all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Aerobic Improvement vs Something Else

  • Thread starter Deleted member 5559
  • Start date
Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Deleted member 5559

Guest
When performing something like a MAF test, how does a person know if improvement is coming from aerobic improvement or something else?

Is it possible to see test times drop from improvement in movement efficiency, strength, weight loss, relative effort but not actually have any aerobic improvement?

What other ways test aerobic function that isolate that single attribute?
 
@Bro Mo
I think that’s a really good question, and one that has so many variables that it might be hard to measure accurately.

For example... Technique in locomotive activities such as x-country skiing, swimming, running, and cycling plays a huge component in efficiency. Some sloppy technique can be dialed in pretty quickly, and once done, the practitioner is going to see a marked improvement in performance; without (I think) any change in AeT or AnT. Conversely however... the performance improvement should also be a gateway to improvement in aerobic qualities.

Interesting stuff however...

Uphill Athlete had a zoom session a while back on ‘free speed’
 
Bro Mo said:
When performing something like a MAF test, how does a person know if improvement is coming from aerobic improvement or something else?

Is it possible to see test times drop from improvement in movement efficiency, strength, weight loss, relative effort but not actually have any aerobic improvement?

What other ways test aerobic function that isolate that single attribute?
Click to expand...
Yes it is possible. And likely that they occur as well. The fewer variables that change the more you can isolate that it is the reason for improvement. Many aerobic improvements are going to be highly context specific - it isn’t to say they won’t carry over, but you may be so incompetent at moving that you won’t see them carry over.
 
Hello,

What I will say is only what I noticed on by body and training. I did this experiment a while ago:
- I tend to run better (time improvement) on relatively short distances (10k as a max) when I weigh between 57-60kg. This is even more noticable when I add no more than 2 HIIT sessions a week.
- When I go for longer distances, I notice a decrease in performance (HIIT or not). Usually, I get tired faster.
- When I am heavier and (60-65kg), I still get my "baseline" for 10k, but run better for longer distance (up to 25k).

This is based on 2 / 3 running sessions a week in all cases. The only thing I possibly add is HIIT. Terrain and elevation are the same: woods

As a sidenote, I noticed that I am globally a better runner when my leg are not "stiff" due to other kind of aerobic activies (mostly gardenning and rucking).

I do not consider myself as an "avid and experienced runner". Then I think we can consider my running technique the same.

My running is usually better when I pair it with strength training (mainly swings and pistol squats)

Maybe it would be possible to test with an activity which is not [really] technique dependant (from my novice standpoint): bicycle

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
pet' said:
Maybe it would be possible to test with an activity which is not [really] technique dependant (from my novice standpoint): bicycle
Click to expand...
Actually cycling is technique dependent and to a high degree in some cases.
Things that come to mind are:
  • Aerodynamic position on the bike
  • Cadence
  • Being able to pedal ‘in circles’
 
Hello,

@offwidth
I thought about an indoor training test actually.

However, I did not know about the "pedal in circles thing" ! (But I trust your experience as I do not use a cycle that often)

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
Pedaling in circles is still a thing on an indoor trainer...

Maybe a better ‘test’ would be walking on a treadmill set to a steep incline. That would minimize technique issues...
 
Hello,

@offwidth
The indoor idea was to get the aerodynamics out of the equation ;)

Here are different protocol used, among them walking as you suggest:
exercise.trekeducation.org

Aerobic Endurance Testing -

Two Minute Step test 6 minute walk test (6MWT) Cooper 12minute run test 2.4km Run test Beep test Bruce and Balke-Ware treadmill protocol ** make the test specific to the person, population and sport Supporting Articles/Texts/References Marlow, N., Hastings, K., & Hansson, J. (2014). Exercise &...
exercise.trekeducation.org

Here is another one interesting link:

Aerobic Endurance Measures and Analyses

The VO2max test is the most effective measurement of the body’s ability to deliver and use oxygen for producing energy that can be used by the muscles. VO2max (i.e., maximum aerobic power) simply stands for the maximal volume of oxygen that can be used.
www.nsca.com www.nsca.com

Below is a quote from the 2nd article:
"Keep in mind the basic calculations that are used to derive oxygen consumption values. Basically, oxygen consumption (VO2) is equal to cardiac output multiplied by the difference in arterial and venous blood oxygen (A-V O2 difference) concentrations.

This is expressed by the following equation:
VO2 = cardiac output (Q) × (A-V) O2 difference
Cardiac output is determined by the following:
Cardiac output = heart rate × stroke volume
Therefore, oxygen consumption can also be expressed this way:
VO2 = heart rate × stroke volume × (A-V) O2 difference"

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
@Steve Freides
In simplest terms it is just covering a fixed distance at your MAF Heart Rate and recording the time it took. By repeating the test over time one can see if they are making ‘aerobic improvements’ or not and then adjust their training appropriately if needed.

Typically done using running or cycling as a modality although rowing and other locomotive activities work just as well as long as the ‘course’ is the same (along with the conditions)
 
offwidth said:
@Steve Freides
In simplest terms it is just covering a fixed distance at your MAF Heart Rate and recording the time it took. By repeating the test over time one can see if they are making ‘aerobic improvements’ or not and then adjust their training appropriately if needed.

