Anaerobic training detrimental to aerobic condition?
- Thread starter root
- Start date
I've always wondered about deep physiological relationships that would make anaerobic work detrimental to aerobic fitness, but at the system level it seems pretty simple.root said:
We're all time and energy limited in terms of training and recovery. It's easy to speculate what might happen if we could do unlimited training every week and recover completely but we can't. From that standpoint, time and energy spent on anaerobic training comes at the expense of aerobic development. Both in terms of time in level for FTP gains and overall training load for CTL gains or maintenance. Mass start racing requires anaerobic fitness as well as a solid base of sustainable power so eventually we have to allocate some of our training time and energy to high end development but it comes at a cost.
Anyway, I'm also curious as to what if any physiological changes happen during L6 training that would decrease sustainable power. But from a big picture perspective it's pretty easy to see how time spent on high end work comes at the expense of building sustainable power or total workload.
Probably not the answer you were looking for, but IMHO it's academic to discuss the tradeoffs of training different intensities if we don't also consider our overall training blend including limits on training time, mental and physical energy and our ability to recover so that we can work again.
-Dave
I understand that one can not improve both aerobic and anaerobic fitness at the same time and since aerobic fitness takes longer to develop more time has to be allocated to it. But I wonder if this is all that is meant when people say this? i.e. once you start doing anaerobic work which requires more recovery time between workouts, you basically peak your aerobic fitness at that point and try to maintain it as much as possible?
Or is there something more fundamental going on at the physiological level, like you are suggesting. I hope more experts can chime in.
Or is there something more fundamental going on at the physiological level, like you are suggesting. I hope more experts can chime in.
The following Link is a quick search. Perhaps there are more available.
By 25 years of experience in competitive strength sports my own experience has led me to believe rigidly in sports specific training and to make the avenue to the goal as streamlined and as efficient as possible. Mainly by what Dave is suggesting and that is the ability to recover. The link that I provided states a positive improvement in both areas, but I personally do not believe it is possible at a higher level of competitive training and might I say that my competitive days were tainted with PED use. We used PED's because enhanced recovery was gained and that was under a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic training. Training progressively with weights was hard enough, but then to throw in aerobics in order to meet a certain weight class made it almost impossible for the body to recover day by day.
Current day since I am not a competitive athlete I do cross train year round (drug free), but it is very hard for a recreational trainer to recover under those conditions. I have to limit both in order to recover. Therefore, I cannot fully train at the level in cycling to get the gains of someone who trains exclusively in cycling. I have been making gains as a cyclist, but I am losing ground in strength training.
If one is talking about achieving maximum peak conditions for a particular activity then I am skeptical about the study link that I provided. However in one of the last statements before the conclusions it does mention based on intensity, volume and so on. But I am stubborn in my view that competitive training is intense and progressive.
By 25 years of experience in competitive strength sports my own experience has led me to believe rigidly in sports specific training and to make the avenue to the goal as streamlined and as efficient as possible. Mainly by what Dave is suggesting and that is the ability to recover. The link that I provided states a positive improvement in both areas, but I personally do not believe it is possible at a higher level of competitive training and might I say that my competitive days were tainted with PED use. We used PED's because enhanced recovery was gained and that was under a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic training. Training progressively with weights was hard enough, but then to throw in aerobics in order to meet a certain weight class made it almost impossible for the body to recover day by day.
Current day since I am not a competitive athlete I do cross train year round (drug free), but it is very hard for a recreational trainer to recover under those conditions. I have to limit both in order to recover. Therefore, I cannot fully train at the level in cycling to get the gains of someone who trains exclusively in cycling. I have been making gains as a cyclist, but I am losing ground in strength training.
If one is talking about achieving maximum peak conditions for a particular activity then I am skeptical about the study link that I provided. However in one of the last statements before the conclusions it does mention based on intensity, volume and so on. But I am stubborn in my view that competitive training is intense and progressive.
But when you were bodybuilding (guessing? not power lifting) you went through the usual cycle of low aerobic heavy weights/low reps, put on weight and as you got closer to competition, low weight/high reps and cardio and loose weight/water...
