Cross-training

[Lax4life528]

Has anyone seen the Lacrosse Magazine article that says that boxing is the best sport for cross-training for lacrosse. I can't find the article online, but I wanted to see some of your opinions on this.

[Cburylax]

no....but I would question a sport that does not involve running for more than 5 yards to be comparable to lacrosse.

[lax-crazy]

no....but I would question a sport that does not involve running for more than 5 yards to be comparable to lacrosse.

I mean yea running is important, but there are lots of things about cross training that help with intangible things

I played water polo my junior year, best choice of my life. It changed who I was, it was easly the most difficult thing I have ever done. I am not a great swimmer, so everyday I had to come and compete with guys who did swimming as there offseason. I become tough as nails and a workaholic. Not to mention my "idea" of a difficult work out, went waaaaaay up. I practiced lacrosse with more HHH (heart, head, and hustle) ever since. I carried this onto everything I do now.

The only reason I didn't play my senior year was the because water polo coach made me choose between lax and water polo... I choose lax, I still wish I could have played my senior year.

[the wister]

IL chose boxing over football, basketball and soccer? Is it because they all involve a ball and teamwork and, thus, were too similar? The point of cross-training is to emphasis skills that you can actually benefit from, not just intangible things that are gained from just about every sport.

[OldGoalie]

I haven't seen the article, but you have to admit, in terms of conditioning, endurance and power boxers and fighters are second to none. Boxers do have to run a LOT, and jump rope in addition to heavy bag, speed bag and agility work. They use both aerobic and anaerobic systems. Even better, cross-train like a mixed martial artist and you will be in amazing shape.

It's why I like Crossfit - it emphasizes all three metabolic pathways: phosphagen (short burst, high powered activities), glycolitic (medium length, moderate powered activities) and oxidative (longer length, low powered activities).

Here is a very good article (re)defining fitness:
http://www.crossfit.com/cf-download/CFJ-trial.pdf

[pvlax02]

i read the article and it actually makes a lot of sense and made good points. it compares the balance, foot placement, hand eye coordination, and agility between the two sports. if you guys get IL def check it out

[Lax4life528]

One thing the article didn't mention is the need to maintain concentration while being harassed, an important skill for attackmen. To survive, boxers need to be able to take some big blows.

[the wister]

It's why I like Crossfit - it emphasizes all three metabolic pathways: phosphagen (short burst, high powered activities), glycolitic (medium length, moderate powered activities) and oxidative (longer length, low powered activities).[/url]You do realize that any exercise/exercise program that involves aerobic respiration also emphasizes glycolysis, citric acid cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation, right? And that these three process are usually chained together in a sequence, occurring in the order of glycolysis, citric acid cycle, oxidative phosphorylation. It is impossible to emphasis OP because you must first go through glycolysis and Krebs, but you might be able to emphasis just glycolysis with anaerobic activities.

[vision]

Boxing would be decent

Others that would work well:

Basketball (positioning is very similar to box lacrosse)
Olympic lifting
Wrestling
Track and Field
Hockey (again would be good if you play box)
Soccer (good for field)
Rugby (goo for field)

Just pick a sport you are interested in, and will have fun. If your only goal is to get better at lacrosse, then unless you are very young, you'd be better off spending your off-season training for it.

[OldGoalie]

You do realize that any exercise/exercise program that involves aerobic respiration also emphasizes glycolysis, citric acid cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation, right? And that these three process are usually chained together in a sequence, occurring in the order of glycolysis, citric acid cycle, oxidative phosphorylation. It is impossible to emphasis OP because you must first go through glycolysis and Krebs, but you might be able to emphasis just glycolysis with anaerobic activities.

I'm certainly no biochemist, and haven't taken a biology class since 9th grade (which was 22 years ago), so I won't even attempt to disagree with what you said, but in the end I think you're actually supporting my point, which was that not all exercise forms are equal, and that the typesand structure of exercises/programs matters quite a bit. The dominant pathway is the one we're mainly concerned with in the exercise program.

Since, as you point out, it is impossible to emphasize only OP w/o first going through glycolisis and Krebs on your way to oxidative, doesn't it make sense that you would, in fact, diminish or weaken the first two pathways through long bouts of aerobic exercise? If so, then I would think you would lose anaerobic power unless you somehow structured the aerobic training so as not to do that. I'll quote from the Crossfit article:

"Aerobic conditioning allows us to engage in low power extended efforts efficiently (cardio/respiratory endurance and stamina). This is critical to many sports. Athletes engaged in sports or training where a preponderance of the training load is spent in aerobic efforts witness decreases in muscle mass, strength, speed, and power. It is not uncommon to find marathoners with a vertical leap of only several inches! Furthermore, aerobic activity has a pronounced tendency to decrease anaerobic capacity. This does not bode well for most athletes or those interested in elite fitness."

Now I suppose that one could argue that marathoners don't spend any time emphasizing anaerobic trianing, thus they don't have any muscle mass, but I think the point is still made. The Crossfit approach emphasizes aerobic training that does not reduce anaerobic power:

"The key to developing the cardiovascular system without an unacceptable loss of strength, speed, and power is interval training. Interval training mixes bouts of work and rest in timed intervals...We can control the dominant metabolic pathway conditioned by varying the duration of the work and rest interval and number of repetitions. Note that the phosphagen pathway is the dominant pathway in intervals of 10-30 seconds of work followed by rest of 30-90 seconds (load:recovery 1:3) repeated 25-30 times. The glycolytic pathway is the dominant pathway in intervals of 30-120 seconds work followed by rest of 60-240 seconds (load:recovery 1:2) repeated 10-20 times. And finally, the oxidative pathway is the dominant pathway in intervals of 120-300 seconds work followed by rest of 120-300 seconds (load:recovery 1:1). The bulk of metabolic training should be interval training."

The article cites this reference (http://home.hia.no/~stephens/interval.htm), which shows through some additional research that interval training has at least as good (if not better) cardiovascular benefit as steady-state aerobic exercise in terms of cardiac output and VO2 max.

[the wister]

Hmmmmmmmm......................................

Ok, I have a bit of a better understanding of your contributions, and see your point. But I don't really like what Crossfit is trying to say and think they make some valid claims, but use some pretty shakey, and in some instances downright false, science to back it up. I'll get back to you later with what I mean when I have a little more time to write a response. And maybe some of my old books.....

[the wister]

Since, as you point out, it is impossible to emphasize only OP w/o first going through glycolisis and Krebs on your way to oxidative, doesn't it make sense that you would, in fact, diminish or weaken the first two pathways through long bouts of aerobic exercise? If so, then I would think you would lose anaerobic power unless you somehow structured the aerobic training so as not to do that.In this case it would be your muscles that you would be diminishing with long bouts of aerobic exercise. Pathways of respiration are not fatigable and cannot be weakened or worn down through continuous exertion. What we’re talking about in this case are molecules and cell receptors that have no memory and themselves turnover very quickly, being replaced by new molecules from food or broken down fat and hormones/steroids, or by new cells and enzymes. There are a disproportionably large number of mitochondria in muscle cells and it’s thought that the type and amount of exercise you do can affect this number. But it still comes down to number and TYPE of muscle cells/fibers in your body, and since each is better suited to a different form of exercise, different stimuli have different effects. The summary is, you train your muscles, not your respiratory pathways."The key to developing the cardiovascular system without an unacceptable loss of strength, speed, and power is interval training. Interval training mixes bouts of work and rest in timed intervals...We can control the dominant metabolic pathway conditioned by varying the duration of the work and rest interval and number of repetitions. Note that the phosphagen pathway is the dominant pathway in intervals of 10-30 seconds of work followed by rest of 30-90 seconds (load:recovery 1:3) repeated 25-30 times. The glycolytic pathway is the dominant pathway in intervals of 30-120 seconds work followed by rest of 60-240 seconds (load:recovery 1:2) repeated 10-20 times. And finally, the oxidative pathway is the dominant pathway in intervals of 120-300 seconds work followed by rest of 120-300 seconds (load:recovery 1:1). The bulk of metabolic training should be interval training."It looks like Cross-Fit has a nice program with good direction, but they should consult a physiologist, or at least someone with some basic training in biology, to review their statements. As far as I’m concerned, they made these numbers up off the top of their heads to fit in line with their program; in fact, time is not at all a factor (at least, not at these short intervals), it’s the presence or absence of oxygen that dictates which path is taken to make ATP. Of course, with different lengths of exercise, individuals are prodded to work at different levels of engagement, and therefore, change the conditions in their bodies and, inferably, what process will occur. But this is still a long ways from claiming that there is direct control via timed sets and repetitions.The article cites this reference (http://home.hia.no/~stephens/interval.htm), which shows through some additional research that interval training has at least as good (if not better) cardiovascular benefit as steady-state aerobic exercise in terms of cardiac output and VO2 max.I also do like interval training, no argument there. Unfortunately for me, steady-state aerobic exercise appears harder and viler to me personally, so unless I subject myself to that torture, I feel lazy. I would recommend interval training to just about anyone else though that is looking to improve general fitness.

