physiology testing
While I am very impressed with David's paddling and his training and congratulate him on his general fitness, it has to be said that historically slalomists' VO2 max results has always lagged well behind most other sports. David's is probably so good due to the amount of River Race training he has done alongside his slalom training (and creeking). This begs the question - how important is VO2 max to a slalom paddler? I would conclude that it isn't very, in which case finding out your VO2 max is of no value to you as a slalom paddler, a good result might make you feel better about yourself, but it isn't going to win you races.
-
roodthomas
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:33 pm
- Location: Barnsley
-
RussJohnson
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:19 pm
- Location: Wakefield
- Contact:
i agree with this. the amount of oxygen in the blood going to muscles is an important factor in ANY Aerobic exercise.roodthomas wrote:Disagree . . . the amount of oxygen you get to your muscles during and after exercise is of huge importance to any sport that lasts more than 20 seconds effort. It helps to know if your elite.
it only doesn't take effect in Anaerobic excercise such as sprinting over short distance (under 20sec) where breathing isn't totally nessecary. in this situation your muscles burn stored glucose instead of oxygen. it can only be done for short periods of time. mainly due to it been bad for muscles. but i think last time i checked we need oxygen.
anymore than this and breathing kinda needs to happen and hence becomes Aerobic. and for best results in aerobic excersice a better VO2 the more oxygen for your muscles to use and better sporting results.
Russell Johnson
HALIFAX Canoe Club - West Yorkshire Canoe Club
HALIFAX Canoe Club - West Yorkshire Canoe Club
The anaerobic energy systems will last you 120 seconds, so unless you make some big mistakes, or it is an excessively long course, you shouldn't be using the aerobic energy systems at all in a race - if you are then you aren't working hard enough.
The benefit of a good VO2 max result is that it is an indicator of your ability to recover after exercise, i.e. you will be able to train at a higher intensity or for longer.
The benefit of a good VO2 max result is that it is an indicator of your ability to recover after exercise, i.e. you will be able to train at a higher intensity or for longer.
-
roodthomas
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:33 pm
- Location: Barnsley
You are essentially saying that you don't breathe for slalom, maybe you can do that Dave, but I don't know anyone else that can . . .
'The benefit of a good VO2 max result is that it is an indicator of your ability to recover after exercise, i.e. you will be able to train at a higher intensity or for longer. '
. . . so in Mr Bain's case, this is quite an important thing to know!! And for anyone else involved in a high intensity training plan!
'The benefit of a good VO2 max result is that it is an indicator of your ability to recover after exercise, i.e. you will be able to train at a higher intensity or for longer. '
. . . so in Mr Bain's case, this is quite an important thing to know!! And for anyone else involved in a high intensity training plan!
-
John Sturgess
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
- Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire
Two separate points on this:
There is no such thing as not needing aerobic sources - aerobic/anaerobic is not an 'either/or' situation - a 400m Olympic Medallist gets c. 40% of his energy aerobically during a race (and in any case Slalom is predominantly a neural rather than either an aerobic or an anaerobic sport, in terms of which bits fatigue first)
However there is now fairly general agreement amongst top-level coaches and sports scientists that VO2max is not a useful measure - and particularly not for athletes whose need for aerobic energy occurs at the top end, when the body is already using anaerobic energy as well
I will post references on this latter point when I have time to get them together
There is no such thing as not needing aerobic sources - aerobic/anaerobic is not an 'either/or' situation - a 400m Olympic Medallist gets c. 40% of his energy aerobically during a race (and in any case Slalom is predominantly a neural rather than either an aerobic or an anaerobic sport, in terms of which bits fatigue first)
However there is now fairly general agreement amongst top-level coaches and sports scientists that VO2max is not a useful measure - and particularly not for athletes whose need for aerobic energy occurs at the top end, when the body is already using anaerobic energy as well
I will post references on this latter point when I have time to get them together
In our sport we use all 3 energy systems, the predominant one being the lactic acid system.
