Would you happen to know of any other similar training specific proposal topic having been exposed to heat more than this one?
I don't know what falls under similar training specific proposal topics. But it's actually not important whether 79 citations is "massive" or not. That was actually a pretty petty nit to pick. I just wanted to keep you honest, and not let you bully people into believing that TRIMPS or TSS is a good model for anaerobic training, just because lots people use them for modeling aerobic training.
As far as I am concerned, I don't think that Trimp suits sprinters needs better than a power based or even an RPE based impulse-response model, for the reason mentioned earlier. HR response it way too slow to react to short and intense bouts.
I'd agree, but that's not my point. I'm not concerned about HR vs power, but whether any of these models (including power-based TSS) are good for modeling training for sprints.
I just looked over your previous posts in the thread to make sure I wasn't misreading them, and perhaps I was. Let me try to summarize.
The thread started off with a discussion of the claim that mega-yardage doesn't help, and grew to include the claim that "less is more" in the sense that fewer high-intensity yards can be better than more low-intensity yards.
Some people like this philosophy, and do mostly high-intensity stuff and very little aerobic work (depending on how they count).
Your principal claim, as I see it (now), is that there is still a place for some early-season LSD training in order to build an aerobic base.
In my own head, as the thread went on, I came to overgeneralize your position as being that aerobic training can substitute for high-intensity work. I see now that's not what you have said (in fact, you have said the opposite). I guess I made that mistake because (1) you appear to be trying to talk Fortress and others into doing more aerobic work and (2) all of these models do treat 50 m of hard work as fully equivalent to 150 m of lazy stuff.
If what you're saying is this...
...that in order to race a fast 100, you do have to swim lots of fast 100s in practice
... in order to swim lots of fast 100s in practice you have to think about how to train yourself to handle the training load
... for the purpose of such preparation, base is base, and it doesn't matter too much whether it comes from LSD or sprints
... then I agree, with only minor caveats.
Hopefully that's closer to your point of view, and sorry for any misinterpretation.
Would you happen to know of any other similar training specific proposal topic having been exposed to heat more than this one?
I don't know what falls under similar training specific proposal topics. But it's actually not important whether 79 citations is "massive" or not. That was actually a pretty petty nit to pick. I just wanted to keep you honest, and not let you bully people into believing that TRIMPS or TSS is a good model for anaerobic training, just because lots people use them for modeling aerobic training.
As far as I am concerned, I don't think that Trimp suits sprinters needs better than a power based or even an RPE based impulse-response model, for the reason mentioned earlier. HR response it way too slow to react to short and intense bouts.
I'd agree, but that's not my point. I'm not concerned about HR vs power, but whether any of these models (including power-based TSS) are good for modeling training for sprints.
I just looked over your previous posts in the thread to make sure I wasn't misreading them, and perhaps I was. Let me try to summarize.
The thread started off with a discussion of the claim that mega-yardage doesn't help, and grew to include the claim that "less is more" in the sense that fewer high-intensity yards can be better than more low-intensity yards.
Some people like this philosophy, and do mostly high-intensity stuff and very little aerobic work (depending on how they count).
Your principal claim, as I see it (now), is that there is still a place for some early-season LSD training in order to build an aerobic base.
In my own head, as the thread went on, I came to overgeneralize your position as being that aerobic training can substitute for high-intensity work. I see now that's not what you have said (in fact, you have said the opposite). I guess I made that mistake because (1) you appear to be trying to talk Fortress and others into doing more aerobic work and (2) all of these models do treat 50 m of hard work as fully equivalent to 150 m of lazy stuff.
If what you're saying is this...
...that in order to race a fast 100, you do have to swim lots of fast 100s in practice
... in order to swim lots of fast 100s in practice you have to think about how to train yourself to handle the training load
... for the purpose of such preparation, base is base, and it doesn't matter too much whether it comes from LSD or sprints
... then I agree, with only minor caveats.
Hopefully that's closer to your point of view, and sorry for any misinterpretation.
