Is 'warming down' counterproductive

ROK ON

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/health/nutrition/15best.html

Hi folks. A fellow cyclists posted the article above on Strava last night (Hope you dont mind D).

Anyway, the article concerns the fact that warming down after strenuous exercise may actually be counterproductive. The idea of trying to flush the lactic acid out of tired muscles means that the muscles never get stronger.

In fact, Dr. Tanaka said, one study of cyclists concluded that because lactic acid is good, it is better not to cool down after intense exercise. Lactic acid was turned back into glycogen, a muscle fuel, when cyclists simply stopped. When they cooled down, it was wasted, used up to fuel their muscles.

I found the article fascinating for two reason:
(i) it goes massively against rec'd wisdom (and I am kind of attracted to contrarian type stuff in general),
(ii) If true it shows that sport science is still in a very early stage and that there is so much that remain undiscovered.

What are people views?
Is this a load of bunkum or does anyone have corroborating evidence to support the thesis?

Interested to hear.

Lumen

Sometimes I pass out if I don't cool down properly from very intense exercise.

AstraMonti

I don't have any scientific data on this but personally If I don't cool down and flush the lactic acid, then I nearly can't train the next day as the legs feel extremely heavy. What is more counter-productive, losing a training day (or doing it half-arsed) or not having the lactic acid feed your muscles? Not a clue

ROK ON

AstraMonti wrote: »

I don't have any scientific data on this but personally If I don't cool down and flush the lactic acid, then I nearly can't train the next day as the legs feel extremely heavy. What is more counter-productive, losing a training day (or doing it half-arsed) or not having the lactic acid feed your muscles? Not a clue

That was what I believed. But according to this article (from what I can understand) that will actually make you stronger?

ryan_sherlock

I have seen various papers on this type of stuff before (and lets not get started on the whole stretching lark).

In general, I would always cool down, spin out the legs etc... If I don't (after say a hard race effort/sprint), I suffer like a dog for much of the ride the next day -> quality of the following days ride goes down.

Many times while stage racing I never got a cool down, but then I either spend a bunch of time using "the stick", or if I'm super lucky, have a massage.

Have a look at the whole warmup routine stuff too... There was a recent study on swimmers (it was a short event though), where no warmup (at all) was as good (and some cases better) than a warmup. Mel has often raced without a warmup with good results (not usually by choice) - me, I need one.

RobFowl

The veidence (scientific) on this is mixed. There is nothing that says a warm up is "bad" for you but some that says it is of no benefit.
I struggle with the rationale as the scientific community seems to view a reduction in myuscle soreness the next day and an insignificant finding. They seem to view positive outcomes as ones that are demonstably and directly performance enhancing.
Also very litle high level data gets published. The vast majority of studies are university based on done on fit but far from elite students...


PS as Ryan says re stretching just don't go there !!

ROK ON

Fair enough What I am hearing (correct if wrong) that the benefit of a warm down is not feeling crap the next day, as opposed to any other benefit. That is what I have perceived.

Now in terms of stretching - please enlighten me. I have always stretched - something I was taught as a kid playing rugby.
Is stretching bad, or is it bad if not done appropriately?

This is getting interesting.
It ties in with a converstaion that I had with a club mate a few weeks back about cadence. He has a coach that reckons fast cadence is a load of sh1te - in that cadence is a personal thing that suits particular types of cyclists in particular events. What is applicable say for a sprinter, is not necessarily applicable for an ironman triathlete that has to run a marathon after finishing a bike race. The point being that there are all these accepted norms in cycling, and very few people think about challenging them.

mcgratheoin

ryan_sherlock wrote: »

Have a look at the whole warmup routine stuff too...

That's an interesting one - I read a paper about ten years ago about a large scale study on warm-ups and their relationship to injuries. The gist of the paper was that warming-up/stretching etc. before sport had no clear benefit in terms of preventing injuries. I was always under the impression that it was specifically a performance issue, but I'm not aware of any studies that address the issue. As a former track sprinter and long jumper, there would have been no way I could have competed close to my best without a warm-up, but I could see how a more endurance based athlete could ride themselves into it over the first part of a race.

