The Davies Debate

[IL_Cazzo]

Oy,I’d like to smack the prick who started this thread.

[Chris_Aus]

Again you’re pigeonholing him here by saying he mentions them every chance he gets, not every article he writes is about this, or even mentions it. What is your evidence to prove that they will not improve athletic performance?

Are you kidding this is getting silly…

You’ve shown me one day of the workout, you can’t use this to evaluate the whole program. Where did you find this?

Mate it was his first article HERE at t-mag…

Now you’re drawing too much from my statements. I was not saying that ladder drills should be done slowly, only that the high intensity training for the sport(ie sprint training and conditioning) would not be addressed during ladder drills.

Do you understand the relationship between speed intensity and volume? Basically if you do something for 12 minutes you CAN NOT do it with the same speed as when you do it maximally for 5 seconds. It is impossible… When you cant do something as fast you are doing it slower… When speaking of these things intensity refers to speed… So when you say that it is not of the same intensity but is not slower you are contradicting yourself…

Yeah, and there’s this ladder thing with components to athletic performance, each rung adding to the level of the components underneath, but the lower ones do not aid in the higher ones, and weight training is a favorite of athletic performance trainers since it is highly trainable and carries over to a lot of the components underneath it. Great-I’ve read the stuff posted on T-mag as well. No where in my statement did I mention low intensity training for an “anaerobic sport.” The point I was trying to make is that someone who only trains for strength, will not be able to play four quarters of football. You also did not post any of his program showing sprint training or intensities, so any conclusions you drew came from somewhere else?

Doing ladders for 12 minutes is aerobic, football is anaerobic. By defending the use 12 minutes of laders for football you are advocating aerobic work for an anaerobic sport. I didnt post the other half because he did not publish it and the half I showed was a lot of volume by itself…

Being the most powerful or fastest guy on the field will not help if you’re sucking wind after the first play of the game.

Ofcourse it wont…

Which program did he say he gave to his top atheletes? And even if he did have his athletes performing fat to fire, how familiar are you with their current training regimen or history to comment? You really can’t make these judgements, because you aren’t familiar with the individuals involved, or maybe you’re advocating a “cookie cutter” program where everyone should train the same way because there is only one way to train. Do you like when someone takes your comments on a completely different tangent from they originally meant?

It would help if you read the articles before you commented on them… He advocates “Fat to Fire” to his elite athletes… I know this because in that article here at t-mag it states this

The following plan of attack is one my top athletes have used with extraordinary success.

You are correct being aware of training history is important when discussing programs unless ofcourse the program is just stupid. I am in no way advocating a cookie cutter program and there is ofcourse a million ways to do things… Athletes however generally like to keep their speed and strength fat to fire will not achieve this…

Yes speed and power are important. However, if you aren’t conditioned enough to be able to continually perform over the course of an entire game, than what the hell is the point? An alibi on my last post, I will not make those concessions because the evidence presented was not good enough. There are too many variables involving the athletes. What did their nutrition program look like? What was their training history prior to completing the program? Did they even perform the program correctly, in proper form, with proper rest? Since we are all individuals, would John have prescribed the same methods for an athlete that he actually works with and can tailor his program to, rather than one who uses his program without his supervision or guidance? Any training method, be it West Side, Charlie Francis, or Snoopies guide to stronger anterior methalusus could see problems outlined by those you quoted if any of these factors were fucked up.

They were not fucked up… Read the posts. Did the people I quoted sound like idiots? They understand the importance of diet rest intervals etc… Did they sound biased? Trust me if something was amiss they would have mentioned it…

[slimjim]

Me too.

[Chris_Aus]

[quote]That’s what this whole debate is about huh boom doc holiday? Wasn’t doc holiday a real sickly man? Interesting choice of idols/heroes.

Let’s continue this “debate” since you are such a skeptic.

