The anaerobic one tbhOriginally Posted by OBoile
Member
I'm sure we're largely on the same point, but I think there are a couple of mischaracterizations of what I stated and an element of us talking past each other, and I think that actually reinforces my point. I was talking about what happens bioenergetically at the top end of the aerobic system, and your mind immediately jumps to LSD as a practical example because of the word “aerobic”. It may be appropriate to understand how LSD or jazzercise, or a long walk is fueled by thinking solely about what is taught as “aerobic” pathways, but isn’t reflective of what is happening at activities performed at or around the aerobic capacity (or repeated bouts of surpamaximal intensity).
Just so we’re all on the same page, the science of it is as follows:
For glycolysis to occur at high rates you need equally high rates of oxidation of the cytoplasmic electron carriers that it reduces. While the primary mechanism for that during high glycolytic flux is the conversion of pyruvate to lactate, the ability to tolerate that* is mitochondrial dependent (intracellular lactate shuttle), but the secondary mechanism (the Electron Transport Chain) is obviously even more mitochondria dependent. High glycolytic flux can only be maintain in proportion to the mitochondrial density as it is they which recycle the electron carriers and maintain intracellular lactate at manageable levels.
So, to go back to my previous post, there is a tendency to think of mitochondria as being “aerobic” because we only encounter them in post-glycolysis aspects of bioenergetics. While I accept that there are aspects of anaerobic performance that go beyond mitochondria (I was a decent 400M runner in my youth, but the reality is that everyone who could beat me could beat me because they were faster than me over 60 yards, 100M and 200M), the reality is that mitochondria are a vital aspect of performance in the majority of so called “anaerobic” activities. High rates of lactate production are a great stimulus for mitochondrial biogenesis (often thought of as an aerobic adaptation), and that classic hallmark of good aerobic conditioning (high mitochondrial density) allows for better glycolytic capacity.
* Note: I accept the science that suggests lactate, or even the pH disruptions it causes, is not the cause of muscular fatigue during glycolysis per se, but this is merely (IMO) an interesting scientific wrinkle that does not change the practical reality that adaptations that allow you to tolerate high levels of lactate acid production (high mitochondrial density --> high clearance rates --> reduced intracellular and circulatory lactate concentrations) produce better performance of glycolysis dependent activities.
That, by definition, is submaximial and therefore not limited by your aerobic capcity. The explanation for why strength training made it feel easier is far simpler – it was your strength that was letting you down previously.
Member
The anaerobic one tbh
Starting Strength Coach
Interesting quotation marks, because that's not what you said. What you said was:
If you're going to backpedal and acknowledge that not all conditioning is aerobic (and in fact, the vast majority of football/basketball/etc. conditioning should be anaerobic, then I think you and I can agree here. My contribution to the argument would be finished. I have a few quibbles with your choice of studies, though.... pretty much every major sport requires some dedicated aerobic work outside of just playing the game in order to maximize performance.
I already stated this earlier because it is actually evidence against aerobic-heavy training for power-sport athletes. How often do football players or basketball players run in a straight line in a game, or even put in more than 10 seconds of continuous, intense effort? I earlier linked a time-motion analysis of basketball that the majority of speed plays in basketball involve less than 5 meters straight-line distance. So if 200m (~30 seconds) is predominantly anaerobic (70%), why would I expect a 5-second play to be 'aerobic?'
In this study and the baseline work that started it, (refs 6,38,40,45) they use 30 second bouts of monostructural maximal intensity exercise (sprinting) with 4 minutes of rest.
They choose this interval intentionally- note where 30 seconds is on the graph. It is long enough at a high enough resistance to completely exhaust phosphocreatine stores, spike lactate, and dramatically increase H+ concentration, inhibiting anaerobic glycolysis. In short, it is designed to test what happens when you exhaust the body's anaerobic capacity and keep going.
Compare that to American D1 football, where a single play lasts 5.5 seconds on average and rest between plays is 39 seconds (90 if you have a stoppage). According to the review's primary source article, NFL recoveries are even longer, and the researchers weren't quantifying total rest per athlete (including halftime, substitutions, and swaps between offense and defense on the field), where total rest occurs.
5 seconds is not nearly as exhausting as these studies' intervals (hint: if it were, football would get a lot more boring as every play would leave the players more fatigued). A series, on average, involves a total 72 seconds of actual play over almost 8 minutes' time with 6-10 minutes between series. Does that sound predominantly aerobic or anaerobic to you?
Yes, if your goal is 'freshness.' Except for game day itself, 'freshness' is not my concern. If your goal is 'increased performance on the field,' you have to adapt your conditioning towards the work-rest intervals you'll be playing with.