On the warm down issue, there have been several studies done a while ago on ice-baths, comparing them to other methods of recovery, but I'm not sure if there was a control in that study where some athletes had zero recovery. Having a scan of the article posted by the OP, I'd like to see the one study that says it's counter-productive. I'd find it hard to believe that no warm down at all is the best way to go - as the article mentions, most people will keep moving after exercise, even without a formal warm down - to the shower, the changing rooms, walking or cycling home afterwards. If that study is correct, then we may see a new technique of athletes ceasing training and immediately lying immobile for an hour or so to let the lactic do it's stuff...

I wonder is it worth throwing that article at the Science of Sport guys - a quick trawl of their blog didn't turn up any comment on it, but they specialise in that neck of the woods so they'd probably have a good take on it.

Lumen

ROK ON wrote: »

It ties in with a converstaion that I had with a club mate a few weeks back about cadence. He has a coach that reckons fast cadence is a load of sh1te - in that cadence is a personal thing that suits particular types of cyclists in particular events.

I don't know about anyone else, but I can produce more power at higher cadence, so I use higher cadence when I want to produce more power.

I think you need to be a bit more specific about "fast cadence is a load of sh1te".

kennyb3

ROK ON wrote: »

Now in terms of stretching - please enlighten me. I have always stretched - something I was taught as a kid playing rugby.
Is stretching bad, or is it bad if not done appropriately?

Big can of worms. You ll find plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument.

My advice is read up and make your own decision. To do so a good anatomy book which includes stuff on the myotatic (stretch) reflex, muscle and tendon histology is useful. If you can understand how elastic muscles are for example it will help you.

ROK ON

Lumen wrote: »

I don't know about anyone else, but I can produce more power at higher cadence, so I use higher cadence when I want to produce more power.

I think you need to be a bit more specific about "fast cadence is a load of sh1te".

I'm not claiming that. It was part of a conversation that I was having with someone. I knew I shouldnt have included it as it could derail the thread. The gist of the conversation was
Me - I need to improve my cadence
Mate - Maybe you dont. How do you know. Maybe fast cadence isnt suited to your physiology or the type of events that you will be doing . . .

The reulst was to probably get some testing done to ascertain what is my optimum technique for power output given what I want to do this year etc etc etc.

RobFowl

ROK ON wrote: »

Now in terms of stretching - please enlighten me. I have always stretched - something I was taught as a kid playing rugby.
Is stretching bad, or is it bad if not done appropriately?

The answer (at the moment) is probably that stretching before exercise is not good and may actually reduce perfromance but stretching afterwards is good..

ROK ON

RobFowl wrote: »

The answer (at the moment) is probably that stretching before exercis is not good and may actaully reduce perfromance but stretching afterwards is good..

That was my understanding. In fact I recall it being mentioned by a comentator at a rugby match a few years back. Ireland were playing England in twickers, and Laurence Dallalagio was on a spinning bike on the sidelines warming up. The pundit in the studio (I think it may have been Keith Wood or Conor O'Shea) made specific mention that warming up like that was ideally suited to getting an injury when he eventually took to the pitch.

petethedrummer

I heard that comment. I think that was more to do with the bike rather than the act of warming up.

12 sprocket

Lumen wrote: »

I don't know about anyone else, but I can produce more power at higher cadence, so I use higher cadence when I want to produce more power.

I think you need to be a bit more specific about "fast cadence is a load of sh1te".

Lumen does more power equal more speed? or does a blend of correct torque and power produce best speed?

Lumen

12 sprocket wrote: »

Lumen does more power equal more speed? or does a blend of correct torque and power produce best speed?

Yes, speed comes only from power (assuming your aerodynamics are fixed).

Very crudely, power = torque x cadence.