Renegade Training does work and I’ll just give you 2 simple, but profound reasons why:

1. Addresses peoples/athletes needs on a multi-faceted level i.e. (endurance, strength, agility, motor skills, speed which are often perceived outside the Renegade circle as separate and distinct physical attributes which are actually intertwined-example: let’s say a man or woman has a newborn baby and has to carry the baby all over the place, is that strength, endurance, etc? It’s both. that’s just one example of how training for everyday life/sports is much broader than say to improve at one particular lift like a squat or bench press.

2. Why or how does it work? Many programs advocate training only within the confines of the gym (barbells, treadmill, etc) but some of the best ways to train are outdoors on sand, hills, using shovels, axes, wheelbarrows, medicine balls, carrying odd objects etc. Not that the Renegade program ONLY utilizes those forms of training but a lot of programs don’t incorporate those things.

What else do you want? We could go on and on. I think the main thing is that in the Renegade system the focus is all about improve performance (whether in life or sport) not just a “big” bench press/squat/deadlift. I’m not at all knocking powerlifters and it’s amazing the things they can do and lift but it’s not the end be all that it’s made out to be. I mean c’mon people get on my nerves asking me “whaddya bench?” Who cares? A better questions or measurement is let’s see who can strike/punch harder or sprint faster.

Give me your best doc holiday
[/quote]

Please tell me you realise that you just said I dont care how much I lift I care how well I play sport, and then gave a bunch of examples that dont actually determine how well you play sport… Even the punching harder example has little to do with boxing… Axing something and carrying odd objects have little to do with anything other than axing and carrying odd objects really… The point is that you are just using different criteria which are just as removed from the real sport… Dont get me wrong they can be excellent tools…
Strength training should be general, it should get you strong and powerful… Conditioning etc should get you fit… The methods you mentioned may/will assist that but dont delude yourself into thinking that they will help any more than just getting yourself strong and fit…

Also please tell me your not claiming that other programs do not care about how fast you sprint. You do realise that Charlie Francis is the other person that this discussion is about dont you? We are not advocating winning comps in powerlifting to increase tennis skills faaaaaaaar from it…

What you say about adressing all athletes needs on a multifaceted level is 100% correct, what we are saying is that Davies doesnt do it very well…

[Chris_Aus]

To those of you familiar with Davies methods why does he advocate using 50% for snatches?

[doogie]

[quote]Chris Aus wrote:
To those of you familiar with Davies methods why does he advocate using 50% for snatches?
[/quote]

I bet it isn’t because he can’t snatch 115 with decent form.

[Vegita]

Chris Aus, to say that “football is anerobic” is grossly oversimplifying a sport. Tell that to a wide reciever who is running patterns in a 2 minute drill offense at the end of a game. They typically run 20-40 yard patterns at 80-99% and then come back with about 5-10 seconds rest maximum and run another pattern etc… Also, tell the defenders who are chasing Vick around the backfield for 10 seconds or more after they have used a great deal of energy getting past the offensive linemen that they are performing an anerobic feat. I am not saying that they need to be doing marathon training, but a very large portion of the NFL needs to be both anerobic and aerobic so it would make sense for them to train in both aspects of play.

[boondoc_holiday]

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Chris Aus, to say that “football is anerobic” is grossly oversimplifying a sport. Tell that to a wide reciever who is running patterns in a 2 minute drill offense at the end of a game. They typically run 20-40 yard patterns at 80-99% and then come back with about 5-10 seconds rest maximum and run another pattern etc… Also, tell the defenders who are chasing Vick around the backfield for 10 seconds
or more after they have used a great deal of energy getting past the offensive linemen that they are performing an anerobic feat.[/quote]

up to 8-10 seconds energy is still derived from ATP/CP so yep, that’s anaerobic. and up to about 2 minutes energy is still taken from anaerobic glycolysis…so it’s still anaerobic.

see, a little science never killed anybody.

