Old 02-15-19, 08:55 AM
  #68  
fstrnu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
"External load is the work you perform. Internal load is the impact of that work on your body. If you can perform more work with the same effort, you're improving. "


These are valid concepts but wrong terminology, and it looks like the misconception is leading to some counter-productive generalizations. You want to think of "Load" as the impact of the work done, which is fine but it's "impact" for both internal and external (and not "work done" for external load vs "impact" for internal load)


Running economy for instance could be thought of as a function of internal and external work. It will involve all of metabolic efficiency in energy conversion, general physical coordination, and how much energy is wasted due to technique. Then you would define "Load" as the physiological impact of the two respective categories of work. You might think it's semantic but it really makes a huge difference and can lead to the opposite recommendations.


The immediate consideration is that adaptations to improve running economy (and the analogous elements in cycling) are different from those related to percent Vo2max for instance. And btw are going to contribute to cardiac drift. I'm not going to go into why and how the recommendations here are counterproductive in that respect, but before going further developing your schemes you really need to start with the more valid concepts of "load" and go from there.
Nah, it's really is that simple. Got on the bike. Got on the bike again. Easier this time. Good.
fstrnu is offline