SPORTSCIENCE |
|
News & Comment / Training & Performance |
|
Commentary
on Train-Low
Compete-High in
the ACSM Report
Stephen Seiler
Sportscience 10, 8 (sportsci.org/2006/ss.htm)
Agder University College, Faculty of Health and Sport, Kristiansand 4604,
Norway. Email.
The ACSM report touches on the fascinating progress
connecting the training stimulus to cytokines and other extra- and
intracellular signals. Bente Pedersen's lab is at the forefront, along with the
group at University of Bern, Swizerland, headed by Hans Hoppeler and Martin
Flück. In the last two years, when I have lectured on endurance training
organization, I have introduced the findings from Hansen et al. (2005) by
asking this question: is part of the
reason that modern elite athletes "need" so much training volume that
they "eat so well?" Antioxidants, glycogen loading, carbohydrate
drinks, etc. all may dampen the cellular signalling impact of the exercise
stimulus and perhaps lengthen the exercise duration necessary for an optimal
signalling effect. Since we often seem
to chase the elusive "Kenyan performance secrets", the published
findings that Kenyan runners are vitamin deficient and undernourished are
interesting in this context.
Long duration, low intensity exercise bouts
seem to be at least as good–and perhaps better than–shorter more intense
loading as a driving signal for key metabolic adaptations at the cellular
level, according to several recent studies. I think this idea makes sense from
an evolutionary perspective. For our distant ancestors, exercise was
presumably often associated with an energy-depleted state and the pursuit of
food. Long, low intensity bouts (plus the occasional very high intensity bout
to avoid being eaten or trampled) would dominate the prehistoric periodization
plan, not 30-minute running bouts performed at the lactate threshold. Is
it a coincidence that elite endurance athletes across several sports polarize their training by avoiding
anaerobic-threshold intensity? (See, for example, Seiler and Kjerland, 2006.) I
had assumed that the explanation for this self-organization pattern (emerging
from training experience, not sport science) was found within the rubric of
“reducing the sympathetic stress load and avoiding overtraining”. Now we may also see that there are
fundamental adaptive signalling issues that also dictate increased duration and
decreased intensity for a lot of the total training load.
Meanwhile, there is plenty of anecdotal
evidence that some famous athletes (like Miguail Indurain in his day)
train intentionally with low carbohydrate availability in preparation for
competitions, where they eat lots of carbohydrate. I contend that these
behaviours by athletes are Darwinistic in the sense that they represent a
selection process towards some optimum achieved over years of trial and error
in the elite athlete population.
Professor Pedersen's wonderful lecture
tantalized us with the promise that, finally, research is emerging that may
ultimately help link molecular signalling to monthly training plans and athlete
nutrition. So paradigm shift or not, there is fun stuff happening.
Hansen
AK, Fischer CP, Plomgaard P, Andersen JL, Saltin B, Pedersen BK (2005).
Skeletal muscle adaptation: training twice every second day vs. training once
daily. Journal of Applied Physiology 98, 93-99
Seiler S, Kjerland GO (2006). Quantifying training intensity
distribution in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an ‘‘optimal’’
distribution? Scandinavian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sports 16, 49-56
Published June 2006.
©2006