[Vegita]

[quote]boondoc holiday wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Chris Aus, to say that “football is anerobic” is grossly oversimplifying a sport. Tell that to a wide reciever who is running patterns in a 2 minute drill offense at the end of a game. They typically run 20-40 yard patterns at 80-99% and then come back with about 5-10 seconds rest maximum and run another pattern etc… Also, tell the defenders who are chasing Vick around the backfield for 10 seconds
or more after they have used a great deal of energy getting past the offensive linemen that they are performing an anerobic feat.

up to 8-10 seconds energy is still derived from ATP/CP so yep, that’s anaerobic. and up to about 2 minutes energy is still taken from anaerobic glycolysis…so it’s still anaerobic.

see, a little science never killed anybody.[/quote]

To make such a statement and then claim you won the argument because of science is pure BS. And while one play might be anerobic, there is certainly times, especially in a 2 minute drill or near the end of the game when the body just cant replenish the muscle stores fast enough to say that no aerobic activity is taking place. Perhaps we should defer to some studies instead of just throwing around loose scientific interpretations.

Further, I can’t remember who but someone who was nagging on Davies referred to basketball, now that certainly is not a totally anerobic sport and I would go as far as to say it is mostly aerobic as far as those two energy supply sytems are concerned.

Again, I am not here to take anything away from CF, I think he is a great coach from what I have read of his stuff. That doesn’t mean that all other coaches are idiots or frauds or that any other training system is sub-par to his. Frankly you guys are acting like you are on a witch hunt and coming from CF’s camp you just sound flat out biased and ignorant. I am not even saying you guys don’t know your shit because it sounds like some of you have a great handle on how things work. But in my opinion, you are spinning quite a bit to suit your own personal ends, which seems to be to discredit Coach D.

On that note, I’m done with this as it is adding no real benefit for any of us and I am only giving you guys more reasons to continue this endeavor of yours. Know this, anyone who has had done well on a davies program doesn’t care what you guys say, and i’m sure anyone that is interested in trying some of his stuff will do so regardless of this thread.

[Chris_Aus]

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Chris Aus, to say that “football is anerobic” is grossly oversimplifying a sport. Tell that to a wide reciever who is running patterns in a 2 minute drill offense at the end of a game. They typically run 20-40 yard patterns at 80-99% and then come back with about 5-10 seconds rest maximum and run another pattern etc… Also, tell the defenders who are chasing Vick around the backfield for 10 seconds or more after they have used a great deal of energy getting past the offensive linemen that they are performing an anerobic feat. I am not saying that they need to be doing marathon training, but a very large portion of the NFL needs to be both anerobic and aerobic so it would make sense for them to train in both aspects of play. [/quote]

Would it have been better if i had said, primarily anaerobic… or relying predominantly on the anaerobic energy system?

[Chris_Aus]

especially in a 2 minute drill

is a 2 minute drill part of the game?

[Chris_Aus]

Vegita
Sorry but you are wrong… This is taken from Supertraining it was adapted from Fox EL, Mathews DK (1974). Interval Training: Conditioning for Sports and General Fitness, Saunders College Publishing, Orlando FL:
ST= Short term energy
IS=Intermediate energy system
LT= Long term energy system
All numbers are percentages…
Badminton: 80ST 10IS 10LT
Baseball: 80ST 20IS 0LT
Basketball: 85ST 15IS 0LT
Cricket: 80ST 20IS 0LT
Fencing 90ST 10IS 0LT
Field Hockey 60ST 20IS 20LT
American Football 90ST 10IS 0LT
Golf 95ST 5IS 0LT
Gymnastics 90ST 10IS 0LT
The list goes on and on… If you have a specific question I will give the data it has but theres no way im typing the 35 other sports or subsports…

Im in now way saying that you dont need to be in good condition to do play basketball or football… Infact I dont get winded when I run, I just get sore calves… When I perform repeated sprints I do find myself sprinted… Ie when i do some tempo runs on walkback recovery I do get winded… I dont think that the longer duration work periods will help because 1) they are not specific in that they use different energy systems 2) you can develop a good condition while increasing or atleast maintaining speed rather than doing long duration stuff and becoming slower…

[Chris_Aus]

[quote]BPC wrote:
Let me expound on my previous comment:

Overtraining does exist and when training one does everything he/she can to avoid it: stretching statically, dynamic mobility drills, active recover sessions, massage, rest, sleep, proper nutrition, etc. I merely meant that the strength/conditioning community has gone too far w/overtraining and has become a buzzword. The reality is (believ it or not) that the body is capable of waaaaay more than the mind typically thinks and usually hinders the body because of fears, self-doubts, laziness,etc so it’s good to really push yourself sometimes. Of course you rest, don’t overdo it, etc but that’s a very personal thing-overdoing it-everybody has different fitness levels and you obviously gradually build those levels up

Training is a lifestyle for me, not just 3 days per week for an hour in a gym-it’s about being active, playing recreational sports, taking the stairs versus the elevator, etc wayyyyy more than just “working out in a gym” for me-maybe not for you???

