Our fitness person

Albert Parker · Joined: 13 Dec 2012

^FWIW A mate of mine is senior in Sports Science in another sport and reckons Russell is the man amongst AFL types.

slangman · Joined: 11 Aug 2003

npalm · Joined: 01 May 2005

K · Joined: 09 Sep 2011

K · Joined: 09 Sep 2011

Brisbane:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-13/what-happens-when-a-fit-journo-trains-with-footy-players

E · Joined: 05 May 2010

K · Joined: 09 Sep 2011

But surely just training at altitude does not force you to do marathon training, right? The main criticism seems to have been that the benefits are at best small and short-term, rather than that it leads to injuries.

On the reading list:

Position statement�altitude training for improving team-sport players� performance: current knowledge and unresolved issues

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/47/Suppl_1/i8

Does hypoxic and thermal stress enhance the training response of athletes and AFL footballers?

p.17-25 of
https://www.essa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FINAL_ESSA_Activate_March_2013_LORES_ONLINE.pdf

Pies/Buttifant claims:

Why altitude training works

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2012-12-13/altitude-explained

"You definitely get an increase in haemoglobin mass, or your red blood cells, somewhere in the vicinity of four-to-five per cent for a 20-day camp. But that change in haemoglobin mass is back to baseline levels after four weeks back at sea level."
-- Blake McLean.

Albert Parker · Joined: 13 Dec 2012

^Guy McKenna told me at the time that the altitude camps were designed/purported to offer a 2-3% edge, which he considered significant in the context of players operating at close to their maximum and given the sometime small difference between winning and losing.

Buttifant eventually left to join his mate Mick. Didn't last at Carlton beyond Mick either. Was he so great? I am not sure. Kevin White, of course, followed on from Bill Davoren (or Davorkian as he was dubbed as the Dr of Death), rather than David Buttifant. I was never a fan of Davoren or his results.

Our club review last year was pretty comprehensive and resulted in Davoren departing. Andrew Russell went to Carlton because of his connection with Bolton, not just coin. In the past I know that we chased Manchester United head fitness guy and offered him more money than Man U were paying him (he almost came but for family I believe). Our senior sports guys in AFL are paid very well in the context of professional sports. Our game, being so physically demanding, sees more value being attributed to these types than other sports. Throwing more money at things does not always land the solution that you want in terms of picking up people.

K · Joined: 09 Sep 2011

^ Kevin White started in the Buttifant era, so he has potentially been influenced by both predecessors.

What sort of salaries are we talking about? I'd be surprised if we could outbid Man. U, simply because EPL clubs have so much money to throw around and no soft restrictions on doing so.

K · Joined: 09 Sep 2011

Sports physiologist Dr Ian Gillam (in ESSA ref. above):

"McLean et al are the first to publish data on the effect of a high altitude training camp conducted with an elite AFL squad (Collingwood Football Club), where the players lived and trained for 19 days in Flagstaff, Arizona (2130 m). ... A group of 21 elite AFL players were selected to participate in the altitude camp, while nine players (who acted as the control group), stayed and trained in Melbourne (30 m). ... Hbmass, 2000m running performance at sea level, and a measurement of intramuscular carnosine (muscle buffering capacity) using an MRS technique, were measured in all players before, three days and 30 days after the altitude camp. No assessment was made of V02max in this study. Both groups undertook similar four week endurance and strength training blocks before and during the altitude intervention, however, the training stress in the altitude group was higher than the control group. �Training stress� was calculated as training time x perceived exertion with the altitude group recording higher levels of training stress due to the increase in perceived exertion, as a result of the altitude induced hypoxia.

Following the altitude training camp in this study, there was a modest increase in Hbmass of 3.6 per cent and a trivial increase in Hbmass of 0.5 per cent in the control group. However when the difference in training stress was accounted for, the increase in Hbmass in the pre- high altitude group was reduced to 2.2 per cent. There was marked inter-player variability in the change in Hbmass for both groups of players. The increase in Hbmass observed in the altitude group had returned to pre-altitude levels four weeks after the altitude camp. No change in intramuscular carnosine or muscle buffering capacity was observed. Running performance at sea level following the intervention improved by 1.5 per cent (or 19 seconds over 2000m) in the altitude group, with the control group also improving their 2000 m run time by 11 seconds. The inter-individual variation in 2000 m run time was assessed as being approximately half the performance improvement, with the improvement in 2000 m run performance due to altitude was statistically assessed as being �likely�. Interestingly, the improvement in 2000 m run time was maintained in the altitude group for four weeks after the altitude intervention. The reason for the ability of the altitude group to maintain their running performance time is unclear, although the authors stated that this was due to the players being able to complete �an improved quality of training postaltitude camp�. No evidence is presented in the current paper that might justify this statement, nor is evidence provided for this statement in the paper. ...

While the improvement in running performance was maintained for four weeks post altitude, it is unknown if any physiological or running performance benefits were maintained two to three months later, when the AFL competition season began."

What can one say? Probably many sports physiology papers are like that, but the McLean/Butters stuff really seems like a load of codswallop. For starters, we can probably identify the 9 in the supposed "control group", which will probably show that 8 of them were old and injured (if they weren't injured, they would not have been left behind, would they?) and therefore nothing like the boys who went up the mountain. (If this was end of 2011, the other left behind may have been AK, who couldn't get entry into the US.)

I have no idea why they didn't bother to measure V02max. The HBmass increase didn't last 4 weeks, let alone a season. And the claims about the 2000m time improvements are just plain ridiculous...