[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
***Elite or not running up and down a basketball court for 48 minutes is predominately aerobic.
According to Mel Siff and Poliquin you are incorrect.
Most sports are predominantly anaerobic. The exception is the constant shit boring sports like marathons, triathlons and cross country skiiing if i’m not mistaken.
Think about it. If you have good recovery your stay anaerobic. Its all in the conditioning.
If basket ballers were aerobic athletes they wouldn’t be able to slam dunk.[/quote]
I would very much like to see specific references for your above information if thats ok.
[quote]supermick wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
***Elite or not running up and down a basketball court for 48 minutes is predominately aerobic.
According to Mel Siff and Poliquin you are incorrect.
Most sports are predominantly anaerobic. The exception is the constant shit boring sports like marathons, triathlons and cross country skiiing if i’m not mistaken.
Think about it. If you have good recovery your stay anaerobic. Its all in the conditioning.
If basket ballers were aerobic athletes they wouldn’t be able to slam dunk.
I would very much like to see specific references for your above information if thats ok.
[/quote]
You would need to read Siffs book - Supertraining.
You can read Poliquins articles to find many references to sports conditioning.
[quote]silee wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
Jeez, you guys make no sense. Dumb it down. Super Dumb it down.
Anaerobic- Sprint at full blast for 20 seconds, rest for 10, then rinse and repeat
Aerobic= I have no idea. I thought aerobic was supposed to be jogging for 2 hours straight.
You can reach an anerobic state when you jog past your aerobic threshold. Hence in doing so you are no longer using fat as a fuel to produce ATP, now you are using glucose and glycogen.
Find a zone for your heart rate that were you feel comfortable in jogging.
[/quote]
Dude, it sounds like you’re saying jogging is anaerobic dominant activity if you’re heart rate is high enough.
Take a look at this graph. You want to work in the 1 minute zone for anaerobic conditioning.
Just allow for adequate recovery to avoid over use of the aerobic system.
There seems to be some conflicting information out there on this topic.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
You would need to read Siffs book - Supertraining.
You can read Poliquins articles to find many references to sports conditioning.
[/quote]
I have supertraining - am after specific chapter/page.
Again with poloquin - specific stuff if you can mate.
Cheers.
[quote]supermick wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
You would need to read Siffs book - Supertraining.
You can read Poliquins articles to find many references to sports conditioning.
I have supertraining - am after specific chapter/page.
Again with poloquin - specific stuff if you can mate.
Cheers.
[/quote]
Sorry, it’s in Facts and Fallacies of Fitness by Siff. Theres a table with a bunch of energy system percentages for each sport.
Poliquins book - German Body Comp
page 7 paragraph 4:
“…basketball is not an aerobic sport…”
“…the average VO2 Max in the NBA is only about 47, compared to about 42 for the average couch potato and about 80 for a world class rower…”
I’m sure if you look around you will find confirmation of this.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Sorry, it’s in Facts and Fallacies of Fitness by Siff. Theres a table with a bunch of energy system percentages for each sport.
Poliquins book - German Body Comp
page 7 paragraph 4:
“…basketball is not an aerobic sport…”
“…the average VO2 Max in the NBA is only about 47, compared to about 42 for the average couch potato and about 80 for a world class rower…”
I’m sure if you look around you will find confirmation of this. [/quote]
Guess im just being picky - i like to read :). anyway, had a look at Fox et al’s stuff for bball…
60% ATP-PC, 20% LA-02, 20% 02
This, however is a key statement : - The more intense the work periods and the shorter the recovery periods the greater the aerobic contribution to maintain performance (McArdle et al 1996).
‘mostly anaerobic’ it would appear - i’d like to see some recent data concerning the vo2max of these guys though.
There clearly IS an aerobic contribution but its small in comparison. Anaerobic capacity seems to be a better predictor of playing level.
Hey! I cross country ski…
They have sprints, middle distances and long. I’m on my school’s team and we have sprint races which are anaerobic (1.5km) middle distance (5k) where you basically sprint up the hills, recover on the downhills. I’ve never done a race longer than 10k but in the olympics they have 50km races and such.
[quote]superhero#1 wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:The exception is the constant shit boring sports like marathons, triathlons and cross country skiiing if i’m not mistaken.
