|
A
|
01-29-20 02:27 PM - Post#893326
I don't tend to post much and mostly follow these conversations for their educational value (listening to those of you who have "been there and done that" and know way more than I do about this subject), but I must admit it's still not clear to me why The Quick and the Dead is such a flawed program. I've played around with its parameters a bit and found it intriguing, but some of the comments have me concerned about going down that road.
Would someone care to explain its faults for someone who's "out of the loop?"
I don't think Q&D is flawed, but it's not a program I'm interested in (which is different from disliking it).
I'd rather do its precursor: Strength Aerobics.
Anyway, the science of it is well beyond my limited understanding , but I read this some time ago and found it interesting.
According to people who do the research and work with TdF cyclists, the way to build mitochondria is via Zone 2 cardio training, and it's got to be 3+ hours weekly, preferably more, to do so.
Peter Attia's podcast below, with Inigo San Millan, PhD, is extremely informative and worth the long listen.
https://peterattiamd.com/inigosanmillan/
Where this pokes holes into Pavel's Q&D stuff is here:
You have 3 muscle fiber types
Type 1
Type 2
Type 2b
Type 1 are chock full of mitochondria
Type 2 less so
Type 2b even less so.
Yet Q&D focues on the Type 2b.
Yet 5 or 10 'explosive' push ups isn't hitting your 2bs. Neither is 5-10 explosive swings.
"I think we often spend too much time focusing on max fitness
and not nearly enough on maintaining our minimums.
It seems we need to think sustainable rather than obtainable.
Meaning whatever we do today, we can do it again tomorrow.
Never taking so much from ourselves that we can't."
Dan Martin |
Edited by iPood on 01-29-20 02:29 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
