or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Skiing improvement for professionals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skiing improvement for professionals - Page 6

post #151 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich666 View Post
 

New study just out says that only 1 minute of all-out exercise may have benefits of 45 minutes of moderate exertion.

 

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/1-minute-of-all-out-exercise-may-equal-45-minutes-of-moderate-exertion/?_r=0

 

 


The results of this experiment are ... amazing.

post #152 of 169

I hear you HDN and I always take the lead comments of a study with a grain of salt. That is the "may up to" statement that is rarely achieved. In regards to previous understandings of physiology you mention, we all know that new findings follow new technologies and new understandings from more recent studies. As well, almost all science is in a constant state of evolution. I can hear the faint heckling of the locomotive industry towards the Wright Brothers in your words above. I appreciate the sarcasm. Keeps things interesting.

 

Here, I bring a real and thorough academic that is study both fresh and relevant to the table of this conversation,(from the link above) the relevance and nucleus of which states:

 

"Both groups of exercising volunteers completed three sessions each week for 12 weeks, a period of time that is about twice as long as in most past studies of interval training.

By the end of the study, published in PLOS One, the endurance group had ridden for 27 hours, while the interval group had ridden for six hours, with only 36 minutes of that time being strenuous.

But when the scientists retested the men’s aerobic fitness, muscles and blood-sugar control now, they found that the exercisers showed virtually identical gains, whether they had completed the long endurance workouts or the short, grueling intervals. In both groups, endurance had increased by nearly 20 percent, insulin resistance likewise had improved significantly, and there were significant increases in the number and function of certain microscopic structures in the men’s muscles that are related to energy production and oxygen consumption."

  I think that this is very good info for anyone that puts faith in science with which to formulate a belief. All athletic performance and training starts at the metabolic level and to by pass it is akin to having a high end sports car that has a tank full of sludge. 

post #153 of 169
They needed a second control group, that did ten minutes of exercise without intervals. All they have really done is proven that ten minutes of exercise provides the same results as forty five. The intervals could be relevant, but it was not proved in this study.
post #154 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDaysNight View Post


Yes clearly Bompa, anyone at USSA named Troy (apparently Troys are better at fitness than most) and a great many Austrians and Swiss will have to throw out their life's work.

Anyone looking to prep for high level skiing will unfortunately however find that focusing on all out brief intervals will over time actually sap endurance and leave their ability to recover between runs greatly compromised. People with damaged lungs do a version of this sort of interval training every day when they gasp for breath walking down the hall, and it doesn't help them ski.

One of the keys here is avoiding fads, including guided discovery along with fitness fads, in order to have a better chance at long term high level improvement.
post #155 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGolfAnalogy View Post

They needed a second control group, that did ten minutes of exercise without intervals. All they have really done is proven that ten minutes of exercise provides the same results as forty five. The intervals could be relevant, but it was not proved in this study.

They had three groups and an added second control group was not needed to establish the findings set forth. Even if you are only agreeing that 10 min rather than only 1, that equals 45, that is an insane difference in time over a season of training. 450%!!! The entire study is based on intervals on intensity. What are you talking about. Did you even read the study before making a comment? That is some serious denial going on there. You sound like you devoted an entire lifetime of unnecessary workout effort. Don't feel bad. You are by far not the only one.

 

"Then the researchers randomly divided the men into three groups. (The scientists plan to study women in subsequent experiments.) One group was asked to change nothing about their current, virtually nonexistent exercise routines; they would be the controls. A second group began a typical endurance-workout routine, consisting of riding at a moderate pace on a stationary bicycle at the lab for 45 minutes, with a two-minute warm-up and three-minute cool down"

"So scientists at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, who had themselves conducted many of those earlier studies of interval training, decided recently to mount probably the most scientifically rigorous comparison to date of super-short and more-standard workouts"

 

I think I will put my faith in proven science rather than an haphazard passing remark with no foundation, backing, credentials, references or even an attempt at a debate, had you have one to give.

post #156 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post


Yes clearly Bompa, anyone at USSA named Troy (apparently Troys are better at fitness than most) and a great many Austrians and Swiss will have to throw out their life's work.

Anyone looking to prep for high level skiing will unfortunately however find that focusing on all out brief intervals will over time actually sap endurance and leave their ability to recover between runs greatly compromised. People with damaged lungs do a version of this sort of interval training every day when they gasp for breath walking down the hall, and it doesn't help them ski.

One of the keys here is avoiding fads, including guided discovery along with fitness fads, in order to have a better chance at long term high level improvement.

Completely unfounded. You are making statements for which you have absolutely no basis whatsoever. This is your argument that the world is flat: "The world is flat"

 

I completely understand how someone who may have devoted a ton of time and effort over a lifetime that they will never get back is going to face the inevitable truth with complete denial as demonstrated by making statements that do not even pose an argument. 

 

Show an equally thorough and recent study that contradicts this study or just keep flapping in the wind. :)

post #157 of 169
Thread Starter 

I work out 4 times per week at a facility associated with a hospital.  I do a combination of aerobic and anaerobic training on a treadmill and stationary bike.    They do a lot of cardio rehab at this facility.  They have in addition to nurses on staff, 3 exercise physiologists and a physical therapist.  I use the exercise physiologists periodically  to both test my level of fitness, measure my progress and recommend training routines.  Currently I do 2 days of aerobic training where my heart rate maintained at 70-80 percent max.  for a duration  30 to 60 minute per day  and one day of High intensity (HIT) training where  I maintain a heart rate  at LT threshold and gradually building to  over 90 percent of my MHR over a duration of 15 minutes with 10 warm up and 5 minutes of cool down.   On my other hard day I do  High intensity interval training (HIIT).   After a warm up I do 30 seconds  on and 60 off for 8 cycles.  Again, with the HIIT my first cycle yields a heart rate    some where around my LT threshold and by the last cycle I am hitting over  90% MHR.     Like so many things, many different opinions abound.   In some of my recent reading,  several authorities suggest that most of your training should be below  ( VT) ventilatory threshold, a modest amount of training should be at the VT and a small amount should be above VT.  Again there are differing opinions as to the relationship of LT, Anaerobic training and VT but they seem to more or less correspond with each other.   So it seems that my mix of aerobic vs. anaerobic training is at the generally recommended  levels.  In addition to the bike and treadmill I also train my legs with resistance  training on my easy days  working a combination of high rep sets with  occasional  heavy lifts at near max weight.   On the stationary bike, I also work a mix of  higher resistance and lower cadence with stresses the musculo- skeletal system  more and lower resistance and a higher cadence which stresses the cardio vascular system more.  Other recommendations include increasing the number of intervals and decreasing the rest periods.      I have been on this training routine for  about 18 months.  I experience a noticeable improvement monthly and can measure the improvement by lower heart rates during training, ability to increase resistance on the bike and a decreasing resting heart.   I am satisfied with the results so far but the older I get the harder it is to work at levels I was capable of 10, 20 or 40 years ago.   YM

post #158 of 169

Interesting study. The primary benefit with low intensity training is the local adaptations in the muscles, like increased number of mitohcondria. It is well known that max Vo2 etc are better trained with high intensity.

Hence the most interesting part of the study is that the mitochondrial adaptations were similar in the two groups. 

However, I see at least three problems with the study that makes me question even the value of that result (I question only the value, not the result itself)

First, the study is performed on sedentary males and during a relatively short period of time. training on sedentary people always have a big impact, you can do almost anything, like e.g. train at a level between 70% and VT, which is well known to be bad if you are trained. Previous studies have shown that you can e.g. do 90 minutes of slow distance or 90 minutes mixed with intervals and you will get almost the same mitochondrial adaptations. It is believed that it is because in untrained individuals you get max gene activation and you cannot go above it. In well trained subjects it is a whole different story

Second, it is also well know that the mitochondrial adaptations are primarily triggered when you deplete the glycogen stores, and even in a sedentary person that would take at least two hours. I guess this is primarily in trained subjects since you may get max activation anyway in untrained, but anyway. No pain no gain, but the pain is the length rather than intensity.

Third, what if the 45 minute group would have mixed in HI periods as well? Would it be even better or still the same. If it would be still the same it would strengthen the "max adaptation" hypothesis.

 

Regarding the depleted carbohydrate stores triggering adaptations I mentioned above, there is some recent research that indicates that if you start your workouts in a depleted state you get much better response.

See e.g.  http://gih.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A766681&dswid=7711

 

It is a Swedish study and it was headline news over here two years ago. After I read it I started to incorporate it in my training with good results. I deplete my muscles with a strength training routine during lunch one day, then I don't eat any carbohydrates until I train an LSD the next day, normally 2-6 hours of running or cycling at <70%.

post #159 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by yogaman View Post
 

I work out 4 times per week at a facility associated with a hospital.  I do a combination of aerobic and anaerobic training on a treadmill and stationary bike.    They do a lot of cardio rehab at this facility.  They have in addition to nurses on staff, 3 exercise physiologists and a physical therapist.  I use the exercise physiologists periodically  to both test my level of fitness, measure my progress and recommend training routines.  Currently I do 2 days of aerobic training where my heart rate maintained at 70-80 percent max.  for a duration  30 to 60 minute per day  and one day of High intensity (HIT) training where  I maintain a heart rate  at LT threshold and gradually building to  over 90 percent of my MHR over a duration of 15 minutes with 10 warm up and 5 minutes of cool down.   On my other hard day I do  High intensity interval training (HIIT).   After a warm up I do 30 seconds  on and 60 off for 8 cycles.  Again, with the HIIT my first cycle yields a heart rate    some where around my LT threshold and by the last cycle I am hitting over  90% MHR.     Like so many things, many different opinions abound.   In some of my recent reading,  several authorities suggest that most of your training should be below  ( VT) ventilatory threshold, a modest amount of training should be at the VT and a small amount should be above VT.  Again there are differing opinions as to the relationship of LT, Anaerobic training and VT but they seem to more or less correspond with each other.   So it seems that my mix of aerobic vs. anaerobic training is at the generally recommended  levels.  In addition to the bike and treadmill I also train my legs with resistance  training on my easy days  working a combination of high rep sets with  occasional  heavy lifts at near max weight.   On the stationary bike, I also work a mix of  higher resistance and lower cadence with stresses the musculo- skeletal system  more and lower resistance and a higher cadence which stresses the cardio vascular system more.  Other recommendations include increasing the number of intervals and decreasing the rest periods.      I have been on this training routine for  about 18 months.  I experience a noticeable improvement monthly and can measure the improvement by lower heart rates during training, ability to increase resistance on the bike and a decreasing resting heart.   I am satisfied with the results so far but the older I get the harder it is to work at levels I was capable of 10, 20 or 40 years ago.   YM

You are getting to be trained. This probably means that your slow training sessions are not triggering mitochondria growth very much. Try longer sessions or glocogen depletion like I described in my previous post.

post #160 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich666 View Post

They had three groups and an added second control group was not needed to establish the findings set forth. Even if you are only agreeing that 10 min rather than only 1, that equals 45, that is an insane difference in time over a season of training. 450%!!! The entire study is based on intervals on intensity. What are you talking about. Did you even read the study before making a comment? That is some serious denial going on there. You sound like you devoted an entire lifetime of unnecessary workout effort. Don't feel bad. You are by far not the only one.

"Then the researchers randomly divided the men into three groups. (The scientists plan to study women in subsequent experiments.) One group was asked to change nothing about their current, virtually nonexistent exercise routines; they would be the controls. A second group began a typical endurance-workout routine, consisting of riding at a moderate pace on a stationary bicycle at the lab for 45 minutes, with a two-minute warm-up and three-minute cool down"



"So scientists at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, who had themselves conducted many of those earlier studies of interval training, decided recently to mount probably the most scientifically rigorous comparison to date of super-short and more-standard workouts"

I think I will put my faith in proven science rather than an haphazard passing remark with no foundation, backing, credentials, references or even an attempt at a debate, had you have one to give.

Look at you filling in the blanks where they don't exist. I thought you were better than that; going all presumptuous on my intentions?

I don't care about the results as I have no point to prove here one way or the other. I do care about the validity of the study. They broke the golden rule in medical research of failing to isolate what they are trying to measure. There are too many uncontrolled variables at play to draw any specific conclusions. The study opens up interesting possibilities, that require more focussed investigation, but it proves nothing. I think you already know that, presuming you read the study?
post #161 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGolfAnalogy View Post


Look at you filling in the blanks where they don't exist. I thought you were better than that; going all presumptuous on my intentions?

