Phil Holman wrote
Quoted message said:Improvements in performance after the first 2-3 yr of intense training are
associated with improvements in LT Vo2 and very little to do with
improvements in Vo2max. The next question concerns the factors responsible
for further increases in LT Vo2 and performance.
My question would be how training for longer-term improvements in LT (or
VO2max) should be associated with focus on particular muscle groups, such as
the ones for upward-pull.
My estimates are that the elite racers in the Coyle 1991 study were getting
about 10 times as much power out of their upward-pull hip-flexion muscles as
a casual runner (5-6 mph for over half an hour) but only 5 times as much
power out of their down-push hip-extension + knee-extension muscles as a
casual cyclist (12 mph on non-quite-flat road). One obvious explanation was
that they had given some focus in their training to the upward-pull muscles.
Some hypotheses on the pros + cons of focusing more training effort on
upward-pull muscles:
* both upward-pull (hip flexion) and downward-pull muscles are well
positioned in the bone-and-pedal linkage to deliver a significant component
of force and work tangent to the crank-circle.
* upward-pull muscles are better to focus on because they're generally less
well-developed than down-push muscles, since there's more "open real estate"
to add capillaries and mitochondrial enzyme concentration, etc. -- rather
than trying to cram more capillaries around the already-crowded fibers of
the glutes and quads. (If there physiological evidence that this priniciple
works?)
* since upward-pull muscles have more "open real estate", there's no _need_
to focus training effort on them. Just distribute training "naturally", and
the upward-pull "open real estate" will still build disproportionately more
capillaries and other aerobic infrastructure.
* the downward-pull muscles are the genetically more "natural" for endurance
aerobic propulsion, so they have superior biochemistry for improving aerobic
capacity in response to appropriate training stress, and they have special
ways to increase their real estate to accommodate more capillaries, etc.
(I have no idea if this is true). So it's inefficient to apply training
stress on upward-pull muscles whose genetic programming is not as well
suited for aerobic adaption. (But this seems to be contradicted by the
observation of larger upward-pull adaptation manifested by virtually all the
elite racers in the Coyle + Kautz 1991 study -- apparently without using
Powercranks for training.)
VO2max versus LT?
If it is believed that raising overall VO2max is the only way to raise
sustainable aerobic power long-term, then I will argue thinking about
aerobic capacity of the peripheral parts still matters -- because the
throughput of the whole system is improved (slightly) by improvements in the
oxygen transport or utilization of any part. So increasing the stroke volume
of the heart is not the only way to raise VO2max (even if it's the quickest
way).
Or it might be that increasing the VO2max of a well-trained athlete requires
a very large total training stress, in order to stimulate further
adaptation of Central capacity. This might require first building increased
local peripheral aerobic capacity in order to be able to then apply a
larger-enough training stress on the Central system. (of course if you
believe both that VO2max is all that matters, and that it can't be increased
in a well-trained bicycle racer, then you likely didn't read this far)
Ken
