Aerobic base work is for losers? (video)
If you thought eliminating squats from the weight
room was tough to swallow, you’re going to completely
lose your mind when you see the video Mike Boyle
put out today.
And if you coach track athletes, soccer players or
any sports requiring ‘endurance’, you might be a
little upset. Or a lot.
So I stole the video and put it on my blog so I
could respond to the comments you’ll likely have.
I couldn’t have picked a better clip myself. I’m a
huge fan and follower of the sprints coach he bases
his argument on and it has brought me full circle
in my development of speed/power athletes.
Click here for more about Functional Strength Coach 3.0
To your success,
Latif Thomas
October 29th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Mike Boyle is my boy! I’ve know him for a while and see him at all the Perform Better Seminars! He tell it like it is. Keep exposing those fitness myths!!
http://WWW.REACTFITNESS.COM
http://WWW.THEDANARICHPROJECT.COM
October 29th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
This is great information. Latif, I think you have known this for a long time as well though as your complete speed training program reflects this. I have only run over 600m about twice in the past year, yet I still feel very conditioned compared to other athletes in my area. Like you say, you can’t get faster without training fast.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Charlie is the man. Thanks to him this is common knowledge around my area.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
This is Rob (from the Netherlands). This is getting better every day and it’s fitting in the CST way of life. ” It’s all about speed.” This week i skipped the “double leg” conventional squat out of my program and long runs more than 300 yards where not in it. It’s not easy here to confince someone guys overhere so most of the times i’m training solo instead off together, but i beleive in this. Keep on going. Greeting from a true beleiver of CST.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I met Boyle last years – great coach!
October 29th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Finally some true love and recognition for Charlie Francis. This is nice to hear because there is always a tendency to follow and go back to the typical norms that I was trained throughout HS and College. No more excuses!
October 29th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
This video would make alot more sense if we knew the context. At the 1:20 mark he states that aerobic training does not work for the stated goals…..what are the stated goals?
Are we talking about just 100-200-FB-Hockey-?????-?????
Would this make Clyde Hart change his 200-400 program or is that outside the “stated goal” distances?
>>> It’s a fair question. For the answer I guess we’ll have to buy the product. (My disclaimer here is that I already have it). I think ‘the stated goals’ are either improved aerobic capacity or VO2 max, etc. His argument isn’t that aerobic work is bad, just that steady state, low intensity, plodding along distance runs are bad.
I think that applies to any sport. I work at the HS level and I know how kids are being trained in every sport and it’s a crime. So if you know what you’re doing, you’re hearing this and saying ‘Yeah of course running slow mileage is a poor way to get athletes ready to play their sport’. But 8 out of 10 coaches at the subcollegiate level don’t even know that. There’s a reason all my track athletes who play other sports come to me with their other sport training programs and ask me to fix the nonsense their coaches want them to do.
Of course, I would never have a 100-200 runner go out on the roads. That’s just crazy. As for Clyde Hart (and myself, not to compare my coaching skill to his) he’ll do distance runs as part of his prep work for the 400. But not as a primary method of conditioning, his interval work serves that purpose. But, when compared to steady state aerobic work, interval work is mentally harder and requires more muscular strength. Sometimes, after tough lactic work, you want to give your 400 types a mental break while also getting some degree of aerobic work in. So you send them on the roads knowing you’re sacrificing optimal aerobic capacity/power development, but letting them recover mentally. And finding a good balance is the art of coaching.
LT
October 30th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
This is a great illustration of what I learned as a college hurdler. As a freshman we spent the summer plus Sept, Oct and part of Nov. building our “Base before getting into sprinting less than 400 meters. By the time true sprint workouts came around I had no power. At this point I was questioning my ability.
My sophomore year I was coming off of surgery and was unable to do the “base” training through the summer and early fall. I spent the entire time in the weight room developing strength and power. After missing all that time and rejoining the team for pure sprint work, my reaction, acceleration and top end speed were better than they had ever been.
Thank you for articulating what I experienced!
>>> JP – It’s funny – I hear similar stories on a regular basis – injured athletes who can’t do the ‘base work’ come in during the ‘quality work’ and outperform their teammates who spent 1/4 of a year learning how to be slow.
One of the issues I see in the world of track and field is that track coaches only study other track coaches who only regurgitate what they stole from other track coaches. So that incestuous learning circle doesn’t really advance training for the sport since no one is really learning anything new.
LT
October 30th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
As you can see we changed the format of the blog and our website. There are still questions going to the old site, so here I’m adding some of the comments and responses I’ve given. To read them in the order they came in, you’ll have to go bottom to top:
——————
1. JP |
I agree with this training concept, but it’s nothing that revolutionary. The professor in my S&C class several years ago taught us exactly what he’s saying in this video: most team sports are anaerobic in nature and doing a lot of aerobic training will decrease the athlete’s strength/power capabilities and actually inhibit muscle growth. We were also taught that interval training was superior to aerobic training for fat loss and improving VO2 max. (He even went as far as telling us that we could get pretty decent VO2 measures without doing anything specifically for conditioning, if we set up the proper parameters on our weight training. And no, he didn’t mean circuit training.) So I agree that aerobic training is dead (at least for strength/power athletes), but I’m not sold on the squat theory. I don’t think his math is quite realistic. He totally ignores the fact that even with unilateral lifts, both legs do contribute to some extent, unless you’re doing pistol type squats. And there’s no way that single leg lifts develop the core “bracing” strength of bilateral lifts.
>>>You’re right, it’s not revolutionary. Common knowledge to you. Common knowledge to me. But not common knowledge to 90% of the sports coaches working with athletes at the sub collegiate level. I work at a high school. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that before I got there two years ago, 100 meter runners ran mileage on the roads. Field and court sport athletes’ base training is road work not intervals. This is the reality at the developmental levels. In terms of squats, you don’t have to agree. And if you haven’t seen FSC 3, I’m not sure you can really say what he ‘ignores’ and doesn’t ignore. I’m going to test it out before I come to a concreate conclusion. I recommend everyone else do the same.
Latif
1. MIke Goss
I’ve followed Boyle for a few years; Latif Thomas is providing a contemporary and ever evolving approach to training. This is the way we should approach our craft. I coach collegiate jumpers; we complete a series of 6 X 150 “strides” as the longest rep / preseason. My plan doesn’t exceed 80 meters; we also use 10,20,30 and 40 m repeats, interspersed with med ball work between runs. Squatting is one of the most overrated exercises for track and field jumpers; some see this as heresy, but if you do the homework (as Boyle and Thomas) you might re-think your ideaology.
2. Howard L.
This is some BS. 1st you are saying stop the most functional exercise known to man; the squat. Now you are saying that interval and cross country training is the downfall to an athlete. Maybe it is not the sport but the training program. This is insane, to say the least.
>>> I know you’re a crossfit guy, so your opinion is biased. And I have no problem with that. But the squat is the most functional lift for who? Athletes? I have to disagree. Outside of a rebound in basketball, a spike/block in volleyball and possibly a header in soccer, when is an athlete coming out of a squat position? Never. So, by definition, I can’t call that a ‘functional’ lift. Athletes do nearly everything off of one leg. So, in terms of ‘function’ training them to be powerful and explosive off of one leg sounds like the most functional thing you can do.
Interval training is not the downfall to an athlete and no one said that. Unless you’re using interval work at mechanically inefficient intensities *and* as the primary method of conditioning athletes for their sport. I use repeat 200s with my sprinters. As aerobic capacity work in the prep periods and maybe as active recovery during the competitive periods. But 8 out of 10 track coaches at the HS level use repeat 200s as the *primary* method of training athletes. Steady state runs at aerobic pace is the downfall to athletes. I’ve seen enough 100m runners, football players and even soccer players out running on the roads as a statistically significant percentage of their training. That’s just bad coaching and it’s the norm not the exception at the sub collegiate levels, regardless of sport.
Cross country is good for one thing – cross country runners. Other than that, having a 200m runner, a basketball player, etc. run cross country to ‘get in shape’ is completely ridiculous. I see no viable argument to the contrary, but would love to hear one.
I agree, if I understand you correctly, that the problem is probably the training program and not the sport. But most coaches and trainers, especially at the subcollegiate levels, don’t know the first thing about creating and/or implementing an effective training program.
So, with respect, I don’t think your argument is based on experience working with athletes, particularly athletes at the developmental levels.
Howard, I’m curious – have you received your copy of and reviewed Functional Strength Coach 3? Or are you basing your entire opinion on 9 minutes of clips? If you reviewed hours of discussion on the topic and tested it out and came to the conclusion you still like squats and distance runs, I can respect that. But if you’re just reacting emotionally because Boyle called out CrossFit, then I would argue that your opinion is insane, to say the least.
Latif
3. Stephen
I agree that aerobic training needs to be implemented into a program ‘if’ it supports the demands of the sport. I also believe that it can be used for restoration when needed, regardless of sport.
As for squats, Olympic squats and front squats, I have not used them for many years. They build great strength, not speed. Nor do I have athletes do leg curls, as it contradicts proper hamstring/gluteus function. These exercises have been eliminated from my programs since the early 90’s
The ‘good morning’ exercise and its variations is superior to all other strength and conditioning exercises in any athletic program. It does transfer over to improve speed, strength, endurance and conditioning; all vital developments for any given sport.
4. Jeff
I am a fan of aerobic training IF it supports your training needs as Mike points out. The physical demands of my military assignments (running and fin swimming) required that. Now that I am retired, although I intellectually know I don’t ‘need’ it there is still some anxiety (after over a year now) associated with not doing it. It does not help me in the physical activities I am choosing to do now. Reassuring to hear a confirming observation!
6. eru |
I am not a fan of Aerobic based training especially at the preseason phase of my program,which is based on plyo for speed and power/strength,so no real surprises there,BUT,as we get closer too competition my focus will turn towards some aerobic work thru my anaerobic program,as this has worked for my players previously,i hope this makes sense, a big fan Eru.
7. Will Mbanga |
Always good to see my go to guys (Latif, Pat & Mike Boyle) singing from the same hymn sheet! Charlie Francis was ahead of his time, as is Mike Boyle, but there are a fortunate few of us who are fortunate enough to learn from you guys.
One question/ comment- I agree with & use intervals for pro athletes, physically developed athletes & adults, but as Mike said in the clip, Aerobic training IS good for beginners- I do some (once a wk MAX) aerobic training (steady state long aerobic) with my ‘FUNdamentals’ Youth athletes (10-12) as part of my LTAD philosophy… do I need to re-think this?
>>> It’s true. Most people won’t learn from these guys and that’s more who I’m talking to – the huge number of coaches who think that ‘going for a run’ is an acceptable method of conditioning athletes. I don’t think you need to think the 1x/week steady state run for your beginners. He even says it’s OK, in moderation, for beginners who are so unconditioned that they can’t even do interval work. I would keep doing what you’re doing. The fact that you know *why* you’re doing it is what is important. Because most coaches at the youth level have absolutely no idea why they’re doing anything.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 am
While I certainly do not disagree with what Mike Boyle says about the need for aerobic conditioning for athletes, since he seems to limit “athletes” to those who do explosive type sports, I do find his statement that “cross country makes you stink at sports” and “the gift of slowness” kind of offensive. There are plenty of cross country runners who are excellent athletes- they have come from multi-sport backgrounds, were the fastest kids on their youth football or soccer team, etc. But once they hit puberty and end up 5′8″ and 130 pounds, the football and basketball team is probably not going to be too interested in them, so they turn to cross country or other sports. Yes, once they focus their training on more endurance oriented activities, they will likely sacrifice some of their speed. But I have known plenty of cross country athletes who can still run a respectable 400 (sub 50 for boys and sub 60 for girls), so to call cross country “the gift of slowness” is painting with a broad brush, I think.
One thing I find interesting is the idea that slow, steady aerobic work is easier than interval training for the very unfit. Not in my experience. People who are really unfit can’t do steady aerobic running. Interspersing running with rest works much better. Maybe no one considers it interval work if the running component isn’t of a certain speed…?
>>> I see what you’re saying. But once kids hit puberty is the beginning of where sports and sports success become relevant. It doesn’t matter if you were a great athlete when you were 10 if you can’t make the team when you’re 15. I wouldn’t attribute cross country to the reason boys or girls are running sub 50/60. Cross country isn’t something I would ever recommend to an athlete who needed to be quick, fast, strong or explosive. And that is most athletes in most sports. If you take cross out of the equation, those sub 50/60 kids, very likely, can also run fast 200s and so it comes back to having natural speed levels, not because they ran 40 miles per week during cross country. When I get kids who come from cross country or distance backgrounds and they want me to make them fast I think to myself ‘Oh man, here come weak, uncoordinated kids who run heel to toe and have no idea how to accelerate, decelerate, change directions, apply force to the ground, sprint on the balls of their feet, etc.’
So while what you say is true, in principle, in practical terms cross country is only beneficial to one group of athletes – cross country runners.
Latif
November 4th, 2009 at 8:57 am
This one has me scratching my head for a couple different reasons and it’s not about the concept, which is 20 years old to those in the know. First, Mike talks about reading this in 1984. I’d be curious to know what he read back then because, by my accounts, CFTS book didn’t come out until 1991 or 1992. Second, all this great info is coming from a guy who suggests NOT listening to track coaches. Bit of a contradiction? I think he should re-phrase that to say “don’t listen to bad track coaches.”
November 13th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Interesting view. There seems to be a growing body of people who agree with this type of training. To throw endurance training out of the window completely is a little extreme perhaps. Especially when it comes to events which are aerobic in nature. Of course the traing should be highly specific to the event in question and the sprint events perhaps dont need any aerobic training just like a weightlifter needs none. However when we take the general population into consideration, the argument is altered.
>>> If the goal is to make an athlete faster, i.e. improve acceleration or fastest top speed, then steady state runs at mechanically compromising speeds are not going to achieve that goal. If the goal is to get an obese person into respectable shape in order to stave off Type II diabetes, then yes, steady state runs are good because they are too out of shape to do real running. But once they achieve baseline aerobic and work capacity, they’ll get better results with interval training.
LT