Is there such a thing as Too Anaerobic?

[NavigationHazard]

Cheers - Newcomer's study is available in a free PDF at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... p00302.pdf

It's highly interesting -- it goes a long way towards explaining 'power outages' I've sometimes endured. And serves as a warning to avoid this:

"exercise in excess of that to which a muscle has become adapted can be termed acute unaccustomed stress (AUS). AUS can be an acute increase in volume, intensity, and/or mode of exercise."

[bloomp]

This is the most interesting thread I have seen in these forums. The idea of tailoring the workouts to fit an athlete's physiology is obviously important. For my own purposes, I have always excelled at short, hard bursts of activity, and not been what you would classify as a great aerobic athlete. Is this situation because of my physiology or my psychology? Going hard all the time seems to be something I have done without considering another option, but testing of this sort would identify the proper training for each athlete, and also would identify the area each athlete might best be suited for. There are athletes that specialize in different distances in running, biking, and swimming. Why would that not be the case for rowing?

Because *the* event for rowing is a 2k (or 1500m for some juniors). No point in focusing your training on a 10k if you have to excel at an event that is demanding both aerobically and anaerobically. However, what we find is that by training across distances you engage muscle fibers that would not be used during short intense bursts of exercise. So while training for a distance race is irrelevant in rowing, the adage of "miles make champions" still applies.

What MChase does as a coach is not tailor workouts to fit his athlete's physiology - that would lead to athletes that never improve - he finds the best way to let them change their training to find continual improvement. Pandering is never a good thing and giving in to what an athlete may prefer is the worst thing to do. In this case, he needs to implement something similar to what H20 suggested and force his rowers to stick within training bands.

Matt, the quicker you start forcing a policy of "stick to your training bands" on your kids, the better. If they are already frustrated at a lack of improvement this is a perfect time to change your training regimen. Hopefully this will be in a way that they will come to believe is the sole cause of their improvement from here on out. They will need the discipline of keeping their HR/splits in a certain range for collegiate/elite rowing if that's the route they want to take. If they are not frustrated yet, still try to force them to maintain easier splits. I wish my coaches in HS had the resources your kids have currently, and it took me until last fall to realize how important not killing myself every workout is. Imagine how much faster I could have progressed if I wasn't rowing myself to exhaustion each piece!

[Bob S.]

Because *the* event for rowing is a 2k (or 1500m for some juniors). No point in focusing your training on a 10k if you have to excel at an event that is demanding both aerobically and anaerobically.

That's the current popular point of view, unfortunately. At one time (before WWII) the 4 mile was the big intercollegiate race, buggered up once every four years for the Olympics which had to use something short enough to hold the an audience of folks with increasingly short attention spans. Real rowing is done on blue water for thousands of miles in sturdier boats than these flimsy tupperware needles that one sees at regattas.

Bob S., who always hated "sprints."

[mchase]

Bloomp, Bradl,
Thanks for the responses.

Our workouts are not unstructured. For all the kids tested, there should be no doubt at what watts each must maintain during steady state. Each rower among the top 4 varsity boats (2 men, 2 women boats, and more) are dialed into their personal watts at 2.0 mmol/L of lactate. That is, for steady state pieces, we expect them to hold a known number of watts for which each rower who is dialed in, in order to maintain a lactate of 2.0 during steady state pieces.

Having said that, these are kids. They watch a movie, they talk to their neighbor, they want to go harder, they want to row easier, whatever. For the most part, I find the kids are highly motivated. I've got several who believe that they know better than I, but they are kids who have been stagnant for a year. They have nothing to lose by adopting this strategy. Still, the majority of the kids are motivated and interested. The first question of every workout is, "Can I get a steady state retest?" by several rowers because they feel they are improving and invariably, they are. Only 1 rower has not improved and it's frankly due to too many absences.

