As an athlete you've probably heard lots of empiric theories about performance.
This afternoon, sick of studying, I've spent the afternoon discussing this theme with a thriathlete friend at the Faculty's library. Note that we both don't have education in the area (so our opinions are limited). We're just curious about it and so I share some thoughts:
I've always heard that training in a fasted state would improve your lipolysis capabilities. It's an empiric idea among portuguese long distance runners. Actually, we've found here that:
- exercise-induced intramyocellular lipid breakdown was enhanced in type I fibers (P<0.05)
- increased the exercise intensity corresponding to the maximal rate of fat oxidation (+21%) more than did CHO (+6%) (P<0.05)
- prevented the development of exercise-induced drop in blood glucose concentration (P<0.05)
About supplements, we had 2 opposite opinions. By what I've seen, heard and read, I think that we don't need any:
- protein supplement - it's pure math. if an athlete needs 1.4-2 g/kg/day, this goal is easily reachable by 2 beefs (90gr of protein each) or 1cup of beans (177gr).. and we eat much more than that. About the timing, it isn't that odd to eat normal food (non-powder food, i mean) right after the training sessions.
- electrolyte supplements - well explained here
About heart rate training .
I'm trained by personal Rate of perceived exertion (RPE); he trains by heart rate (HR).
About HR, considering that:
- dehydration can increase heart rate by up to 7.5%;
- heat and humidity can increase heart rate by around 10 beats/min;
- altitude can increase heart rate by 10-20%, even with acclimatisation
- the HR varies along a training session and it's peak is delayed during intervals.
- the time between two consecutive beats can vary considerably in normal athletes.
... is it still as precise as claimed? I used to train by HR with my last coach and I felt limited once I like to vary the pace during a training session by my will.
About RPE (I don't have any scale, it's subjective)...
...it's applications in the antecipatory model may be geniously found here...
... it's accurate
... may prevent overtraining
... and the preferred associative vs. the dissociative model fits in (the "brain training" theories).
After all, I think that the human will to manipulate our million-year tuned engine had no significant results. Rather than manipulating it, we should focus on understanding it.
To my page/day statistics it was a lost afternoon; to me, it was an enjoyable afternoon.