Derf wrote:
It's really best to think of these systems in parallel. A marked improvement in any one portion of the system will have a modest improvement in the overall system.
O2 supplementation (and EPO eventually, once RBC count comes up) will both have immediate salutatory effects, as O2_sat will remain higher at exercise.
This allows you to train at a higher level, thus (ostensibly) eliciting a stronger adaptation response from the body's various subsystems (read: fitness!). Your body will assuredly not linearly benefit from that extra oxygen, but still benefit (and plenty).
Derf wrote:
Hence AC's comments about high VO2Max being a necessary, but insufficient selection guideline for an elite endurance athlete.
This bit in bold is the point I was trying to establish, and I've spent a couple of days googling and pubmedding around looking for evidence in studies, WIP.
It seems that O2 availability is necessary for mitochondiral biogenesis/gene expression (its an aerobic process?). So does the presence/availability of additional O2 in the blood bring about more adaptation in the muscle? leading to more blood flow=more oxygen availability and more mitochondria??
Taking a step back, I started by proposing that doing vo2max work enables you to put out more power. And backed that up with the logic that EPO works, vo2 training works, etc. And then, AC comes along and says no, its a necessary condition but not a determinant. I happen to think he is probably right, since its the muscles creating the power, and all the o2 in the world won't make any difference if the muscles can't absorb it. So if additional O2 doesn't makes you faster, then additional O2 must somehow bring about metabolic adaptation that makes you faster.
Logically (just rewording your bold bit really) if you hold your vo2max slightly higher through the winter then you can do your winter miles at X watts higher, and thats likely to lead to more adaptation as long as you can absorb that work (in my experience, when I look at times where I've done a block of vo2 work after a block of volume work, RPE connects more to heart rate than power despite an increase of 20w, so I don't think those extra X watts are necessarily more fatiguing provided you fuel correctly). This would also help explain why polarized seems to work for some. You step up your power with a bit of vo2 work, you do some long steady miles at a higher power than you would have otherwise, adaptation occurs (more adaptation occurs), and then you do a bit more vo2 work, and more long miles at higher power, its like a cycle of stimuli working together. Its a way of training at higher power for the same stress.
Personally I'd get blatted in no time if I did vo2 work week in week out, but I find sweetspot or greater can provide enough stimulus to step onto this ladder, it doesn't have to be vo2 work for me, but it does for some people, moreso but not exclusively it seems those who are well trained. And I also find that training at a relatively higher power is much more enjoyable, so mentally this model works better too.
Simplistically if more oxygen availability in the blood did not enable rapid adaptation of oxygen uptake in the muscle, EPO wouldn't work much, and vo2max intervals wouldn't work much. But we know they do work - a lot.
Looking at a study of hypoxia in mountaineers at altitude for ~5 weeks, their muscle mass decreased by 10% and mitochondria volume decreased by 25% despite capillary density staying the same. The only stimulus that caused this change would appear to be less O2. They were still "training" by doing mountaineering. What will happen when they get back to sea level ? More oxygen, carry on climbing, will mitochondrial levels return to their original ? I think it would. But what would be the stimulus for that? More oxygen alone? (More oxygen with training is fine, since we're not interested here in people who don't train). O2 is the only thing we're changing here. I'd like to find more studies that connect hyper-oxia to mitochondrial density increases and explain mechanisms, WIP
The other possibility here is that the additional o2 availability has nothing to do with muscle adaptation, and its simply that hard training associated with vo2work is bringing about adaptation within the cells which then enables more oxygen uptake. I'd also accept that as an explanation, but if thats the case, why does EPO work ?
paull wrote:
The take home message about vo2max not being a determinant, while it may be technically true, is hugely misleading. That could easily fool your average Joe Athlete into thinking that oxygen availability and hence vo2max is not relevant !! Seems to me its incredibly relevant, and to almost all training.
Steve Irwin wrote:
I also think it's misleading to talk about the scope for metabolic fitness improvements being greater than the scope for VO2max improvements based on the observation that threshold can move closer to VO2max. This would be true if the only source of improvement in threshold power were metabolic fitness improvements, but of course improvements in cardiac output will improve power at all HRs, including threshold. To illustrate, suppose we have:
Steve Irwin wrote:
I tried for some time putting your advice into action by focusing on training that would be expected to primarily improve metabolic fitness rather than cardiovascular fitness, and the results were as poor as they were for the animals in the studies this refers to:
These quotes are clear demonstrations that the statement about Metabolic fitness being a determinant CAN BE misleading. Here we have an intelligent rider with a good education in science, including some physiology, and many years in sport as a swimmer and cyclist. He took on board AC's advice and (I'm assuming) wasted one or more seasons trying to get fast by doing the wrong training. Lifes too short to have that going on.
So while I maintain that AC might be technically correct, the take home message needs to change, but first I don't yet see the science that explains why Polarized works? why vo2 work raises power? why EPO works? why do Steve Irwin and other riders go better on a polarized model? Why does Ric Stern recommend some threshold work even through the winter? Why is 60's music so good? Why do other riders thrive on long miles and some need polarized? HOW SHOULD RIDERS DECIDE ON THE INTENSITIES TO TRAIN AT ALL YEAR AROUND FOR OPTIMAL PROGRESSION?