However we still require a high aerobic capacity or VO2 max for areas of a run where the intensity will drop (e.g. when slowing the pace on the approach to a tight stagger). during this time we are recovering and creating energy by resynthesising ATP that can then be used when we need to push the limits.
Admittedly a high lactic acid tolerance level is of most benefit to our sport, but a high VO2 max will allow you to recover during the run and train for longer. This has got to be a positive surely???
Congrats David
However we still require a high aerobic capacity or VO2 max for areas of a run where the intensity will drop (e.g. when slowing the pace on the approach to a tight stagger). during this time we are recovering and creating energy by resynthesising ATP that can then be used when we need to push the limits.
Admittedly a high lactic acid tolerance level is of most benefit to our sport, but a high VO2 max will allow you to recover during the run and train for longer. This has got to be a positive surely???
Congrats David
My real concern with physiology testing is the effect this can have upon the way an athelete trains. The great thing about physiology testing is that it gives an absolute result, so you are able to compare one athelete against another, and also measure an athelete's progression. The difficulty with canoe slalom (and in my opinion what makes it such a great sport) is that the aspects of the athletes make up that separate one athlete from another are not easily or accurately measurable. Because physiology testing is pretty much black and white, it gives certainty to the effectiveness of the atheletes training programme. This is highly attractive to some atheletes and to an even greater degree their coaches. As a result many athletes will concentrate their training programmes around improving their results in physiological tests.
Consequently I believe that physiological testing should be done carefully and sparingly, and should also be specific to the sport. VO2 max is of such small importance in a slalom race that it is of little benefit to the athlete unless it is suspected that an athlete has a specific problem in that area.
Pretty much all training will have a positive effect upon the athletes VO2 max anyway. There is a limit to the amount of training that an athlete can do, for most of us it is a simple time constraint, but even for full time athletes rest periods are very important, and therefore decisions regarding the volume of each type of training have to be made. It is not possible to emphasise VO2 max training without a detrimental effect on other parts of the training programme.
I understand that driving force for David to do so much training in river racing was for reasons other than VO2 max, his excellent VO2 max result is more a by-product of that training rather than the goal. Furthermore you only have to watch David in action to realise that he has been careful not to neglect those aspects of his training that will benefit his slalom racing.
Consequently I believe that physiological testing should be done carefully and sparingly, and should also be specific to the sport. VO2 max is of such small importance in a slalom race that it is of little benefit to the athlete unless it is suspected that an athlete has a specific problem in that area.
Pretty much all training will have a positive effect upon the athletes VO2 max anyway. There is a limit to the amount of training that an athlete can do, for most of us it is a simple time constraint, but even for full time athletes rest periods are very important, and therefore decisions regarding the volume of each type of training have to be made. It is not possible to emphasise VO2 max training without a detrimental effect on other parts of the training programme.
I understand that driving force for David to do so much training in river racing was for reasons other than VO2 max, his excellent VO2 max result is more a by-product of that training rather than the goal. Furthermore you only have to watch David in action to realise that he has been careful not to neglect those aspects of his training that will benefit his slalom racing.
Agree.
We don't train to get better at training, we don't work in the gym to get better at gym, we do it to be better at canoeing and to win races when it counts.
However working on VO2 max can have a huge impact in the long run, as it can increase the ammount of quality water training you can do per week. This in turn will give more time to practice technique.
For the amount of time it takes to train the aerobic system properly (continuous training for over 20 mins at a time) it is definitely worth it to do this a few times a week in my opinion. These sessions are also useful for managing weight as aerobic training is an effective way to loose unwanted tissue.
I think if you look at the likes of Campbell Walsh then you will see how a good aerobic system can come into play.
We don't train to get better at training, we don't work in the gym to get better at gym, we do it to be better at canoeing and to win races when it counts.
However working on VO2 max can have a huge impact in the long run, as it can increase the ammount of quality water training you can do per week. This in turn will give more time to practice technique.