While there is lots of dogma out there, I'm finding some dogma is not substantiated in science. With the use of P magnetic resonance spectroscopy and other technologies that can replace the inaccurate means of measuring the relative contribution of the aerobic and anaerobic systems, I think we will learn just how important the aerobic contribution is and how little the "anaerobic sprint" (as an example) at the end of the race is likely just not there.

[tewbz]

http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm#_Toc245522387
heres a interesting study of the effects of long and slow and intervals.

[Tinus]

Because *the* event for rowing is a 2k (or 1500m for some juniors). No point in focusing your training on a 10k if you have to excel at an event that is demanding both aerobically and anaerobically.

That's the current popular point of view, unfortunately. At one time (before WWII) the 4 mile was the big intercollegiate race, buggered up once every four years for the Olympics which had to use something short enough to hold the an audience of folks with increasingly short attention spans. Real rowing is done on blue water for thousands of miles in sturdier boats than these flimsy tupperware needles that one sees at regattas.

Bob S., who always hated "sprints."

hear hear!

Rowing has a broad range of possibilities to offer and the 2k centred focus spoils the community.

[NavigationHazard]

(snip)
While there is lots of dogma out there, I'm finding some dogma is not substantiated in science. With the use of P magnetic resonance spectroscopy and other technologies that can replace the inaccurate means of measuring the relative contribution of the aerobic and anaerobic systems, I think we will learn just how important the aerobic contribution is and how little the "anaerobic sprint" (as an example) at the end of the race is likely just not there.

I think a lot of the inaccuracy comes from the mistaken belief that lactate overproduction implies 'oxygen deficit' and a shift to anaerobic [sic] glycolysis. I tend to agree with the view that a superabundance of lactate in the working skeletal muscles, and latterly in the blood on its way to the heart and liver, is mainly an artifact of superabundant NADH resulting from hard repetitive contraction (see http://tinyurl.com/35w35ml).

Having said this, I still think the notion that blood lactate (regardless of origin) can be used as a(n imperfect) proxy for intensity. By extension, so too can the general association of heart rate with lactate levels -- as long as its deficiencies are acknowledged and it's not treated as if it were causal.

I take the main implications for training to be that (as Seiler somewhere put it) most people probably are doing their "steady-state" rowing too hard for optimum physiological results, and their "sharpening" rowing not hard enough. That is, part and parcel of effective training is finding ways to do nearly all of the volume at very gradually increasing intensities rather comfortably below maximal lactate steady state. The other part of the equation is pushing the pre-competition envelope by targeting lactate clearance at intensities well over maximal lactate steady state. This 'polarization' strategy (slow/fast with no middle) runs counter to much conventional wisdom emphasizing so-called 'threshold' workouts (e.g. 5ks, repeat 10-minute pieces, and the like). It also implies a substantial time commitment for sessions that may be unrealistic for most program rowers and even most individuals. Finally, I think it likely that in-season 'polarization' is unsuited to typical competitive calendars, including high-school programs where the sprint season might well include six or eight regattas on more or less sequential weekends.

Thus most of us will continue to struggle with what we can do in the real world as opposed to what we ought to do in an ideal world. Such is life ...

[ausrwr]

Bloomp, Bradl,
Thanks for the responses.

Our workouts are not unstructured. For all the kids tested, there should be no doubt at what watts each must maintain during steady state. Each rower among the top 4 varsity boats (2 men, 2 women boats, and more) are dialed into their personal watts at 2.0 mmol/L of lactate. That is, for steady state pieces, we expect them to hold a known number of watts for which each rower who is dialed in, in order to maintain a lactate of 2.0 during steady state pieces.

MChase - I'd have some reservations about setting 2.0mmol of lactate as a steady state pace. For some people it's going to be barely scratching the surface, and for others, it's going to be too damn hard. Have you used a step test protocol (5*4mins on/1 off, then a 6th 4 min max test or a 2k after 20 mins) to check people's max lactate?

For example, if someone throws 22mmol at the end of a max or 2k, I'd be betting that their resting lactate would be above 2 mmol. I'm the reverse - I max at about 6 - 8 mmol, with a threshold about 2.8 - 3.2 mmol. Resting's at 0.9 and gets a bit lower.

I'm not sure what the equation is to work out where things lie though - it's regression analysis, with (I think) threshold sitting at a deflection point.

[ThatMoos3Guy]

Has anyone here tried polarizing their training like most of the studies recommend? It seems like most training plans focus on a lot of threshold work (pete plan, interactive, wolverine), while the articles talking about elite athletes focus on the 80/20 split, with most work at low intensity and then some at a much higher intensity.

Obviously it's different with elite athletes, who have been training for many years and for tons of hours a week, just wondering if anyone had experience with that strategy.

[Nosmo]

Has anyone here tried polarizing their training like most of the studies recommend? It seems like most training plans focus on a lot of threshold work (pete plan, interactive, wolverine), while the articles talking about elite athletes focus on the 80/20 split, with most work at low intensity and then some at a much higher intensity.

Obviously it's different with elite athletes, who have been training for many years and for tons of hours a week, just wondering if anyone had experience with that strategy.

I haven't read the interactive plan in a long long time, but I think you are mistaken about the PP and WP
For the Wolverine plan, One Level 1 and one Level 2, workout per week, is 12K or intense work. To follow the 80/20 split that is only 60K per week, which is not very much for a serious WP. Same numbers apply to the Pete Plan.
Some people may be doing 60K per week and also doing L3 and L4 intervals and intense 2x5K L3
s or high number L4 workouts, but they are not really following the plan if they are.

[mchase]

Ausrwr, NavigationHazard and ThaMoos3Guy,

Thanks for your responses.
Our workouts are polarized. We don't do all long and slow. It's frankly too boring on the one hand, and we need some zone 3 anyway. The kids love zone 3 workouts.

I too see the problem among those who produce lots of lactate, whether during a step test (and we take them beyond 4mmol and beyond MLSS) or during steady state when we give them an initial target watts and their lactate skyrockets. These kids who produce too much lactate (again, my assessment of "too much") are the same kids who are stagnant in their rowing development. Instead of progressing 8 or 10 seconds on a periodic 2K, they perhaps "just PR" or even regress. These kids are young enough in their rowing careers that they should have continued improvement.

And we have kids who are improving remarkably. We got some fast kids who PR on virtually every test. They also have different lactate dynamics. They are clearly more aerobic by whatever parameter you wish to measure (watts at 4 mmol, watts at 2.0mmol as % VO2Max, lactate at 3min post 1min all-out effort, etc).

As a coach, when you find kids too anaerobic and not improving in one group, and another who are more aerobic and improving nicely in another group, one must ask, is there something I can do about it.

In studying the literature on the signaling pathways involved in cellular metabolism among endurance athletes, there is some remarkable stuff. For example, there is a substance (HIF-1) which is activated when oxygen tension decreases and this substance has downsteam effects in teh adaptive responses, including the regulation of glycolysis and the building of genes involved in glucose transport, gluconeogenesis, and other functions relevant to the anaerobic response.

There is another substance known as PGC-1α that in part controls a large number of genes involved with the movement of glucose and free fatty acids (the oxidative or aerobic system).

So when I ask, can one be too anaerobic, I think the answer is a likely yes-- yes you can drive your intracellular signaling mechanism to preferentially support one system over the other to some degree of phenotypic expresssion. Hey, it's not going to change you from an anaerobic muscle head to a world class marathoner, but can it make the difference between improving and getting stale? I think so. I'm just not smart enough to provide the definitive answer and I don't have enough years of coaching left to find the answer through trial and error.

[mchase]

Oh, forgot to answer the question about "watts at 2mmol" being too low a threshold for the anaerobic group. Interestingly, by having them conform their workouts to that level, they are becoming more aerobic. One lightweight male is pulling 35 watts more, another ~50 watts more and that's in just a few weeks. You would have a tough time convincing me that they are in "better shape" now. No. Our erging workouts are shorter than our on-water workouts, and frankly less grueling. So how could 9 out of 10 "anaerobic" kids improve their steady state watts? By not stimulating their anaerobic system day after day is my feeling. They sure aren't working harder.

