Interesting article, but not so sure about the science.
Discuss please.
Interesting article, but not so sure about the science.
Discuss please.
What science? His entire article is based on the false premise that every other source recommends long slow distance as the best way to increase aerobic fitness, which he equates directly to vo2 max. That simply isn't true.
The whole article is a puff piece in an attempt to hide the fact that most cross fit training (some gyms have their own programs, so I say "most) is not very effective aerobic training, which has clear implications on long term cardiovascular health. It's definitely better than nothing, but not ideal.
I skimmed it but it sounds like he's set up a false premise or just a straight up straw man.
The only people in the running community that thing that long slow distance is the only way to fitness are ultra runners. And we all know they're not really as worried about "fitness" as they are taking in some scenery in the mountains and trails.
Other than that the only people that only do LSD running as way to get fit are these mythical runners in this crossfit dude's head.
Very funny misconception of his argumentation. He starts with the observation that cross fitters with their high intensity interval like sessions also improve their endurance a lot. He takes this as evidence it must be a much better method than long slow distance (lsd) running which is used by runners. He says studies which say otherwise and conclude that lsd method works are usually done with beginners, and beginners usually improve with even very low or unspecific stimulus. However, at that moment he actually gives the explanation, why all the cross fitters are able to improve their endurance a bit. Because from level of endurance development they are usually absolute beginners and would improve from any activity.
On the other hand elite athletes know that the high intensity interval training can just put a peak on whichever base is already there and was build by lots of distance running.
Why did some outdated methods from the 60s and before like Igloi, Stampfl etc. which work solely with intervals yield results, too?
1. their athletes were usually middle distance runners 800/1500/mile which is not just pure endurance
2. they did so many intervals with very short active recovery that in the end a 100x100 session or something like that was more like a tempo-changing but continous 20 k run....
Good, I needed a laugh.
What a pile of rubbish.
He goes on and on about some mystery of people getting aerobically fitter by doing anaerobic work, like the body is a stack of lego. If you're beyond your aerobic capacity, obviously your aerobic system is being heavilly taxed. It's not mystery why, or a revelation that it produces aerobic improvements, it's just a crappy way to try and get them,
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday