Are athletes really getting faster, better, stronger?

OK, so I actually bought Teri Tom's book, which you're citing. And she says that longer exercise at a lower heart rate is good for managing body composition.

To avoid accusations of citing things like an undergraduate on his first term paper, I'll quote the exact words in the same style you use:

So in a sport that places a premium on making weight and body composition, maybe it shouldn't surprise us that trainers chose an exercise that helps manage body composition?

It also supports BitPlayerVesti when he says that modern training is making today's heavyweights fatter.

 

Wow, I assumed this had run it's course. Ok then.

Being an expert in nutrition isn't the same as being an expert in exercise or conditiong, and a masters isn't even that impressive a qualification.

Anyway that particular quote just says all the energy systems are used, which doesn't even disagree with anything I've said, in fact it agrees with what I've said.

Add "just so stories" to things you don't understand. That is the background to the Tabata paper, it was studying a peaking protocol a coach used. And people like Lydaird had also been using it for peaking, decades ago. The study design did not differentiate from peaking and long term development.
The consensus now is generally shifting away from the heavy focus on intervals to stuff like polariazed training anyway, because of the things I highlighted. Inverals had been used for decades, and people tried different ways of using them, and found what worked, and the sports science is starting to shift that way.

I'm not talking about Victorian training methods either, it's training principles still used today, and when they went away from them in the 90's, becuase of stuff like what you keep bringing up, the results were terrible. But the old school boxing methods were much closer to what works. In fact the research is shifting more that way too with stuff like polarised training (plenty of easy volume, and a small amount of hard intensity)

That quote is trash. It confuses the alactic power training with lactic interval training. Lactic interval training will not make you more explosive, and it will make it harder to actually improve explosiveness. That's why Charlie Francis made a point of avoiding durations/intensities that caused acculation of lactic acid, and it ignores what actually works in developing the aerobic system. Just becuase intervals use the aerobic system doesn't mean that's the best way to develop them, it only looks like they work well for that if you don't know what peaking is.
And if Judo is truely HIIT (which is pretty dubious), then with already doing a lot of practice, the last thing you should try and do is more interval training, so for futher aerobic improvement you'd need more standard aerobic work.

They might have reviewed the litrature, but they clearly have no understanding of training. Science is about explaining and making predictions, if you're predictions don't match reality, you don't keep aserting them. Tons of people have tried stuff like this, their results are always crap.

A lot of it is behind paywalls, and I don't have memberships, I'm not paying money over a dumb internet argument.

No, I cited them and gave the relevant finding which were in the abstract anyway, no one quotes everything they cite when there is no need, that is moronic. I posted the relevant info, and I posted it in an easier to understand way.

I didn't claim to have a special skill to find that stuff, I make my argument, and justified it, anyone can do that. The T-Nation thing was from Charlie Francis, who coached people from grass roots and developed methods which he used to train a world record breaker (with some chemical help, but all his competition were using it too). I couldn't find a short overview of his training, so I thought him answering some questions would atleast give anyone with actual interest some info.

There was nothing to analyse, it just made a bunch of claims, which I'd already made an extensive arguments for being wrong

Because it is trash, it's based on misunderstandings and overextrapolations. Plenty of people have tried hard intervals, they aren't a good way to progress long term, and lactic acid intereferes a lot with other training.

Most of these guys have qualifications but don't even do research, so calling them scientists is a stretch.

 

What is dead may never die.

 

And with strange aeons even death may die.

 

And this is just me spitballing here...

Is it possible that there's a *difference of opinion* on whether interval training is good to develop an aerobic base, with conflicting studies going in each direction?

Because that would explain why the qualified sources you guys are hurling at each other disagree.

(It would also explain similar fights within the MMA community about whether long slow distance runs were good for building stamina.)

 

The studies on intervals almost always do show aerobic improvement, but they are too short term, you almost never see a 5 year sports science study, even 1 year is unusual, they are often something like 8 weeks, and that's just not long enough to distinguish peaking from long term developement.

The lack of long term studies is why I fall back onto the understanding of coaches, like Lydaird, who were able to develop athletes over years into world beaters. It's much more an issue of study design, and interpretation.

 

By the way, not sure who listed Ollie Matson as weighing 220, but the contemporary sources I saw listed him between 200-210, and one article had him in the 190s at one point early in his career. So he was apparently significantly smaller than Jim Brown (and today's big backs). Both he and Brown were considered extreme outliers/physical freaks though--an October 18, 1952 Philadelphia Inquirer piece called Matson "probably the fastest man his size in America." Not coincidentally, when Matson retired he and Brown were the #1 and #2 leading rushers in NFL history.

 

Since @BitPlayerVesti has apparently withdrawn any attack on my sources' credibility, and agrees with the Teri Tom quote that began this debate, I am willing to declare a cease-fire on that basis if he is.

I'm not interested in spending the next week debating marginal differences in aerobic development between interval training and slow, long distance running. It is not crucial to my case against the Corbett-period dinosaurs.

 

"who listed Ollie Matson as weighing 220"

His entry in the Pro Football HOF, Pro Football Reference, NFL.com, and the Total Football Encyclopedia all list him as 6' 2" and 220 lbs.

"he was apparently significantly smaller"

The question is when was he weighed for your "contemporary sources"--I assume he was somewhat lighter in college and certainly when engaging in Olympic sprints. That makes sense.

"probably the fastest man his size in America"

Probably.

"when Matson retired he and Brown were the #1 and #2 leading rushers in NFL history."

No. Brown was #1, but Matson was not in the top five.

Jim Brown (retired 1965)--12,312
Joe Perry (retired 1963)--8378 (9723 if AAFC included) (6-0 200)
Jim Taylor (retired 1967)--8597 (8207 through 1966 when Matson retired) (6-0 215)
Steve Van Buren (retired 1951)--5860 (6-1 215)
Rick Casares (retired 1966)--5797 (6-2 225)
Hugh McIlhenny (retired 1964)--5281 (6-1 195)
Ollie Matson (retired 1966)--5173 (6-2 220)

Now on size, there seems to be so many size disputes that I don't see much point in getting into it. Who knows when they weighed football players? Even heights are disputed. Matson is now consistently listed as 6' 2" and 220. So I accept that.

As for Matson as a rusher and overall yards from scrimmage, several guys did better, but possibly in total yards he would come in near the top as, unlike most other top running backs, he returned kickoffs throughout this career, and this is almost always good for 20 to 30 yards per touch.

As for Brown, your premise seems to be as long as another back is as big and as fast as Brown, he would do as well then or now. I think for you this is an accepted belief, but which I judge as beyond being susceptible to being proved or disproved. My belief is that there are so many other factors, such as running instinct, balance, determination, second effort, ability to cut, etc., that claiming anyone Brown's historical equal is not anywhere I want to go.

 

The ride never ends...

 

Maybe we should just stick to using this thread to argue about this, instead of all the others.

 

I certainly don't think boxers are better now than what they were from the thirties through to the nineties.
They might bulk themselves up more, but more skilled and faster? Not for me.