So if you double the cadence (leg speed) and keep the torque (pedal force) constant, you will generate twice the power. It may cost more or less depending on complicated biomechanical things which I don't understand and no doubt vary from person to person.

Additionally, pedal torque varies throughout the pedal cycle.

Of course, most cyclists don't care about how much power they can produce, only how much power they can produce sustainably.

mcgratheoin

RobFowl wrote: »

stretching afterwards is good..

As far as I understand it, following exercise your muscles are slightly torn and damaged. The recovery period allows them to knit together again in a stronger form than previously. Stretching them out when they're in this "damaged" state will help them to join back together in a slightly more flexible arrangement.

Spokes of Glory

RobFowl wrote: »

The answer (at the moment) is probably that stretching before exercise is not good and may actually reduce perfromance but stretching afterwards is good..

Far be it from me to argue with the good doctor, but a distinction should probably be made between "static" stretching which is probably what most people are familiar with, and "dynamic" stretching, which involves some movement through the joint range. The former as Robbie says, has been shown to have some temporary negative performance effects in some explosive sports like sprinting and weightlifting. The latter has some good research evidence behind the benefits.....for the moment anyways.

(PS, "dynamic" does not mean bouncing yourself into a stretch, which is a recipe for a physio bill in most non-elite athletes.)

Spokes

Dermot Illogical

I'm waiting for a study to come out which states that warming up, cooling down and stretching are all useless. Then my laziness will have been vindicated.

marketty

RT66 wrote: »

I'm waiting for a study to come out which states that warming up, cooling down and stretching are all useless. Then my laziness will have been vindicated.

No no no ya have that all wrong, warming up cooling down and stretching are all that matters, it's the bit in between (exercise) thats useless.
Or so I'm told...

maloner

RT66 wrote: »

I'm waiting for a study to come out which states that warming up, cooling down and stretching are all useless. Then my laziness will have been vindicated.

Well, I read an article that claimed 3-4 pints of a Friday night are the ideal warm up for a Saturday cycle, but only if you warm down before hand. Or up, I cant remember...

Given time, a wikipedia reference can be cited, thus proving it beyond doubt.

RobFowl

maloner wrote: »

Well, I read an article after 3-4 pints of a Friday night, I cant remember what it said...

Given time, a wikipedia reference can be cited, thus proving it beyond doubt.

FYP

Dermot Illogical

maloner wrote: »

Well, I read an article that claimed 3-4 pints of a Friday night are the ideal warm up for a Saturday cycle, but only if you warm down before hand. Or up, I cant remember...

Given time, a wikipedia reference can be cited, thus proving it beyond doubt.

The pints part sounds perfect, and is in keeping with my plans for tonight. Also going to have steak, as I hear it can do wonders for performance.

Jawgap

Physiology aside what about the psychological impact of warming up?

Speaking from a rugby perspective, I always thought the significant benefit of a progressive warm up was "to get your game head on" - could the same not be true for cycling?

Warming up may have quesitonable physical benefits but in terms of getting mentally ready to race or compete has it significant value?

Dermot Illogical

RT66 wrote: »

maloner wrote: »

Well, I read an article that claimed 3-4 pints of a Friday night are the ideal warm up for a Saturday cycle, but only if you warm down before hand. Or up, I cant remember...

Given time, a wikipedia reference can be cited, thus proving it beyond doubt.

The pints part sounds perfect, and is in keeping with my plans for tonight. Also going to have steak, as I hear it can do wonders for performance.

Theory debunked. Head hurts.