Typically done using running or cycling as a modality although rowing and other locomotive activities work just as well as long as the ‘course’ is the same (along with the conditions)
Click to expand...
Ah, so the idea is that, at a given HR, you're looking for improved performance over time. Interesting idea ...

-S-
 
Steve Freides said:
Ah, so the idea is that, at a given HR, you're looking for improved performance over time. Interesting idea ...

-S-
Click to expand...
Yes, and it’s one of the most overlooked elements of the Maffetone Method. It gives direct feedback on whether it’s working.

For the OP, if new to MAF training, the early gains will be both aerobic and skill. But as time goes on, technique won’t change much, but fitness will continue to improve. In my dedicated MAF days racing XTERRA off road triathlon, I only did MAF tests for running, usually every couple weeks on the track. Cycling was too inconvenient. After I proved to myself its efficacy, I switched to what I call informal MAF tests. I made sure one run every week was done on the same flat course with no interruptions and kept an eye on my time.

As for free speed, I found that by taking a MTB skills clinic. It mainly helped me go faster through terrain obstacles, particularly downhill, but it all adds up. Faster without getting fitter.
 
vegpedlr said:
As for free speed, I found that by taking a MTB skills clinic. It mainly helped me go faster through terrain obstacles, particularly downhill, but it all adds up. Faster without getting fitter.
Click to expand...
One could argue - I won't - about what constitutes fitness and that its relevance to sport-specific performance, even endurance sports, is limited. E.g., distance runners do speed work to, at least in part, improve their mechanical efficiency at the business of running, again, not a thing related to fitness as measured by the MAF test we've been discussing.

OTOH, if I remember right about Lance Armstrong and his training, one of his observations was that the kind of "fitness" we're talking about here was one of the areas in which he felt he could make the most improvement, and that, in turn, was the origin of his significantly faster pedaling cadence on the bike. The high cadence demanded more "fitness" but not more of anything else, it seemed.

Interesting stuff - I was a run/bike/swim guy for a good long while, and one of the things I did was ride a fixed gear. My riding buddies told me I looked like a sewing machine going down hills at times, but it was a good thing for me overall and still, if I was going to ride again, would be my preferred kind of road riding. I think I still have at least two different fixties in my garage, one with a lower gear for around town here and another with a bigger gear I used to use for road rides.

I ramble ...

-S-
 
Skill vs fitness for improvement is an interesting topic. In my case, improving bike handling skills made me faster without having to get fitter, to a point. Long fire road climbs are still all about fitness. But better handling preserves more of my engine for those climbs. Likewise, getting stronger has helped, as I can punch through an obstacle and then settle back into an aerobic cadence without redlining, which I couldn’t do before with strict MAF training. Finding the moves with the best cross over also helps, swings, C&P, and loaded carries.

It’s interesting to note elite training. World Cup MTB XC courses have become much more technical in recent years. You can’t just Coast downhill to recover after vomiting a lung after the climb. WC riders now have to train the DH stuff almost as hard. Races are no longer determined primarily by the climbs, you have to descend fast too.

Current best in the world Niño Schurter exemplifies this:



Not for the average rider, but it’s interesting to see the thinking at the pointy end.
 
I've been wondering about this a little too - lately I've seen a little improvement in my LED, and have been wondering how much is do to cardiac improvement and how much is due to dropping a little weight.

I wonder if you could do some kind of ruck test where you match the ruck to a specific weight: bodyweight + ruck weight = constant. But certainly there's still a technique aspect to that, as well as a weight distribution aspect.
 
vegpedlr said:
Current best in the world Niño Schurter exemplifies this:



Not for the average rider, but it’s interesting to see the thinking at the pointy end.
Click to expand...

Ok, I have a new fantasy, way out there goal: ascending stairs on one leg while jumping up multiple stair steps at a time.

That would make a lot of other things easier including winning a few gentlemen's wagers.
 
I don’t think y’all can get away from t he specificity bit. This is like talking about building the press, and whether your improvements are from skill, strength, or hypertrophy changing your mechanical advantage. The answer is yes.

You’ll see an initial improvement mostly based on skill, but while that fraction of the improvement drops off significantly it never goes away. The longer you perform zone 2 work in a specific modality (e.g. running) you’ll see less and less improvement coming from skill.

Big initial improvements are usually a sign of skill improvements. Physiological improvements are usually slower. Changes related to weight ... well if you have a big change in weight you may see an improvement, but I attribute much less to that. I’m running slower Zone 2 now T 210lbs than I was 5 years ago at 245lbs. There’s a lot that goes into that. Since January my zone 2 times have dropped from 16 min/mile to 12 min/mile and my weight dropped from 235 to 210. That 4 min/mile change is partially attributed to weight and partially to skill, and partially to adaptation. Trying to determine how much is to X or Y is getting lost in the weeds.

When improvements stop occurring, change is required. But looking at endurance research seems to indicate zone 2 training gains occur over time spans of years. I think Mike Prevost has a couple videos on that.
 
The MTB skills coach I worked with helped a local semi pro XC racer who he described as having sparks coming out of his head from all the wasted energy. Very fit both aerobically and anaerobically, but leaving a lot of watts on the side of the trail.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom