Development Team Member
Registered: 1380484167 Posts: 1,501
I like to add some thoughts to the great ongoing discussion on the rowing section and like to move it on here as a theory section in exercise physiology.
I like to start with the great slide by S. Seiler I like to show you a possible part of the puzzles so many exercise physiologist search for but sometimes classical thinking from the past work my inhibit the look out side the box. 1. A well trained athlete walks up a hill despite the fact he could have run up the hill. This is physiological training zoning in one simple example.. The great coach combined with a great athlete with a great body feeling allow to run in the field by trying to stay in a targeted physiological intensity. Start of this ideas reach far far back. That's where knowing the history would allow us to avoiding repeating mistakes on the one side but as well benefit from them on the other side. The first simple physiological feed backs to stay in a physiological zoning date back in the 19 century and where heavily used in army training. Army guys like the one from Napoleon ( Amoros ) was an initial trigger for physical training on young Men in mainland Europe. This influenced till into the late 1960 and longer the way sport was supported in many European countries where the military department funded a lot of sport activities for young males and women where cut out of this. Respiration feedback was the first basic physiological feedback control, whether soldiers would loos the aerobic pacing. How was this used. ? The next big step towards physiological pacing was the nice heart rate monitor and I remember the first once like a Casio one with a chest belt and than a cable along you sleeve to a watch with a cable connection. Than step forward PE 250 from polar and the rest is history. So perhaps surprising that we can be surprised seeing a top athlete with a plan from his coach to run , bike, row or ski and so on the walk up a hill shift gear going up a hill go side steps up a hill and so on. And the plan was set up to try to improve for example deliver but avoided extreme utilization and so on. Step forward. How does this athlete running to a hill and changes to walk and than back to run , can have the best optimal feedback , that the reduction in speed reflex the intensity he likes to maintain ? Remember the lag time of delivery systems and the fast ability of responds on local system to use available O2 before triggering a delivery demand ? So respiration as well as HR a s current well established option on bio feedback have this slightly draw back. Lets' take lactate and the draw back is even bigger due to the lactate dynamic. You run into the hill and slow down too late you will see an increased HR or RF but after eh fact that you are complete out of the target physiological zoning. Delivery increase kicks in , when there is a n emergency situation in the loco motor muscles involved in the run . bike ski or row, . The second draw back is, that an increase in HR or an increase in RF or lactate does only tell you you moved out of the physiological zoning you may like to stay in. This bio feed backs do not give you a information on why or who of the involved team members actually had to call for help. So what you like to have is a direct live feedback in case you are not yet as great trained , that your body feeling can help you do be as good as possible. You may benefit by having immediately a feedback that you create a delivery problem or utilization problem and as we discuss on this forum , you have the feedback, now we just have to use it and learn to apply the needed reaction depending on the live feedback. Now it is not just the hill who asked for adjustment , it is as well as you can see in the presentation the duration of a load but as well the rest in between the loads. and much more. Combining body feeling with RF feeling with HR feedback and feeling and live information form your delivery and utilization feedback and you have a nice easy great way of improving your training quality and reduce therefor often the training quantity. 2. LT training is far to stress full for the benefit we may get. Interesting statement and I absolutely agree. What is LT in simple terms . ( forget all the formulas ) LT is a classical intensity, where we look to find a 'BAD " guy lactic acid and than can argue , of the accumulation of the bad substance is out of control , than we passed LT or better LT 2. Now no matter whether we believe or stick to the bad guy or accept that lactate is a good guy. When ever we see some accumulation we know some where in the body somebody is in trouble and metabolically we run into an emergency responds. It could be a local leg overload so higher utilization moments than delivery ability. It could be a delivery limitation so too low CO so more O2 demand than can be delivered and we have to protect vital systems so less O2 available for the current intensity but we keep going so O2 higher in demand than delivery . trigger of an emergency respond. In any case we reach a limiter in one or more than one system and we start to overload that system. This may be not that negative but what we as well trigger is the activation of potential compensators and we start to overload them as well. So LT is an overload feedback which is already far to advanced to have a controlled workout to understand what we like to load and what we like not to overload. We as well have no feedback on who reached the limitation first and who initial was helping to compensate. So LT or what ever we like to name this specific intensity, where we loos control is nothing more than that a finally feedback that we already missed everything. A relative useless information as you feel it whether you take a blood sample or not. And it is even more questionable information to base training zoning's on it, besides the 2 intensities . Zone 2 :you screwed it up already Zone 1 or you may still be okay. So what you like to have is an intensity , where you know that you are not pushing any body hard (ARI ) an intensity , where you load the weakest link, so it is getting stressed properly and you not overload uncontrolled anybody. The concept of 80 / 20 or the idea of LT1 or below 2 mmol really have just one idea in mind. loading the limiter. If you push in sports like complex total body motions we have in cross country skiing or rowing LT to screw up not just the physiological systems but you as well destroy or never develop a proper efficient coordination and with that the technical abilities. BUT . If I confuse slow as a physical information with low intensity as a physiological feedback than I have some additional problems. Example ' In sports where I have equipment like a bike or a rowing boat or skies it is somewhat easier to get this concept than in a sports like running or to a certain extend in swimming. In our seminars I like to use often rowing or cycling as an example. In other words I can bike very fast by going very slow so low intensity from an energy point of view but high intensity from a coordination point of view. I always love to give an example from a quarter century back from cycling camps in Mallorca Spain. Where I biked with a world class ( Olympic medal winner ) in sprints , where He was to slow for me because he was to fast or I was to fast because I was too slow.!!!!! Or in rowing on the lago di Silvaplana where I was able to row 48 + stroke rate in a world class boat with three guys who could row and me a complete rowing idiot. so they moved high intensity high Stroke rate and I moved still high intensity for me but very low for them but same stroke rate. Or in Silver start BC , where we had the chance to be a part of the physiological testing in the biggest cross country camps in north America with Mart Hull former USA national coach and Canadian national team coach . Goal was to go the lowest intensity possible but faster than race pace. Optimal training is to find the lowest needed intensity ( energy ) to create the most intense specific stimulation for the physiological systems I like to stimulate and improve. Examples. Stress SV with a m minimal locomotor load if I like to rest locomotor muscles but can afford to stress the cardiac system. Or stress a specific locomotor chain by avoiding a high CO involvement. Or by stressing a TV improvement by avoiding a cardiac overload. Or any possible combination depending on what my goal is. Or again I can load LT or what ever this means and overload for sure any body and than simply hope for a positive out come. As S. Seiler mentioned , a single workout has not negative consequences on the out come as I over load and than simply rest and hope to recover. Once I run multiple training units and some 2 x a day I may reach the TOXIC" mixture I may not like to have. 3. A review of paperThat statement by S. Seiler brings us back to the start and Amoros . If you do not know the history you miss out on many positive and negative aspects in life and in many facet of human behaviour.
Development Team Member
Registered: 1372216392 Posts: 49
I think your point on understanding the distinction between slow training and intensity is really critical. From my own personal experience, my limiter was much weaker than I ever would have guessed without an assessment. If I had just applied the 80/20 rule that is so popular to my general training without guidance from the moxy, my slow "low" intensity training would have been much too high. I think it's a very easy mistake to make when you start looking at numbers like watts, because you tend to think that your training intensity should be a fraction of your maximal intensity. For example, if I can hold 350 watts in a 2k test, then one would think that your low intensity would be half or a third of it, when in reality if we want to strain the limiter, the intensity might be much much less. The focus on that number really distracts from the issue at hand when you're trying to train an athlete, which is not what number they are capable of producing, but rather what do I need to change to make the athlete faster/fitter/stronger etc.
Development Team Member
Registered: 1482688495 Posts: 37
I've been reading some older posts.
I got confused by a few statements: 1. "I can bike very fast by going very slow" 2. "He was to slow for me because he was to fast or I was to fast because I was too slow.!!!!!" I am trying to grasp these concepts of " slow as a physical information" and "low intensity as a physiological feedback" as I often confuse them myself. For me, most of the time: "low intensity" = "skiing / running slow" Any chance of explaining this fallacy again?
Development Team Member
Registered: 1380484167 Posts: 1,501
My answer here is no I can not explain it as this is a thinking process coaches and athletes have to go trough to really understand the difference between performance driven /intensity driven ( wattage / speed ) workouts and stimulation and therefor the zoning ideas based on intensity versus the physiological concept of targeting a specif physiological idea no matter what intensity you go. True some are easier to achieve with high intensity but that is an all out uncontrolled team event. As long we have researcher believing to stimulate for example MCT 1 and MCT 4 you have to go high intensity we fail to understand that adaptation in the physiological systems are not intensity driven by driven by the physiological reactions needed to create the outcome. The last thing I wrote many times. This is a NIRS interpretation forum and not a training consulting forum. Sp orry but interesting question.