[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I tend to agree with your stance in this thread. I do think steady state cardio has a place. I do not like it. I never have. However, for purposes heart stroke, blood pressure, and parasympathetic nervous system benefits it is certainly good. I do also think it has a place in much athletic training…however I would put it much lower on the totem pole probably than you would.
My point being, a bigger engine means nothing if you can’t use it. Additionally, what for most power sports or brief strength-endurance tasks (brief meaning in the 15-30 minute zone…like say MMA fighting, which I do not believe is a true “endurance sport” even though you do need endurance to be great at it) passes as a proper “base” of aerobic fitness is NOT hard to maintain. In other words, you can spend a large amount of training time or resources ignoring the aerobic cardio once your base is established. In fact, I say that it is more beneficial for your sport to do this. When you come back to the post-season or post fight training, you can always take a little time to do some steady running or biking. Even after a couple months without it, if your other conditioning has been up to snuff. Obviously the situation is different if we are speaking of endurance sports.
In my view the reason that Rooney advocates brief intense conditioning is because it teaches you to handle circumstances in a fight much more closely than running 4 miles. Running miles does not in any way prepare your system to be able to repetitively explode, shoot, grapple, toss, or slam your opponent. It does not train the energy systems in a way that is analogous to your sport (ala the SAID principle). I agree with him.
And more importantly w.r.t. your comment on him and Wendler, I’d point out that these pithy quotes are not usually intended as gospel so much as a way to drive a point home–and I think that this is entirely valid when writing an article that most people will not absorb quickly anyway. Certainly it can be misconstrued or taken as gospel…but let’s be honest and say that the difference between what someone is preaching when giving a seminar is not necessarily how they hold the world: it is a teaching moment geared towards a specific contextual point. Often that gets overlooked and they get pigeonholed as if that is the only thing they believe. Now I will totally agree that there are many people, even “pop star” coaches etc. that DO in fact believe this nonsense black and white…My point is simply that in order to make a good point often times writers must exaggerate in order to be memorable and this is perfectly fine with me.
For instance, I’ve seen Wendler answer questions during Q&A after seminars or such in ways that go significantly against what he’s written and invariably surprise some of the people asking questions because “but, but…you said THIS in your articles…”. The reason is that he’s a very strongly opinionated, but very smart coach. I would submit that this is normal for most people when actually asked questions outside of articles written.[/quote]
Because I respect your comments and you clearly possess the ability to reason, I decided to take the time to read what you had to say.
You and I know that there is a contiuum. One can choose to be closer to a pure endurance athlete, a pure power athlete, or somewhere in between.
The study I quoted dealt with road cyclists. Obviously, this population must build a solid base of endurance. However, what many fail to understand and appreciate is that, within a 100+ mile race, there are periods in which you must go anaerobic. There are attacks and counter attacks that are absolutely unbelievable in the level of pain it causes. What many of the wanna be hard cores consider a brutal Tabata session is something that is done repeatedly in a 2-6 hour event at a high-level race.
Therefore, your premise that “a bigger engine means nothing if you can’t use it” doesn’t work for me in the scenario I presented. These cyclists MUST have a bigger engine. These cyclists MUST be able to use that engine. And they MUST be able to do so repeatedly.
And lo and behold, these cyclists (the study observed those who compete at the world and national level) spend a significant amount of time in Zone 2. This is no coincidence.
I will say again that there is a continuum. And, yes, I do agree that there are many who do not need to spend so much time in the steady state zone. For example, the fastest cyclists in the world are those who compete in the match sprint and NOT the guy who wins the green jersey in the Tour de France (yet another public misconception). Do a You Tube search of Chris Hoy and you’ll know what I mean. Athletes like him, of course, need less time training in steady state. But do they need to completely dismiss it? Not true. This explains my linebacker example of spending 30-45 minutes of steady state training during the off season on a low-impact form of cardio.
As for Rooney and your comments regarding him, I get the importance of SAID and the need to train the proper energy systems for your sport. However, I have come to believe an aerobic base will support the proper growth of the anaerobic capacity - if not directly then indirectly. Just how much is individual specific. Again, it comes down to where you want to belong on the contiuum I mentioned. The problem I have with Rooney and others like him is the implied message in their writings that if you do not train his way, you are wasting your time. In my very first post in this thread, I gave the example of someone taking up swimming by just jumping in the pool and going all out. Not only will this method invite injury, it will do little to build his technique (how can a newbie work on technique when going all out?), and do little to build proper foundation.
If I were to drink Rooney’s kool aid, every cardio session I do must have my heart rate at its max and I should be lying face down in a puddle of my own vomit, sweat, and tears.
Or I can choose a long-term approach instead. Occasional light days in which my cardio is not hard nor long enough to impede recovery from my difficult workouts yet challenging enough further build my level of conditioning. This will: 1) keep me productive; 2) assist in active recovery; 3) allow the cns to rest; 4) help build that bigger engine.
(If I were to drink Rippetoe’s kool aid, I would OHP regardless of the fact that my 15+ years rock climbing has given my left acromion a type 3 morphology. Sure, I’d completely blow out that shoulder but you have to OHP to be cool, right…?)
These fighters that you and Rooney mention often show up to their big event with some sort of injury from going balls out every training session while preparing for the fight. What if, just what if, they took the occasional easy day, and show up on fight night healthy? Would it not give them a significant edge? I believe that hitting the red line day in and day out will actually hurt progress.
Some of the strongest lifters in the world knew the value of repetition days in which they lifted trivial weight for many reps. Sure one can make the argument that such days did nothing for so-and-so and therefore it must be crap. But people owe it to themselves to at least try and give it an honest evaluation. And let’s not forget that pre-hab is well established within the strength and conditioning community for its benefits. Steady state cardio, done intelligently, can fit into this niche. Unless a lifter is going through a cycle of Sheiko, most people have no excuse to not schedule in these easy days (or as the soon-to-be injured morons would call it “pussy” workouts). Every little bit helps and, again, if I can get in these light days in which my recovery from my hard sessions are not impeded and I can do something to help my cause, I’m all for it.
As for Wendler and others like him, they should know that they have a fan base of impressionable neophytes who cling to every word they utter. And it’s not just about youth. I’ve seen more than my fair share of middle aged lifters at gyms who do things that make me cringe. And because they are new to lifting, they have not had enough time to suffer the accumulation of poor training. Indeed, because some of these lifters are successful in their careers, they rationalize themselves into believing that they are in the right. And it’s sad and somewhat comical how they will fall under the spell of certain authors. So people should make the decision to be pithy and quoted or to genuinely help others.
Prior to this, I made a post in the Bodybuilding forum in a thread about shoulders. The topic of OHP came up and I offered my stance that OHPs can be done by some but not by all. I gave a few examples such as the difference in acromion types. To no surprise, a confederacy of dunces came out in full force. They’re message was clear: Everyone should OHP.
Well, guess what…? I make a living dealing with people who are recently out of the Ortho’s operating table. Then they went through their physical therapy visits. And now they want to regain their glory. I create that bridge from rehab to performance.
And the song is always the same (with some variations): these folks believed training balls out was enough, that easy days are for geriatrics, and they will NEVER be the ones that get injured. These people, many college educated, do buy into the quotes that are catchy enough to put on a t-shirt. And look what it got them. They are fucked for life and no amount of proper training, rehab, nutrition will change that. Sure, we can get them to a high level of strength and fitness. However, those injuries will always be more vulnerable to re-injury. They can call it a badge of honor if it makes them feel better about themselves. In reality, it is the mark of poor decisions.