You can't hypertrophy the heart past a small and set point due to its constraints and fiber type.
Originally Posted by Cullion
2) Olympic sprinters look great, and in context, certainly closer to what's needed for competitive MA, but they can't run marathons better than marathon runners and it's certainly not all down to technique or 'neuro-muscular' adaptations. It should not be. Lightly cast aside that 'endurance atheleted' have adapted their bodies to do something extraordinary. It's not just technique, and if it were so genetically determined, how come aerobic stamina responds to training in the undrugged population better than maximal strength training [/quote]
Olympic sprinters are endurance athletes. The term endurance athlete lends itself to a whole slew of semantical arguments.
Marathon runners do better at marathons due to their training specificity.
Training should be specific for any goal or sport.
Regarding your other points, I agree that training should be specific for combat sports and thereby focus on conditioing to several bursts of 2-3 mins of intense work (or however loing your rounds are). However steady cardio, taken to a certain point serves several useful purposes as an adjunct:-
However steady cardio, taken to a certain point serves several useful purposes as an adjunct
That is incorrect. You're neglecting the point of varying fiber types and their purposes. The energy pathways are different as well. Read up on glycolytic pathways, oxidative pathways and the oxidative-glycolytic pathways. You also need to factor in gluconogenesis which is used by all fiber types and not specifically trained from a focus upon IA or IIA, IIB & IIC fibers.
1) It causes growth of the circulatory system and development of metabolic paths in a way which helps with the 'burst' training by getting recovery time down thus letting you fit more high quality 'bursts' into a given hour of training, whether for technique on the bag or more raw, gross anaerobic conditioning such as intense callisthenic circuits.
The decrease in time was due to better training habits and knowledge, not due to the running. The running in the academy, which lasted up until about week 23 was usually long and at a snail's pace to compensate for the slowest in the group. You break ranks and they smoke everyone. They grind you for mental endurance rather than physical. My technique at running also became a hell of a lot better, including longer strides, better usage of the arms, breathing etc.
I have a personal, subjective, question for you.
I've read before that you did a LEO academy test of a 1.5 mile in about 11:30. At the time you thought that was good, and I pointed out that for a young, lean non-smoker of your age it was actually pretty bad.
Since then you've posted that you got a 9:30 on the same distance (at the end of your academy training), which is excellent and way better than I've ever done. Congrats. The questions are:-
Not particularly. Assuming I had enough sleep and had a proper diet, I was able to increase my lifts in whatever mesocycle I was using. The running just usually pissed me off more than anything. The PT that we received was mainly for all around fitness, not for anything specific. I don't run and have not run in any capacity other than chasing a person in about 10 months. I can still run quite effectively for over half of a mile. I focus solely upon lifting. As you said however, I can not run a marathon.... I have not trained for it ;-)
Iii) If your academy experience did include running and/or other 'cardio' did it hurt your lifting numbers?