Alan Couzens, MS (Sports Science)
In my last article on “building your performance pyramid”, I
covered the second tier of an endurance athlete’s performance structure, i.e.
aerobic capacity or endurance. I suggested that, while maximizing your ability
to generate energy from fat is a worthy health goal, from a performance
perspective, the specific endurance that typifies triathlon racing, all the way
from sprint triathlon to ironman requires a higher level of output than fat
burning can produce. A level of output that must be trained for and supported
with a higher level of carbohydrate in the diet during these periods of
specific preparation.
Looking back at the series so far, I’m seeing that it’s
turning into a big list of “dumb things that athletes do” :-)
Dumb thing #1: Live a stressed out, nutritionally deficient
life and expect your body to adapt to the hard training that you’re putting
into it.
Dumb thing #2: Train hard enough to deplete your body’s
energy reserves on a frequent basis then fail to re-pay these reserves because
you’re taking nutritional cues from Dr. Atkins.
And to complete the trilogy of dumb things that athletes do….
Dumb thing #3: Train like you’re preparing for an event that
lasts 2-10 minutes when your event actually lasts 2-10 hours.
I get it. You’re time constrained and on the hunt for the
most ‘time-effective’ routine out there. This
leads you to training sessions that make you feel as though you “got a good workout in” within a limited period
of time. You may even be able to justify your choice of high intensity training
by citing (short term) studies like the following that show improvements of
2-5% in VO2max after only 2-4 weeks of high intensity training (e.g. Lindsay et
al., 1997, Westgarth-Taylor et al., 1997, Stepto et al., 1998)
The problem with this approach is that you’re adding to a
very wonky, top heavy pyramid & it's a matter of time before it comes tumbling down….
1.
It doesn’t work long term:
2.
These high intensity workouts are in no way,
shape or form, specific to the demands of your event.
3.
You’re teaching your body to use (& crave)
massive amounts of carbohydrate which, as discussed in part 1, is just plain
unhealthy!
Let’s look at the first one, the issue of trainability. With
the excitement over David Epstein’s book “The Sports Gene”, the question of ‘trainability’
is quite timely. We’ve known for some period of time that the anaerobic
capacity of athletes is a largely heritable trait (e.g. Szopa et al., 1996,
Klissouris, 1997, Bouchard et al., 1997), i.e. speed/power athletes are largely
born as speed/power athletes. Put another way, an athlete’s ability to ‘swing’
their anaerobic capacity in one direction or another is quite limited. This is
the reason that, in the world of elite sports, the ‘sharpening’ phase of
training is relatively short when compared to the ‘base’ phase of training
because, experience has taught coaches that if anaerobic ‘sharpening’ training
is continued too long, performance plateaus and eventually regresses. If you
want a real time example of this, head on over to any triathlon forum and look
at the athletes touting the benefits of “high intensity training” These
athletes seem to go silent after a month or 2 or, if they continue, they
ascribe their plateau to reaching their genetic limit. Maybe they have reached their
genetic limit for anaerobic capacity, on the positive, though, they’re
competing in an aerobic sport, right? Which brings us to the second point…
Blood lactate levels in triathlon events from 2-10hrs range
from 1-4 mmol/L indicating a very low anaerobic contribution to performance. In
these events, the energy limiter is not the rate at which glucose can be
converted to energy but rather….
1.
How quickly you can metabolize the by-product of
this conversion (i.e. the pyruvate that is created) so that muscle acidity
doesn’t increase.
2.
How well you can supplement the creation of
energy from glucose with creation of energy from fat.
In other words, aerobic and metabolic fitness – tiers 1
& 2 of the performance pyramid.
For all but a handful of triathletes, the peak of the pyramid
(speed/power) is overly developed when compared to the levels below it. The
average Ironman athlete has no problem producing enough pyruvate to fill their
mitochondrial ‘buckets’ at race pace. In fact, most have a large reserve which
leads to a good deal of overflow & undesirably high blood lactate levels.
