Falling back on a somewhat tired but valid analogy, I don't think most people would be satisfied at looking at the training schemes of all Olympic runners, from 100m sprinters to marathon runners, and talking about the average volume of training of Olympic level runners.
Likewise, talking about the capacity to do work without qualifying it with regard to intensity strikes me as throwing away too much information. Taking it a step further and substituting time for volume seems like another step in the wrong direction.
If you are talking about training for a specific endurance-oriented event and a somewhat standardized training scheme then these simplifications make more sense, the information isn't lost, it has just become implicit. In that sense, if we assume that a swimmer is training in "typical fashion" then just talking about the total volume does tell you something about their state of fitness. But if the question under discussion is intensity versus volume then it doesn't make sense to me.
:bolt:
Q wrote:
Lindsay, I believe it is impossible to train the anaerobic system without also training the aerobic system.
Would you disagree that it's possible to be well trained for the 50 and 100 while being poorly trained for the 1500? Or vice versa?
I did say:
Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about an aerobic base and an anaerobic base and then say that an LSD set will contribute to the former while a sprint set will contribute to both?
Falling back on a somewhat tired but valid analogy, I don't think most people would be satisfied at looking at the training schemes of all Olympic runners, from 100m sprinters to marathon runners, and talking about the average volume of training of Olympic level runners.
Likewise, talking about the capacity to do work without qualifying it with regard to intensity strikes me as throwing away too much information. Taking it a step further and substituting time for volume seems like another step in the wrong direction.
If you are talking about training for a specific endurance-oriented event and a somewhat standardized training scheme then these simplifications make more sense, the information isn't lost, it has just become implicit. In that sense, if we assume that a swimmer is training in "typical fashion" then just talking about the total volume does tell you something about their state of fitness. But if the question under discussion is intensity versus volume then it doesn't make sense to me.
:bolt:
Q wrote:
Lindsay, I believe it is impossible to train the anaerobic system without also training the aerobic system.
Would you disagree that it's possible to be well trained for the 50 and 100 while being poorly trained for the 1500? Or vice versa?
I did say:
Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about an aerobic base and an anaerobic base and then say that an LSD set will contribute to the former while a sprint set will contribute to both?
