all posts post new thread

Old Forum finshers

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
ali

ali

Level 7 Valued Member
There is a craze going around about 'finishers', or metabolic boosts or tabatas that are tagged on to the end of a practice - or dare I say it here!, a workout. Done at a high intensity to either replace steady state cardio stuff or to deplete glycogen or fat loss or surge in human growth hormone or VO2 max la-de-dah. I know they're not exactly new either, I did similar in football training 30 years ago but they are 'on trend' so to speak. Got me thinking, though.....

To maximise power and strength, that's done first in a practice and then strength endurance, a la S&S. For any skills work, technique is done first, when fresh and for any max power training that is done when fresh too ie sprinting, max power followed by long rest to replenish creatine phosphate to enable more power work at maximum speed. Plyometric training is similar, done when fresh and never to fatigue with adequate recovery in the days after. So the cns  is always firing at maximum efficiency and power. It would appear then that by doing a finisher at high intensity when already fatigued, at least heading that way, will be counter productive for athletic performance. Should they not be called 'starters'? I can see the cardio benefits but then is it not better to address conditioning, lactate training etc in a separate session if that is the specific goal?

Interested to hear some thoughts...

 

Alistair

 
 
Unfortunately I really don't have any intelligent answers to respond to your post.  You do pose good questions.  Whenever I engage in a predominately barbell program with lots of rest between sets I find myself missing kettlebell ballistics.  I have added very short sets of double long cycle clean & jerk, and double snatches at the end of barbell routines.  Doing this can make recovery an issue over time. The cardio bump at the end of a workout may not be worth the cost of recovery.

I too would be interested to know how others utilize finishers.

 
 
Hi,

I posted a question around finishers a while ago on another forum but it didn't garner many replies. I queried if your main workout was intended for strength and you completed the workout with a finisher then potentially you have subjected your body to two opposing stimuli. In view of this which would the body adapt to - stress  - adaptation. Could a finisher limit the adaptation to a training session aimed at developing strength?

I suppose once again it depends on people's goals.
 
I'm no expert, but I am not sure it is fair to say they are "opposing stimuli".  I've heard that HIIT helps spike growth hormone in addition to the VO2 max benefits.  I think folks that incorporate hill sprints, sled work, battle ropes into their strength programs find good results.  Come to think of it, the RoP sort of has built-in "finishers" with the swings/snatches after the C&P ladders.
 
Alistair, a short glycolytic effort does boost GH and helps to build muscle and lose fat.  The key is to keep it very short, especially if you are trying to build muscle.  Anything causing high levels of fatigue within 20 hours after a hypertrophy workout compromises muscle gains.

 
 
Spaseeba Pavel, so if doing anything at high intensity  (if conditioned enough to do it, that is) better to program in a day of rest before, if having done some strength training and a rest day after, or potentially undo any muscle gains. Sprinting or lactate threshold training (ie 400 intervals) would come under that category too I guess.
 
Alistair, I am not sure I follow.  Please refer to ES for the optimal order of different types of exercise.
 
Pavel, sorry - it is probably because I'm not sure I'm following either!

What I'm training to get my head around - perhaps overthinking it a bit, I know - would high intensity finishers conflict with performance goals? I can see the positive benefits of finishers and tabata intervals particularly but if I can use a more specific example - I'm doing S&S right now and will probably do so for the foreseeable future to some degree when I start sprint training again. I like tabata sprints - long warm up - 4 minutes 100% 20/10 - relax. Done. I also do short sprints and build ups, plyos with long rest intervals to maintain max efficiency in explosive power. During tabata sprints my performance, distance covered drops obviously and technique suffers as I'm whacking out on the lactate build up and heart rate is in orbit. During more power based practice I'm resting a lot to train the body to work at maximum speed and power, not unlike I guess the swings in S&S.