This, in turn, creates a ‘wonky’, unstable upside down pyramid that looks like
this…
Put more simply, 99% of athletes already have more than
enough of a “speed/power” reserve for long course racing and don’t need to
emphasize work that leads to high levels of blood lactate. Maintain? Yes.
Develop? No. What they really need is more fitness specific to their event
& especially, a stronger health base so that their training consistency and
body’s ability to absorb the training that they put in is maximized.
So what does it take to maintain your anaerobic capacity while building the base layers of your pyramid?
While every athlete is different and should be tested periodically, my
suggestion would be to start with no more than 5% of your weekly training time
at pace/power levels at or above the 4mmol/L mark. For an athlete training
10hrs per week, 30 minutes total (divided among the 3 sports).
The exception to the rule occurs when we have an athlete who
isn’t able to generate even moderately high max blood lactate levels. After
discounting the effect of nutrition or being over-reached, some athletes have
simply taken aerobic training too far (or have let strength/power slide too
much). By cutting off the top of their pyramid, the absolute size of the
pyramid is reduced.
While this doesn’t greatly affect performance over those long course races, (where performance is a composite of
aerobic and metabolic fitness) it does affect the athlete's short course performance & it also seems to affect the training response of
the athlete, i.e. athletes lacking in strength/power don’t respond to aerobic
training as well as athletes with moderate to high peak power outputs,
presumably because the size of their training pyramid (pool of trainable muscle
fibers) is diminished.
For these athletes (and these athletes only) an additional
specific preparation block dedicated to restoring some ‘power reserve’ may be
warranted. In a reverse periodization approach, this is simply a matter of
beginning specific preparation one month earlier with a block of training with
a threshold/VO2 emphasis.
Take home points….
·
It is quite rare for the ‘sexy’ elements of
fitness, i.e. VO2max, threshold et al. to be true limiters for age-group
Ironman or half ironman performance.
·
An unnecessary focus on these qualities can lead
to stagnation of performance, inadequate preparation for the demands of your
event, negative changes to your body composition & poor health.
·
When a speed/power block is indicated, it can
and should be a short & sweet ‘remedial’ cycle before returning to the
training that offers long term gain & is truly specific to the event.
With apologies to whichever wise coach I’m stealing the following
quote from; “Speedwork is the icing on the cake. Most of you don’t have a cake
yet.”
Train smart,
AC
Great article, definitely highly relevant right now! Do you think strength training complexes would provide adequate stimulation to keep the top of pyramid from limiting your aerobic work or does the high octane stuff need to be more sport specific? In other words, if you have a developing endurance athlete do you think one could reach those high end-of-test lactate levels through easy/steady work (and maybe some strides etc) and weight training alone?
ReplyDeleteHi Dennis, I think it's good practice to maintain a tiny bit of sport specific lactate work within the program. Economy during strides and economy when you've got 10mmol of lactate in your legs are 2 different things :-) Makes sense to me to stay in touch with that through the year.
ReplyDeleteGreat article Alan, thanks.
ReplyDeleteWhile we're on the topic of Vo2max, my understanding (which could be wrong!) is that Vo2max is "maximally trained" after 10-14 weeks of training. Furthermore, a "low responder" might see a 0.2L/min increase over a given period and the "high responders" topping out a ~0.9L/min.
So, my question is, what is going on during the other phases of training that allows for another ~0.5L/min "bump" after another round of Vo2max work? Or rather, is there some "ceiling" that an athlete starts to bump up against after 10-14 weeks and thus they need to do ??? in order to push that ceiling up again?
Thanks Ryan.
ReplyDeleteThe studies that have come to that conclusion have had 2 main issues.. 1. They typically used relatively high intensity training (which does lead to a plateau) 2. They were typically too short to see the big picture i.e. while a 'relative' plateau occurred, improvement continued, albeit at a significantly slower rate.
Your comment on response, though, is bang on. Lots of variation in the rate at which aerobic capacity improves.
Further improvement demands more demand for O2 within the muscle (i.e. more mitochondria). ST fibers offer the greatest potential for improvement here, so the short answer is... more base.