Isn't preparing for full body-weight loading integral to running success? Could the Alter G be detrimental to long-term development if used as a regular part of training for healthy athletes? Doesn't the OTC group do this? Or is it only used for rehabilitation?
anyone?
Most rehabilitation or training programs involving an Alter G are structured to increase the load. Maybe the person starts at 10% weight reduction and then over a month or more goes back to 0% weight reduction and can run outdoors fine. If the treadmill were used routinely to pamper the individual, then yes, the person would grow accustomed to weighing less and have difficulty trying to perform as well outdoors.
Shoebacca wrote:
Most rehabilitation or training programs involving an Alter G are structured to increase the load. Maybe the person starts at 10% weight reduction and then over a month or more goes back to 0% weight reduction and can run outdoors fine. If the treadmill were used routinely to pamper the individual, then yes, the person would grow accustomed to weighing less and have difficulty trying to perform as well outdoors.
Thanks.
I'm going with the Contrarian Alter G. Backpack with weights in it. Then when I race it will seem like I'm running on an Alter G.
Has anyone seen any studies done looking at the alter-g and its effect returning from injury? It seems like everything is here-say from he said she said kind of thing. I am very curious to know its benefit to recover from injury.
-Jatin
bump
there's a link to an article in this posting. I can't get the full version, but I would presume most colleges have this web-journal edition and can get it.
http://mytwocentsoncoaching.blogspot.com/2011/02/alter-g-treadmillsthe-best-way-to-cross.html
I ran on one after knee surgery and was able to run for more time than I could without it. I set it on 70% body weight at first.
The other factor is that if you have someone who needs to run X miles and cannot do it under normal circumstances because the injuries come, then running those miles with less impact seems like a prudent idea.
I'd definitely agree with you. If what we're looking for is aerobic training, then by all means get it any way you can. Obviously over-ground running is the most ideal, but if you know where your breaking point is with running normally, then cross training is a great thing. Pool running may be more feasible since many colleges/universities have these facilities, but if you can get your hands on a G, then by all means GET ONE!
Jimmy Bean is a selling machine!!!
I've seen that article in Journal of Sport Sciences...Basically told us what we already know...I mean if you're running at a lower percentage of your body weight there should be less muscle activity...duh! As always, the science lags behind the coaches
The McMillian runners use them pretty regularly in Flagstaff when the weather prevents outdoor running.
abdominalsnowman wrote:
I've seen that article in Journal of Sport Sciences...Basically told us what we already know...I mean if you're running at a lower percentage of your body weight there should be less muscle activity...duh! As always, the science lags behind the coaches
Science lags behind coaches? That is a funny one. Science is so far ahead of coaches it's funny. My doctoral advisor was doing weight assisted gait research in the 80's which is a big precursor to the Alter-G.
And to answer the OP's question...If you only trained on the AG (say 50% BW) and never the roads you would have an awsome capacity for aerobic exercise BUT not the tolerance for the GRFs during overground running. It's kind of like a 5k guy who traines 50 mpw just running a marathon on a whim. Cardio wise he will be fine. But without numerous long runs or building up miles etc...he's gonna be sore!
couldn't agree more...A lot of what we know as coaches was birthed by science (more like EVERYTHING we know!). I love when other coaches make claims that they know more than scientists...All they're saying is, "I don't know how to interpret the literature, so let's say I'm smarter"
scientists and coaches are directly linked...like it or not
McMillan has an Alter-G? I didn't think they did??
Maybe you are thinking of Hansons or Zap. I know that they both have Alter G's.
Maybe you are thinking of Hansons or Zap. I know that they both have Alter G's.
Now if we APPLY the scientific knowledge is another issue!!! :)
a valid point. So you're saying there are coaches who base their training on no scientific evidence and simply train their athletes the way they were trained 30 years ago??
Oh how I wish these coaches were the minority...
I could swear I saw video of McMillans group using an Alter G.
I'm going to have to disagree with the person who said you'll still have the same cardiovascular but trouble with the GF's. You would need a lot more work at 70% to get the same cardio benefits found at 100% wouldn't you? I mean look at it from the point of view that if I walk up the stairs I might get my heart rate up 10 BPM, but if I'm carrying a 50lb. weight it'll get up to 25-30BPM. Isn't this the reverse?