So, is there a conflict? I'm guessing that if there is a trade off, this will be offset if I allow adequate rest days following any high intensity tabatas? In which case I'm training 3 energy systems generally with no detrimental effects. On the other hand, say a couple of days with S&S, 1 day max explosive training and then the next day a strength session ending up with a tabata sprint would result in too much stress, torn hamstrings and death. So in short, tabatas are cool so long as recovery time is programmed in accordingly. Does that seem a reasonable conclusion? And in so far as KB strength training is concerned not unlike the snatch training in ETK - high intensity quality once a week. And then now and then test it out - not unlike a race day. Sorry maybe a bad analogy.

thanks again
 
Alistair, Tabatas would compromise your S&S gains by destroying mitochondria in fast twitch muscles.  A "finisher" does not fit the S&S model at all.

It is acceptable for a typical strength training session (e.g., ladders), as long as it is very brief, e.g. one hard set of swings or even a high rep set of squats or presses with 50% of your max.
 
So is a little stroll ala farmers walk or sandbag carry ok after?
 
I have been finishing my BB routine (Inverted Juggernaut 2.0) with 5 rounds of 20/40 2H swings.  My workout consists of a main lift (squat, bench, OHP, DL) followed by 3 accessories (pull-ups, double KB press, single KB snatch, lat pulldowns, T-bar rows, Kroc rows) depending on the day, and then the swings.  I have not had any issues with recovery but based on the above, is this too much as an exercise to complete the day?  I have found it difficult to find info on a "hybrid" program mixing heavy barbells with KB.  I would also appreciate any sources I could go to for Hybrid info.
 
Pavel,

Interesting about intense glycolytic work destroying mitochondria in fast twitch fibers.  Do you have a link to the study that concluded this?

Do you know if this occurs in both a high-carb and lower-carb intake as well?  And, what type of training were the subjects exposed to prior to the intervention?

I've observed that strength and power training work well together, and, as an option, LSD can be effectively incorporated without draining recovery.  This is a successful plan for most people - here's your S&S.

Glycolytic stuff comes easy / goes fast, but can be successfully peppered into the routine based on recovery.  However, as you say, it will limit strength and power goals, so use sparingly.  One comment here: we all have very different abilities to recover, so what your buddy or someone else in your gym is able to do w/r to glycolytic work, may not apply to you.  This is overlooked ... and causes a lot of confusion.

Muscle mass is another thing altogether.  Other than having been an 18 year old male once myself, I don't know why folks chase mass for the sake of mass itself.

Thanks Pavel ... for everything.

-Al
 
Al - after posting about this and with Pavel's answer I investigated further to satisfy my inner geek. I found this which supports the argument:

http://www.drmyhill.co.uk/wiki/exercise_-_the_right_sort

No doubt there are other resources, Pavel being one of them. I guess it all comes down to your goals, current fitness, age, gender, genetics, diet, stress levels, what kind of recovery and many, many variables - one man's tabata is another's cardiac arrest maybe. I posted the original question to clear up my confusion and doubts over HIIT combined with S&S and whether or not there is conflict with S&S, which there is.

This is probably a rubbish analogy - compare an elite 400m runner to an elite 100m runner (my original post was related to sprinting). I agree with you that training for mass in itself for aesthetic reasons maybe shouldn't be a goal but it is for many  - I personally train for function and have never been 'muscly' anyway - but if you compare the bodies of 2 types of sprinter (leaving marathoners aside), one is strong, lean, powerful and athletic, the other has the same attributes but with turbo-charged type 2b muscles and is bigger and more powerful, generally speaking. One trains lactic, the other alactic. 400m sprinting is a near death experience, doing the 100 isn't. And in general a 400 runner will have better carry over to most running sports and athletics. I probably look more like a 400 runner - generally athletic - than a 100 but want to beef up my turbos. If that results in increased muscle size then I'll take it but it isn't a goal, just better performance. Although not running just now and just doing S&S with some lighter strength focus and skills, it absolutely suits me as a lead up to doing more sprint specific work. That's not to say of course that a 400 runner wouldn't do plyos or explosive work for strength but if they didn't do lactic training they would jeopardise the latter stage of the race, so they must do both, so there will be a trade-off - less type 2b power. Exactly what Pavel said - less mitochondria in those fibres.

