conditioning and for fat loss programs (increasing EPOC after the training), but I belive that athletes should use weights to develop power-strengt, and use ONLY specifi means to develop specific anaerobic conditionig… for this same reason I dont want to even hear about doing interval bycicle work for metabolic conditioning for my basketball players… but again, this is my opinion! BTW, i believe that CF stated that anaerobic conditioning should come only from game practice itself. Charlie correct me if I am wrong…
Sprinterogue,
tottaly agree with you! Does increased VO2max in those athletes in this study, means that their performance incresed? How about long term improvements using this methods? How about relations to speed work and strength, recovery? Who were the participans in the study? A lot of questions, but I will leave posibilities open… be open minded! And, for this same reasons I dont believe in VO2max testing nor any other laborathory test… As Noakes has stated “It makes a little sense to devise a laboratory-based measure of sprinting ability, when a time trial on a 100m track will give all the answers”!
sprinterogue, do you have link or maybe printable form of that study? Maybe the study is quoted in the links I posted… check it out and let me know!
Comments by Clarence Bass, worth a read:
http://www.cbass.com/SEARCHOF.HTM
Now, all this reinforce the “anaerobic for aerobic” position BUT, as stated before, there are many exceptions to the rule.
I said anaerobic lactic work from the game itself. The shorter the off-season relative to the season, the more to the left of the F/T curve the work selection and priority should be.