Morrisseeee

Just to expand a little bit on what ROK ON posted initially (as I found it interesting):

As your body uses carbohydrate to create energy it creates a by-product inside the working muscle cells called lactic acid. As the intensity of a workout increases this liquid begins to seep out of the muscle cell into the surrounding space and blood stream. In so doing it changes its composition by giving off hydrogen ions. It’s now called lactate. Despite its “bad boy” reputation, lactate is actually a beneficial substance for the body during exercise as it is used to create more energy so that exercise may continue. It’s the hydrogen that is the real bogey man. This is what causes the burning sensation in your muscles and the heavy breathing at high effort levels. Measuring lactate levels in the blood is a convenient way of estimating how much hydrogen is in the body. The more intense the workout, the greater the amount of lactate released into the blood — and the more hydrogen ions interfering with muscle contractions. (By the way, neither lactate or hydrogen ions cause the muscle soreness you may experience the day after a hard workout. That's another of the myths that refuses to die in sport.)
.
.
.

The body has two ways of improving your lactate threshold as a result of training. It can come to better tolerate the acid and it can also become more effective at removing the acid. As with all aspects of fitness, the way to train your body to tolerate and remove hydrogen ions is by training at your lactate threshold. This, then, is the best marker of training intensity.

JH_raheny

Lumen wrote: »

Sometimes I pass out if I don't cool down properly from very intense exercise.

that could be down to very low blood sugar levels and can be very dangerous

niceonetom

ryan_sherlock wrote: »

Many times while stage racing I never got a cool down, but then I either spend a bunch of time using "the stick", or if I'm super lucky, have a massage.

That reminded me of this article I read a couple of weeks ago.

Compared to unmassaged muscle cells, the tissue from massaged legs had different levels of two key proteins: less NFkB and more PGC-1alpha. Lowering NFkB levels reduces inflammation and increasing PGC-1alpha levels leads to the creation of more mitochondria that generate energy for cell growth, so both these massage-induced changes are good news for healing muscle cells.

That's interesting. I'd like to see someone do a similar test with muscle biopsies after or without a warmdown (though I don't think the control would be as easy to arrange as in the one-leg massage experiment above).

dvntie

Has anyone actually considered that genetics has a huge part to play. Fast twitching versus slow twitching muscles.
I remember reading an acrticle published about rowers from the austalian institute years ago that proved that athletes with fast twitching muscles were able to recover much faster after sustained periods of sub max efforts versus their slow twithing brethern. They also hinted that they were able to burn the lactate better.
I cant find the article now but i'll keep looking and post if i find it

Edit
Just found an article there from 2005 to say it was the other way round i said it was a while ago :-)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15743886

spdmrphy

maloner wrote: »

Well, I read an article that claimed 3-4 pints of a Friday night are the ideal warm up for a Saturday cycle, but only if you warm down before hand. Or up, I cant remember...

Given time, a wikipedia reference can be cited, thus proving it beyond doubt.

You can try a few pints post-cycle as well, backed up by science!





Non alcoholic though...

12 sprocket

Warm up and Cool down
Here are some figures that is relevant to this thread, that you can get with a google search or in physiology books.
Blood flow of skeletal muscle ml/min
At Rest 1,000
During exercise 12,500
WARMUP; This suggests to me that the body will react better to this huge increase over a period of time rather than going from cold to flat out straight away. We have all seen people arrive at a race get out of the car and start racing without a warmup.
COOLDOWN: It also suggests that a cool down period will allow the blood to be redistributed to resting rates. I have seen instances of people fainting who stopped quickly after very intensive efforts and were just standing still, for example after sprints for first place at the end of hard races feeling faint as the blood is all pooled in the legs.
Remedy lie them down and elevate the legs and they recover very quickly.
So warm up and cool down, for whatever reasons you usually feel better at the end of a warm-up or cool down, and isn’t that whats important!

steve9859

I have followed the debates re. stretching and warming up / down with interest over recent years but from a rowing perspective.

