Really sorry Jazz, if you have any question, I'll really try my best to provide with understandable answers. I knew that this physiology talk would not please everyone, but I feel it was necessary.
Besides, I hope it helped correcting perceptions such as these....
I think a "serious" coach just means a coach who doesn't think for himself.
High yardage isn't a fact of physiology, it's just a tradition.
In the end, if it's true that mostly anaerobic work still gets the aerobic metabolism going, the opposite is also true.
I'm not so sure. In fact, the article posted by Rich Abrahams in post 44 says the opposite. Interval training improved VO2max by 5-7%, while threshold training improved it by only 2%. That's better than purely LSD training, at least, which actually resulted in a 0.7% decrease in VO2max.
I'm not so sure. In fact, the article posted by Rich Abrahams in post 44 says the opposite. Interval training improved VO2max by 5-7%, while threshold training improved it by only 2%. That's better than purely LSD training, at least, which actually resulted in a 0.7% decrease in VO2max.
All I was saying sjstuart is that anaerobic metabolism is always active and working. If it's true that during a purely anaerobic capacity effort, the aerobic metabolism is working, it's also true that during a purely aerobic effort, the anaerobic metabolism is also contributing.
As for the magnitude at which the vo2max will be improved relying on threshold work solely, it depends on where you start from at the first place. Untrained subject would see a boost, trained subject may see a regression etc...
For example, a 200 breaststroke specialist ending his season in July, resuming it in august with lower level endurance work only (
Ok, 200 posts later, I think it is time for more experimentation and less postulation.
qbrain is actually going to start training again and stop talking so much.
Ok, 200 posts later, I think it is time for more experimentation and less postulation.
qbrain is actually going to start training again and stop talking so much.
Is that what you were doing before geek trounced you in the 200? If so, I wouldn't go back to training the old way.
Is that what you were doing before geek trounced you in the 200? If so, I wouldn't go back to training the old way.
Hey Wookie,
Geek trounced me and out trained me, but PWolf was the one who the bet was with. He trounced me and under trained me.
I did drop 7 seconds in my 200 free and 2 in my 100 free in the last year, so the old way wasn't horrible, but you are right, I would like to do better.
Hey Wookie,
Geek trounced me and out trained me, but PWolf was the one who the bet was with. He trounced me and under trained me.
I did drop 7 seconds in my 200 free and 2 in my 100 free in the last year, so the old way wasn't horrible, but you are right, I would like to do better.
Relax Q, just messin with ya. Those are good time drops. Congrats.
On 12 June 2010 SE suggested that we investigae our SDI:
Your aerobic/anaerobic balance =
Log(T1/T2) / Log(D1/D2)
I replied:
SE:
OK, so I did this several ways:
100/200 back = 1.12
50/200 back = 1.10
50/100 back = 1.08
Yesterday I recomputed:
100/200 back = 1.21
50/200 back = 1.39
50/100 back = 1.14
Since I last posted, I have improved my time in all three bk events; 50, 100 & 200. The changes in SDI suggest that my anerobic ability has improved relative to my aerobic ability. This is rather surprising to me. While I have been attempting to do more race-pace work in practice, my workouts still contain a lot of 100s and 200s on short rest, (the stuff sprinters like Fort and chowmi won't go near). I'm wondering if what the results shown above really mean is that I haven't reached my current potential in the 200.
