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?
Not in my mind. Easier to talk about the Base in general, since for me Base simply refers to your ability to do work.
I agree with Lindsay. It may be "easier" to talk about base as a single variable, but that doesn't mean it's capturing everything.
Anaerobic and aerobic energy systems are different. This is presumably not controversial.
In order to for either of these energy systems to be improved, it must be overloaded. This is also presumably not controversial.
The dose-response models (any of them) seem to provide a reasonable description of how these energy systems react to overload, and that's why they're useful. But it doesn't follow that both energy systems can be described equally well by one score (whether denominated in trimps or TSS or energy points or whatever).
Doing a set of short, hard intervals will tax aerobic and anaerobic energy systems, and thus has the potential to overload them both, leading to improvements in both. But doing a long, slow, distance set will only work (and perhaps not even overload) the aerobic energy system. It might grow you more mitochondria, but it won't build more enzymes for glycolysis.
By viewing "base" as the capacity to do work, you're saying only the aerobic component is relevant. Which may work fine for distance training. But that doesn't mean the same score will tell you the status (fatigue, fitness, performance potential) of your anaerobic energy pathways, or that doing LSD is good training for a 50.
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?
Not in my mind. Easier to talk about the Base in general, since for me Base simply refers to your ability to do work.
I agree with Lindsay. It may be "easier" to talk about base as a single variable, but that doesn't mean it's capturing everything.
Anaerobic and aerobic energy systems are different. This is presumably not controversial.
In order to for either of these energy systems to be improved, it must be overloaded. This is also presumably not controversial.
The dose-response models (any of them) seem to provide a reasonable description of how these energy systems react to overload, and that's why they're useful. But it doesn't follow that both energy systems can be described equally well by one score (whether denominated in trimps or TSS or energy points or whatever).
Doing a set of short, hard intervals will tax aerobic and anaerobic energy systems, and thus has the potential to overload them both, leading to improvements in both. But doing a long, slow, distance set will only work (and perhaps not even overload) the aerobic energy system. It might grow you more mitochondria, but it won't build more enzymes for glycolysis.
By viewing "base" as the capacity to do work, you're saying only the aerobic component is relevant. Which may work fine for distance training. But that doesn't mean the same score will tell you the status (fatigue, fitness, performance potential) of your anaerobic energy pathways, or that doing LSD is good training for a 50.
