I know this has been discussed many times the past years, however I have trouble understanding some details. Training has to be as specific as possible. This is why runners run, cyclists bike and so on. What I can’t understand is how specific base training needs to be? It is in it’s nature – a base. Surely many of the aerobic adaptations are similar. Are enzymatic responses and capillary density or mitochondrial density really that sensitive to different forms of training. Running or biking or other? If the same muscles are worked in a somewhat similar fashion, is the difference then mostly the movement pattern and efficiency?
Niels Van Poel speedsskater did All of his base on a bike and then did All specific training on the ice rink and it worked for him (he won olympic 2x gold). If the specificity matters so much during the base, than how can running be specific enough for alpinism? Movement leg speed and joint angles are not the same, hiking up steep terrain with a pack and boots compared to running rolling hills.
Even pro runners train around 15-18 hours a week, all specific training. Would it be detrimental for them to add none-specific aerobic training for an additional 10 hours during the base period? If event specific training is prioritized later does it matter, how the base was built?
If you could double your volume by adding none-specific aerobic work that would just be a waste even if the same muscles are worked and you could recover. Why?
I hope someone can shed som light on this, I can’t really make sense of it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.