Dr. Coggan- physiology

Hockey-cyclist said:

I do not believe that L4 and L5 work will increase sprinting speed though but maybe I am wrong.

Josh, I'm not a exercise physiologist, and have never played one on TV, but here's a thought as an ex-hockey player (30 years from Bantams through high school, college, and post college up until a few years ago).

IMO while training at threshhold didn't have a direct correlation to my "time to puck" TTP speed (i.e., sprint), when I was riding I know I was able to remain "fresh" deep into games when everyone else on the bench was gassed. Having a solid base allowed me to sprint time and time again and my drop off in TTP over the course of a game was far less than others who weren't cross-training.

When I gave up riding in '97, stopped doing L2-L5 which was the bulk of my riding, and started to play hockey exclusively (lots of L6 as you put it), six months later I found that I was one of those guys who was out of gas at the end of games, and my TTP was abysmal.

So IMO having a base (solid L3-5), upon which you can build your sprint (L6+), is critical if you want to perform at a high level on every shift.

gene r

Having a good base is important in everything you do. You can't build a house on quick sand. Well of course you can, but how long will it last. Build your house on granite. 🙂

I know nothing about hockey on ice but wouldn't training your aerobic engine on skates like the speed skaters do be much more sport specific than cycling?

Alex Simmons said:

I know nothing about hockey on ice but wouldn't training your aerobic engine on skates like the speed skaters do be much more sport specific than cycling?

The two sports (speed skating and hockey) are very different Alex. Speed skating is more akin to running in that the effort is relatively constant with the strain increasing over the duration of the event.

Hockey is all about going hard, stopping quickly, and going the other way, over and over and over again. As Josh said the typical shift (interval in cycling terms) is 30 seconds to 2 minutes, and the rest between intervals (sitting on the bench) is 1-4 minutes depending on what position you play and various game situations. It feels more like a vo2 or AC wkt to me in terms of RPE.

But again I think having a solid TH base makes those vo2 and AC efforts easier and more repeatable. I can't back it up scientifically but I've felt the difference when I was cross-training and when I was playing hockey exclusively.

gene r

Alex and LT

I have a $100,000 skating treadmill in which you skate on it with your ice hockey skates. The boys will also be doing anaerobic and sprint intervals on the ice. So they will be doing sports specific work bu I have found that hard anaerobic intervals on the bike cross over pretty well to skating.

Ice hockey is miles from speed skating. Hockey efforts are not VO2 max nor threshold but anaerobic and pure ATP sprinting. A very long "shift" on the ice would be 60 seconds. Most shifts are 30-45 seconds. Rests between shifts offer near complete recovery and are 1.5 to 3 minutes long and sometimes more depending on the stoppage of play on the ice.

What I am trying to figure out is if doing specific L4 and L5 work will have any positive impact on increasing L6 power. I am pretty sure it won't have much impact if any at all on increasing L7 power but I might be wrong.

I do understand that having a fairly well developed aerobic system will help greatly in recovery from anaerobic efforts(between intervals).

Josh

Hockey-cyclist said:

...A very long "shift" on the ice would be 60 seconds. Most shifts are 30-45 seconds...

Seems that's a big change in philosophy from the days when i was playing (seriously). I'll be curious to see what others have to say.

gene r

Hockey-cyclist said:

Alex and LT

I have a $100,000 skating treadmill in which you skate on it with your ice hockey skates. The boys will also be doing anaerobic and sprint intervals on the ice. So they will be doing sports specific work bu I have found that hard anaerobic intervals on the bike cross over pretty well to skating.

Ice hockey is miles from speed skating. Hockey efforts are not VO2 max nor threshold but anaerobic and pure ATP sprinting. A very long "shift" on the ice would be 60 seconds. Most shifts are 30-45 seconds. Rests between shifts offer near complete recovery and are 1.5 to 3 minutes long and sometimes more depending on the stoppage of play on the ice.

What I am trying to figure out is if doing specific L4 and L5 work will have any positive impact on increasing L6 power. I am pretty sure it won't have much impact if any at all on increasing L7 power but I might be wrong.

I do understand that having a fairly well developed aerobic system will help greatly in recovery from anaerobic efforts(between intervals).

Josh

Well the efforts are akin to track match sprinters (explosive efforts from 15 to 30 seconds but needing to be repeated through the competition many times) and time triallists (one off rides of 500 metres to 1km depending on division, gender - 30 to 70 seconds all out from standing start).

Sprinters do some work on their aerobic conditioning as it provides an ability to recover but is typically not their major focus - often used for helping to keep the non-useful weight down. Lots of sub-maximal riding can slow a sprinter down.

Those that ride the kilometre TT do however need decent aerobic conditioning as this longer event (60-70 secs) still draws a significant amount of energy from aerobic sources.

I was only suggesting that if you were looking at introducing sub-maximal work into the training regime, it makes sense to me that it be done on skates rather than on a bike. Different modes of motion, joint angles, velocities etc suggest that using a skating motion would make more sense and that such aerobic adaptations would be sport specific.

