Cerca
Cerca solo tra i titoli
Da:
Cerca solo tra i titoli
Da:
Menu
Home
Allerta prezzi
Forum
Nuovi Messaggi
Cerca...
Iscritti
Visitatori online
Novità
Nuovi Messaggi
Nuovi media
Nuovi commenti media
Ultime Attività
Nuove inserzioni nel mercatino
Nuovi commenti nel mercatino
Mercatino
Nuove inserzioni
Nuovi commenti
Latest reviews
Cerca nel mercatino
Feedback
Guarda le statistiche
Training Camp
Pianificazione
MTB
Media
Nuovi media
Nuovi commenti
Cerca media
EBIKE
Accedi
Registrati
Cerca
Cerca solo tra i titoli
Da:
Cerca solo tra i titoli
Da:
Nuovi Messaggi
Cerca...
Iscritti
Visitatori online
Menu
Install the app
Installa
Rispondi alla discussione
JavaScript è disabilitato. Per una migliore esperienza di navigazione attivalo nel tuo programma o nella tua app per navigare prima di procedere.
Stai usando un browser molto obsoleto. Puoi incorrere in problemi di visualizzazione di questo e altri siti oltre che in problemi di sicurezza. .
Dovresti aggiornarlo oppure
usarne uno alternativo, moderno e sicuro
.
Home
Forum
Allenamento
Metodologie di allenamento
Vo2 max o conconi??? La loro utilità.
Testo
<blockquote data-quote="ciclotrainer" data-source="post: 2532476" data-attributes="member: 7309"><p>Il mio lavoro è sostanzialmente questo, lo riprendo dal tuo manifesto, la differenza è che io penso che non siano sufficienti solo i microintervalli, e che siano utili sedute con interval fino a 5', oltre alla differenza sul power output che ritengo debba essere sopramassimale e non submassimale.</p><p>Cmq io ho constatato degli adattamenti neuromuscolari superiori rispetto ai precedenti periodi di allenamento.</p><p> </p><p><strong>[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]<span style="font-size: 15px">Alternatives to SE training</span>[/FONT]</strong></p><p><strong>[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif][/FONT]</strong> </p><p>[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]<span style="font-size: 15px"> If reducing cadence by approximately one-half when pedaling at a submaximal power output is insufficient to result in a true overload on the muscular system, then what will? The answer to this question, of course, is pedaling at an even higher power output, e.g., performing maximal or near-maximal efforts, especially from an initially low cadence (what Dr. Martin has long referred to as special force training). This is clearly illustrated in Fig. 2, in which I have plotted the AEPF-CPV data for the six standing start efforts that I performed on the road and the 10 x ~10 s maximal accelerations that I performed on the Velodyne along with the results from the SE training sessions. (Note that for clarity I have not plotted data collected between efforts, e.g., when pedaling easily back to my starting point during the workout on the road.) As can be seen in this figure, in contrast to the clearly submaximal forces produced by (during) SE training, the AEPF during the standing start efforts and seated accelerations were markedly higher. In fact, the AEPF during the initial phase of the standing start efforts were significantly higher than my theoretical velocity-specific maxima as determined using the inertial load test. On the other hand, my AEPF during the seated accelerations tended to fall below that expected from this testing. While these differences could be partially due to the different measuring techniques used (i.e., on-bike SRM powermeter vs. computer-interfaced ergometer), they are probably mostly due to 1) the fact that I was out of the saddle during the standing start efforts, vs. seated at all times during the inertial load test (6), and 2) the fact that I was unable to reach optimal cadence before fatigue begain to develop during the seated accelerations. In any case, however, it should be clear that this form of training represents a far more significant load on the neuromuscular system, and hence is much more likely to result in an improvement in neuromuscular power, than SE training. Indeed, this past summer I was able to increase my maximal 5 s power - tested by performing a maximal acceleration in a small gear, thus mimicking the inertial load method - by 10% in just 4 wk by performing standing start efforts as described above on a weekly basis. Similarly, an elite female track cyclist increased her maximal 5 s power by 25% in just 8 wk by performing similar workouts several times per week when attempting to peak for an important competition.</span>[/FONT]</p><p>[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]<span style="font-size: 15px"> While, e.g., standing starts, maximal seated accelerations (termed power stomps by Chris Carmichael), etc., are clearly superior to SE training when it comes to overloading the neuromuscular system, they are obviously too short to result in significant improvements in the metabolic fitness of type II fibers. As previously discussed, however, it is unclear whether any special sort of training is needed to maximize this physiological adaptation. Nonetheless, <em>if</em> specific training of these more-difficult-to-recruit motor units is for some reason deemed necessary or desirable, then <em>one</em> possible way of doing so <em>might</em> be by performing microintervals, i.e., very short (15 s or less) on/off efforts, for an extended period of time. The impact of training in this manner on the AEPF-CPV relationship is also shown in Fig. 2, which demonstrates that while in an absolute sense the AEPF during such intervals was not quite as high as that seen during SE training, during the on periods it was actually closer to my maximal force-velocity line (i.e., closer to the purple shaded region), due to the velocity-dependent reduction in force generating ability. In other words, such intervals are actually more likely to result in significant recruitment of type II motor units than SE training, because they demand a greater fraction of my (or anyones) maximal velocity-specific force. Of course, another advantage of microintervals over SE training