Did We Ever Need an Aerobic Base?

The concept of the aerobic base is probably an outgrowth of the 1970's aerobic training boom. The blame/credit is usually given to Dr. Kenneth Cooper, founder of the famed Cooper Clinic. Every exercise physiologist in the last 40 years seemed to espouse the view that the first order of training was to develop the aerobic base. The aerobic base was viewed as the well from which all energy originated and the deeper and larger that well, the greater the potential for fitness. The view was one of pure exercise science and only looked at the benefits of aerobic training, not the potential drawbacks.

Recent research both in the labs and in the empirical world has called this time-honored concept into question. Now many coaches have begun to question the idea that we ever needed an aerobic base in the first place. However, Vern Gambetta's teachings in the late eighties and early nineties were the first to call this time-honored concept into question. Gambetta espoused an approach based on what he called “work capacity” that more or less ignored the scientific energy system based training concepts so popular at the time. Gambetta simply said “watch the game”. “Train for the game”. Gambetta's background as a track coach probably influenced his thoughts as a strength and conditioning coach. At approximately the same time legendary sprint coach Charlie Francis was espousing a similar concept. Francis was developing some of the best sprinters in the world in a system that purposefully avoided aerobic training. Francis felt that aerobic training would make you slow. The idea was simple “train slow- get slow”. Gambetta saw a simple cause – effect model, Francis looked at physiology but focused on the muscular changes verses the cardiovascular changes.

As I studied the work of both Francis and Gambetta my common sense caused me to agree with them. I began to de-emphasize aerobic training for my athletes. In the process we developed some of the fastest skaters in the National Hockey League. The combination of training like a sprinter and not preparing like a marathon runner resulted in gains in size and speed, something that was not supposed to be possible.

Instead of viewing aerobic training as the well, I began to view it as the quicksand. Like quicksand, aerobic training pulls you down. Not only does aerobic training make you slower but, it increases your injury potential. Females who perform excessive aerobic training are a particularly high-risk group.

The reality is that aerobic training is neither efficient nor effective. Efficiency is best measured by value per unit of time invested. Numerous studies have shown that the best way to improve the aerobic system is through shorter, harder anaerobic intervals. Shorter workouts and greater benefits? That is efficient and, that is like the game. As for effective? You need only look at the above data again. Aerobic training is not the best way to improve aerobic capacity.

Interval training is the efficient and effective solution. Our prescription for hockey players is simple. Train for the game. Think sprint-rest-sprint. I can remember introducing these concepts in the 1990's to the Boston Bruins. Players loved it. Over and over again they would say “this makes sense, it's like hockey”. Simple isn't it?