[Mike Caviston]

I read mchase’s original posting on rowingillustrated.com, but didn’t respond there since he had already read my opinion before making the decision to introduce lactate testing to his team. As longtime readers of this forum know, I’m not a fan of using lactate or heart rate as the basis for establishing training intensities. I feel there are too many inaccuracies and misconceptions about physiological processes associated with those methods to make them more effective than simply using pace – i.e., determining training intensity based on past performance and known rates of progress.

I confess that I’m still not clear on what is meant here by “too anaerobic”, and feel that too much is being assumed about the link between lactate samples in the blood and metabolism in the muscle fibers. High lactate production doesn’t automatically mean anaerobiosis, and blood lactate is a balance between production and removal by other tissues (in other words, high lactate values may mean modest production but low removal; low values may be due to high production coupled with high removal).

My training paradigm is established around a mix of high-intensity intervals and prolonged, continuous sessions at paces calculated to promote increased production of ATP as well as greater resistance to fatigue. I’ve never found it especially problematic to keep athletes in the proper training zones. That’s not to say that every athlete falls neatly into their assigned paces without incident or the occasional rebellion. But the system allows for corrections and recalibrations that effectively resolve discrepancies within one or two workouts. Ongoing monitoring and analysis of training results (actual vs. expected) is necessary to ensure that athletes continue to make progress without burning out, so that peak performance is reached at the appropriate time. I can’t imagine trying to coordinate these training sessions by lactate readings, much less over thinking things in terms of effects on HIF-1 or PGC-1α!

For those interested in more discussion on the limits of lactate as a marker of intensity and why I prefer pace, below are some links to past comments I’ve made, with some references to research.

On lactate (lactic acid):
http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4401#wrap

On “lactate tolerance” and the “anaerobic threshold”:
http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=4190&start=299

Compiled by a professor at San Diego State University, a collection of abstracts “concerned with lactate dynamics, lactate and training, and lactate/anaerobic thresholds. The overall tenor of the articles is that both lactate and lactate/anaerobic thresholds are not as useful as is often proposed and their conceptual bases are misunderstood.”
http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol46/table.htm

This item from the above list is particularly interesting (skip to the bottom for a specific rowing reference):
http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol46/billat.htm

[Mike Caviston]

And just for completeness, and maybe to open another can of worms, a couple of my comments regarding HR training:
http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 689#p65689

This thread deals specifically with HRV (Heart Rate variability):
http://concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.p ... &sk=t&sd=a

[hjs]

Oh, forgot to answer the question about "watts at 2mmol" being too low a threshold for the anaerobic group. Interestingly, by having them conform their workouts to that level, they are becoming more aerobic. One lightweight male is pulling 35 watts more, another ~50 watts more and that's in just a few weeks. You would have a tough time convincing me that they are in "better shape" now. No. Our erging workouts are shorter than our on-water workouts, and frankly less grueling. So how could 9 out of 10 "anaerobic" kids improve their steady state watts? By not stimulating their anaerobic system day after day is my feeling. They sure aren't working harder.

You get better at what you train for. If you do a lot of relative easy aeroboc work, that will improve.
If you do a lot of hard anearobic work, that will improve, but the other side of the spectrum will not get worse.

Furthermore it's a commenly know that after aerobic base building and getting in top shape via an anaerobic sharpening fase this will lead to a deminishing base. You can only be in topshape for a short amount of time and have to go back to aerobic work.

And in general, to be good at rowing, you need to have a good talent to develop your aerobic motors. Rowing is simply to long in duration to do it anaerobicly. So the fact that the best rowers don't go anaerobic is pretty logic. Those are the one with the most talent for the sport. The sprinty types, who go much more anearobic simply are less talented for rowing. And talent is always number one...........