It has been a while since I last blogged since I have been away but I really wanted to get start blogging again with a great article I came across written by Joel Jamieson on his 8weeksout blog. I have in the past written about benefits of aerobic and distance running but Joel has yet again got it right when he justifies its benefits. In recent years, however, despite the obvious success of those who
have used it in the past, a growing trend
has been to condemn any form of longer, slower paced training as
outdated, overrated and unnecessary. The typical argument used to
support such statements is that because these sports are not long and slow
events and so training to get in shape for them should not be long or
slow either – this is the basic principles of specificity, coaches often
say. Many have even gone so far as to claim that anything other than
high intensity intervals are a waste of time and can potentially lead to
detrimental decreases in speed and performance.
Although there is little doubt that there are alot of sports that do require explosive strength and power, there is much more to the roadwork story than such perspectives are often inclined to admit. While proclaiming roadwork and aerobic training are unnecessary might make for catchy headlines and sound bites, in his article he explainsto us why longer, slower, steady-state cardio training will soon be making a comeback and I’m even going to give you a new twist on this age old training method that will make it more effective than ever.
Although each of their reasons may sound logical on the surface, it’s important to take a more thorough look at their three most commonly named reasons to see if they hold up to the scrutiny of experience and the scientific method, or if there is more to the roadwork story than can be read in the headlines. Those advocating against roadwork most often argue:
There is no doubt that there is recent research that shows high intensity interval training can be a more effective conditioning method than longer, slower, steady-state training such as roadwork. Almost all of these studies have focused on using VO2 max, the most commonly referenced measurement of aerobic fitness in scientific literature, as the measuring stick of changes in aerobic fitness and conditioning. Virtually all of the frequently cited studies have been no more than 6-8 weeks in length.
These two facts alone underscore the need for context when it comes to interpretation of research. First, when measuring only a few weeks at a time, it can be very easy to misinterpret the findings and extrapolate the conclusions beyond their limitations. A closer examination of the studies comparing intervals to steady state conditioning methods reveals that those in the higher intensity groups do, in fact, tend make more rapid improvements in VO2 max.
The problem, however, is that they also plateau much faster as well when compared to those in the lower intensity training groups. The infamous Tabata research, for example, one of the most commonly cited pieces of literature used to disparage the use of roadwork, showed that the improvements in VO2 max of those in the interval training group plateaued after just 3 weeks. Those in the steady-state group, on the other hand, continued to make improvements throughout the study period.
Second, although research is often limited to measuring a single variable of aerobic fitness and conditioning like VO2 max for the sake of measurement and standardization, the real world of conditioning is far more complex than that. There is no single measurement or variable that will always directly correlate with an athlete’s aerobic fitness or conditioning level, there are many different pieces to the puzzle. Looking at VO2 max, or any other single variable alone, does not provide an accurate reflection of a combat athlete’s conditioning level.
The bottom line is that looking through the research can help provide clues and valuable pieces of information, but the evidence must be carefully examined within the context of practical experience and the inherent limitations of only measuring changes in a small number of variables over a relatively short period of time. Training and performance are complex, multifactorial, year round processes and this must always be taken into account when trying to use research to validate, or invalidate, the use of various training methods like roadwork.
How do we know this is the case? Well, for one thing, performance in sports that really are highly anaerobic, sports like weightlifting, Olympic lifting, 100m sprinting, field events, etc. cannot be repeated without very long rest periods. Try asking a sprinter to run 100m at full speed and then run another one 20 seconds later and see what happens – I guarantee he or she will look at you like you’re crazy!
In explosive sports, the skills are certainly explosive, but they’re also highly repetitive and sub- maximal. You aren’t throwing every single punch or kick as hard as you possibly could. You aren’t putting every ounce of strength and power into every single movement because everyone knows that if you did that, you’d quickly gas out.
The bottom line is that explosive sports require a balance of both aerobic and anaerobic energy development. Writing off methods like roadwork that have been proven for years to effectively increase aerobic fitness simply because they may appear slower than the skills of the sport is like saying there is no reason to do anything but spar because that’s the closet speed to an actual fight.
As discussed previously, higher intensity methods often lead to greater progress in the short run, but this comes at the expense of plateaus and stagnation. Lower intensity methods may not work as fast, but they produce much more long-term consistent increases in aerobic fitness and when it comes right down to it, improving conditioning and performance requires time and hard work. As much as it might sound good to say you can achieve better results in 4 minutes than you can in 40 minutes, the real world has proven this idea to be nothing more than wishful thinking.
Just as a combat athlete shouldn’t expect to learn the skills and techniques of the sport in a short amount of time, conditioning and physical preparation should also be viewed as a long-term process that requires time and consistency. Those looking for the shortcut or the easiest route are often left lacking development and gassed out before those who are willing to put in the time it takes to get better.
Rarely does a major MMA event go by that we aren’t seeing at least one or more fights won or lost due to conditioning. This is happening at all levels and even in world championship fights no less!
If intervals really are the answer and roadwork and lower intensity methods of training are unnecessary, then where are the results? Why do we still see so many fighters gassing out even though the use of interval training is at an all-time high?
My prediction is that in the coming months and years, the combat sports community at large will begin to realize that although training with high intensity all the time might sound like a good idea in theory, it just doesn’t pan out in the real world. As a result, there will be a renewed interest in good old fashioned roadwork and we’ll start to see more combat athletes hitting the street once again in the name of conditioning.
Likewise, hitting the pavement for hours on end isn’t always the best approach either and running large volumes and long distances can also take its toll on the body as well. There’s also times where running may not be the most practical option given different climates and times of year.
In order to solve these problems and make roadwork type training more effective than ever, I started using a new method of this age old approach with all the fighters I’ve trained several years and the results have been highly impressive. I’ve used this form of training with everyone from Rich Franklin to Tim Boetsch and they’ve all reported consistent improvements in conditioning and fitness using the principles laid out below.
Using these types of activities can provide the same level of benefit as running, while putting less stress and wear and tear on the joints. There is no reason that all roadwork needs to actually be done on the road, there are endless other forms of steady state training that are equally effective, more practical and less monotonous than running. So good luck folks and GET THE ROADWORK IN.
Although there is little doubt that there are alot of sports that do require explosive strength and power, there is much more to the roadwork story than such perspectives are often inclined to admit. While proclaiming roadwork and aerobic training are unnecessary might make for catchy headlines and sound bites, in his article he explainsto us why longer, slower, steady-state cardio training will soon be making a comeback and I’m even going to give you a new twist on this age old training method that will make it more effective than ever.
The Great Roadwork Debate
Given the longstanding success and world class conditioning of some of combat sports greatest athletes throughout history that have been known to incorporate roadwork into their training, it may seem a bit surprising that it has come under attack in recent years as being an ineffective way to get in shape to fight. Along these lines, coaches arguing against the use of roadwork have frequently cited several reasons as to why they believe this type of training should be abandoned by combat athletes in favor of higher intensity training methods.Although each of their reasons may sound logical on the surface, it’s important to take a more thorough look at their three most commonly named reasons to see if they hold up to the scrutiny of experience and the scientific method, or if there is more to the roadwork story than can be read in the headlines. Those advocating against roadwork most often argue:
- Research shows better results from high intensity intervals
- Roadwork takes too much time
There is no doubt that there is recent research that shows high intensity interval training can be a more effective conditioning method than longer, slower, steady-state training such as roadwork. Almost all of these studies have focused on using VO2 max, the most commonly referenced measurement of aerobic fitness in scientific literature, as the measuring stick of changes in aerobic fitness and conditioning. Virtually all of the frequently cited studies have been no more than 6-8 weeks in length.
These two facts alone underscore the need for context when it comes to interpretation of research. First, when measuring only a few weeks at a time, it can be very easy to misinterpret the findings and extrapolate the conclusions beyond their limitations. A closer examination of the studies comparing intervals to steady state conditioning methods reveals that those in the higher intensity groups do, in fact, tend make more rapid improvements in VO2 max.
The problem, however, is that they also plateau much faster as well when compared to those in the lower intensity training groups. The infamous Tabata research, for example, one of the most commonly cited pieces of literature used to disparage the use of roadwork, showed that the improvements in VO2 max of those in the interval training group plateaued after just 3 weeks. Those in the steady-state group, on the other hand, continued to make improvements throughout the study period.
Second, although research is often limited to measuring a single variable of aerobic fitness and conditioning like VO2 max for the sake of measurement and standardization, the real world of conditioning is far more complex than that. There is no single measurement or variable that will always directly correlate with an athlete’s aerobic fitness or conditioning level, there are many different pieces to the puzzle. Looking at VO2 max, or any other single variable alone, does not provide an accurate reflection of a combat athlete’s conditioning level.
The bottom line is that looking through the research can help provide clues and valuable pieces of information, but the evidence must be carefully examined within the context of practical experience and the inherent limitations of only measuring changes in a small number of variables over a relatively short period of time. Training and performance are complex, multifactorial, year round processes and this must always be taken into account when trying to use research to validate, or invalidate, the use of various training methods like roadwork.
Are Explosive Sports like Sprinting Anaerobic?
