A fundamental difference on what we try to achieve and what we did in the past is the "cook book " approach.
Despite "success" with the cook book approach , the question remains, whether this is the bets we have to offer or whether there is room for improvement.
Track and field team.
middle distance runners.
workout 10 x 400 m with 2 3 min rest in between.
What is they physiological reasoning behind this workout and why this distance.
What is the outcome ?
Different approach based on physiological feedback.
Unknown numbers of all out runs. Unknown distance and unknown rest in between.
Controlled by NIRS / MOXY.
You run all out for example till we see a minimal level of SmO2 . You start with a start SmO2 of 67 +- you run first load and you reach 17 SmO2 before it goes up again despite your still running.
Now you rest till you over shoot and reach a new top SmO2 level.
Now you run again till you hit 17 +-. you rest to the next bigger overshoot and so on.
Workout is over,when you can not desaturate anymore to 17
Below one workout lookiong like that.
Now are we alone ?.
I had this week some different phone calls with some very great people and the feedback was , woww yes that is an interesting idea and could be done.
Now there are as well big names out there thinking along that line and having no problem to open the discussion.
Here one nice reading. Blue is my loud thinking.
James G Hopker 1*and Louis Passfield 1
Prescribing training involves the manipulation of intensity, duration and frequency of the sessions to improve cycling performance. As sports scientists our ideal is to help provide an objective scientific basis for this training prescription. But whilst we have developed an intimate knowledge of training adaptations and their regulating molecular signals (Stepto et al., 2009), we do not appear to be moving closer to providing a scientific basis from which to design effective training programmes (Borreson and Lambert, 2009).
Below we post 3 questions for future training related research studies to consider.
1) Are training studies using appropriate indices for specifying training intensity?
2) Should training studies take more account of individual variation?
3) Are training studies examining the right question?
There appears to be increasing agreement that the response to a standardised training programme can be remarkably diverse (Mann et al., 2014).
This has lead some to examine these training “responders” and “non-responders” and its genetic basis (Ehlert et al. 2013).
How about responder and non responder because we miss LIMITER and COMPENSTOR
Surprisingly, the alternative hypothesis that training has not been standardised appropriately appears to have been little considered (Mann et al. 2014).
From this perspective the issue becomes not whether a cyclist is a responder or a non-responder, but rather what is his or her optimal training intensity.
For example, it has long been established that cyclists’ time to exhaustion at the same relative intensity can vary hugely. Coyle et al. (1988) found that at 88% VO2max cyclists’ time to exhaustion varied from 12 min to 75 min. However, the method for prescribing training in most studies remains standardised as a percentage of maximum.
Same holds true for wattage training plans where we use % as well. Whole training software’s are based on this ideas !!!
How about intensity feedback over physiological intensity information?
Consequently, it seems unsurprising that the training response differs between two cyclists training at a standardised intensity that yields such a diverse response to even a single bout of exercise. Even where the ability to sustain a standardised training intensity is more carefully controlled, the underlying assumption that this is linked to a training response remains unproven.
Below 5 equal loads 5 different physiological reactions.
Alternative, Load 5 times but keep same physiological reaction if possible.