For the amount of time it takes to train the aerobic system properly (continuous training for over 20 mins at a time) it is definitely worth it to do this a few times a week in my opinion. These sessions are also useful for managing weight as aerobic training is an effective way to loose unwanted tissue.
I think if you look at the likes of Campbell Walsh then you will see how a good aerobic system can come into play.
Time for a biochemistry lesson; potted and difficult without pictures but here goes;
There is only one source only of direct energy for muscle contraction [and pretty much everything else] – the chemical ATP. In the process of giving up its energy, it is converted to ADP. Energy metabolism is all about re-cycling ADP back to ATP. Try not think of levels of ATP going up and down. You should think of this process as a constant cycling between the two forms, the more muscle use, the faster the cycling occurs between the two chemicals. You don’t have stores of excess ATP sitting there waiting to be used and you never run out of ATP; it’s levels never even drop significantly – you die if they do.
The ADP back to ATP part of the cycle is constantly fired by a combination of the following processes;
1. Creatine P is converted to creatine [in muscle only]. This is a simple one-step process; the reaction is almost instant but will run out after a few seconds. This means of keeping the ADP-to-ATP part of the cycle going is over before you leave the start gate if you’ve had a long run up.
After exercise creatine is converted back to creatine P using ATP [a simple reverse of the above process], which is now in less demand by muscle contraction. This may occur during a run if you have a few seconds of relaxed paddling giving you a little creatine P to quickly re-cycle some ATP in a subsequent quick burst. This is one reason why Jim is right to stress the importance of pace.
2. Glucose [or fatty acids or amino acids] converted in a long, complicated step-wise process to carbon dioxide.
This is what most cells do and the final stages need oxygen – hence aerobic. It is an efficient means of recycling ATP [32 molecules of ATP from one of glucose]. Using fatty acids it is even more efficient and if you are well-trained your muscles will predominantly use these and reserve the body’s glucose for the brain and red blood cells.
3. Glucose converted to lactic acid; using just the first part of process 2 and so not needing oxygen – hence anaerobic.
It is inefficient as only part of the energy in glucose is used to re-cycle ADP back to ATP: you just get 2 molecules from one glucose in this process. But it is a simple and rapid means of recycling ATP for short periods. Your muscles do this not simply because there isn’t enough oxygen, but because the first part of the process, up to lactic acid, can go much faster than the second, oxygen-requiring part. If you put the power in, your muscles will do more of process 3 because it will recycle ATP at a faster rate than 2, not because there’s insufficient oxygen.
One consequence of the excessive use of glucose in this way [besides the obvious - a rapid depletion in the level of glucose in the muscle cell] is a massive build up of lactic acid and the related 'burn'. Again, getting the pace right will reduce this.
The lactic acid [lactate to be correct] still has most of the energy that was in the original glucose – it is not waste [another myth] and is taken via the blood to the liver to be converted back to glucose [the muscles can’t do this, even when exercise stops]. This is the basis behind ‘warm downs’.
All these means of re-cycling ADP back to ATP in the muscle overlap during a run. You never just do one or the other. Even when you are ‘not breathing’, there is still enough oxygen in the muscle cells for 2 to take place, though of course you will start to do more of 3.
Physiologists, especially sports physiologists tend over simplify [to be fair, I suppose they have to] and often make it sound like we simply switch between one form of metabolism and another.
Hope this helps in discussions on VO2
There is only one source only of direct energy for muscle contraction [and pretty much everything else] – the chemical ATP. In the process of giving up its energy, it is converted to ADP. Energy metabolism is all about re-cycling ADP back to ATP. Try not think of levels of ATP going up and down. You should think of this process as a constant cycling between the two forms, the more muscle use, the faster the cycling occurs between the two chemicals. You don’t have stores of excess ATP sitting there waiting to be used and you never run out of ATP; it’s levels never even drop significantly – you die if they do.