Another of the arguments often used to support the exclusive use of interval methods instead of steady-state training is that sports involving quick and high bursts of energy are explosive and therefore anaerobic in nature. The biggest problem with this argument is simply that it’s not true. On the contrary, many sports like rugby, combat sports, football require high levels of both aerobic and anaerobic fitness, but the overall majority, i.e. greater than 50% of the energy necessary, comes from the aerobic energy system.How do we know this is the case? Well, for one thing, performance in sports that really are highly anaerobic, sports like weightlifting, Olympic lifting, 100m sprinting, field events, etc. cannot be repeated without very long rest periods. Try asking a sprinter to run 100m at full speed and then run another one 20 seconds later and see what happens – I guarantee he or she will look at you like you’re crazy!
In explosive sports, the skills are certainly explosive, but they’re also highly repetitive and sub- maximal. You aren’t throwing every single punch or kick as hard as you possibly could. You aren’t putting every ounce of strength and power into every single movement because everyone knows that if you did that, you’d quickly gas out.
The bottom line is that explosive sports require a balance of both aerobic and anaerobic energy development. Writing off methods like roadwork that have been proven for years to effectively increase aerobic fitness simply because they may appear slower than the skills of the sport is like saying there is no reason to do anything but spar because that’s the closet speed to an actual fight.
Roadwork is Time Consuming
A lot of proponents for the “nothing but intervals” approach also argue that even if roadwork is effective, it simply takes too much time and you can get the same results with less time using higher intensity training. The truth is that roadwork does take more time than doing an interval workout, there is no doubt, but this also is part of why it’s able to deliver more long-term results.As discussed previously, higher intensity methods often lead to greater progress in the short run, but this comes at the expense of plateaus and stagnation. Lower intensity methods may not work as fast, but they produce much more long-term consistent increases in aerobic fitness and when it comes right down to it, improving conditioning and performance requires time and hard work. As much as it might sound good to say you can achieve better results in 4 minutes than you can in 40 minutes, the real world has proven this idea to be nothing more than wishful thinking.
Just as a combat athlete shouldn’t expect to learn the skills and techniques of the sport in a short amount of time, conditioning and physical preparation should also be viewed as a long-term process that requires time and consistency. Those looking for the shortcut or the easiest route are often left lacking development and gassed out before those who are willing to put in the time it takes to get better.
The Return of Roadwork for Conditioning
Given the amount of misinformation that’s been used to support the idea that roadwork should be abandoned as a form of training, it’s no surprise that the current interval crazy has failed to produce the results so often promised by those advocating it. Despite the endless promotion of interval training as the only form of training necessary, the world of combat sports has not seen a noticeable increase in conditioning over this time. If anything, in fact, the general conditioning level of fighters today is worse than it’s been in the past.Rarely does a major MMA event go by that we aren’t seeing at least one or more fights won or lost due to conditioning. This is happening at all levels and even in world championship fights no less!
If intervals really are the answer and roadwork and lower intensity methods of training are unnecessary, then where are the results? Why do we still see so many fighters gassing out even though the use of interval training is at an all-time high?
My prediction is that in the coming months and years, the combat sports community at large will begin to realize that although training with high intensity all the time might sound like a good idea in theory, it just doesn’t pan out in the real world. As a result, there will be a renewed interest in good old fashioned roadwork and we’ll start to see more combat athletes hitting the street once again in the name of conditioning.
Roadwork: The Comeback
When used properly, roadwork is an effective way to increase aerobic fitness and improve conditioning without putting the high level of stress on the body that’s inherent to higher intensity interval methods. Training for combat sports is already brutally demanding and trying to sprint at top speeds and use explosive conditioning methods all the time on top of hours of physically grueling skill work is not the best recipe for long-term success.Likewise, hitting the pavement for hours on end isn’t always the best approach either and running large volumes and long distances can also take its toll on the body as well. There’s also times where running may not be the most practical option given different climates and times of year.
In order to solve these problems and make roadwork type training more effective than ever, I started using a new method of this age old approach with all the fighters I’ve trained several years and the results have been highly impressive. I’ve used this form of training with everyone from Rich Franklin to Tim Boetsch and they’ve all reported consistent improvements in conditioning and fitness using the principles laid out below.
Going Off Road for Conditioning
The biggest change in Roadwork is that running doesn’t have to be the only form of training used. There are other forms of exercise and training that are lower impact than running such as:- Jumping rope
- Swimming
- Bicycling
- Sled dragging
- Shadowboxing
- Elliptical
- Rower
- Medicine ball Circuits
- Heavy Bag or Pad work
- Bodyweight Calisthenics
Using these types of activities can provide the same level of benefit as running, while putting less stress and wear and tear on the joints. There is no reason that all roadwork needs to actually be done on the road, there are endless other forms of steady state training that are equally effective, more practical and less monotonous than running. So good luck folks and GET THE ROADWORK IN.
No comments:
Post a Comment