It sounded like form your post you were always training both at the same time. In my personal experience from trying to do both, it all comes down to recovery time. But I wonder how the slow twitch and fast twitch argument comes into play. I noticed on Saturday when I tried to do Deadlifts which I have not ventured into for a while I felt a bit off. Yet my legs are bigger and I am seeing progress on the trainer.
I remember when I was reading Mike Mentzer that really what works for you may not work for anyone else. You just have to experiement to find out but the one constant I have found is to always have the body in a state of discomfort which will produce adaptations. Once you are too comfortable you are lost.
-Js
It sounded like form your post you were always training both at the same time. In my personal experience from trying to do both, it all comes down to recovery time. But I wonder how the slow twitch and fast twitch argument comes into play. I noticed on Saturday when I tried to do Deadlifts which I have not ventured into for a while I felt a bit off. Yet my legs are bigger and I am seeing progress on the trainer.
I remember when I was reading Mike Mentzer that really what works for you may not work for anyone else. You just have to experiement to find out but the one constant I have found is to always have the body in a state of discomfort which will produce adaptations. Once you are too comfortable you are lost.
-Js
Felt_Rider said:
jsirabella said:
You were almost close to guessing my training style since that is common, but in the off season I trained primarily with weights and no cardio. The off season was actually my sports specific training period. Pre contest training was a mixture of both and the most stressful period of trying to peak. At that point recovery was very difficult. Two cardio sessions (one was using HITT) a day plus training two body parts per day. Higher reps were used only because by nature I could not handle the same off season weight. I typically had severe tendonitis in my knees and elbows that also kept me from using heavier weight close to competition.
At the moment my mind is burnt from a day of work, but I will end with saying that I agree with you in general on the last statement that I highlighted.
Stress the body -> Hopefully Recover -> Hopefully Adapt / Progress
Felt_Rider said:
IMHO, Felt's experience is pretty consistent. I was a wrestler and until recently coached at the youth and club level, so it is informed and experienced but by no means scientific or peer reviewed. From what I have seen over 20 plus years, there is a pretty clear trade off that comes with body weight and strength. The bigger you are, the stronger in absolute terms (provided there are no significant differences in body fat percentage, which there generally is not among better wrestlers until you get to the heavyweight ranks). And there appears to be a pretty clear trade off between pure aerobic capacity, i.e. endurance running or cycling, and the anaerobic strength you need to succeed in grappling type sports where you are only dealing with relatively brief, 2-3 minute periods. Every season early, I would learn that there was a huge difference between being able to run 5+ plus miles at a steady pace and the type of fitness required for wrestling. When I first started coaching, I included a lot of basic conditioning, i.e. running, suicides, etc. throughout the season but eventually learned that most of that was basically useless for wrestling performance aside from weight control for the bigger and lazier guys. Even heavy weightlifting was pretty useless because increased strength was pretty linear with increased bodyweight among trained wrestlers, who have relatively low body fat percentages to begin with, it could be a miracle worker with a pudgy kid but in season was a pretty bad time to start a conditioning program. .
At the same time, I can't stand to be one dimensional and realize that there are tradeoffs in both activities. I will never be as strong as I would be if I only lifted. As an aside, sprinting in brief spurts seems to help with strength, but jogging or endurance cycling don't have a positive effect. Conversely, lifting, the way I do to get stronger, relatively heavy weights at low repetitions, doesn't do squat for cardio fitness, and probably adds additional body mass that will keep my watts per kilo down a notch on the hills. If you want to be a stronger wrestler, it is hard to beat wrestling for developing the kind of strength that makes you a great wrestler. Again, if there is any conditioning, sprints seem to be the better option, than long jogs. For this reason, I would tend to think that cycling is the best exercise to make you a better cyclist. And weight lifting is tough to beat if you want to lift heavier weights.