Alex Simmons said:

I was only suggesting that if you were looking at introducing sub-maximal work into the training regime, it makes sense to me that it be done on skates rather than on a bike. Different modes of motion, joint angles, velocities etc suggest that using a skating motion would make more sense and that such aerobic adaptations would be sport specific.

Yeah, most of it will be skating and it will be done on the skating treadmill for the most part. But sometimes hockey players get over use injuries form all the skaing and that is the main reason for cross training to some degree on the bike.

Josh

Maybe hockey specific conditioning with bike could benefit if saddle height is little bit dropped, because effective sprinting position in skating is kinda knee bendt dropped. Something like xc-cyclists saddle height in technical ground or something between xc- and dirt cyclist.

Then what about indoor rowing? Because hockey is much upperbody work too. This all ramps up lactate level overall so overall aerobic base and overall lactate clearance is important.

Dr. C, you out there?

Josh

In a 1995 study, Putnam et al found that for 30 second intervals followed by 4 minutes rest, after three such intervals nearly 2/3 of the energy requirements is supplied by the aerobic energy system. Therefore, building a stronger aerobic base will help your hockey players.

john979 said:

In a 1995 study, Putnam et al found that for 30 second intervals followed by 4 minutes rest, after three such intervals nearly 2/3 of the energy requirements is supplied by the aerobic energy system. Therefore, building a stronger aerobic base will help your hockey players.

WHAT! Is this currently accepted in exerecise physiology as fact?

LT Intolerant said:

Seems that's a big change in philosophy from the days when i was playing (seriously). I'll be curious to see what others have to say.

gene r

Seems short to me too.(Played from age 5- college, post college)

But looking at some video of that Endless Ice, that is sweet.

cslone said:

Seems short to me too.(Played from age 5- college, post college)

But looking at some video of that Endless Ice, that is sweet.

I am talking about how high level hockey was to be played for the last 60 years. However, it is sometimes hard to get guys to do short shifts and especially in non elite settings. In the NHL or major junior A if you are on for 60 seconds and the action is fast(usually is) then you will get some "stink eye" and might get '"in trouble" from the coach. If you are on a shift for longer than 60 seconds and you fade even slightly then you will probably be "benched"(sitting out) for a while.
You are suppose to get off the ice as soon as you start to fade. If you are going all out this usually happens within 60 seconds.

Hockey-cyclist said:

WHAT! Is this currently accepted in exerecise physiology as fact?

Take a look at what Charles Howe put together: freewebs.comLTtest.pdfOpen ↗

Hockey-cyclist said:

WHAT! Is this currently accepted in exerecise physiology as fact?

Keep in mind that anaerobic energy supplements aerobic energy as needed, so aerobic energy is always fully contributing to the effort. It's not a switchover situation between the two.

john979 said:

Take a look at what Charles Howe put together: freewebs.comLTtest.pdfOpen ↗

That's a good article thank you.
Now comes an aside. If most energy for a single maximal effort over 70 seconds, starting from a rested state, comes from aerobic sources as the article says then why don't the best time trialers, with high power at lactate threshold and high VO2 max, win all the track events that fall between 60 seconds and 2 minutes? They often do well in the 4000 meters(high VO2 max) but they get destroyed in shorter events.

Hockey-cyclist said:

That's a good article thank you.
Now comes an aside. If most energy for a single maximal effort over 70 seconds, starting from a rested state, comes from aerobic sources as the article says then why don't the best time trialers, with high power at lactate threshold and high VO2 max, win all the track events that fall between 60 seconds and 2 minutes? They often do well in the 4000 meters(high VO2 max) but they get destroyed in shorter events.

Optimal pacing strategies for each event are quite different.

In the TT the ability to accelerate quickly from the gate up to very high speeds is critical to success and this requires extraordinary neuromuscular power. Pacing strategy is basically go as f'ing hard as you can from the gate, go as hard as you can from there and hang on while the eyesight disappears into a little tunnel in front of you. There is a strong correlation between fastest 1st lap time and winners of this event.

In the 3km or 4km pursuit, the initial acceleration is far less important and careful pacing is of far greater importantance. The cost overshooting your target pacing is quite substantial.

Alex Simmons said:

Optimal pacing strategies for each event are quite different.

In the TT the ability to accelerate quickly from the gate up to very high speeds is critical to success and this requires extraordinary neuromuscular power. Pacing strategy is basically go as f'ing hard as you can from the gate, go as hard as you can from there and hang on while the eyesight disappears into a little tunnel in front of you. There is a strong correlation between fastest 1st lap time and winners of this event.

In the 3km or 4km pursuit, the initial acceleration is far less important and careful pacing is of far greater importantance. The cost overshooting your target pacing is quite substantial.

It's not pacing that makes the difference it's anaerobic power in my opinion. "If most energy for a single maximal effort over 70 seconds, starting from a rested state, comes from aerobic sources" then the rest has to come anaerobically. These trackies(and hockey players) must have incredible abilty to generate power via anaerobic glycolysis so that their inferior aerobic power, compared to a TT specialist(or a long distance speed skater), is offset by huge anaerobic power.