is that microintervals are performed at a normal cadence, thus fulfilling the specificity principle with respect to muscle contractile velocity and minimizing any risk of injury due to an abnormally elevated force requirement at an abnormally slow cadence as is the case with SE training . To my knowledge, however, the physiological adaptations that result from performing microintervals on a regular basis has never been studied. </span>[/FONT]</p><p>[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]<span style="font-size: 15px"> </span>[/FONT]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ciclotrainer, post: 2532476, member: 7309"] Il mio lavoro è sostanzialmente questo, lo riprendo dal tuo manifesto, la differenza è che io penso che non siano sufficienti solo i microintervalli, e che siano utili sedute con interval fino a 5', oltre alla differenza sul power output che ritengo debba essere sopramassimale e non submassimale. Cmq io ho constatato degli adattamenti neuromuscolari superiori rispetto ai precedenti periodi di allenamento. [B][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif][SIZE=4]Alternatives to SE training[/SIZE][/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif][SIZE=4][/SIZE][/FONT][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif][SIZE=4] If reducing cadence by approximately one-half when pedaling at a submaximal power output is insufficient to result in a true overload on the muscular system, then what will? The answer to this question, of course, is pedaling at an even higher power output, e.g., performing maximal or near-maximal efforts, especially from an initially low cadence (what Dr. Martin has long referred to as special force training). This is clearly illustrated in Fig. 2, in which I have plotted the AEPF-CPV data for the six standing start efforts that I performed on the road and the 10 x ~10 s maximal accelerations that I performed on the Velodyne along with the results from the SE training sessions. (Note that for clarity I have not plotted data collected between efforts, e.g., when pedaling easily back to my starting point during the workout on the road.) As can be seen in this figure, in contrast to the clearly submaximal forces produced by (during) SE training, the AEPF during the standing start efforts and seated accelerations were markedly higher. In fact, the AEPF during the initial phase of the standing start efforts were significantly higher than my theoretical velocity-specific maxima as determined using the inertial load test. On the other hand, my AEPF during the seated accelerations tended to fall below that expected from this testing. While these differences could be partially due to the different measuring techniques used (i.e., on-bike SRM powermeter vs. computer-interfaced ergometer), they are probably mostly due to 1) the fact that I was out of the saddle during the standing start efforts, vs. seated at all times during the inertial load test (6), and 2) the fact that I was unable to reach optimal cadence before fatigue begain to develop during the seated accelerations. In any case, however, it should be clear that this form of training represents a far more significant load on the neuromuscular system, and hence is much more likely to result in an improvement in neuromuscular power, than SE training. Indeed, this past summer I was able to increase my maximal 5 s power - tested by performing a maximal acceleration in a small gear, thus mimicking the inertial load method - by 10% in just 4 wk by performing standing start efforts as described above on a weekly basis. Similarly, an elite female track cyclist increased her maximal 5 s power by 25% in just 8 wk by performing similar workouts several times per week when attempting to peak for an important competition.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif][SIZE=4] While, e.g., standing starts, maximal seated accelerations (termed power stomps by Chris Carmichael), etc., are clearly superior to SE training when it comes to overloading the neuromuscular system, they are obviously too short to result in significant improvements in the metabolic fitness of type II fibers. As previously discussed, however, it is unclear whether any special sort of training is needed to maximize this physiological adaptation. Nonetheless, [I]if[/I] specific training of these more-difficult-to-recruit motor units is for some reason deemed necessary or desirable, then [I]one[/I] possible way of doing so [I]might[/I] be by performing microintervals, i.e., very short (15 s or less) on/off efforts, for an extended period of time. The impact of training in this manner on the AEPF-CPV relationship is also shown in Fig. 2, which demonstrates that while in an absolute sense the AEPF during such intervals was not quite as high as that seen during SE training, during the on periods it was actually closer to my maximal force-velocity line (i.e., closer to the purple shaded region), due to the velocity-dependent reduction in force generating ability. In other words, such intervals are actually more likely to result in significant recruitment of type II motor units than SE training, because they demand a greater fraction of my (or anyones) maximal velocity-specific force. Of course, another advantage of microintervals over SE training is that microintervals are performed at a normal cadence, thus fulfilling the specificity principle with respect to muscle contractile velocity and minimizing any risk of injury due to an abnormally elevated force requirement at an abnormally slow cadence as is the case with SE training . To my knowledge, however, the physiological adaptations that result from performing microintervals on a regular basis has never been studied. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif][SIZE=4] [/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Riporta citazioni...
Verifica Anti SPAM
Invia risposta
Home
Forum
Allenamento
Metodologie di allenamento
Vo2 max o conconi??? La loro utilità.
Alto
Basso