Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Physiology: Time to train/detrain energy systems (AeT/AnT) & optimum lactate curve for ironman [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew Coggan wrote:
Mike Prevost wrote:

Would you mind elaborating a bit? Are you saying that the rate of improvement is similar but there are greater gains to be made (in terms of improving race performance) for aerobic, therefore people spend more time there? In other words, you spend more time working in zone 2 rather than zone 4 not because the rate of improvement is different, but because the total magnitude of improvement avaiable is higher in zone 2? And also because zone 4 training hurts (a lot) and has a high recovery cost? Thanks in advance.


That's pretty much it. Specifically, if you look at the literature on the time-constant for improvements in neuromuscular power, anaerobic power, or aerobic power, you find that it is essentially the same in all cases, i.e., 7-10 d or thereabouts. What differs, then, is the overall magnitude or scope of possible improvement, as well as the physiological strain associated with overloading the different components/abilities.

Thanks Andy, that makes sense. That is an important distinction (time course vs magnitude) and I think lots of people get those confused.

Simplify, Train, Live
Quote Reply
Re: Physiology: Time to train/detrain energy systems (AeT/AnT) & optimum lactate curve for ironman [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew Coggan wrote:
Mike Prevost wrote:

Would you mind elaborating a bit? Are you saying that the rate of improvement is similar but there are greater gains to be made (in terms of improving race performance) for aerobic, therefore people spend more time there? In other words, you spend more time working in zone 2 rather than zone 4 not because the rate of improvement is different, but because the total magnitude of improvement avaiable is higher in zone 2? And also because zone 4 training hurts (a lot) and has a high recovery cost? Thanks in advance.


That's pretty much it. Specifically, if you look at the literature on the time-constant for improvements in neuromuscular power, anaerobic power, or aerobic power, you find that it is essentially the same in all cases, i.e., 7-10 d or thereabouts. What differs, then, is the overall magnitude or scope of possible improvement, as well as the physiological strain associated with overloading the different components/abilities.

Hang on... Are you guys saying that training in zone 2 yields greater improvement (presumably over the long term) in aerobic capacity than training in zone 4?
Quote Reply
Re: Physiology: Time to train/detrain energy systems (AeT/AnT) & optimum lactate curve for ironman [Hookflash] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I believe they are saying one can expect to improve your aerobic more over the long term than your anaerobic capacity or 5 second power.

Training in Zone 4 or Zone 2 will both improve your aerobic power.


Hookflash wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
Mike Prevost wrote:

Would you mind elaborating a bit? Are you saying that the rate of improvement is similar but there are greater gains to be made (in terms of improving race performance) for aerobic, therefore people spend more time there? In other words, you spend more time working in zone 2 rather than zone 4 not because the rate of improvement is different, but because the total magnitude of improvement avaiable is higher in zone 2? And also because zone 4 training hurts (a lot) and has a high recovery cost? Thanks in advance.


That's pretty much it. Specifically, if you look at the literature on the time-constant for improvements in neuromuscular power, anaerobic power, or aerobic power, you find that it is essentially the same in all cases, i.e., 7-10 d or thereabouts. What differs, then, is the overall magnitude or scope of possible improvement, as well as the physiological strain associated with overloading the different components/abilities.

Hang on... Are you guys saying that training in zone 2 yields greater improvement (presumably over the long term) in aerobic capacity than training in zone 4?



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: Physiology: Time to train/detrain energy systems (AeT/AnT) & optimum lactate curve for ironman [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Olbrecht is wrong

I don't think so.

First, one has to define anaerobic capacity. Olbrecht has spent almost 30 years working in this area so I would not cavalierly say he is wrong. He uses a definition that is different from that often used in the academic literature. His definition is the maximum amount of pyruvate that can be produced per second by glycolysis. It is frequently called VLa Max to be comparable to VO2 max.

Olbrecht's dissertation was on the use of energy systems by different types of swimmers and how to measure these energy systems. He worked with several hundred swimmers. His work with swimmers and other athletes since then has focused on these concepts and how to employ them in the training of athletes. So Wrong? I doubt it. Especially with such a success rate.

The anaerobic capacity for the average couch potato is higher than it is for an endurance athlete. Raising this capacity beyond what is innate is almost impossible but not unheard of. Long low level workouts typical of endurance athletes tend to reduce this capacity way below their innate max. However, a swimmer with a high VO2 max will reduce this capacity during base training by long endurance sets but will quickly regain it within 3-5 week of more intensive sets. But an endurance athlete such as a marathoner or cyclist may slowly lower this capacity to the point that it will not return quickly to innate levels.

