Hi,
I’m a 1b : explosive/ex-sprinter (11.3 at 17), lactate intolerant (headaches and days to recover after intervals with short rests), problem to stick to one program… I read your post where you write that the 1b should do alactic sprints for cardio.
Neverthless, maybe its sounds strange, I like to do very easy LISS (long-steady distance), even if I’m bad at it (very slow, some 6:30min/km pace). I hated LISS when I was in high school, but now in my middle thirties, I like it because I feel good after doing it and it helps to maintain a low bodyfat. I know that LISS is also very good for AMPK and mitochondria. Purely anaerobic training seems not to be the best idead for longevity. I seem to like the two opposite of the spectrum explosivness (good at it) and slow endurance (bad at it), and hating and avoiding the middle zone of lactic acid and other HIIT/crossfit nonsense(for me).
My question is: would doing LISS cardio be bad for me? Physiologically speaking as a fast-twitch guy. I don’t want to hear "Do what you like"In which context did you recommend alactic sprint only and to avoid LSD?
Depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you want to compete semi seriously at either sprinting or endurance running doing the opposite version will degrade your performance for the other. The muscle fibres engaged are mainly fast or mainly slow and you can detrain one if you do work with the other, also differing energy systems and CNS importance.
From a health perspective aerobic seems to have the edge over anaerobic. I doubt if alactic sprints provide much aerobic benefits. If you do them as short recovery it becomes a lactatte tolerance type intensive tempo. Neither does it feel as easy as LISS.
A compromise between sprint competitions and health considerations is to sprint as your competitive event but do non running LISS. You get an aerobic benefit but without impact stresses.
Thanks for your answer.
No I don’t compete. My question was more about health and exercise implication on neurotype/genotype. If it’s bad to do LISS as a explosive athlete from a health/longevity aspect? Could this type of effort have drawbacks on my health?
I think it’s not the case, but I’m not absolutely sure.
Elite middle distance athletes
Quote : We examined the longevity of the first 20 pioneers from 14 countries who were credited with running a mile in less than 4 min, from 1954 to 1960. Of these 20 athletes, 18 (90%) experienced considerable longevity, living for 80–88 years (six athletes reached age 87–88 years), and exceeded life expectancy by an average of 12 years.
Serious but not elite endurance runners.
Above average life expectancy for elite high jumpers and marathon runners. Below average for sprinters.
Studies tend to be observational eg do not allow for other factors such as subjects with above average wealth/education etc particpating at non elite endurance level.
Elite level will of course not be natural sprinting types.
Nevertheless there is a significant body of thought supporting aerobic exercise. Whether this is LSD (marathon) or interval training (middle distance) does not seem a conclusive factor.
What probably does matter for the type of aerobic exercise is how much time you have and what you find interesting.
Are there health risks for a sprinter type ?
Sprinter/thrower types worry about their heavier build damaging joints in LSD. Hence my mention above about non running cardio.
They are also more likely to get bored. And of course the best training programme is the one you enjoy.
Thanks. Yes I’m very aware of the benefits of aerobic training on health, especially on blood sugar and cholesterol levels. Along caloric restriction, endurance training is the main trigger of AMPK which is proven to enhance lifespan and a myriad of other health benefits. The main problem with anaerobic training (sprint and strength) is that it triggers mTOR which is known to shorten lifespan and accelerating aging. Surely it has benefits, too (mainly in maintaining strength later on life), but surely isn’t enough if one want to extend their lifespan.
I am not sure if there are necessarily significant negative effects of sprinting per se. Sometimes it is necessary to differentiate between what is bad and what is less good.
It keeps you more agile and with a better balanced body which helps with activity in later life.
There are other factors in that sprinters tend to retire at say 32 and not sprint again. Endurance runners carry on longer term into very late life.
One of the studies mentions the health benefits of lowish body weight which is a significant factor in the whole regime of metabolic syndrome issues. This is easier to achieve for endurance runners, their body weight is likely to be lower to start with and their training keeps them that way. May explain why high jumpers have a longer life expectancy despite doing speed/strenth type training - they are thin to start with and stay that way in later life.
Personally I alternate between endurance runs of 30-40 mins and sprints of up to 50m.