Posted by Cris LaBossiere (24.66.94.141) on December 13, 2003 at 11:06:13:
In Reply to: Re: Questions... posted by DanZ on December 11, 2003 at 09:27:01:
Dan,
It’s true, all systems are trained throughout the year, but we change the emphasis of the system trained, and the intensity that it is trained based on logical progression of training. To increase benefit of training a particular aspect of performance, the dominant system must be trained dominantly, another Bompa concept.
And now the LaBossiere concept;
It should be understood that separating systems is physiologically impossible, we can only change emphasis. For instance, how could we train the nervous system without the muscle contracting? And of if muscles are contracting they need fuel, so of course this will use the aerobic and/ or anaerobic system. You can’t separate these things and it is important not to get caught up in trying to train one and not the other.
What does occur though is that a certain threshold of stimulus is required to provoke a profound training response. So where weight training definitely makes the heart beat faster and increases the need for oxygen supply to muscles, the demand on the aerobic pathways is so miniscule (doesn’t meet the threshold of stimulus required to get a large response) we don’t count it, so we don’t expect large aerobic gains from weight training. You can make this type of generalization with all the so-called separate systems.
Training each system allways involves more than one system being used at one time. The intensity and duration of muscle contraction dictate the dominant system used. Periodization is not about putting neural training before aerobic training and such, this is impossible, since the neural system is active all the time. If your emphasis were on skill, then you would be careful not to train so hard that skill diminished.
We can change the dominant system trained, but we can’t totally separate. Periodization is about brining up all systems from a lower state to a higher state progressively, and placing the dominant system trained in a logical order. We need an aerobic base before we can tolerate anaerobic intervals well. We need good neural patterning (technique/ skill) for economy of motion. We need strength to precede power.
Don’t worry so much about the different systems conflicting with one another, just be aware of how to ensure one or two systems are dominant when you are trying to train that aspect of performance. Training proceeds very logically when we start easy and build gradually. A hint for priority though, the two cornerstones of human performance are aerobic performance and muscular strength. Even in sprinting aerobic performance is needed because the more aerobically fit a sprinter is the more they can tolerate anaerobic training.
Fatigue. If your training goal is 40 kph and you fatigue so that you are no going 38kph, are you still training all systems to match this specific goal of 40KPH?
If you are trying to lift 50 lbs 20x in 30 seconds and you do this for 2 sets but on the 3rd set it takes you 35 seconds, should you do the 4th set? Can you still benefit from lifting the same weight the same number of times, but slower because of fatigue? These are good questions for fatigue. We don’t have a lot of research to answer these fatigue questions definitively, but we do know that training through fatigue leads to reduced performance and injury. Exactly where to draw the line is what is in question. The LaBossiere concept says “be conservative”.
I write about these subjects in my monthly company newsletter. I have about 60 articles. I don't mind sharing my original material here so long as its put to good use and you remember where you got the idea.
I do presentaions here reguarly on training therory and application, mabye in the next couple years i'll make it out to where you all live make a presentation there. it would be great to put a face to all this communication.