Leaving aside the physiological benefits or otherwise, the one thing I never see mentioned is the psychological side. Having a warming up and stretching routine is really important for the focus and mental preparation. This is obviously more important for team sports than individual ones, when having a squad routine which is the same before every training session and race gets everyone in the same place. You get the same benefit after the race, rather than everyone just drifting off and doing their own thing. So even if it were actually proven beyond doubt that warming up / down and stretching was a waste of time, I would still get my squad to do it

RobFowl

steve9859 wrote: »

So even if it were actually proven beyond doubt that warming up / down and stretching was a waste of time, I would still get my squad to do it

Interesting comment !
Would it not be better to change the routine to include something that does actually improve performance? (Possibly some visualisation/goal setting exercises)

niceonetom

12 sprocket wrote: »

So warm up and cool down, for whatever reasons you usually feel better at the end of a warm-up or cool down, and isn’t that whats important![/SIZE]

Not really. I'd rather be a bit creaky the next day if that were part and parcel of adaptation - better that than feeling great but lessening improvement. I'm not saying that cool-down does impact on adaptation one way or the other, just saying that (outside of multiday events or key blocks or consecutive training) "feeling better" isn't my priority.

12 sprocket

niceonetom wrote: »

Not really. I'd rather be a bit creaky the next day if that were part and parcel of adaptation - better that than feeling great but lessening improvement. I'm not saying that cool-down does impact on adaptation one way or the other, just saying that (outside of multiday events or key blocks or consecutive training) "feeling better" isn't my priority.

I would have thought that feeling better is what should be everyones priority, after all that is the best sign of adaptation to exercise thats probably available.

Anyway address the numbers.... look at the amount of blood being shunted in and out of the muscles, cool down makes sense just on those figures alone. If you have ever ridden a serious stage race you will know the benefit of starting a stage feeling good compared to with sore muscles.

niceonetom

12 sprocket wrote: »

I would have thought that feeling better is what should be everyones priority, after all that is the best sign of adaptation to exercise thats probably available.

You're just making a bald assumption that feeling good = good muscle adaptation. I don't see what that's based on. Seems like one of those unchallengeable bits of common-sense that could very well turn out to be wrong.

12 sprocket wrote: »

Anyway address the numbers.... look at the amount of blood being shunted in and out of the muscles, cool down makes sense just on those figures alone. If you have ever ridden a serious stage race you will know the benefit of starting a stage feeling good compared to with sore muscles.

And there you're just conflating recovery with adaptation - a conflation which this thread was started in order to challenge. Of course, in any multiday event recovery is prioritized above any other consideration. No one says otherwise, and I said as much explicitly in my post. However, when NOT in the middle of a stage race there could be an argument to be made for NOT recovering well IF there is science that points to that being a better strategy for long term improvement.

Morrisseeee

So............what works for you ? ie. after a tough training ride or race or long sportive, what is your cool-down routine ?
I'm thinking, ice bath, protein drinks etc.

I have seen instances of people fainting who stopped quickly after very intensive efforts

..............Stephen Roche
On that point, the pros (especially those who win, & esp on a mountain top finish) get very little 'recovery time' !

petethedrummer

I was watching Horizon last night, apparently you only need to do 3x20 seconds bursts of flat out excercise 3 times a week to get fit. It may explain why I couldn't walk for 2 days after the last Goldsprints. HIT training its called.

Discuss.

ednwireland

petethedrummer wrote: »

I was watching Horizon last night, apparently you only need to do 3x20 seconds bursts of flat out excercise 3 times a week to get fit. It may explain why I couldn't walk for 2 days after the last Goldsprints. HIT training its called.

Discuss.

only if your genetically predisposed to that type of training (obviously why it takes me ages to get fit

it didnt work on the guy in the program

petethedrummer

ednwireland wrote: »

only if your genetically predisposed to that type of training (obviously why it takes me ages to get fit

it didnt work on the guy in the program

I thought he meant any type of aerobic training would not increase his aerobic capacity. not just the HIT.

steve9859

RobFowl wrote: »

Interesting comment !
Would it not be better to change the routine to include something that does actually improve performance? (Possibly some visualisation/goal setting exercises)

we do those too.....all part of the routine. But synchronised warm up routines get everyone in the mood more than sitting around visualising