It is perhaps a gross simplification  but think it makes a reasonable visual comparison for the differences and effects of different energy training systems. And again, thanks Pavel for sorting me out. And too everyone who has contributed of course.
 
btw - if you go to that link, I only posted it as it looks at the mitochondrial fast twitch issue. Needless to say, the recommended exercises may not go down too well here! I'm not endorsing the use of any machines but each to their own.....
 
Alistair,

To your original post, yes, finishers can rob you of performance.  And they are popular among "exercisers" because they are touted to burn more fat than LSD work.  I'm leaning toward your suspicions: power and strength work (PCr / alactic) mixed with LSD work (oxidative), while trying not to get too deep into glycolytic work.  5min snatch comes to mind as a cap.

Training the PCr and oxidative systems predominantly, leave me feeling fresh after sessions, while glycolytic work (as you say, your 400m's) leave me drained and unproductive all day.

What I think is often overlooked is the nutritional effect on training.  We talk about training fuel systems through exercise but never through nutrition.  The body adapts to what it is exposed to and this also works for nutritional practices.

Volek and Phinney (The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance) discussed how low-carbohydrate eating causes physiological changes which favor fatty acids use at higher intensities of work.  This adaptation may take months and years but is that any different from exercise adaptation?  We have to remember that everything we understand about training is set in the context of a "normal" diet, and some with an abnormal diet of unlimited glucose.

Being a long time (20 years) low-carb eater myself, and one who counsels others, I can tell you that  performance levels came back after the initial drop off, and continue to increase over time.  It's quite possible that the gap / and intensity between the PCr and oxidative system dominance for ATP supply narrows sharply as the body adapts to a lack of glucose, but I'm speculating here.

-Al
 
Al - interesting, when you work the alactic system are you not ravenous afterwards? That is for carbs?

I agree, nutrition is overlooked. After a S&S session, I can eat my own bodyweight in food. I have an early warning system - if I start eating my own socks, then I need to up my carbs a bit. Sleep and stress too impact massively on recovery. Finishers are pretty stressful, so everything needs to be assessed. Generally though I feel fresh, stronger and leaner with S&S and the ditching of lactate work for the time being. I haven't run for a while, so see if that all translates into better performance when I resume.  Thanks for your inputs, interesting stuff.
 
"Interesting about intense glycolytic work destroying mitochondria in fast twitch fibers.  Do you have a link to the study that concluded this?"

Al, Prof. Victor Seluyanov's work, and I do not believe it is available in English.  His research has been successfully applied on Russian national teams from a variety of sports, from bicycle racing to wrestling.

The supposed mechanism is: the mitochondria clean up H+, convert it to water, and if there is too much H+, they literally blow up.
 
More for Al.

"Do you know if this occurs in both a high-carb and lower-carb intake as well?"

I do not but I do not think it would matter.

" And, what type of training were the subjects exposed to prior to the intervention?"

Please explain.

"I’ve observed that strength and power training work well together, and, as an option, LSD can be effectively incorporated without draining recovery."

Yes—if you are careful and moderate.

"This is a successful plan for most people – here’s your S&S."

S&S trains alactacid power and capacity and aerobic recovery, minimizing glycolysis.

"Glycolytic stuff comes easy / goes fast"

Exactly.  No need to get hammered with it all the time.

", but can be successfully peppered into the routine based on recovery."

The back-off sets I recommended in this "finisher" thread is no longer than 1min in duration (to limit mitochondria damage) and is intended to spike GH, rather than cause an increase in glycolytic conditioning. A study by Goto found that it enhances strength and muscle building benefits of a low rep strength session.

 
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom