Is "Physiological Zones" Training Outdated?

wellnow wrote:

I already have. Anyway, why don't you post under your usual name? What are you afraid of?

You did not provide the exact page numbers that I originally asked for. Could you do that for us, please? Thanks!

(P.S. This is my usual name. It has been registered here for quite some time.)

wellnow wrote:

I already have. Anyway, why don't you post under your usual name? What are you afraid of?

No you haven't. You very specifically stated one but you didn't back it up with anything resembling page number of chapter. Come now, if you maintian there are that many contradictions, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to tell us where one is, should it?.

Sorry I got you confused with another poster.

Just read through the book. It is full of contradictions about lactate and lactic acid, aerobic and anaerobic. From beginning to end it is one mass of contradictions.

Here is the basic problem in a nutshell:

Lactate is produced anaerobically and with that production you also get ATP generated anaerobically (mostly glycogenolysis NOT glycolysis as all books wrongly state)Then lactate itself is an intermediate fuel for aerobic metabolism. Lactate metabolism is carboydrate metabolism, and to refer to it as strictly anaerobic is wrong. Martin points this out but then contradicts that point many many times.

Martin didn't know enough about lactate metabolism to avoid these contradictions. I would have to go through every single page and quote half the book to point out every contradictions.

Can you really not see them? Have you even tried? Don't you see how ridiculous that chart is where he analyzes Seb Coes weeks of training in terms of percentage of aerobic/anaerobic, where some weeks are 100% of aerobic and others are 100% anaerobic? And we are supposed to take this shit seriously as real science?

I have read the book and refer to it often. I do not recall any of the contradictions you proclaim to be there. If you cannot provide a specific page number, then I must assume that these examples you envision do not exist.

I also asked you to give us a little of your own background; education, degreees, competetive and coaching resume, etc. Since Martin and Coe included their histories in the book, it would help us to be more objective when comparing your assertions to theirs. Thanks!

When was this Martin/Coe book written?

Thanks Andy for your excellent post. (LOL)

To wondering (without the question mark on the end):

Sorry for the confusion. I actually didn't realize you had that name registered. I had this one registered.

To wellnow:

Either way he's right. If you say there's a contradiction, particularly if you say there are so many, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to tell us exactly where one is. I've read the book just as the other guy with my name has and I've never seen it.

rekrunner wrote:

When was this Martin/Coe book written?

About 1990/1991 I believe.

Glycogenolysis is a precursor to glycolysis. One leads to the other, and hence, anaerobically generated ATP. I don't see how the books are wrong.

Unecessary Distinction wrote:

Glycogenolysis is a precursor to glycolysis. One leads to the other, and hence, anaerobically generated ATP. I don't see how the books are wrong.

The books are not wrong. Wellnow's inability to cite specific examples is proof that he is full of it.

I looked on amazon, and I found two books, one dated 1994 "Training Distance Runners", and one dated 1997, "Better training for distance runners" (which curiously says it updates a 1991 book).In any case, I wonder if it makes more sense to critique the updated one, from 1997. For example, I see page 69 talks about Glycogenolysis.

rekrunner wrote:

When was this Martin/Coe book written?

Skuj wrote:

About 1990/1991 I believe.

Any and every physical response to training is "normal and natural health and fitness developments". Do you suggest that intelligent debate should be limited to that which is "abnormal" or "unnatural"?I still remain unconvinced that dogma is the right word. No one questions these things because all of them actually happen. More aerobic development happens with training, than without.

wellnow wrote:

All the usual talk about mitochondraia, hematcrit, stroke volume etc etc, is dogma. These developments are normal and natural health and fitness developments that happen very quickly. They don't continue for long at all. However, because the aerobic development dogma is repeated so often over and over, no-one questions it.

How can we have an intelligent debate when the so called exercize physiology 'experts' make so many fundamental errors.