For an athlete with a high VO2 max but competing in short events, they will usually have a high anaerobic capacity but not as high as a pure sprinter. If such an athlete (800 m or 1500 m runner or 100 m or 200 m swimmer) wants to compete in longer races, they will have to reduce this anaerobic capacity in order to be effective. This may take several years depending on the length of the event. But in a training cycle it is possible to increase and decrease anaerobic capacity in lesser amounts depending on what is desired. It will not be possible to turn a top level 100 m swimmer into a top 1500 m swimmer in a short time but may be possible over several years. So anaerobic capacity can be trained up or down depending on the event. Often the training to increase anaerobic capacity is done after it has been reduced by other types of training.

One would never want to decrease aerobic capacity for any reason but it happens with detraining and can happen with some training sets. Increasing aerobic capacity is a slow process except for initial responses after detraining.

All of this is discussed in Olbrecht's book, The Science of Winning. Obrecht uses a model of energy metabolism developed at the Sports School at the University of Cologne. This model was developed in the 1980's and it was found that optimal energy usage was dependent on the length of the event and the relative strength of the aerobic and glycolytic systems.

This is not a topic seen in a normal book on training but is an essential part of The Science of Winning. And it is essential for the proper training of athletes even for endurance events such as the Ironman as well as for shorter events.

But of course he is wrong. All those poor athletes and coaches who have been led astray.


-----------

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom
Last edited by: Jerryc: Mar 3, 15 14:15
Quote Reply
Re: Physiology: Time to train/detrain energy systems (AeT/AnT) & optimum lactate curve for ironman [Jerryc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jerryc wrote:
Quote:
Olbrecht is wrong

I don't think so.

Wanna bet?

Half-life of increase in VO2max in response to training = 10-11 d:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7219130

Half-life of changes in submaximal blood lactate levels in response to training = 10-11 d:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3182159

Changes in neuromuscular power in response to training = similar time-course:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20213468
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9351694

Changes in 90 s power/maximal accumulated O2 deficit in response to training = similar time-course:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9351694
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11960926
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897392
Quote Reply
Re: Physiology: Time to train/detrain energy systems (AeT/AnT) & optimum lactate curve for ironman [Hookflash] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hookflash wrote:
Are you guys saying that training in zone 2 yields greater improvement (presumably over the long term) in aerobic capacity than training in zone 4?

No.
Quote Reply
Re: Physiology: Time to train/detrain energy systems (AeT/AnT) & optimum lactate curve for ironman [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew Coggan wrote:
Jerryc wrote:
Quote:
Olbrecht is wrong


I don't think so.


Wanna bet?

Half-life of increase in VO2max in response to training = 10-11 d:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7219130

Half-life of changes in submaximal blood lactate levels in response to training = 10-11 d:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3182159

Changes in neuromuscular power in response to training = similar time-course:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20213468
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9351694

Changes in 90 s power/maximal accumulated O2 deficit in response to training = similar time-course:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9351694
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11960926http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897392[/quote[/url]]

Wow, thanks for the links. You have saved me a ton of time. This turned out to be a productive thread after all.

Simplify, Train, Live
Quote Reply
Re: Physiology: Time to train/detrain energy systems (AeT/AnT) & optimum lactate curve for ironman [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Wanna bet?

How much?

I am not sure you understand Olbrecht's definition of anaerobic capacity and model of metabolism which he validated for his dissertation. And continues to use very successfully. It is easy to mock anything especially if one does not understand it. I would suggest an attempt to understand before passing judgment. This model was developed at one of the best universities for exercise metabolism in the world and is not necessarily Olbrecht's alone. Others use it but mainly for training athletes and less so for academic publishing.

Here is a graphic of his model which obviously doesn't contain any of the mathematical relationships.



We explain the model and the reasons for the various parameters at

http://www.lactate.com/lactate_threshold.html

This model is available in the published literature. Here is an extensive discussion of it by Mader. The article has lots of references to previous publications.

Mader, A. (2003). "Glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation as a function of cytosolic phosphorylation state and power output of the muscle cell." European Journal of Applied Physiology 88(4-5): 317-338.



I am not sure how one would decide who won the bet. Obrecht's ideas are discussed in detail in his book, The Science of Winning which can be purchased on Amazon as a Kindle ebook (I personally get nothing from the sale of the ebook. Amazon gets the major share and the publisher the rest.). So interested readers of this site could decide for themselves.

Also I am not sure what the literature dump was about. I glanced through the 4 or 5 that I have copies of and could see no relevance. The first is about initial increases in aerobic capacity in VO2 max in unfit individuals and as such is not relevant for this discussion. (Olbrecht has a very similar chart in his book so obviously you both agree on something)

Changes in VO2max after initial training is a slow process and I doubt anyone has a half life or the actual time period for its development. It takes years to reach one's full potential and then this max declines due to aging processes.

MAOD is not the same thing as Olbrecht's use of the term anaerobic capacity though they are not completely unrelated. When I get time, I will read them in more detail to see what is there. But as I said, there are a couple, I do not have.