The ADP back to ATP part of the cycle is constantly fired by a combination of the following processes;
1. Creatine P is converted to creatine [in muscle only]. This is a simple one-step process; the reaction is almost instant but will run out after a few seconds. This means of keeping the ADP-to-ATP part of the cycle going is over before you leave the start gate if you’ve had a long run up.
After exercise creatine is converted back to creatine P using ATP [a simple reverse of the above process], which is now in less demand by muscle contraction. This may occur during a run if you have a few seconds of relaxed paddling giving you a little creatine P to quickly re-cycle some ATP in a subsequent quick burst. This is one reason why Jim is right to stress the importance of pace.
2. Glucose [or fatty acids or amino acids] converted in a long, complicated step-wise process to carbon dioxide.
This is what most cells do and the final stages need oxygen – hence aerobic. It is an efficient means of recycling ATP [32 molecules of ATP from one of glucose]. Using fatty acids it is even more efficient and if you are well-trained your muscles will predominantly use these and reserve the body’s glucose for the brain and red blood cells.
3. Glucose converted to lactic acid; using just the first part of process 2 and so not needing oxygen – hence anaerobic.
It is inefficient as only part of the energy in glucose is used to re-cycle ADP back to ATP: you just get 2 molecules from one glucose in this process. But it is a simple and rapid means of recycling ATP for short periods. Your muscles do this not simply because there isn’t enough oxygen, but because the first part of the process, up to lactic acid, can go much faster than the second, oxygen-requiring part. If you put the power in, your muscles will do more of process 3 because it will recycle ATP at a faster rate than 2, not because there’s insufficient oxygen.
One consequence of the excessive use of glucose in this way [besides the obvious - a rapid depletion in the level of glucose in the muscle cell] is a massive build up of lactic acid and the related 'burn'. Again, getting the pace right will reduce this.
The lactic acid [lactate to be correct] still has most of the energy that was in the original glucose – it is not waste [another myth] and is taken via the blood to the liver to be converted back to glucose [the muscles can’t do this, even when exercise stops]. This is the basis behind ‘warm downs’.
All these means of re-cycling ADP back to ATP in the muscle overlap during a run. You never just do one or the other. Even when you are ‘not breathing’, there is still enough oxygen in the muscle cells for 2 to take place, though of course you will start to do more of 3.
Physiologists, especially sports physiologists tend over simplify [to be fair, I suppose they have to] and often make it sound like we simply switch between one form of metabolism and another.
Hope this helps in discussions on VO2
Thank you mwilk - that is the most easily understandable, yet complete description of the processes I have read yet.
Furthermore, though I have long been convinced that it must be the case, I have never read anything before about recycling ATP. In the old days of long courses I would deliberately drop back into process 2 during straight sections to allow my muscles (especially my arms) to recover for the next section of gates.
This begs the question: in these days of short courses, you can't afford to lower your work rate so that process 2 is the dominant supplier of energy, can ATP be recycled into creatine when you are working at the rate where process 3 is dominant?
Furthermore, though I have long been convinced that it must be the case, I have never read anything before about recycling ATP. In the old days of long courses I would deliberately drop back into process 2 during straight sections to allow my muscles (especially my arms) to recover for the next section of gates.
This begs the question: in these days of short courses, you can't afford to lower your work rate so that process 2 is the dominant supplier of energy, can ATP be recycled into creatine when you are working at the rate where process 3 is dominant?
Could we bring the difference between VO2 max and aerobic capacity into this?
VO2 max is tested at a high intensity which is relevant to our sport.
However it is purely a measure of volume of oxygen. Whereas aerobic capacity is how this oxygen is taken in, transported and used in the muscle cells.
VO2 max testing is still basically full pace (or as close as you can get)
I cant really understand how this is not relevant to canoe slalom.
Maybe someone can enlighten me on this one?...
VO2 max is tested at a high intensity which is relevant to our sport.
However it is purely a measure of volume of oxygen. Whereas aerobic capacity is how this oxygen is taken in, transported and used in the muscle cells.