FOR these reasons, I think that there is a real tradeoff from pure performance in either activity but I think strength, cardio, and flexibility (along with proper nutrition) are probably the best factors for optimum overall health, including injury prevention. It all depends upon your goals, you could certainly win the TdF without lifting any weights. And you could win an Olympic lifting competion without running or cardio, again except as a function of weight control to make weight, but I am not sure that type of one dimensional fitness is healthy in the long run. Plus, who wants to get sand kicked in thier face on the beach or dropped on a fast ride? Both prospects seem equally as terrifying so I do both.
Thanks for the comments. Majority of you talk about non-cycling specific anaerobic training (body building, wresling, powerlifting etc).
I am more interested in how cycing specific anaerobic training (e.g. 1 min intervals at 150% of FTP) affect the aerobic fitness and performance?
I am more interested in how cycing specific anaerobic training (e.g. 1 min intervals at 150% of FTP) affect the aerobic fitness and performance?
Even during 'anaerobic training' the aerobic systems are also engaged, so really both are being trained at the same time. The question is can you really do enough 'anaerobic work' to adequately stress the aerobic systems sufficiently to force an adaptation? In untrained individuals, studies suggest that the answer is yes, since the aerobic systems are poorly adapted to begin with (ie, a couch potato who spends 6 weeks doing wind sprints will improve his wind sprinting abilities and 5k times as well). In the case of trained individuals I think it's as Dave has put forth above, namely that the more developed the aerobic systems are the more stress is required to induce further adaptations and eventually the body runs out of ability to generate this stress through suboptimal means. It's only by specifically targetting the appropriate systems that we can continue to improve beyond a certain point.jsirabella said:
I would defer to wiser folks onthis forum but it appears as though L5 and L6 intervals do have their place in any routine. As to whether they are "detrimental" to overall aerobic fitness, i.e. FTP, I would think that "too much" could affect recovery and start to affect your overall FTP. IME, the ability to over do those type of intervals over a prolonged period seems self-limiting. They are just so damn hard that it is dificult to do too many in a short period. And certainly sprinters rarely win the overall in longer stage races so there is certainly a trade off in those events. .root said:
I admit we kind of digressed here as whenever I hear the work anaerobic I start thinking about weights and start going to the bodybuilding forums but in terms of cycling this is my feeling.
IMHO, if I am learning anything that Dave has been trying to impart upon me, the intervals of anaerobic training (L5,L6 and higher) are very short and very intense so they do nothing for your aerobic engine but are needed for racing and usally brought in as you get closer to race season. Now your question of will they harm your aerobic engine, I would have to conclude yes indirectly because as you do more and more of them you are not improving your aerobic engine and can be harming it as you will need more recovery time to go back to aerobic intervals of the 20 minute variety or higher depending if L3/SST/L4.
If I am wrong I am sure someone will tell you but I do not do many L5 intervals right now unless I am bored and want to push it up a notch. I really need for myself right now more L3/SST/L4 sessions.
-Js
IMHO, if I am learning anything that Dave has been trying to impart upon me, the intervals of anaerobic training (L5,L6 and higher) are very short and very intense so they do nothing for your aerobic engine but are needed for racing and usally brought in as you get closer to race season. Now your question of will they harm your aerobic engine, I would have to conclude yes indirectly because as you do more and more of them you are not improving your aerobic engine and can be harming it as you will need more recovery time to go back to aerobic intervals of the 20 minute variety or higher depending if L3/SST/L4.
If I am wrong I am sure someone will tell you but I do not do many L5 intervals right now unless I am bored and want to push it up a notch. I really need for myself right now more L3/SST/L4 sessions.
-Js
root said:
A minor point maybe, but L5 (VO2 Max) work is aerobic work. It's the top end of sustainable aerobic effort but still primarily aerobic.jsirabella said:
As you know I'm not doing much L5 right now and building base with SST and L4 but there are a lot of strategies and approaches to this stuff. I wouldn't say that L5 and even some L6 doesn't build aerobic fitness, it's all a continuum after all, but that you can do a better job of building both FTP and CTL with SST and L4 work this time of year.
Just nitpicking a little......
-Dave
Similar threads