So bottom line, any interested readers should evaluate these topics for themselves and not use your quick judgments to disparage them as the last word.


------------

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom
Quote Reply
Re: Physiology: Time to train/detrain energy systems (AeT/AnT) & optimum lactate curve for ironman [Jerryc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jerryc wrote:
Quote:
Wanna bet?

How much?

How much are you worth?

Jerryc wrote:
Also I am not sure what the literature dump was about.

The cited studies directly support my initial statement, i.e., that the time-constant for increases in various physiological determinants of performance are essentially identical.
Quote Reply
Re: Physiology: Time to train/detrain energy systems (AeT/AnT) & optimum lactate curve for ironman [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Are you two arguing over the same question... or just going at it?

Correct me if I'm wrong:

Coggan summary: Time course is the same for adaptation in both, but aerobic has more capacity to improve... so spend more time on Aerobic (but don't count anaerobic out completely).

Jerry: Olbrecht says Both aerobic and anaerobic contribute to performance.

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com
Last edited by: xtrpickels: Mar 5, 15 15:59
Quote Reply
Re: Physiology: Time to train/detrain energy systems (AeT/AnT) & optimum lactate curve for ironman [xtrpickels] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Jerry: Olbrecht says Both aerobic and anaerobic contribute to performance.

I am not sure what the disagreement is about. Coggan says Olbrecht is wrong. I don't believe he is wrong. Nothing in the articles that Coggan listed in any way contradicts anything that Olbrecht says. They are irrelevant or consistent with what was said about him. Of course, no one is absolutely right on everything and Jan is the first to say he is constantly learning new things.

My only objective is to introduce the ideas he has been using in a very successful career advising athletes at all levels but definitely with lots of high level ones. It is not just Americans that do not understand what he is recommending, there are plenty of Europeans who do not understand what he doing. I sat in a bar once at ACSM talking with two of the most distinguished exercise scientists from Germany discussing lactate testing and they had not a clue about Mader's ideas. All they could say was that the 4 mmol/l measure was not a good test and that is what they associated with Mader.

In the early to mid 80's Jan, Michael Lohberg (swim coach of Bonn swim team) and Oram Madsen (a recent Ph.D from Cologne at the time) all went off to St. Croix to set the swimming world on fire using the ideas developed by Mader and others at Cologne. They failed.

Lohberg ended up in Florida where he became a successful swim coach. Madsen went home to Norway and became involved in Olympic sports. Olbrecht went back to Cologne and finished his Ph.D.

In the mean time, Mader solved the problem of why people with the same lactate results performed differently in the same events and why they reacted differently to the same training approaches. He found out that the anaerobic system was causing these differences between athletes. He essentially discovered what was behind the lactate threshold or maximal lactate steady state depending on what definition is used.

This led to the model of metabolism I mentioned above and which Olbrecht validated with his Dissertation. Mader was his thesis adviser, Along the way Olbrecht validated something he calls a distance test and which people here call the FTP. He did it for swimming and the test is well known in swimming circles as the T30 for the time to swim 3000 meters or the distance one can swim in 30 minutes. Olbrecht rejected this type of test because it did not tell one what was behind the result. One needed to know the aerobic and anaerobic contributions in order to know how to properly train the athlete.

The question is how to test for the anaerobic component. Testing for the aerobic capacity was well established but not for anaerobic capacity. Testing for the anaerobic system is more problematic but does not mean it is not a factor in training and performance. This led to a unique test which I linked to above. The test is briefly described in this video (made for a Community College video course)

https://www.youtube.com/...amp;feature=youtu.be

But one needs the model of metabolism to use this test so other less precise tests for anaerobic capacity were developed for athletes that were not elite.

Also how does one train the anaerobic system to the proper level. This is an issue too. There is never enough aerobic capacity and the athlete is in a life long effort to raise VO2 max as we see here with questions about which zones and how much to train in each. But anaerobic capacity must be adjusted for the event to be optimal. This means training it up or down depending on what is required.

For distance events this usually means lowering anaerobic capacity but it cannot be lowered too much even for Ironman length events. There is confusion here when this comes us as most seem to think that anaerobic training is trying to make the system stronger when in fact most of the training for the anaerobic system is to make it weaker.

So is Olbrecht wrong? I doubt it except that no one is absolutely right on everything. I will keep on presenting his ideas on threads where it is appropriate.


------

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom
Last edited by: Jerryc: Mar 7, 15 6:49
Quote Reply
Re: Physiology: Time to train/detrain energy systems (AeT/AnT) & optimum lactate curve for ironman [xtrpickels] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
xtrpickels wrote:
Coggan summary: Time course is the same for adaptation in both

You could (should) have stopped right there. Acoording to jerryc, though, Olbrecht claims otherwise. which is why I have tried to set the story straight (w/ plenty of references to back me up).
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Mar 5, 15 19:06
Quote Reply

Prev Next