Commentary
on Train-Low
Compete-High
in the ACSM Stephen Seiler Sportscience 10, 8
(sportsci.org/2006/ss.htm) |
|
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 Back to article/homepage
Published June 2006. |