Anaerobic vs. Aerobic Training for Combat Athletes

Disclaimer: I am not a trainer, nor do I have any degree or certification in sports performance.

Over the last decade and a half, more and more "modern" athletes and trainers have turned away from the morning "roadwork" that combat athletes have relied on for centuries. The long distance work that generations of successful fighters have used for conditioning (mind & body) have been pooh-poohed as "backwards," and "unsuitable" for explosive sports like boxing or MMA.

High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) can be summarized as a series of all-out sprints of activity, followed by full or partial rest periods. The most famous study was directed by Dr. Izumi Tabata from the National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Tokyo, Japan. What would become known as the "Tabata Principle" consisted of 4 minutes of training, broken down into 20 seconds of all-out effort, followed by 10 seconds of rest, continued 8 times, for a total of 240 seconds. After 6 weeks of training, Dr. Tabata found that his athletes improved 28% in anaerobic capacity, and 14% in their ability to consume oxygen (VO2 Max/aerobic).

There is no doubt that interval training is intense, time-efficient, and effective. If anyone doubts it, just try it on the track. That being said, so many people now tout it as the end-all, be-all of conditioning, that steady pace distance running is completely disregarded. The following statements are heard often:

"MMA is a sprint, not a marathon."

"Long , slow distance running doesn't have a place in a sport that is as explosive as MMA (or boxing.)"

"Slow running changes fast-twitch muscle fibers to slow ones, limiting an athlete's ability to react quickly and explosively."

These comments have some basis in fact, but they ignore certain parts of the Tabata study, and are misleading in some ways.

For one thing, the Tabata study makes a big deal out of the improvements taking place on "trained athletes." This is important, as it is much harder to get significant results out of athletes already "in shape," compared to relative novices. In fact, the athletes in the study had decent, but not great VO2 max averages before starting the study. The argument that similar improvements could be made with other training protocols, especially since these are relatively un-trained athletes, rarely gets made.

Secondly, even the group of athletes who were being trained with the Tabata Protocol were also instructed to perform LSD (Long, Steady Distance) runs once a week.

Finally, are we sure that combat sports are REALLY anaerobic in nature?

Aerobic means "with oxygen," and being in an aerobic state is when the body's demands for oxygen and fuel can be met by the body's intake. (breathing in oxygen) An extreme example of an aerobic athlete is a marathon runner.

Anaerobic means "without oxygen," and the system is used under maximal effort, where the body is working so hard that the demands for oxygen and fuel exceed the supply. The body must then rely on the stored reserves of fuel. An extreme example of an anaerobic athlete is a 100 meter sprinter.

The problem with the argument that combat sports are anaerobic is that this system can only operate for a short time before it is spent. Once that happens, the demands for fuel and oxygen must be supported and replenished with the aerobic system. This happens QUICKLY. In fact, by the time that maximum effort has passed 75 seconds, more than half of the energy being used is supplied by the aerobic system. During the two minute rounds of amateur boxing, 63% of the energy requirements are coming via the aerobic system. With professional boxing and MMA fights lasting as long 48 minutes, broken into 3-5 minute rounds, it is clear that these are not purely anaerobic activities.

The point of all this is that the title is misleading. There should not be a question of anaerobic OR aerobic training, but just a matter of using both to bring up your weaknesses. If you come from a sprint-heavy background before beginning training in combat sports, you will most likely benefit from longer distance-style training. This will help lower your resting heart rate, and allow for quicker recovery between rounds. Conversely, if your resting heart rate is low, but you are lacking in speed and power, you may want to place an emphasis on interval training to bring up the lagging areas.

In short, each is good, but both is better.

Further Reading
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/enduranc.htm
http://ezinearticles.com/?Tabata-Anything---Four-Minutes-of-Pain-to-Gain&id=348486
http://8weeksout.com/