When I read "anaerobic", I understand what you refer to when you say "Lactate is produced anaerobically and with that production you also get ATP generated anaerobically", viewing lactate and ATP as end products of that particular "anaerobic" process -- decoupling it from any subsequent "aerobic" metabolism -- full stop.So the training that produces a proportionally large amount of its energy like that, is called "anaerobic" training. The high level of lactate produced from this "anaerobic" training, is a stimulus for further adaptations.When you understand "anaerobic" like that, everything seems to fall right into place, without all these apparent contradictions.

wellnow wrote:

Here is the basic problem in a nutshell:

Lactate is produced anaerobically and with that production you also get ATP generated anaerobically (mostly glycogenolysis NOT glycolysis as all books wrongly state) Then lactate itself is an intermediate fuel for aerobic metabolism. Lactate metabolism is carboydrate metabolism, and to refer to it as strictly anaerobic is wrong. Martin points this out but then contradicts that point many many times.

Martin didn't know enough about lactate metabolism to avoid these contradictions. I would have to go through every single page and quote half the book to point out every contradictions.

wellnow:

Have you read "The Science of Winning" by Jan Olbrecht? If so, any opinions?

AJR wrote:

I honestly have not come across anything more useful than a few interviews with a number of elite athletes. I'd recommend looking at the approaches taken by Jack Foster and Ron Clarke in particular. Although I'd have hated the book 15 years ago when I was younger, more intense, and more agressive about running, I'd also have a look at Joe Hendersons LSD book. In fact, this book was referred to by David Martin of the AIS when discussing why the training performed by the Australian track cycling team had been so successfull when he presented at the European College of Sports Science Conference last year.

AJR

In what way Jack Foster, Ron Clarke and Joe Henderson different approaches proved to be useful?

Why David Martin referred the LSD book in the context of the Auatralian track cycling team?

Thanks.

i know this guy wrote:

Thanks Andy for your excellent post. (LOL)

Good guess!

In what way Jack Foster, Ron Clarke and Joe Henderson different approaches proved to be useful?

Why David Martin referred the LSD book in the context of the Auatralian track cycling team?

Thanks.[/quote]

I dont think there is anything 'special' about the actual training they did. The most important thing is the mental approach to the sport. e.g. a quote from Foster was something like ' I dont train, I just go for a run every day and let the races take care of themselves'. This is extremely important as it means there is no anxiety about racing. I suspect that too much 'thinking' uses up resources that are better used for physical work. Lots of recent evidence suggests perceived exertion acts as the regulator of exercise performance. It is also easy to demonstrate that if you play with peoples minds in some way or make them anxious then the RPE is higher for any given workload. Therefore - greater psychological input to the RPE score may result in a necessarily smaller physiological input (meaning you go slower).

One of the ideas presented about the LSD book was that it is a recovery technique not necessarily a 'training' technique. In particular it may make athletes better able to handle the stress of intense training.

wellnow wrote:

Its not the person with the most mitochondria, the highest haematocrit etc etc who necessarily wins a race - its simply the person who covers the required distance fastest. This is the problem with trying to isoltae and train individual physiological variables. Firstly, you dont really know which one is the most important, and then you dont really know exactly the best method of training that variable in isolation. The solution then must be to simply train yourself to be able to run further and faster?

wellnow

When do you realize that the biomechanics and coordination it’s so enhance limited as the aerobic mitochondria, hematocrit, stroke volume etc ?

Most of your argument stresses the aerobic dogma as infinite progress. You are right. But when you will say that the biomechanics pace coordination or CG that all is limited as well ? Or do you think it’s unlimited ?

Neo Fite wrote:

Unecessary Distinction wrote:

Glycogenolysis is a precursor to glycolysis. One leads to the other, and hence, anaerobically generated ATP. I don't see how the books are wrong.

The books are not wrong. Wellnow's inability to cite specific examples is proof that he is full of it.

We´ve known that for a long time.