VO2 max testing is still basically full pace (or as close as you can get)
I cant really understand how this is not relevant to canoe slalom.
Maybe someone can enlighten me on this one?...
can ATP be recycled into creatine when you are working at the rate where process 3 is dominant?
That’s a good question Dave, probably the big question in the case of a slalom race. I should say that much of this below is fact [well; the results of research], but some is my interpretation based on reading and teaching.
First of all, the rate of depletion of creatine P is often exaggerated. 2-3 s max is often quoted, probably based on age-old measurements taken during all-out intense activity. In fact, during near maximal intensity [which is more realistic for most of a slalom run] you could still be using creatine P to recycle 20-30% of your ATP 10-15 s into the run.
Also, research shows that your creatine P levels can be restored very quickly. In fact if you stop dead after your run, you will have 80-90% of it back by the time the next paddler crosses the finish line. Research showing creatine P recovery during sports with intermitent activity was done using intermittent bouts of intense activity with complete breaks inbetween so it’s diffcult to say how it would relate to creatine P levels during a slalom run.
Because it can be replaced very quickly, I suspect that the paddllers with the best technique – you know the ones; those who look like they are not trying – do manage to regenerate sufficient creatine P during the ‘relaxed’ sections [i.e. where they are using the water and/or technique rather than sheer power] to help provide quick 1-2 stroke power bursts where they need it.
In that few seconds of relative relaxation of muscle contraction, you are able to recycle ATP in excess of what you need at that very moment. There’s no immediate debt to pay to the system for the incomplete use of glucose in process 3 [that debt is paid off later by the liver and type 1 muscle fibres] so the excess will be used to regenerate creatine P from creatine. It would make a great deal of sense if you could train to do this because creatine P is by far the quickest way to re-cycle ATP so it’s where the real power comes from. There’s evidence that taking creatine in the diet [I think it’s still legal] can help but it’s effect is only marginal.
Paddlers with poor technique have probably depleted most of their creatine P well before gate 1 and most likely even before the start gate if they’ve gone off aggressively on a long run-up in a ‘look at me go’ style [I’m not saying that everyone who does this also has poor technique]. If they continue in this manner down the course – thanks to a very high level of aerobic fitness and strength – it’s likely that their creatine P levels will not recover significantly at any stage during their run.
Research also shows that during each successive burst of activity, your ability to get ATP recycled by process 3 [anaerobic glycolysis] is gradually reduced. It’s not known why; it’s not due to depletion of the fuel – glucose [or to be correct in the muscle, its stored form – glycogen] – that could not happen in such a short time. It’s likely to be due to a build up of something, though there is no evidence yet that it’s the lactate.
So this is where VO2 max probably comes into play. You will gradually become more dependent on process 2 [aerobic metabolism] during a run. It is likely that the actual level of contribution to ATP re-cyling from this aerobic process hardly changes throughout a run. Initially it’s well fed with oxygen that’s plentiful in the system and that’s gradually topped up as you breath harder. It’s contribution to the blend in % terms increases simply because the other two decrease in contribution during the run.
This is why the less well trained will lose power and slow down at the end; process 2 can only support a lower work rate [though of course this will depend on your aerobic fitness]. Specific training can increase your capacity to maintain process 3 for longer and I suspect that skill/technique/pace will help you to generate creatine P ‘shots’ during the run.
Ironically, I reckon that VO2 max is more important for the paddler with poor technique because they are likely to have quickly depleted creatine P and their abiilty to use anaerobic glycolysis, though still making a significant contribution, will fall away quicker than in the smart paddler [I couldn’t think of a better way of putting it].
But John is right about VO2max; there is only a general correlation with performance [usually measured in runners and cyclists]; it’s no guarantee either way. It’s one of those ideas that came out of research and has stuck. Another is the old ‘lactate is a dead end compound produced as a result of O2 lack”. This not the case [as I alluded to in the first piece]. But the idea still exists [and to be fair it’s still in the biochemistry text books that we use !]