Hey! I cross country ski…
They have sprints, middle distances and long. I’m on my school’s team and we have sprint races which are anaerobic (1.5km) middle distance (5k) where you basically sprint up the hills, recover on the downhills. I’ve never done a race longer than 10k but in the olympics they have 50km races and such.
[/quote]
I didn’t realize they did sprints as well.
Cool.
I think some of you are putting too much thought into the numbers. I don’t find the fat burning zone or target heart rate to be very useful at all. I think intensity of effort using HIIT style protocols works best, especially when doing varying work/rest ratios. I’ve built a 12 minute 2 mile time with these methods.
[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
I think some of you are putting too much thought into the numbers. I don’t find the fat burning zone or target heart rate to be very useful at all. I think intensity of effort using HIIT style protocols works best, especially when doing varying work/rest ratios. I’ve built a 12 minute 2 mile time with these methods.[/quote]
Could you elaborate and give examples of your protocols?
cheers.
Science is great!
Its even more fun when every 5 years research contradicts itself. Or better yet when a Yankees S&C coach gets fired because he stops them from running to condition there legs.
And just because you use your aerobic capacities does not mean you can’t dunk. The average NBA players height and weight is around 6’5 205lbs, it doesn’t take much for them to dunk.
If Basketball wasn’t predominantly Aerobic you wouldn’t want Lebron James to lose weight so he can go from 6’7 245lbs of all muscle to 6’8 240lbs.
Football(American) is a great example of a predominantly anerobic running sport. The average length of time they run is 3-9 seconds. All out. And if you test their leg power you will see they generally have much greater power output then Basketball players. Which is why you’ll have a player 250lbs with a 38"inch vertical.
The most important part of this is that it’s basically like Newton discovering gravity. It’s pretty obvious if somebody is running for 48 minutes despite the breaks here and there that they are using their aerobic capacities.
I wrote a bit on it on my blog on myspace. There are a lot of ways to break down HIIT, I wouldn’t really call any of them wrong. The important thing is intensity of effort. An example would be doing things like ladders, either for distance or for time. 2x800, 4x400,6x200, 8x100 is one I’ve used.
Rest periods are important, I sometimes use a 1:1, 1:2, or 1:3 depending upon fitness level at the time. I work toward keeping the highest possible intensity level and giving myself just enough time to recover. As you get in better shape recovery time will go down. I can get it down to 10 seconds for shorter workouts. Hope that helps.
[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
I think some of you are putting too much thought into the numbers. I don’t find the fat burning zone or target heart rate to be very useful at all. I think intensity of effort using HIIT style protocols works best, especially when doing varying work/rest ratios. I’ve built a 12 minute 2 mile time with these methods.[/quote]
For what end? My personal goal is to never run 2 miles in 12 min as that would mean I would have to lose muscle. HIIT is fine, but is it the best way to retain the most muscle mass with the lowest bf?
Now if you posted you could deadlift 450 lbs or bench 350, I might be more inclined to listen to your argument.
Lactate producing exercise has the same pitfalls as strait cardio with regards to muscle loss. When applied incorrectly it will do the same exact thing.
If muscle doesn’t have a reason to be, it won’t.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Science is great!
Its even more fun when every 5 years research contradicts itself. Or better yet when a Yankees S&C coach gets fired because he stops them from running to condition there legs.
And just because you use your aerobic capacities does not mean you can’t dunk. The average NBA players height and weight is around 6’5 205lbs, it doesn’t take much for them to dunk.
If Basketball wasn’t predominantly Aerobic you wouldn’t want Lebron James to lose weight so he can go from 6’7 245lbs of all muscle to 6’8 240lbs.
Football(American) is a great example of a predominantly anerobic running sport. The average length of time they run is 3-9 seconds. All out. And if you test their leg power you will see they generally have much greater power output then Basketball players. Which is why you’ll have a player 250lbs with a 38"inch vertical.
The most important part of this is that it’s basically like Newton discovering gravity. It’s pretty obvious if somebody is running for 48 minutes despite the breaks here and there that they are using their aerobic capacities.[/quote]
The more aerobically fit you are the less powerful and agile you are. Sorry dude, but football is more anaerobic than aerobic. If it wasn’t they would all look like distance runners and be injured way more often.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
Science is great!
Its even more fun when every 5 years research contradicts itself. Or better yet when a Yankees S&C coach gets fired because he stops them from running to condition there legs.