[/quote]

BPC,
A good reason to be aware of overtraining…

With a very careful exercise regimen and regeneration strategies, symptoms normally resolve in 6-12 weeks but may continue much longer or recur if athletes return to hard training too soon.

Fatigue and underperformance in athletes: the overtraining syndrome - PubMed

It can take up to 6-12 weeks (and even longer) to recovery from… That means not returning to previous levels of performance for 3 months, ie a quarter of the year is wasted…

[Chris_Aus]

Vegita, all we are saying is that focussing on the wrong energy system is inferior to focussing on the proper energy systems that is all…

Here is some info on excessive endurance work impacting on strenght and power output…

From a Dr Squat article, pay special attention to points 1, 3, 4, 5, 9

[quote]What the Research Shows:
I do not want you to wade through volumes of research findings, irrelevant data or obscure esoterica to get to the truth of the matter regarding the significance of my above-stated observations. Instead, let me list them for you in terms that you will understand:

1. Maximum power output of human skeletal muscle are positively correlated to the percentage of fast-twitch fibers in a given muscle (Bosco et.al., 1983; Hakkinen et. al., 1984).
2. Hypertrophy – increased size – of muscle fibers occurs mainly in fast-twitch fibers (especially Type IIb fibers if stimulated to fuse with surrounding satellite cells) in response to stimulation afforded by weight training, and most especially weight training that is explosive in nature (Hakkinen et.al., 1985; Thorstensson et. al., 1976; Connelly, 1992).
3. The ultimate potential for explosive movements is determined by the fast-twitch composition of muscles (Hakkinen et. al 1985), and probably by the nature of the ATPase secreted by the respective fibers’ cross-bridges (Connelly, 1992).
4. Endurance training reduces the inherent capability of the neuromuscular system for maximum power output (Dudley & Fleck, 1987).
5. Vertical jumping ability – inherently a fast-twitch muscle function – decreases with endurance training (Bosco et. al 1983; Ono et. al. 1976).
6. Strength training with weights induces little or no increase in aerobic power (max VO2 uptake), but markedly improves anaerobic endurance (i.e., short-term strength endurance such as the type necessary in sprinting, football, etc.) (Hickson et. al., 1980).
7. Strength training in conjunction with endurance training may enhance performances in endurance events where occasional explosive bouts of effort are called for (Dudley & Fleck, 1987).
8. Endurance training performed concurrently with weight training (e.g., an every other day approach) interferes with optimal strength, power and size development in muscles involved (Hickson, 1980; Dudley & Djamil, 1985).
9. Concurrent endurance training and weight training markedly interferes with an athlete’s ability to perform explosive movements, due mainly to adaptive responses in the muscle (Hickson, 1980; Dudley & Djamil, 1985; Dudley & Fleck, 1987).
10. None of the above findings from research conducted prior to 1987 is resultant of states of overtraining or poor research design (Dudley & Fleck, 1987). Thus, it would appear that these findings are real, and should be considered by strength coaches and strength athletes.
11. The mechanisms by which power, size and limit strength are reduced as a result of endurance training most probably are 1) mechanical destruction of existing white (fast-twitch) fibers, particularly from the eccentric portion of the repetitive movements, 2) their replacement by red (slow-twitch) fibers, and 3) enzymatic and neuromuscular changes more appropriate for slow, endurance types of movements (Armstrong, 1987; Connelly, 1992).
    There you have it, fellow iron freaks. Now, I don’t want to belabor this issue, but this is what we’ve been saying for quite some time now. But the scientists sure do have a nice way of saying it, don’t they? Now I’d like to say it for the average athlete and fitness enthusiast.[/quote]

CT in Think Tank

[quote]As far as fiber conversion goes… IIb can be converted to IIa which can be converted to I.

