1: after all the information about aerobic endurance and lactate threshold and anaerobic endurance and after the protocols i read to enhance each of them . I arrived to the conclusion that the best exercise program ever for a specific sport is doing the sport it self ? is it right? However it would not practical, for example let's take marathon runner, to run a whole marathon just to get the benefits of that training. plus doing for example a training soccer match in the purpose of enhancing aerobic and anaerobic performance would not be as effective as the real competitive match, plus it is more prone to injury and time and energy wasting.
So I thought that is where the exercise protocol comes in handy.
Is my way of thinking right ? is it what is really is ?
2: based on the above conclusion that a sport event is basically the best exercise to enhance that sport specific fitness, I would assume that during the season , for example for a soccer club which have an average of 2 games per week , there would be no need to focus on fitness training for the active participating players. Because having two competitive matches a week would provide a good exercise that cover all their performance needs.
is this right ?
I think the argument of "doing the actual thing makes you better at the thing". Running long distances is in my mind the only way to get better at running long distances. It's true marathon runners don't always run the whole distance, but ask anyone, they run alot. And long. Nearly every day.
The thing with athletes is more complicated. I just talked to a coach training some youth athletes and the testing and perfomance/fitness levels. The interesting thing he said is that even though they didn't train specifically aerobic endurance or lactate treshold or anything like that, the skills and fitness levels increased on these areas (General endurance, measured with a 3KM run). The explanation was pretty simple. The actual on-ice practice consisted of very game-like exercises, aka very similar to actual performance on games and hockey in general. This combined with high motivation and intensity built a great endurance base, no actual running training (besides warm-ups and cool downs) were needed.
and I would imagine the weekly training session rather than endurance and interval training would be practicing techniques and play strategies, and some power training and staying warm and flexible.
what do u think , am I still sounding right?
3: I think the exercise protocols for aerobic endurance and interval training etc,.... are spared to the substitute players and for the per-season (after the off-season) to regained the highest level of fitness. and also it is used with beginners and law level athletes who have not reached yet their optimal performance.. and last for injured players.
I don't like to look at things so black and white. Think about two teams. Team A has great fitness levels and can stand huge amounts of continous intensity, they are fast and agile, and can outrun most teams. The playing technique is average at best, and strategies need improvement. Team B is masterous at strategy and have automation on almost any technique and can use it at all times. But their endurance and fitness levels are sub-par and sometimes even poor. They are slow, shots aren't good, etc.
Now, which team has the advantage? Or a better question would be; Which team has better base and foundation to learn the actual sport and the skills it demands? If you can't run to save your life, how can you even use the skills you know? This quote pretty much sums up my thoughts:
"Get fit to train before you train for competition."
If some players lack endurance, power, or certain skills, they need more training in that particular skill. If you suck at something, you should do it more than others to catch up. So it's not that simple. If you have a person on team that lacks good endurance, I think he should train that endurance.
Are you getting my point? Opinions?