I don't care about the results as I have no point to prove here one way or the other. I do care about the validity of the study. They broke the golden rule in medical research of failing to isolate what they are trying to measure. There are too many uncontrolled variables at play to draw any specific conclusions. The study opens up interesting possibilities, that require more focussed investigation, but it proves nothing. I think you already know that, presuming you read the study?

 

The study doesn't open up any possibilities.  Interval training has been known to work for a good many decades.  You can Google Igloi for instance.

 

The study is however a good example of the perplexing continual misinformation around sports science.  Some guys did a poorly designed study that doesn't break any new ground and got it published.  Well, that's easy to do.  They fed it to a NYT reporter who doesn't know any better, and got it hailed as some sort of new thing, instead of a poorly designed study of something that's been known for decades.  Given the rigor, or lack of rigor, at the NYT, that's also easy to do.  

 

It also offers the equivalent of a get-rich-quick scheme in terms of training.  Selling get rich quick schemes is also easy to do.  

 

Why is the study completely irrelevant to a serious trainer or serious athlete?  Well, look again at the fact that it's poor science and looking at an old idea that, in context, was always know to work.  And then, because the people doing the study 1) weren't looking for it and 2) likely may not have known to look for it, they didn't "discover" the long-term fallout in terms of fitness that would be inevitable.  That also has been known about for a good many decades.  

 

There are good studies out there that the NYT reporter was too lazy to look for or discuss, plus it's always possible that a rigorous analysis of a poorly done study wouldn't have led to any buzz.


Edited by CTKook - 4/30/16 at 6:40am
post #162 of 169

Both of you are simply tossing out opinion stated as fact yet that brings with it no informational foundation, credentialized opinions, references nor any attempt at deliberation or reasoning whatsoever. The most recent of which, does not even demonstrate “a common language used in training and in describing the underlying processes”. Initially you deny the study's validity then casually migrate to concede that it is valid but old news. That kind of wavering alone sinks the ship of any argument. It is good that you are here, though, otherwise I may forget that I am on the internet. :)

post #163 of 169
Leaving aside the cynical aspects of CTKook's comments, well justified as they may be IMO, this report really doesn't break new ground. As Jamt points out, almost any level and type of exercise produces improvements in untrained individuals. Activation of genes such as mTOR occurs quickly, because the basal level is very low, and the adaptation pathways can't do more than they can do regardless of the stimulus. This is the basis for programs like Tabata and why they work for some short periods. As subjects become fitter, parameters like VO2 max plateau whereas muscle adaptations can continue for many years, even decades, but require duration rather than intensity.

Those, I fear, are the facts.
post #164 of 169
So Rich what are your world cup points? All this talk about fitness programs aside are you, or have you ever been an Olympic, or world cup level athlete? If not suggesting expertise and experience at that level rings pretty hollow. Nor do I believe you are a couch potato. That all points to other factors that make you a great, or not so great skier. Not attacking here, just pointing out that over obsessing in one area often takes time and energy away from other areas of development. Skiing take more than being a gym rat. Nuff said?
post #165 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDaysNight View Post
muscle adaptations can continue for many years, even decades, but require duration rather than intensity.

 

Yes, but you can cheat it a bit with food timing.

post #166 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDaysNight View Post

Leaving aside the cynical aspects of CTKook's comments, well justified as they may be IMO, this report really doesn't break new ground. As Jamt points out, almost any level and type of exercise produces improvements in untrained individuals. Activation of genes such as mTOR occurs quickly, because the basal level is very low, and the adaptation pathways can't do more than they can do regardless of the stimulus. This is the basis for programs like Tabata and why they work for some short periods. As subjects become fitter, parameters like VO2 max plateau whereas muscle adaptations can continue for many years, even decades, but require duration rather than intensity.