IIa can be converted to IIb during a recovery period (5-15 days) following an intense training cycle (12-16 weeks) … this is called the overshoot phenomenon. But as training resumes, the “additional” IIb fibers will be converted back to IIa.

Conversion from type I to type II is unlikely except, maybe, under extreme circumstances. None of which can really be duplicated in a training program. [/quote]

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=514540&pageNo=0

[IL_Cazzo]

Who are you even fighting with at this point? Go lift or do something constructive.

[Vegita]

Shit I said I wasn’t going to reply anymore but Chris, Come on. YES A 2 MINUTE DRILL IS A PART OF A FOOTBALL GAME. It’s when there is very little time left on the clock and the offense uses a no huddle type approach and runs play after play with the qb calling plays at the line, this takes about 3-5 seconds tops.

And if you don’t get winded when playing a game of full court basketball then you are either superhuman or are lazy and don’t run your ass off. Have you even ever played a real game of full court basketball or are you just using your experiences in half cout pick up games?

You can show me a thousand scientific studies that say I don’t use my aerobic energy syatem while playing BBall or football and I will still not believe them. When I go out and play these sports and am left sucking major wind during and after the course of play, I consider that aerobic.

Again, enough of the witch hunt. You are now just spinning as hard as you possibly can to “win” an internet pissing match. I am not impressed with your ability to misinterprit a scientific study and I’m sure nobody else gives a crap anymore either.

[boondoc_holiday]

[quote]what i wrote:
up to 8-10 seconds energy is still derived from ATP/CP so yep, that’s anaerobic. and up to about 2 minutes energy is still taken from anaerobic glycolysis…so it’s still anaerobic.

see, a little science never killed anybody.[/quote]

[quote]what you wrote:
To make such a statement and then claim you won the argument because of science is pure BS. And while one play might be anerobic, there is certainly times, especially in a 2 minute drill or near the end of the game when the body just cant replenish the muscle stores fast enough to say that no aerobic activity is taking place. Perhaps we should defer to some studies instead of just throwing around loose scientific interpretations.[/quote]

you know you’re right. i generalized. of course aerobic metabolism is going on at the same time. these energy systems are not isolated as in a vaccuum. however there are predominant systems used in various activities that’s what we mean and you know this. that said, even in a “two minute drill” the body will still be relying on phosocreatine and anaerobic glycolysis to get the job done. and i never claimed to have won anything with that little statement above. that’s just scientific fact. i don’t concern myself about winning a so called “internet pissing match”. the only reason i’m here is to learn more and help others learn more (and poke some fun at people along the way as well as myself). so what if i got caught up for a second in a little drama and called someone a name in jest. i appologized and now we’re back on schedule. but i see alot of “renegades” getting huffy because their methodontics?? are coming under scrutiny and thus far have little to back it up.

Again, I am not here to take anything away from CF, I think he is a great coach from what I have read of his stuff. That doesn’t mean that all other coaches are idiots or frauds or that any other training system is sub-par to his. Frankly you guys are acting like you are on a witch hunt and coming from CF’s camp you just sound flat out biased and ignorant. I am not even saying you guys don’t know your shit because it sounds like some of you have a great handle on how things work. But in my opinion, you are spinning quite a bit to suit your own personal ends, which seems to be to discredit Coach D.

i’m not in charlie francis’s camp. i don’t think i even have a post to my name on the forum over there. i’m not trying to discredit John Davies. all us so called “anti-renegaders” want is some explanation and rationale as to why his methods are superior to anything ever, because that’s what he claims. so far, it’s not being made apparent.