And just because you use your aerobic capacities does not mean you can’t dunk. The average NBA players height and weight is around 6’5 205lbs, it doesn’t take much for them to dunk.
If Basketball wasn’t predominantly Aerobic you wouldn’t want Lebron James to lose weight so he can go from 6’7 245lbs of all muscle to 6’8 240lbs.
Football(American) is a great example of a predominantly anerobic running sport.[/quote] Can you read? ( I do understand the spelling is off, but it would still be pronounced “AN ’ aerobic” [quote]
The average length of time they run is 3-9 seconds. All out. And if you test their leg power you will see they generally have much greater power output then Basketball players. Which is why you’ll have a player 250lbs with a 38"inch vertical.
The most important part of this is that it’s basically like Newton discovering gravity. It’s pretty obvious if somebody is running for 48 minutes despite the breaks here and there that they are using their aerobic capacities.
The more aerobically fit you are the less powerful and agile you are. Sorry dude, but football is more anaerobic than aerobic. If it wasn’t they would all look like distance runners and be injured way more often.
[/quote]
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
Science is great!
Its even more fun when every 5 years research contradicts itself. Or better yet when a Yankees S&C coach gets fired because he stops them from running to condition there legs.
And just because you use your aerobic capacities does not mean you can’t dunk. The average NBA players height and weight is around 6’5 205lbs, it doesn’t take much for them to dunk.
If Basketball wasn’t predominantly Aerobic you wouldn’t want Lebron James to lose weight so he can go from 6’7 245lbs of all muscle to 6’8 240lbs.
Football(American) is a great example of a predominantly anerobic running sport. Can you read? ( I do understand the spelling is off, but it would still be pronounced “AN ’ aerobic”
The average length of time they run is 3-9 seconds. All out. And if you test their leg power you will see they generally have much greater power output then Basketball players. Which is why you’ll have a player 250lbs with a 38"inch vertical.
The most important part of this is that it’s basically like Newton discovering gravity. It’s pretty obvious if somebody is running for 48 minutes despite the breaks here and there that they are using their aerobic capacities.
The more aerobically fit you are the less powerful and agile you are. Sorry dude, but football is more anaerobic than aerobic. If it wasn’t they would all look like distance runners and be injured way more often.
[/quote]
Yeah I can read. Ok. So whats this about basketball and aerobic?
And how does Lebron James gain an inch of height?
There is ample evidence that HIIT preserves muscle mass. I’m not saying that everyone should be running a 12 minute 2 mile, but cardio ability should not be underrated, especially of this kind. That is why I like doing cardio with weights like in crossfit as well.
I’m probably never going to deadlift 400, but I’m pretty strong.
[quote]coloradosteve wrote:
Fitnessdiva wrote:
I think some of you are putting too much thought into the numbers. I don’t find the fat burning zone or target heart rate to be very useful at all. I think intensity of effort using HIIT style protocols works best, especially when doing varying work/rest ratios. I’ve built a 12 minute 2 mile time with these methods.
For what end? My personal goal is to never run 2 miles in 12 min as that would mean I would have to lose muscle. HIIT is fine, but is it the best way to retain the most muscle mass with the lowest bf?
Now if you posted you could deadlift 450 lbs or bench 350, I might be more inclined to listen to your argument.
Lactate producing exercise has the same pitfalls as strait cardio with regards to muscle loss. When applied incorrectly it will do the same exact thing.
If muscle doesn’t have a reason to be, it won’t.
[/quote]
If she could Deadlift 450 and Bench 350 @ 120 I would… be damn confused.
[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
There is ample evidence that HIIT preserves muscle mass. I’m not saying that everyone should be running a 12 minute 2 mile, but cardio ability should not be underrated, especially of this kind. That is why I like doing cardio with weights like in crossfit as well.
I’m probably never going to deadlift 400, but I’m pretty strong.[/quote]
I think you could if that was your goal. The bench might be a lot more difficult without drugs. I’m not saying cardio is not important as I personally think it is necessary for most bodybuilders, however; I don’t believe HIIT is the best way to achieve the lowest bf with the highest degree of muscle. To that end I would bet Dan John’s Tabata workout would be more productive.
Tabata and HIIT are virtually the same thing. Tabatas call for 20:10 work rest cycle. HIIT can be that or any number of interval ratios depending upon the goals.