[pantherLax]

Off-topic: Wister--How old are you? You always have this cocky attitude to you that i guess, admirable, so sometimes I think you are like 14 but clearly you're not. No offense, I just wanna know, and maybe itll make your statements seem more valid to others so they know theyre not listening to some jacked 15 year old.

And Location: Chiba-shi? Do you live in Japan?

[the wister]

Yes, Japan, nice call. And I will make a note to check my tone in the future. On occasion I get fed up with people and their responses/attitudes/ignorance, but in this case OG is someone I know to be a quality poster, so I was merely attempting to have a constructive conversation. There are fewer people on the boards you can actually disagree with and get along with at the same time, so I usually try to remember who those people are. I don't mean to come off as stuck-up, but I know I'm dealing with someone who has an open mind, so I guess I didn't think about it too much.

And, no, I'm not 14. You've been here quite some time, it speaks volumes (negatively) about my post content if I haven't convinced you otherwise already.

[OldGoalie]

In this case it would be your muscles that you would be diminishing with long bouts of aerobic exercise. Pathways of respiration are not fatigable and cannot be weakened or worn down through continuous exertion. What we’re talking about in this case are molecules and cell receptors that have no memory and themselves turnover very quickly, being replaced by new molecules from food or broken down fat and hormones/steroids, or by new cells and enzymes. There are a disproportionably large number of mitochondria in muscle cells and it’s thought that the type and amount of exercise you do can affect this number. But it still comes down to number and TYPE of muscle cells/fibers in your body, and since each is better suited to a different form of exercise, different stimuli have different effects. The summary is, you train your muscles, not your respiratory pathways.

Fair enough regarding muscles vs. pathways - makes sense to me.

It looks like Cross-Fit has a nice program with good direction, but they should consult a physiologist, or at least someone with some basic training in biology, to review their statements. As far as I’m concerned, they made these numbers up off the top of their heads to fit in line with their program; in fact, time is not at all a factor (at least, not at these short intervals), it’s the presence or absence of oxygen that dictates which path is taken to make ATP. Of course, with different lengths of exercise, individuals are prodded to work at different levels of engagement, and therefore, change the conditions in their bodies and, inferably, what process will occur. But this is still a long ways from claiming that there is direct control via timed sets and repetitions.

Well, while I understand your point, and maybe it's not quite that precise in terms of direct control, it seems that Crossfit already has a pretty sound basis for the figures and conclusions. See this reference, that is cited in the article:
http://predator.pnb.uconn.edu/~wwwpnb/virtualtemp/muscle/exercise-folder/muscle.html

The figure for the timing of ATP generation at the bottom of that page is taken straight from "Guyton and Hall, Textbook of Medical Physiology, 1996 W.B Saunders CO." (http://www.amazon.com/Textbook-Medical-Physiology-Arthur-Guyton/dp/072168677X) which, I'm assuming, is a decent textbook.


I also do like interval training, no argument there. Unfortunately for me, steady-state aerobic exercise appears harder and viler to me personally, so unless I subject myself to that torture, I feel lazy. I would recommend interval training to just about anyone else though that is looking to improve general fitness.

I wholeheartedly agree. Interval training seems much less daunting psychologically than steady-state aerobic, and is much easier to get myself to do. That's certaily one of the key reasons I like Crossfit - a 5k or 10k run only comes up occasionally on their WOD (Workout Of the Day).

[Lax4life528]

http://www.forumspile.com/Thread-Direction.jpg
just saying

[OldGoalie]

just saying

Guilty as charged, but hopefully the info is still useful in thinking about cross-training opportunities.

[pantherLax]

Yes, Japan, nice call.

And, no, I'm not 14. You've been here quite some time, it speaks volumes (negatively) about my post content if I haven't convinced you otherwise already.

Sorry if you were offended, although i did say "sometimes I think you are like 14 but clearly you're not." And cool, I'm from Japan, I have family in Chiba.

Ok, back on topic lol.

[JohnsHopkins16]

that pic made my day...