As promised in the
recent article about A+A training, we are kicking off the “A+A Q&A” series. We will intersperse A+A issues with “our regular programming.”
Russian coach Andrey Kozhurkin made a 50,000-foot observation on the two diametrically opposed philosophies of stimulating adaptation.
The traditional one is pushing to the limit: “What does not kill me, makes me stronger.”
The alternative is to train to “avoid (or at least delay) the unfavorable internal conditions…that lead to failure” or reduced performance.
Let us use strength training as an example. Most bodybuilders and recreational athletes use the first approach. They train to failure.
In contrast, strength athletes such as Olympic weightlifters and powerlifters follow the second approach. 1,000-pound squatter Dr. Fred Hatfield famously proclaimed that one ought to “train to success,” as opposed to failure. The differences between the American and Russian powerlifting methodologies notwithstanding, both countries’ strength elites share the same conviction that failure is not an option.
In endurance training the first philosophy represents the consensus. Coaches expose athletes to acid baths to improve buffering. This is what Arthur Jones from Nautilus called “metabolic conditioning” back in 1975.
Verkhoshansky went the other way.
The scientist explained his train of thought:
