Lance does a version of HIIT on the bike in order to train his lactate threshhold. Most competitive cyclists do. Research into HIIT originally came from training protocols that anaerobic athletes used in order to enhance their aerobic and anaerobic capacity.
However, as a protocol strictly for fat loss, 20-30 minute HIIT has never really been shown to be superior to traditional 45-60 minute steady-state cardio. Compounding the problem is that heavy weight training, particularly full-body schemes, already stimulates much of the same effect as HIIT.
Again, I don't have a problem with using either HIIT or SS. I only have a problem when HIITers default to using a bike with it. I also know that for DC, many people default to doing 30-40 minutes of steady state cardio (bike or powerwalking) in the morning in order to jog up appetite, systemic metabolism and improve ephenedrine(sp?) levels.
Yeah, some context about that classic DC nugget . . .
DC training is built around the paradigm of body as food factory, following the dictums of "Eating dictates size. Eating dictates training." The reason why most people find that DC piece baffling or offensively simple is that most people follow a performance paradigm, which more or less follows "Training dictates performance (i.e. size.) Training dictates eating."
If your knowledge base primarily dates back to when creatine and periodization entered the bodybuilding mainstream (which should be the case for most 20-somethingers), then you're firmly entrenched in the functional/performance paradigm of bodybuilding. But the food factory viewpoint was probably more popular in bodybuilding orthodoxy (i.e. high volume) from the 50s through the 80s. It's difficult to reconcile current periodized thought with it because most of training books just aren't written with this model in mind. After all, it doesn't make sense for a functional/performance goal. With the exception of CKD recomposition texts, most start with some kind of training stimulus and then correlate it with food.
Many body-recomp specialists in the personal trainer field still subscribe to the older model, because that's where the "glory" is. It's the only model that makes radical transformation and clean power bulks possible. Whether that be creating ripped mass monsters or metrosexual models, it's about methodically converting the body into a machine or food factory and then handing that machine an aggressive bulk diet to that factory to produce LBM and leverage strong muscle-to-fat gain ratios.
However, in order to conform to this model, it is very difficult to hand somebody a template training program on the Internet. It would be akin to handing everybody the same diet with the same rules on a traditional bulk. If you notice, many DC trainers follow somewhat loose rules on bulking (except for their pre/post-WO nutrition and protein intake), but they're very, very firm on the training protocol. It, again, reflects this model where you keep the training as a control but explore what is possible within the confines of diet.
Which isn't to say that DCers go into diet without any clue. There's a reason why the program is only recommended for reasonably seasoned trainers. He assumes that you already have a fairly good idea of what caloric and macro-intake worked for you in the past; from that base, then he's asking you to adjust your thinking away from the bulk/cut mindset, rather insisting that you mantain that quality control on the training program. In other words, the above article was a corrective measure, not an absolute missive without precedent. However, Dante -- as a body recomp specialist -- does offer services whereby he does give you much stricter and proprietary dietary recommendations as well as alterations within the training scheme. Of course, I have no frigging clue what they are. The alternative is to brand a training model, keep a tight community that can guide your training, and above all, keep strict quality control. Which is why DCers are like a band of brothers. They have to in order to mantain a net culture that can sustain this model for a prospective trainee. And, again, if you wanted dieting advice, they'll be happy to give you macro and ramp advice once the caloric/protein mandates are satisfied and the training understood.
Until there's a lot more mainstream literature covering "bulk recomposition" or strictly hypertrophy from all facets, this model is going to remain the providence of specialists, veterans, those who have a solid science background, and guys willing to try out either the old school hypertrophy programs or something like DC training. It will remain privy to few. For everybody else, the classic model is much less risky, much easier to grasp, and therefore more successful in the long-term.
BTW, just wanted to add that I'm not trying to advocate DC training over other programs. I'm just using that as an example to show philosophical differences from a cultural/historical perspective. By understanding the different contexts better, it's easier to process the message.
No comments:
Post a Comment