Oxidative phosphorylation (ie: the 'aerobic system') is how most of the ATP is regenerated, indeed. That's not all of recovery. What kind of training better improves lactate clearance and acid buffering? What training increases concentrations of the rate-limiting enzymes that handle the products of the intense work output?
Here's a more precise question: can 2 athletes with the same VO2 max recover from intervals at different rates? If you read the study you posted above and its references, there's evidence to suggest the answer is "yes."
Yes, an aerobic athlete should spend the majority of their work in the aerobic domain. This is called 'specificity.'
You are also correct in that this is not relevant to a discussion of strength-power team sports. A cross-country skiier's program is entirely inappropriate for a strength/power athlete.
If your case is that predominantly-aerobic-energy-system-conditioning is appropriate for team-power sports, you've posted a few hyperlinks, yes, but no evidence.
If you retreat to the argument that anaerobic conditioning is critical to elite performance... yes. I'll concede there is plenty of evidence for this argument.
Member
For the clarification, thanks. My understanding of this is pretty much what you wrote, I just need to pay attention to read after myself what I type and speak in correct and not simplified terms.
For the second thing, I seem not to have access from work, will try from home. For now - I was under impression that ventilation is regulated by O2, CO2 and H30+ chemoreceptors, or their relative concentration respectively, and excitating nerves leading to breathing centre in brain stem. From what I recall, the O2 receptors are peripheral (aortic and carotides?), but not in the brain stem itself. I'll read that piece you posted and check back, I'm no physiologist after all. I hope the poncho helps.
Thank you for now.
Member
My point is that low-level aerobic exercise didn't improve anything for me in my chosen sports and in my health in general. I even tried Maffetone running, which is where you keep your heart rate at 180 - your age and try to train yourself to go faster without raising your heart rate. I was frustrated because none of the exercise I did was making me better at the things I liked to do even though I increased how much I did over the years. Instead I was watching myself get worse just like all the other old people around me. I dared myself to prove people wrong around here, people who said you don't need aerobics. I didn't believe them. I thought I will do absolutely none of it and no interval training either and see how badly I fall apart. I've never felt better. I can do more than I could before. They were right.
Member
My n=1 experience is that I had to add 1-2 days of conditioning before stopped being mildly winded by walking quiclky or by rapidldly (but not very fast) ascending a stair case. The good news is that only 2 weeks of conditioning made a world of difference. Now, once a week I do a 4 mile hike with my girlfriend and despite the fact that she does this 5X / week, I have no problem keeping up with her and that, I mostly attribute to squatting and deadlifting. But I honestly don't feel that lifting alone is enough and that at least 1 conditioning session / week is needed, at least at my age (43). I switch conditioning up from sprints to hill walking to prowler. Altjhough my hill walks are ~1 mile up, 1 mile down, I walk briskly, but I ditched the "jogging" 3 years ago when I became serious about strength training.
Member
Anecdotally I ran a 5K for fun about six weeks after I started the Starting Strength program. I was *extremely* deconditioned prior to this and ran it in 28 minutes. This is comparable to my best time (maybe a 27:30ish) when I was actually doing regular LSD running of 3-7 miles daily. I think I'm in better shape now two months later and I'd like to try running another to see how much my time has improved.
Based on my experience I'd say that lifting weights is at least as good at improving one's aerobic performance as running.
Member
Agree and disagree. Lifting weights improves aerobic capasity but to be competative, you'll have to run regularly at 2-5 mile bouts. There is NO WAY you're going from 28 minutes to 18 minutes by squatting.
Member
Actually Mark, simple physiology does explain the connection between the two systems and how training the anaerobic system can and does up-regulate the aerobic system.
The cell takes glucose and alters it's chemical structure to generate energy in the form of phosphates and ends up as pyruvate, which then gets cycled through the Krebs cycle inside the mitochondria and ends up as ATP.
That which occurs outside the mitochondria and ends up as pyruvate is the anaerobic part of the metabolism, that which occurs inside the mitochondriac and ends up as ATP is the aerobic part of the metabolism.
However, the anaerobic system can generate pyruvate FASTER than the mitochondria can convert it into ATP, and therefore as a result the excess pyruvate is acted upon by lactate dehydrogenase and converted into lactic acid.
The lactic acid is then brought back through the central vein in the liver where it is converted BACK into pyruvate and shuttled through the aerobic cycle. So while you're recovering from a heavy anaerobic workout, you're actually up-regulating your aerobic metabolism for about 1.5 hours by supplying it with a constant supply of pyruvate generated from your heavy anaerobic workout.
TMPHBITEU
Fascinating.
Posting Permissions