Those, I fear, are the facts.  [emphasis added]

 

Regarding VO2max, I'd add that as it's more of a concept than a clear physical boundary, and further doesn't correlate well to performance even for middle distance runners, it's an odd thing for researchers to continually pay a lot of attention to.  It is easily measured, which is one explanation:  we tend to study those things that are easy to study.  VO2 max may be most useful in studying the progress of doping efforts, but that's (hopefully) not too relevant to the standard "serious student of the sport" for alpine skiing.

 

Movement - wise, a corollary here would be worrying about stretching too much.  Racers benefit from working on flexibility, but the average "student of the sport" isn't using near the range of motion they have available.  This ties into references to stationary bikes.  For those times when people are restricted to working out indoors, they're great.  For all other times, someone who rides outside and devotes at least some time to bike handling every time out will get a lot of crossover benefit.  This is so even though some aspects of bike handling are the reverse of what one does on-snow to turn.  Your brain does a good job naturally figuring out the "rules" for the two activities, but the commonalities, of which there are many, do get worked on while doing each.  This is includes learning to actually use more than the few centimeters of range of motion often seen displayed by even pretty good skiers.   This is likewise so for, for instance, steep hiking up and down ski areas in the summer, which is a great training activity when off snow.  But, hiking a beautifully done trail doesn't have the same carryover.  One is walking a trail, the other requires sliding at times and in other regards is closer to skiing.

post #167 of 169
Agree about VO2 max and for that matter vVO2 max.
post #168 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

So Rich what are your world cup points? All this talk about fitness programs aside are you, or have you ever been an Olympic, or world cup level athlete? If not suggesting expertise and experience at that level rings pretty hollow. Nor do I believe you are a couch potato. That all points to other factors that make you a great, or not so great skier. Not attacking here, just pointing out that over obsessing in one area often takes time and energy away from other areas of development. Skiing take more than being a gym rat. Nuff said?

JASP, please point out exactly where in these or any of my posts where I "suggest" any personal level of ability regarding fitness, skiing or anything else for that matter. I would genuinely like to know. I have been known to sleepwalk in my youth and now you have me concerned that I am sleep posting due to my lack in recollection of whatever point it is you would like to stretch. It is my opinion that making any such unsubstantiated claims, whether true or not, on an anonymous forum is actually very discrediting and something you will not find on any my profile's list of posts. Go take a look. They are right there for you to peruse.

 

Honestly, JASP, what truly rings hollow are your frequent tendency for "suggestive" name dropping on these threads. If you are also concerned about the possibility of sleep posting and, if you like, it should only take me a few minutes to paste and copy numerous examples of yours in the last month alone. Meanwhile, feel free to do the same regarding your own claims that I make suggestions regarding myself. While I would rather have not brought this up in regards to your "reminiscing" of times gone by, something I can usually appreciate from my elders, I am also aware that learning about hypocrisy is a life long journey for many.

 

The biggest point that you bumble is that one of the main reasons I advocate metabolic training is that it keeps you OUT of the gym. I am also humored by your assurance that you are not "attacking" me immediately after slewing erroneous negative comments. A lot of great critical thinking going on as the hamster in your wheel squeaks to a grinding halt to go poop in the corner of his little cage. :)

post #169 of 169
The thread is not about fitness. Don't know how else to express that, YM shared his fitness program and that by itelf should give pause to all the suggestions that his fitness program is lacking. Stop trying to suggest otherwise.

Additionally all the slams towards VRI and their teaching staffs suggested all of those folks just sit around because a few whiners saw FTR as a challenge. My understanding is it mainly looked for disabilities and functional challenges. Not fitness levels in any of the activities beyond the 5 minute box warm up. They didn't even take pulses after that step test so again that strongly suggests the focus was not on aerobic fitness. Was it too easy? That is for Katz and his folks to say. Did it reduce injuries? Again that is theirs to share. No one here should try to speak for them, it simply is not appropriate to do so.

As far as who I mention, they are who they are and knowing who helped me form my opinions is the extent of why I mention them. Finally, my comment about my world was to suggest many of us do not become couch potatoes ever. If we did we would be a liability for the company when teaching our high end clients, especially if we couldn't even keep up with them. Why would they allow that? The answer is they don't. That would be stupid on their part.
Edited by justanotherskipro - 5/1/16 at 2:30pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Skiing improvement for professionals