Lesson 12 · What factors influence movement and performance?
Training is a question you ask the body, and the body answers the question you asked
There is no such thing as getting fitter in general. There is only stressing a particular system in a particular way and letting the body rebuild itself to cope with that stress next time. Which means the single most important decision in any program is not how hard or how long — it is which system you are deliberately disturbing. This lesson compares aerobic and anaerobic training on exactly that basis, then does the two things the dot point adds and most treatments skip: how the same comparison plays out differently for an individual athlete and for a team, and where the contemporary methods everyone has heard of actually sit.
A coach runs one training session for an entire under-17 football squad. Everyone does the same thing: twelve laps of the pitch at a steady pace, every Tuesday, all season.
Write down at least three separate reasons why this is a poor session for this squad — and make them different kinds of reason, not three versions of "it is boring". Then the harder question: name the one player in a football squad for whom that session is genuinely close to appropriate, and say what it is about their role that makes it so. If you think there is no such player, say why not.
- Explain what makes a session aerobic or anaerobic, and why the answer is the work-to-rest ratio and the intensity rather than the activity's name.
- Compare aerobic and anaerobic training across intensity, duration, work-to-rest ratio, the system stressed, the adaptations produced and the recovery required.
- Describe the methods of each: continuous, fartlek, long-interval and circuit for aerobic; short-interval, repeated-sprint, plyometric and resistance for anaerobic.
- Explain what differentiation means in a training program, and the four things a program can be differentiated by.
- Compare how training is planned for an individual sport and for a group sport, and explain why a squad presents a problem an individual athlete does not.
- Describe the contemporary methods of training and judge what each one genuinely offers.
- Propose a defensible session for a real squad and justify it from the demands of the sport.
- Aerobic training — training that stresses the oxygen transport and utilisation system, typically at sub-maximal intensity for extended periods.
- Anaerobic training — training that stresses the ATP-PCr or glycolytic system, at high to maximal intensity for short periods with recovery between.
- Work-to-rest ratio — the length of the effort compared with the length of the recovery, and the single best indicator of which system a session is training.
- Differentiation — adjusting a program so that athletes of different capacities, positions, ages and goals are each appropriately loaded by the same session.
- Contemporary methods of training — current approaches such as high-intensity interval training, cross-training, aquatic training, altitude training and technology-supported training.
- Specificity — the principle that adaptations occur in the systems and movements that were actually stressed.
- Adaptation — a lasting structural or functional change produced by repeated training, as distinct from the immediate response met in Lesson 14.
Lesson 10 established that all three energy systems contribute at all times. It follows that no session is purely aerobic or purely anaerobic, and the labels describe which system the session predominantly stresses — which is to say, which one is pushed close enough to its limit that the body is forced to adapt.
Two variables decide it, and neither of them is the name of the activity.
Intensity. Below about 85 per cent of maximum, oxygen delivery can keep up and the work is predominantly aerobic. Above it, it cannot, and the anaerobic systems supply the shortfall.
The work-to-rest ratio. This is the discriminator that students most often miss, and it is the more powerful of the two. A session of maximal 30 metre sprints with three minutes between them is anaerobic training: each effort is supplied by phosphocreatine, and the long rest allows almost complete restoration, so every repetition is near-maximal. The same sprints with only 20 seconds between them are something quite different — phosphocreatine is not restored, each successive effort draws more heavily on glycolysis, and by the eighth repetition the athlete is training lactate tolerance and aerobic recovery capacity, not speed.
Quick check: Two squads run identical 30 metre sprints. Squad A rests three minutes between efforts; squad B rests twenty seconds. The most accurate statement is:
The directive in this dot point is compare, which means identifying similarities and differences across consistent criteria — not describing one and then describing the other. These six criteria are the ones that carry the differences, and using the same six for both halves is what makes an answer a comparison.
| Criterion | Aerobic training | Anaerobic training |
|---|---|---|
| Intensity | Sub-maximal, roughly 60 to 85 per cent of maximum heart rate | High to maximal, above 85 per cent and often all-out |
| Duration of effort | Continuous or long intervals, from several minutes to hours | Seconds to about 2 minutes per effort |
| Work-to-rest ratio | Continuous, or roughly 1:1 in long intervals | From about 1:3 for lactate tolerance up to 1:20 or more for pure speed and power |
| System stressed | Aerobic — oxygen delivery and mitochondrial capacity | ATP-PCr for the shortest efforts, glycolytic for efforts of 20 seconds to 2 minutes |
| Main adaptations | Increased stroke volume and cardiac output, increased capillarisation, more and larger mitochondria, greater aerobic enzyme activity, lower resting and sub-maximal heart rate, increased oxygen uptake | Increased phosphocreatine and glycogen stores, increased anaerobic enzyme activity, greater buffering capacity against hydrogen ions, increased muscle cross-sectional area and neural recruitment |
| Recovery required | Modest — can be repeated on consecutive days, which is why it can carry the volume of a program | Substantial — 48 hours or more between heavy sessions, which strictly limits how much of it a program can contain |
The similarities matter too, and a comparison that omits them is incomplete. Both are governed by the same training principles; both require progressive increases in load to keep producing adaptation; both produce adaptations that are lost when training stops; and both are ultimately specific — each improves the system and the movement pattern that was actually used, and neither transfers well to a quality it did not train.
True or false: Because anaerobic training produces the largest performance gains, a well-designed program should contain as much of it as the athlete can tolerate.
A method is a way of arranging work and recovery so that a particular system is stressed. Grouping them by the system they stress is more useful than grouping them by equipment.
| Method | What it is | What it is for |
|---|---|---|
| Continuous | Sustained sub-maximal work with no rest, 20 minutes or more | Aerobic base: stroke volume, capillarisation, mitochondrial density |
| Fartlek | Continuous work with self-selected or terrain-driven changes of pace | Aerobic base plus some tolerance of pace change — closer to the demands of a game than continuous work is |
| Long interval | Efforts of 2 to 5 minutes near the aerobic ceiling, with roughly equal recovery | Raising the intensity at which the aerobic system can still predominate |
| Circuit | A sequence of stations with limited rest, mixing resistance and movement | Muscular endurance and moderate aerobic stress in one time-efficient session; well suited to large groups |
| Short interval and repeated-sprint | Maximal efforts of 5 to 30 seconds with prescribed recovery | Speed and power on long recoveries; lactate tolerance and repeat-sprint ability on short ones |
| Plyometric | Rapid stretch-then-contract movements such as bounding, hopping and depth jumps | Explosive power and the elastic contribution to movement |
| Resistance | Work against an external load, free weights, machines or body mass | Strength, power and muscle cross-sectional area, depending on load and repetitions |
The syllabus asks specifically for contemporary methods, which are current approaches rather than new physiology. The four worth knowing, with an honest judgement of each:
- High-intensity interval training (HIIT). Short maximal or near-maximal efforts with brief recoveries, repeated. Genuinely produces both aerobic and anaerobic adaptations in far less time than continuous work, which is its real claim. Its limitation is the recovery cost: it cannot be done daily, so it supplements a program rather than replacing one.
- Cross-training. Training the same system through a different activity — a runner cycling or swimming. Maintains aerobic fitness while reducing impact load, which makes it valuable in injury management and in recovery weeks. Because adaptations are specific, it maintains the system better than it maintains the sport.
- Aquatic and altitude training. Aquatic work reduces joint loading while maintaining aerobic stress, which is why it appears in rehabilitation. Altitude training exploits reduced oxygen availability to stimulate red blood cell production, and its benefit depends heavily on the protocol and on the individual — it is not a reliable gain for everyone.
- Technology-supported training. Heart rate monitors, GPS units and power meters allow load to be prescribed and verified rather than estimated. The real contribution is not motivation but measurement: a session can be checked against what was intended, and an athlete who is not recovering can be identified before they break down.
Match each training method to the adaptation it most directly produces.
- Continuous running for 40 minutes
- Depth jumps and bounding
- Maximal 20 second efforts with 60 second recoveries
- Heavy resistance work at low repetitions
- Increased stroke volume, capillarisation and mitochondrial density
- Greater explosive power and use of the elastic properties of muscle
- Increased buffering capacity and tolerance of hydrogen ion accumulation
- Increased neural recruitment and muscle cross-sectional area
This is the half of the dot point that separates a good answer from a complete one, and the point is not that team sports are more aerobic. It is that a coach of an individual athlete optimises one program, while a coach of a squad has to solve a problem with competing constraints.
| Individual sport | Group sport | |
|---|---|---|
| Demands to satisfy | One event profile, known in advance and usually stable | Several position profiles at once — a goalkeeper, a midfielder and a prop have different energy demands in the same match |
| Starting capacities | One athlete's testing data drives the whole program | A wide spread within one squad, often including several years of maturation in a school team |
| Prescription | Absolute — a pace, a load, a time that is specific to that athlete | Relative wherever possible — a percentage of each athlete's own maximum, so one session loads everyone appropriately |
| Non-physical demands | Technical and psychological preparation for one performer | Tactical and combination work that only exists with the group present, and which competes for the same training time |
| Main risk | Over-specialising, so that a single weakness is never addressed | Training to the average, so the strongest are under-loaded and the weakest are over-loaded by the identical session |
That last row is the answer to Card 01. The twelve-lap session is poor not mainly because it is dull, but because a single absolute prescription given to a squad with a wide spread of capacities cannot be the right load for more than a few of them — and because football is intermittent, so a continuous steady run trains a profile the sport does not have. The player for whom it is closest to appropriate is the one whose match profile is most continuous and least explosive; in football that is the player who covers the most ground at moderate intensity, typically a central midfielder, and even for them it is a base-building session rather than a specific one.
Two truths and a lie. Which statement is false?
Differentiation is the practical answer to the problem in Card 07. The aim is one session that stresses every athlete appropriately, because a squad usually trains together and splitting it is rarely possible. There are four levers, and naming them is more useful than the general instruction to "cater for individual differences".
Differentiate by intensity, relatively. Prescribe 85 per cent of each athlete's own maximum heart rate or their own best time, not a single pace for everyone. The physiological stress is then equivalent even though the speeds are not, which is the whole trick.
Differentiate by volume. Same intensity, different number of repetitions or sets. An athlete returning from injury or a younger athlete does four of what the others do six of, at the same quality. This is the lever that best manages injury risk.
Differentiate by recovery. Same work, different rest. Shorter recoveries push an athlete further towards the glycolytic system and towards repeat-effort capacity; longer recoveries keep the quality of each effort high. This lever changes which system is trained, so it is the most powerful and the most easily misused.
Differentiate by role or position. Same session structure, different content in the conditioning blocks, so that each group's work resembles the demands of its position. This is where specificity is recovered for a squad that cannot have individual programs.
Differentiation also answers a second question the syllabus cares about: participation. A session pitched at the fittest athlete tells everyone else that they do not belong, and the athletes who drop out are systematically the ones who would have gained most. A differentiated session is a technically better session and it is also the one that keeps the squad intact, which is a genuine argument and not a consolation.
Fill the gaps. Type one word in each box.
The ratio of effort length to recovery length is called the work-to- ratio, and changing it changes which energy system a session stresses. Adjusting a session so athletes of different capacities are each loaded appropriately is called . The principle that adaptations occur only in the systems and movements actually trained is called .
Text description
- Two parts, one above the other.
- Above, a vertical scale of work-to-rest ratio running from one to twenty rest at the top to continuous work at the bottom, with four zones marked down it: speed and power at very long recoveries, repeat-sprint ability at moderate recoveries, lactate tolerance at short recoveries, and aerobic base at continuous work, each labelled with the energy system it stresses.
- Below, two boxes, one above the other, comparing how a program is planned for an individual athlete and for a squad: the individual box shows one profile leading to one absolute prescription, and the squad box shows several position profiles and a spread of capacities leading to a relative prescription with four differentiation levers named as intensity, volume, recovery and role.
Activities · put the method to work
Take the session from Card 01 and rebuild it for the same squad, in the same 60 minutes, on the same pitch, with no equipment you do not already have.
State the demands first. Using the profile method from Lesson 10, write the energy demands of the sport in effort durations and recovery durations. Every later decision must be traceable to a number here.
Choose the method and justify it. Name the method from Card 06 you will use for the conditioning block, and say which system it stresses and which adaptation you are pursuing. "Interval training" alone is not a prescription; give the effort length, the recovery, and the number of repetitions.
Differentiate it. Apply at least two of the four levers from Card 08 and say exactly what each athlete group does differently. Name the group — by position, by capacity or by return-from-injury status — rather than saying "the weaker ones".
Say what you gave up. Sixty minutes is a real constraint, so something in the old session has been removed or shortened. Name it, and defend the trade.
Then swap with someone who chose a different sport and try to break their session: find one athlete in their squad for whom the prescription is either too easy or unsafe, and name them by role.
Odd one out. Three of these are adaptations to aerobic training. Which one is not?
For each claim: state whether it is supported, overstated or false; name the physiology that settles it; and say what the claim would have to be narrowed to in order to become true.
"Twenty minutes of HIIT replaces an hour of running, so nobody needs continuous training any more."
"Our team wears GPS units now, so our conditioning has improved."
"He is a swimmer with a stress injury, so he should stop training until it settles."
"We did a three-week altitude camp, so the whole squad will come back fitter."
At least two of these are overstated rather than false, and finding the true claim buried inside the overstatement is the skill this activity is training. HM-11-09 asks you to propose and evaluate solutions, and an evaluation that only ever says "no" is not an evaluation.
Compare aerobic and anaerobic training, referring to intensity, duration, the energy system stressed and the adaptations produced.
Compare means show how things are similar and different, across consistent criteria. The structural mistake is to write a paragraph on aerobic training and then a paragraph on anaerobic training; that is two descriptions side by side, and it loses marks even when every fact in it is right.
Plan: one criterion at a time, both halves in the same sentence. Intensity and duration together; then the system stressed; then adaptations; then the similarities; then the practical consequence of the recovery difference.
Aerobic training is performed at sub-maximal intensity, roughly 60 to 85 per cent of maximum heart rate, continuously or in long intervals lasting minutes to hours. Anaerobic training, in contrast, is performed above 85 per cent and often maximally, in efforts of seconds to about two minutes, each followed by a prescribed recovery. The work-to-rest ratio is therefore the clearest single discriminator: continuous or about 1:1 for aerobic work, against anything from 1:3 to 1:20 or more for anaerobic work.
Aerobic training stresses the oxygen transport and utilisation pathway, producing increased stroke volume and cardiac output, greater capillarisation, more and larger mitochondria, higher aerobic enzyme activity and a lower heart rate at any given sub-maximal workload. Anaerobic training stresses the ATP-PCr system in the shortest efforts and the glycolytic system in efforts of about 20 seconds to 2 minutes, producing increased phosphocreatine and glycogen stores, higher anaerobic enzyme activity, greater buffering capacity against hydrogen ions, and increased muscle cross-sectional area and neural recruitment.
Aerobic and anaerobic training differ principally in which energy system they deliberately stress, and every other difference between them follows from that choice. Aerobic training is performed at sub-maximal intensity, approximately 60 to 85 per cent of maximum heart rate, either continuously or in long intervals of several minutes, so the work lasts from twenty minutes to several hours and the work-to-rest ratio is continuous or approximately 1:1. Anaerobic training, by contrast, is performed above 85 per cent of maximum and frequently at maximal effort, in efforts lasting from a few seconds to about two minutes, with substantial prescribed recovery giving work-to-rest ratios from about 1:3 for lactate tolerance to 1:20 or more for pure speed and power. Because aerobic work is sustained at an intensity that oxygen delivery can support, it stresses the oxygen transport and utilisation pathway, and the resulting adaptations are those that increase the rate at which oxygen can be delivered and used: increased stroke volume and cardiac output, increased capillarisation of the trained muscle, more and larger mitochondria, greater aerobic enzyme activity and, as the visible consequence, a lower heart rate at any given sub-maximal workload. Anaerobic training stresses the ATP-PCr system in the shortest maximal efforts and the glycolytic system in efforts of roughly 20 seconds to 2 minutes, and its adaptations are correspondingly different: increased stores of phosphocreatine and glycogen, greater anaerobic enzyme activity, improved buffering capacity allowing the athlete to tolerate a greater accumulation of hydrogen ions, and increased muscle cross-sectional area and neural recruitment producing greater force and power. The two are nonetheless similar in several important respects: both are governed by the same principles of training, both require progressive increases in load to continue producing adaptation, both produce adaptations that are reversed when training ceases, and both are specific, improving only the system and movement pattern actually trained. The practical difference that matters most to a program is recovery: aerobic sessions can be repeated on consecutive days and therefore carry the volume of a program, whereas heavy anaerobic sessions require 48 hours or more between them, so anaerobic work must be rationed and placed deliberately rather than added wherever there is time.
Compare the way a training program would be designed for an individual middle-distance runner and for a school rugby squad. In your answer, refer to differentiated training programs and to contemporary methods of training.
The trap in this question is to answer it as "running is aerobic, rugby is anaerobic". That is both an oversimplification and an answer to a different question. The real difference is that the runner has one profile and one set of capacities, while the squad has several profiles and a wide spread of capacities that must be served by the same session.
Plan: state that axis first; then the demands of each; then the prescription, absolute against relative; then differentiation with named levers; then contemporary methods chosen for a reason; then the risk each coach is managing.
The middle-distance runner's event is continuous, lasting roughly two to four minutes at close to maximal sustainable intensity, so it draws heavily on both the glycolytic and the aerobic systems and the program must develop the aerobic ceiling and lactate tolerance together. A rugby match is intermittent across 70 minutes, consisting of repeated efforts of a few seconds separated by variable recoveries, with different positions differing sharply — a front-row forward's profile is not a winger's.
The runner's program can be prescribed absolutely, in target paces and split times derived from that athlete's own testing. The squad's cannot, because one absolute pace would over-load the least developed players and under-load the most developed, so intensity is prescribed relatively as a percentage of each player's own maximum. The squad session is then differentiated further by volume, with returning or younger players completing fewer repetitions at the same quality; by recovery, since shortening the rest shifts the same drill towards the glycolytic system; and by role, with forwards and backs doing different conditioning content within the same session structure.
The central difference between these two programs is not that one is aerobic and the other anaerobic, since both sports draw on all three energy systems; it is that the runner presents one event profile and one set of capacities to be optimised, while the squad presents several position profiles and a wide spread of capacities that must all be served by the same session. The middle-distance runner's event is continuous and lasts roughly two to four minutes at close to maximal sustainable intensity, so it depends jointly on the aerobic system and on tolerance of the glycolytic system's by-products, and the program develops both, using continuous and long-interval work to raise the aerobic ceiling and short intervals at race pace or faster to develop lactate tolerance. A rugby match is intermittent over 70 minutes, made up of repeated efforts of a few seconds with variable recovery, and its positions differ sharply, so the squad's program must develop repeat-effort capacity and the aerobic base that restores phosphocreatine between efforts, while accepting that no single session can be specific to every position. This difference in demands produces a difference in prescription. The runner's training can be prescribed absolutely, in target paces and split times derived from that athlete's own testing, because there is only one athlete for the numbers to fit. The squad's intensity must be prescribed relatively, as a percentage of each player's own maximum heart rate or best time, so that a single session imposes an equivalent physiological stress on players whose absolute speeds differ considerably. Beyond intensity, the squad session is differentiated by volume, with players returning from injury or at an earlier stage of maturation completing fewer repetitions at the same quality; by recovery, since shortening the rest on an identical drill shifts it towards the glycolytic system and lengthening it preserves the quality of each effort; and by role, with forwards and backs completing different conditioning content inside the same session structure, which is how specificity is recovered for a squad that cannot have individual programs. Contemporary methods are used differently by each. The runner may use altitude training, accepting that the response varies considerably between individuals, and would use a heart rate monitor or power meter to verify that each session was executed at the intensity intended. The squad is more likely to use high-intensity interval training, because it develops both aerobic and anaerobic qualities in the limited time a school team has, and GPS units, whose real contribution is measurement rather than motivation — they show which players are actually reaching the prescribed loads and identify a player who is not recovering before that becomes an injury. Cross-training serves both, maintaining aerobic fitness at reduced impact for an injured athlete in either setting. Finally, the two coaches are managing different risks. The runner's coach risks over-specialisation, in which one weakness is never addressed because the program is so tightly fitted to the event. The squad's coach risks training to the average, so that the strongest players are under-loaded and the weakest are over-loaded by the identical session — which is both a conditioning failure and a participation failure, since the players who disengage are systematically those who would have gained most.
Multiple choice · 5 questions
MC 1. The variable that most directly determines whether a session of repeated sprints trains speed or lactate tolerance is the:
- A. distance of each sprint
- B. length of the recovery between sprints
- C. surface the athlete runs on
- D. time of day the session is held
MC 2. Which of the following is an adaptation to anaerobic rather than aerobic training?
- A. Increased capillary density in the trained muscle
- B. Increased stroke volume at rest
- C. Increased buffering capacity against hydrogen ion accumulation
- D. Increased mitochondrial size and number
MC 3. Prescribing intensity as a percentage of each athlete's own maximum, rather than as a single pace for the whole squad, is an example of differentiating by:
- A. volume
- B. role
- C. recovery
- D. intensity
MC 4. The most defensible claim for high-intensity interval training is that it:
- A. removes the need for any continuous aerobic training in a program
- B. produces aerobic and anaerobic adaptations in less time, but cannot be performed daily because of its recovery cost
- C. produces adaptations that transfer equally well to every sport
- D. is the only method that improves both stroke volume and buffering capacity
MC 5. The main programming consequence of anaerobic training's recovery requirement is that:
- A. it must be performed only in the off-season
- B. it should always be performed immediately after an aerobic session
- C. it must be rationed and placed deliberately, while aerobic work carries the volume of the program
- D. it is unsuitable for athletes under eighteen
Short answer · exam style
SA 1. Remember Band 3 Outline two methods of aerobic training and two methods of anaerobic training, naming the quality each develops. (4 marks)
SA 2. Understand Band 5 Compare aerobic and anaerobic training, referring to intensity, work-to-rest ratio and the adaptations each produces. (5 marks)
SA 3. Analyse Band 6 Explain how a coach can differentiate a single training session so that it is appropriate for a squad containing players of very different fitness levels and playing positions. (6 marks)
📖 Comprehensive answers (click to reveal)
Multiple choice: 1 → B. 2 → C. 3 → D. 4 → B. 5 → C.
Activity 1 guidance: The rebuilt session almost always converges on the same shape once the demands are written in seconds: a general warm-up, a skill or tactical block, a conditioning block built from short intervals or a small-sided game with prescribed work and rest, and a cool-down. The common failure is step 2, where students name a method without prescribing it — "interval training" is not a session, whereas "six sets of four 30 metre efforts, 20 seconds between efforts and three minutes between sets" is, and only the second can be checked against the demands in step 1. On step 3, the strongest answers use the recovery lever, because it is the only one that changes which system is trained rather than merely how much work is done; the weakest use only volume, which manages load but leaves the session aimed at the wrong quality for everyone. Step 4 is included because every real session is a trade: the time for a conditioning block has to come from somewhere, and an answer that adds work without removing any has not designed a session, it has written a wish list. The peer-review step usually finds the same athlete: the one returning from injury, for whom the differentiation was written in general terms and not actually applied.
Activity 2 guidance: Claim 1 is overstated rather than false, and this is the one most students mark as simply wrong. High-intensity interval training does produce aerobic adaptations comparable to much longer continuous sessions, which is a real and well-supported finding; what does not follow is that continuous training becomes unnecessary, because the recovery cost of HIIT limits how often it can be performed, and continuous work remains the low-cost way to accumulate aerobic volume and to recover between hard sessions. The narrowed true version is that HIIT is an efficient way to obtain aerobic adaptation when time is limited. Claim 2 is false as stated, and it is the most useful error in the set: a GPS unit measures load, it does not impose it. The narrowed true version is that GPS allows a coach to verify whether the prescribed load was actually achieved and to identify a player whose output is declining. Claim 3 is false, and the correction is cross-training: aquatic or cycling work maintains the aerobic system with reduced loading on the injured tissue, so the athlete returns to full training with far less lost fitness than complete rest would cost. The narrowed true version is that the injured tissue should be unloaded, not that the athlete should stop training. Claim 4 is overstated: altitude training can stimulate red blood cell production, but the response varies substantially between individuals, the protocol matters, and a squad returning from altitude will contain both responders and non-responders. The narrowed true version names the mechanism and attaches the individual variation to it.
SA 1 (4 marks): One mark for each method correctly identified with the quality it develops. Aerobic: continuous training for aerobic base, stroke volume and capillarisation; fartlek for aerobic base with tolerance of pace change; long intervals for raising the intensity at which the aerobic system predominates; circuit training for muscular endurance with moderate aerobic stress. Anaerobic: short intervals or repeated sprints for speed and power on long recoveries or lactate tolerance on short ones; plyometrics for explosive power; resistance training for strength and muscle cross-sectional area. A method named without a quality, or a quality named without a method, earns half the pair and is not creditable on its own.
SA 2 (5 marks): Intensity compared, with figures — roughly 60 to 85 per cent for aerobic against above 85 per cent and often maximal for anaerobic [1]. Work-to-rest ratio compared — continuous or about 1:1 against 1:3 to 1:20 or more [1]. The system each stresses identified correctly, with the glycolytic and ATP-PCr distinction made for anaerobic work [1]. Aerobic adaptations, at least three of increased stroke volume and cardiac output, capillarisation, mitochondrial number and size, aerobic enzyme activity, lowered sub-maximal heart rate [1]. Anaerobic adaptations, at least three of increased phosphocreatine and glycogen stores, anaerobic enzyme activity, buffering capacity, muscle cross-sectional area, neural recruitment [1]. An answer structured as two separate descriptions rather than as a comparison is capped at 3 however accurate, because the directive has not been addressed.
SA 3 (6 marks): Explains why a single absolute prescription fails for a squad — the same pace or load is a different relative stress for athletes of different capacities, over-loading the weakest and under-loading the strongest [1]. Differentiation by intensity, prescribed relatively as a percentage of each athlete's own maximum, so the physiological stress is equivalent though the speeds differ [1]. Differentiation by volume — same intensity, fewer repetitions or sets for a returning or less developed athlete, which is the lever that best manages injury risk [1]. Differentiation by recovery, with the recognition that this changes which energy system is stressed rather than only how much work is done, making it the most powerful and most easily misused lever [1]. Differentiation by role or position — the same session structure with different conditioning content, which is how specificity is recovered for a squad that cannot have individual programs [1]. The participation argument — a session pitched at the fittest athlete disengages those who would benefit most, so differentiation is a retention issue as well as a conditioning one [1]. An answer that says "cater for individual differences" without naming a lever and what changes earns nothing for that point.
Training is a question, and specificity is the answer the body gives. A session does not make you fitter in general; it stresses one system hard enough that the body rebuilds to cope. So the first decision in any program is which system you are deliberately disturbing, and every other decision follows from it.
Intensity and the work-to-rest ratio decide which system that is — not the name of the drill. The same 30 metre sprints are a speed session on three minutes' rest and a lactate-tolerance session on twenty seconds' rest. The recovery is part of the prescription. Aerobic work sits below about 85 per cent, continuous or in long intervals, and adapts the oxygen delivery and utilisation pathway. Anaerobic work sits above it, in efforts of seconds to two minutes, and adapts the phosphate and glycolytic machinery along with force production. Both obey the same principles, both reverse when training stops, and only anaerobic work is expensive enough in recovery that it has to be rationed.
A squad is a different planning problem from an athlete, and that is the half of this dot point most answers miss. One athlete gets an absolute prescription fitted to their own testing. A squad needs a relative one, differentiated by intensity, volume, recovery and role — four named levers rather than a general instruction to cater for individual differences. Train to the average and the strongest coast while the weakest break down, and the athletes who quietly disappear are the ones the session was most needed by.
And the contemporary methods deserve an honest verdict rather than enthusiasm: HIIT is genuinely time-efficient and genuinely expensive to recover from; cross-training maintains the system better than it maintains the sport; altitude training works through a real mechanism with real individual variation; and the contribution of technology is measurement, not motivation.
Lesson 13 takes this and makes it a program. The FITT principle is the framework for turning "which system, and how hard" into a written plan you can actually hand to someone.
Mark lesson as complete
Tick when you've finished the practice and review.