Adaptation: Period, Persistence, and Prioritization

[Dave_Allen]

Sir and JohnnyBoy,
A humble suggestion: another thread worth reading and considering for your units/organizations for strength + conditioning: http://startingstrength.com/resource...99&pagenumber= I also wrote to Kingwood, where they offered yet another option, which was doing a 2 on, 1 off, without the heavy metcon day, but following the same pattern (strength day of 3-4 compound exercises, then a conditioning day of sprint-type work, followed by a rest day, then repeat). Might be worth looking in to for the mil/LE communities.

[Johnnyboy]

I have had a look at it. We are to train 3 days a week (monday, wednesday and friday). So the basic template does not really work for us.
I dont believe that crossfit is the best option, it is just very unspecific. The strength training should be your GPP and the rest should simulate actual requirements of the job.

[damonwells]

To try to alleviate some of the confusion people are having on the topic of adaptation persistence, refer to PPST and the repetition continuum. Note the physiological changes that are required to adapt to heavy barbell training and contrast those to what is required for low intensity work. This is part of the argument for persistence of strength and the suggestion that less time should be devoted to the deveopment of cardio-respiratory capacity.

Also, my point was never that you can get moderately strong, take a month off, then be amazed at how much strength you retain. Strength is persistent, but there are other factors. The longer you have trained, the more likely your strength is to stay. I was not strong in high school by any stretch, but I am strong now (for a girl) and it is quite persistent. If one goes from one program to another and notices a decrease in strength, then something is wrong. This means you are somehow detraining in a matter of days/hours.

Again referring to the rep continuum, when the system is stressed specifically it adapts specifically. Once you have achieved chronic adaptations they have a measure of persistence. This persistence can be affected by whatever stresses are applied in the absence of the original stressor. For example, in the article I suggest that one take 2 weeks off from strength training to focus on high intensity cardio. The cardio contributes a little to the retention of strength because it stresses some of the same systems, albeit in totally different ways. Taking a complete layoff would result in more strength lost, while bed rest will make it even worse.

Along the arrow of rep numbers in figure B, it is generally accepted that training reps schemes similar to one another has the most carryover. If 1RM is on the left and low intensity cardio (walking) is on the right, the closer two items are to each other, the more carryover they have. Going from left to right works better than going from right to left. Max strength training can contribute to cardio training. Cardio training has very limited effects on strength training, however. Since high intensity cardio is closer to strength training than low intensity cardio, it has a greater effect on retention.

Having said that, it is still my belief that once true strength is achieved it is far more persistent than most other adaptations.

[LimieJosh]

Along the arrow of rep numbers in figure B, it is generally accepted that training reps schemes similar to one another has the most carryover. If 1RM is on the left and low intensity cardio (walking) is on the right, the closer two items are to each other, the more carryover they have. Going from left to right works better than going from right to left. Max strength training can contribute to cardio training. Cardio training has very limited effects on strength training, however. Since high intensity cardio is closer to strength training than low intensity cardio, it has a greater effect on retention.

It is very difficult to link "cardio" into what we know about the effects of that rep/adaptation continuum. Trying to do so results in strange conclusions, such as the the bit I underlined.

Many people who come from a strength background view cardio through those eyes, and tend to think of strong man type tests of endurance. Those are of course highly affected by strength, which brings us back the old crossfit discussion - increased strength makes a given load a lower % of maximum capacity, and therefore moves the task further to the right of the continuum, which naturally increases the number of reps that can be performed to fatigue. However, this is neither an endurance adpatation, nor is it anything close to being related to high-intensity cardio.

There is nothing about the acute responses that allow performances of high intensity cardio that relate to what is required to achieve feats of strength, nor is there aything similar to the process of adaptation that ocurrs with the training of each.

[damonwells]

To be clear, high intensity cardio does not translate to strength gains, it attenuates the loss of strength for a period of time, in my humble, uninformed, propaganda filled opinion. If one gains strength adequately, then for a couple weeks conducts high intensity cardio, that strength will be retained more than someone who conducts nothing.

I agree that cardio does not belong on a rep continuum, but that is the only model that everyone has access to. In reality, it is a simple linear work relationship that begins with "rest" and ends with "1RM". Along this line is the gradual increase in work as expressed by the number of crossbridges activated. "Rest" involves small, type I motor units and MU are increasingly activated by size and type as the work or load increases. I didn't say it was magical, but it certainly does something.

[LimieJosh]

That high intensity cardio would attenuate loss of strength during a (strength) detraining period is an interesting statement. I know of no physiological mechanism that would explain that, but if you have anecdotal evidence to support that then I accept it and find it interesting.

As for the general point I am arguing though, if you have a contiuum from rest on one end to 1RM on the other, there is no way to fit high intesnity caridio into that paradigm. There is a gradual increase in the recruitment of type II fibers as someone transistions from rest to VO2max, but that is a minor component of the acute responses required to achieve such a level of performance, wth the other changes being so unrelated to that required to produce a 1RM that it just should not be considered on the same continuum.

[damonwells]

Fair enough. One of the physiologists at West Point developed a work capacity continuum that starts with the recruitment of Type I muscle fiber during a resting scenario, and gradually increases motor unit recruitment through Type I to Type II, based on the level of effort. Standing still requires very little Type I recruitment. Walking requires a little more. At some point, you begin to recruit Type IIa (sprinting?) then into Type IIb/x for XRM.

I believe that applying a high intensity stress to the physiological architecture and skeletal muscle induces enough protein turnover and neural activation which attenuates the loss of strength. Not alot, and the longer you do it, the less it works. It has limitations. I don't think it has ever been shown in a study, but I've seen it and done it many times. Doesn't mean it's 100% gospel.

My overall point was that strength and cardio can be gained and maintained better with specificity instead of concurrent training.

[Mulgere Hircum]

Playing my alter-ego, Overanalysis Lad:

I'd guess that in order to fit cardio into a continuum with heavy lifting, you need at least a second variable, the amount of muscle being worked (perhaps as a percentage of lean mass). The reason I guess that is that things like running are very different from high-rep curls (say) at least partly because running creates enough total oxygen demand to force a lot of non-muscular adaptation, such as to the oxygen transport and metabolic systems. I doubt any amount of low-weight curling could do that, and so any scheme that treats them both as the same "very high rep" work should fail to represent reality. I also seem to recall that lactic acid can be shuttled from the muscles working anaerobically that produce it to other muscles that are able to use it aerobically, and I wouldn't be surprised if that also requires taking into account total muscle mass being worked. So it seems reasonable to guess that at a minimum you'd have a two-dimensional continuum, something like %lean mass worked on one axis and the % of 1RM on the other.

Just a thought.

[damonwells]

Sorry, I must have failed to explain this correctly.

The only thing on the continuum is the number of crossbridges activated. Nothing else. So I can activate nearly all of my crossbridges (1RM) or very few of them (rest) or somewhere in between.

[Squat1]

This article states that

'The bottom line is this: training the same exercises regularly allows the body
to adapt and thus grow stronger, while training a large variety of exercises equates to doing the same
workouts with little to no adaptation.'

I do not fully agree with this as bodybuilders train lots of exercises and seem to have good adaptations.