What does this mean?

With the exception of L7, all efforts targeted at a given capacity benefit the targeted capacity and adjacent capacities, with diminishing effect. Some have likened the phenomenon to that of throwing a rock in a pond. The rock creates a ripple from the target out, with the height of the ripple wave gradually diminishing as it moves further out. So, if the effort is targeted at anaerobic work capacity, this logic says that the primary benefit is indeed anaerobic work capacity, but that adjacent capacities (e.g., aerobic capacity) benefit, but less. I prefer to view the power/duration curve because I don't think the peripheral effect is concentric. Specifically, I think an AWC effort benefits AWC MMP the most and then MMP at longer durations (aerobic), but does little for MMP at shorter durations. And, I think aerobic efforts benefit aerobic capacity the most, and somewhat benefit to shorter durations, but with much less effect.

This effect is pretty well documented. For example, this study in Australia documents the benefit to aerobic capacity of anaerobic efforts: fulltext.ausport.gov.auLAUR.pdfOpen ↗

there are two nervous systems in the body: The peripheral nervous system (PNS) and Central Nervous system (CNS)

PNS takes care of the limbs and doesn't necessarily have to register with the brain or spinal cord in order to act out
CNS is the spinal cord and the brain and is much more powerful...

This is all I got from my current A&P class.

Cheers,
D

No argument with RDOs description above, but here's the dummies version:

- Peripheral adaptations are those primarily in or around the working muscles so things like mitochondrial density or capillary density or muscle fiber type conversions or even muscular hypertrophy are in the periphery.

- Central adaptations are those that supply all systems so primarily things like increased heart stroke volume or increased cardiac efficiency or distribution things like increased red blood cell count or even increased pulmonary function (though that's rarely a performance limiter in healthy people). These adaptations are central to all supported systems, not just the working muscles of interest to the sport.

In practical terms even though training stress is on a continuum and focusing on one system or the other has some benefit to adjacent systems workouts can be tailored to primarily focus on one or the other. From that standpoint after the early phases of training when just about any activity at any level leads to improved fitness you'll tend to focus depending on the type of work you do. Have a look at some of Andy's charts related to power training levels and primary benefits here: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/power-training-levels,-by-andrew-coggan.aspx

-Dave

Thanks guys! Without your help I would've been scratchin' my head for a long time.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

No argument with RDOs description above, but here's the dummies version:

- Peripheral adaptations are those primarily in or around the working muscles so things like mitochondrial density or capillary density or muscle fiber type conversions or even muscular hypertrophy are in the periphery.

- Central adaptations are those that supply all systems so primarily things like increased heart stroke volume or increased cardiac efficiency or distribution things like increased red blood cell count or even increased pulmonary function (though that's rarely a performance limiter in healthy people). These adaptations are central to all supported systems, not just the working muscles of interest to the sport.

In practical terms even though training stress is on a continuum and focusing on one system or the other has some benefit to adjacent systems workouts can be tailored to primarily focus on one or the other. From that standpoint after the early phases of training when just about any activity at any level leads to improved fitness you'll tend to focus depending on the type of work you do. Have a look at some of Andy's charts related to power training levels and primary benefits here: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/power-training-levels,-by-andrew-coggan.aspx

-Dave

And to further dummify -

Central adaptation does not need high intensity and benefits greatly from LSD miles. Volume, duration, whatever you wanna call it. In fact benefit peters out before lactate threshold so there's no benefit in going harder to train it. Lots of moderate intensity is the key. This is the "base". these adaptation can be built on season over season and I believe Friel mentioned cumulative gains can be made for several years before plateau (i.e reaching ones genetic potential). Racers who take long periods away from bike during the off season will likey miss out on these cumulative gains and probably stay in the lower ranks.

Peripheral adaptations do better with somewhat higher intensities but top out after about 2-3 months. the way I always understood the old "6-9-12" training paradigm somewhat explains... 6 weeks to arrive at the power, 9 weeks to find a peak, and then carry it through for the next few weeks (12). This may be an oversimplification but can give an idea.

Anyway that's my understanding.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by danfoz [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]
...Anyway that's my understanding.

That's where it gets tricky. For instance capillary density is a peripheral adaptation but if you look at Andy's chart of adaptations by power training zone capillary density adaptations are maximized with L5 training. But increased blood plasma volume would typically be viewed as a central adaptation and it is also maximized via L5 training. Similarly increased cardiac output is clearly a central adaptation but is targeted most directly via L5 training.

IOW, it's hard to generalize and the statement from Helgerud's paper quoted by the OP over simplifies things a bit. BTW, Helgerud's paper paints the opposite picture to what you've just described with sub maximal work targeting periperal adaptations and HIIT work targeting central adaptations. In general (with exceptions as noted above) that makes sense when you consider mitochondrial density is targeted via sustained sub-maximal work and cardiac output is targeted through shorter more intense interval work. But if you look across a wider range of adaptations that we typically target it gets trickier.

-Dave

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

That's where it gets tricky.

Indeed, just shows there's really a lot of information out there that needs to be looked at.

Edit: and it goes to show, some concepts can be muddied a little by going full-dummy.

Lydiard I believe argued that it could take up to ten years of consistent training to fully realize your potential. Don't know about y'all, but around my area, there are some mighty fast 50-somethings. Couple years ago apparently, the fastest two guys on the track--like, in the Kilo and sprint--were over 50. Granted, those aren't necessarily purely aerobic efforts but anyone worried about their AWC declining can rest easier I'd hope. Granted, I'm relatively new, but at the age of 34 I am routinely dropped by guys 10-12 years older than I am.

Helgerud as I recall is the guy who along with Wisloff argued that all the Nordic skiing champs--like, y'know, Bjorn Daelie--were all training wrong, or at least wrong in their intentions but "accidentally" doing the right thing, which was tons of intervals, and that the aerobic work was a waste. Um yeah. Not saying he's entirely wrong, but I'd be wary about listening to everything in his studies. It's impossible to find studies in which interval training doesn't yield some improvement, but it's hard to find enormous, long-term studies that account for an athlete's overall training and lifestyle. On another thread I was asking vaguely similar questions, specifically noting that there was a preponderance of ostensible evidence claiming that training in the "middle" was a waste of time and that you'd realize greater progress doing a combination of tons of very easy work and minimal but consistent very hard work. Dave pointed out that these studies, too, weren't necessarily complete. ...and I think I'm beginning to wander off-subject.

Far as I can tell, if you train consistently and recover properly (whether this is just a matter of regular sleep, or also includes stretching, foam rolling, contrast showers, and supplementation I'm not sure), you will make remarkable gains over a long period of time.

To further complicate the cardiac output question, there is the matter of stroke volume which I always thought benefitted most from HR ~150-160, and then cardiac power, or the force with which blood is pumped, which benefits from harder intervals, yes? My point being, does cardia output cover a broader definition, so to speak?

Yeah - one biomechanical efficiency continually improves but one's ability to recover after hard or long efforts diminishes with age, so when you hit 65 it's hard to be as quick as you were at 55. I've still got eight months before I'm 65 so I keep kidding myself.