On that note, I’m done with this as it is adding no real benefit for any of us and I am only giving you guys more reasons to continue this endeavor of yours. Know this, anyone who has had done well on a Davies program doesn’t care what you guys say, and i’m sure anyone that is interested in trying some of his stuff will do so regardless of this thread.

i think it is of benefit to discuss as we are. this is exactly what the think tanks are for as well. if we all just “got along” and only listened to the people that have recognizable names and wholeheartedly agree where would we be as athletes as men? as far as folks that have done well with renegade stuff, that’s great!! i love to see progress of any kind. if folks are intrigued and set on training renegade style, i say go for it. most likely they will succeed especially if they is untrained, using an inferior method of training, or have been stagnant for a while.

[Chris_Aus]

And if you don’t get winded when playing a game of full court basketball then you are either superhuman or are lazy and don’t run your ass off. Have you even ever played a real game of full court basketball or are you just using your experiences in half cout pick up games?

Being winded and and relying heavily on aerobic metabolism for activity are not the same. As I said in the previous statement if you had read it there are better ways for preparing for events of that nature…

You can show me a thousand scientific studies that say I don’t use my aerobic energy syatem while playing BBall or football and I will still not believe them.

Way to be close minded which coincidentally is the state of mind that many of many of the “renegaders”. So far Slim Jim and BPC are holding the torch of light/discussion/debate on their own amongst a whole heap of “fuck off” and “I dont care about the facts I believe whatever I want” type posts.

“I go out and play these sports and am left sucking major wind during and after the course of play, I consider that aerobic.”

Have you seen 100m metre sprinters after a race? They suck wind! Have you seen a 400m runner after a race??? They breath like there is no tomorrow. Are you going to tell me that they are “aerobic”?

Again, enough of the witch hunt. You are now just spinning as hard as you possibly can to “win” an internet pissing match.

I started out with the intent of defending Francis and also asked a couple of questions. That is it… The rest of my posts have been in discussion and replying to what other people have said…

I am not impressed with your ability to misinterprit a scientific study

What have I misinterpretted?

and I’m sure nobody else gives a crap anymore either.

Then dont read the thread or dont reply, and if there is nothing more stupid said and nothing stated that I would further like to discuss then neither will I.

[BPC]

[quote]Chris Aus wrote:
And if you don’t get winded when playing a game of full court basketball then you are either superhuman or are lazy and don’t run your ass off. Have you even ever played a real game of full court basketball or are you just using your experiences in half cout pick up games?
Being winded and and relying heavily on aerobic metabolism for activity are not the same. As I said in the previous statement if you had read it there are better ways for preparing for events of that nature…

You can show me a thousand scientific studies that say I don’t use my aerobic energy syatem while playing BBall or football and I will still not believe them.
Way to be close minded which coincidentally is the state of mind that many of many of the “renegaders”. So far Slim Jim and BPC are holding the torch of light/discussion/debate on their own amongst a whole heap of “fuck off” and “I dont care about the facts I believe whatever I want” type posts.

“I go out and play these sports and am left sucking major wind during and after the course of play, I consider that aerobic.”
Have you seen 100m metre sprinters after a race? They suck wind! Have you seen a 400m runner after a race??? They breath like there is no tomorrow. Are you going to tell me that they are “aerobic”?

Again, enough of the witch hunt. You are now just spinning as hard as you possibly can to “win” an internet pissing match.
I started out with the intent of defending Francis and also asked a couple of questions. That is it… The rest of my posts have been in discussion and replying to what other people have said…

I am not impressed with your ability to misinterprit a scientific study
What have I misinterpretted?

and I’m sure nobody else gives a crap anymore either.
Then dont read the thread or dont reply, and if there is nothing more stupid said and nothing stated that I would further like to discuss then neither will I. [/quote]

The only “stupid things” are coming from YOU!

1. Snatching 50% is advocated for more bar speed (read Mel Siff’s work a little more since you like to quote him)which will enhance speed strength, maximal strength (gasssp, yes maximal strength too), teach proper form and also so you can snatch say 5 times or more (more than just one rep) which will also enhance explosive endurance. Take a sport like basketball for example:you don’t need just a 1-2 second explosion but repeated explosive movements so you need maximal explosiveness AND explosive endurance, strength endurance, etc. When you train you should work on MANY things simultaneously not just one!!! Don’t you get this!! It’s veerrrry simple. Lifting closer to your 1RM is okay sometimes but not all the time and also assuming your form is perfect. Stop spending so much time thinking you know everything and think a little bit. Duuuuuhhhhhh!!!

2. Look how published, copied and emulated Coach Davies is compared to Charlie Francis. I mean, what is Charlie Francis doing now? Nothing. His only claim to fame was a drug scandal. Now that’s something to be proud of:)He attacked Coach Davies to get some attention.

3. This thread is not fruitful because the anti Davies people on here are very narrow-minded. The bottom line is this: you continue to follow who you want to follow and train like you want to, and I’ll do the same. Everybody has the right to their own opinion. Quite frankly, Coach Davies is used to being attacked and called different hence the name “the Renegade.” It’s just too bad you guys don’t get it, because your training could advance even more if you just open your mind. For the last time, what questions do you keep referring to that need to be answered or whatever? ASK THEM!!!

[Vegita]

Boondoc, you are correct, this is what this forum is for so I will continue this debate. As long as we are looking for objective evidence that certain things work.

Chris,
“I go out and play these sports and am left sucking major wind during and after the course of play, I consider that aerobic.”
Have you seen 100m metre sprinters after a race? They suck wind! Have you seen a 400m runner after a race??? They breath like there is no tomorrow. Are you going to tell me that they are “aerobic”?

I was a 100, 200, 400, and 800 meter runner in HS. Actually my relay team for the 1600m relay finished 3rd in NY state my senior year and my 400 meter relay team finished 7th in NY state. So I don’t have to imagine how one of these athletes breathes after a race, I have done my share of puking after a hard 400 meters. I have broken 50 seconds in a 400 meter run and while not exactly world class speed, it’s pretty damn fast.

Anyways, I had a cross country background and the first several years of track in HS ran the mile and 2 mile. I only started getting into the sprints when I started getting 4th and 5th on my own team in the longer races. (we had a state champion in CC on our team) OK OK so your wondering why all this make any difference? Well I am going to “prove” exactly how much the aerobic energy system plays a role in the different events.

OK 100 meters time, our fastest kid in HS was a pure sprinter, his 100 M time was right around the 10.5 mark, Again, not world class speed but damn fast for a high school kid. My 100 meter time was 10.9 seconds. Now go to our 200 meter times, his- 22.6 mine 23.1. and then our 400 meter times, his, 52.3 mine - 49.8. Other than the fact that my “aerobic” energy system is in much better condition than his, what other reasons are there for the huge reversal in the time differentials.

Ok at the same time, the kid who was the state champ in CC couldn’t come close to breaking 55 seconds in the 400 so It’s not like I’m endorsing tons of aerobic training for sports. But from my own personal experience, you can train to 90% aerobic capacity and 90% anaerobic capacity without hindering each other. The 400 meter run is the perfect example of this. It is not pure anaerobic power that wins you a 400 meters, it is your ability to get 90% of your top speed and hold it as long as possible, and maybe even have 99% left for the last 30-40 meters.

In sport, I don’t care which one you play, you simply cannot go 100% every second of playing time and last. Especially if your Aerobic energy system is only running at 75% or lower. You may be able to pull it off going 90% if your Aerobic energy system is running at near 90%. And wisely use bursts of 100% when the need to do so arises, (ie. running back hitting the hole, forward making a strong drive to the hoop.)

Again we are talking about getting in the best possible playing condition. This doesn’t even take into account genetics or other factors. A 100 meter dash is anaerobic, or 99.99% so, other sports do not compare in the gut wrenching intensity of a 100 meter dash, or a 400 meter for that matter. So seeing as my personal experience shows me that my aerobic conditioning helped me a TON in the 400 meter dash, then it would help anyone playing a sport that is less intense than that particular event.

Sorry for the hella long only half coherent post. Hopefully you guys get what I meant outta that and don’t nitpick too much on the presentation, I am at work and very rushed right now, not even gonna check spelling and grammar.