“the fitter you are the quicker you recover.”
someone posted this statement on another forum and it has copped a hammering and is being widely labelled as “bulls**t”.
I always thought that your fitness level helped you to recover faster, but as your capacity and intensity increases you are recovering from more taxing efforts, so recovery from a hard workout would actually be slower. “it’s like climbing a mountain. the higher you go the harder it gets.” this has also been described as “bulls**t”.
am I way off base here? I’m confused…
Being “fit” for something is a broad term IMO.
However, my understanding is that as higher levels are reached, you are taxing the organism more and so it takes longer to bounce back and super compensate from the work (depleting available energy pools more). Extensive tempo and other aerobic flushing activities have been found to help recover (more nutrient transportation? parasympathetic response? does it matter? IMO getting the result is most important…the scientists can confirm the mechanisms behind it in the future).
So I think the question becomes: given the fact work takes longer to recover from the higher the level of the athlete; would recovery time be less for the same athlete if they were engaging in aerobic flushing activities versus not?
Would an athlete who does tempo need 48 hours between CNS intensive sessions and the same athlete who doesn’t do tempo need more time between CNS sessions?
Even if the answer is no, tempo and other aerobic activities to get “fit” have been talked about a lot on the site. Have a search around.
Hope this helps,
Rob.
that’s basically what I thought, although I think there has been some confusion over exactly what they are recovering from.
if you are fit you will recover faster from low level training than someone who is unfit (such as myself!), however if you are talking about relative intensity being the same then the higher levels of training take longer to recover from and cancel out any increase in recovry time gained by being fit…