all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed A question on energy pathways, (basically does this count as A+A or not?)...

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Harry Westgate

Harry Westgate

Level 6 Valued Member
Certified Instructor
Hello everyone,

Apologies if this has technically been explained before, but I'm just after a little clarification on how we define what is and isn't alactic + aerobic conditioning (A+A).

Now, I'm well aware that protocols such as S&S and StrongFirst Roadwork fall into the A+A style of training; maximum power development and maximum aerobic pathway recovery. However, if one was to strength train, for example using the Naked Warrior or Easy Strength, and then train 'cardio' separately - for instance walking, skipping, running - while keeping it aerobic and anti-glycolytic, be it as a finisher to their strength session or later in the day, would they still get the A+A adaptation, since they are still training the two relevant pathways? Or does the high intensity activity have to be broken up by the lighter, aerobic activity?

I'm aware that this is a bit of a science-y question, and if anyone can answer, it's probably @aciampa ...

Any thoughts or insight would be greatly appreciated.

Harry
 
The S&S idea, expressed simply, is two exercises: one explosively quick, the other a slow grind. If you're doing that, you are following the same general outline as the program.

The flaw in your reasoning, as I see it, is that walking is not the same as skipping or running. And neither is like doing S&S/A+A style swings.

I'm not saying that strength training plus walking is a bad idea; in fact, it happens to be how I've spent a lot of the last few years training. Nor is strength training plus running a bad idea; generations of lifters have done just that. Now if you'll permit me to continue on my slight detour, a short ramble about mixing swings and strength training from someone who dislikes almost every form of "cardio" there is. NB: I was a serious, amateur runner, bicyclist, and swimmer for a few decades - I got my fill.

For the last few months, I have been gradually adding S&S/A+A style swings at the beginning of my workouts, and following those with whatever strength training I otherwise would do. So far, I'm not swinging 5-7 days per week but more like 3-4, and I'm not doing 100 swings, more like 40-60, and I am the best I can say is that I'm OK with how I feel - if the swings took away from my strength training, I'd get rid of them, and if I do too many or too often, they do take away from my strength training, either immediately afterwards or by hampering my recovery. But I'm gradually adapting and while I can't really say "so far, so good," I can say, "so far, so what?" because I don't feel like they're hurting me, either. And I'm doing them because I know they're supposed to be good for me and I trust that advice from Pavel, @aciampa, and others. My gut tells me that 200 swings a week is on the cusp of swings making a difference in my life but isn't quite enough, so I am gradually going to try to increase that number but I'm in no hurry.

End of ramble. :)

-S-
 
@Steve Freides interesting ramble... (don't worry, I do love a good ramble! :D). See, where my curiosity stems from is the fact that I'm always on the lookout for the best bang for your buck style of GPP training that carries over to other activities (in particular in my case, carryover to boxing endurance - being able to fight just as hard at the end of the fight as at the start), and basically soreness-proofs my muscles.

My experience has been that nothing has come close to S&S and also StrongFirst Roadwork-type training for achieving my objectives. However, I'm pretty much 100% sure that none of the boxers I train alongside follow the same sort of protocols as I do, and if anything, they're personal fitness regimes are more along the lines of what I described above; dedicated strength training (e.g. deadlifts, squats, bench presses), and running or skipping (granted maybe a bit more glycolytic than I'd go for personally in some cases; some, not all - many still like to keep it light and more aerobic) as 'cardio', in a separate session or after strength work. Nevertheless, they're no doubt as 'fit' as myself when it comes to sparring and other boxing-related training, so I am curious if their excellent 'conditioning' is simply a result of addressing the necessary energy pathways in their training, and that perhaps there's not necessarily anything 'magic' about the approach of interspersing high intensity activity with light aerobic activity within the same session (A+A swings, S&S swings, SF Roadwork, etc.), rather it's all different means to the same end - various forms of GPP training in order to carry over to whatever life/sport throws at them?

Sorry, I've rambled a bit myself... I'm just after a bit of discussion on the topic and not necessarily definitive answers, as I know this is rather complicated science! :)

Harry
 
@Steve Freides hmm... Sounds like I need to re-read some of Easy Strength, I'm sure in there Dan John mentions something about strength standards to shoot for beyond which further strength gains won't help much in one's sport...
 
A double or 2.5 x bodyweight DL is a good goal. BP of 1.5 x bodyweight or bodyweight x 15 reps is another good goal.

-S-
 
This needs to be explained in an article...

I don't see your actual question. Are you using A+A and roadwork type training to support your sport and not seeing as much endurance as other boxers? Or more? Or are you just noting the difference in training styles?

For superior performance, there just is no substitute for high volume, low intensity running. A+A helps with this, but it is targeting the faster fibers; the foundation of your performance will always be in strong and enduring slow fibers.
 
Apologies for the lack of clarity Al; I'm using combinations of S&S and SF Roadwork and seeing results that are just fine.

What I'm curious about is whether training both alactic and aerobic pathways SEPARATELY (e.g. low intensity running (aerobic) plus strength work in the gym (alactic) - what the other boxers I know are doing), can yield the same results in performance as A+A protocols like the swings from S+S or SF Roadwork and is potentially the reason for the similar levels of 'conditioning' that I'm seeing in other boxers who train differently to myself?

Thanks for that comment about the importance of enduring slow fibers by the way! Would I be right in thinking running protocols like MAF (which I've recently started reading about...) are along the right lines for addressing these needs?
 
Hey Harry... I can't speak much to boxing, but I can speak to alpine climbing and some obstacle course racing and the like. But the high volume low intensity running that Al mentions is almost indispensable in training for these activities. It can't be all one can do however. There comes a time when the afterburners need to be trained. But the MAF style training prepares you to do exactly that.
 
@offwidth glad you responded about MAF training; I was sure it was you who I had seen mentioning using it regularly... Question for you (or anyone in the know) - I've read Easy Strength, in which Pavel/Dan mention multiple times nose-only breathing whilst running as a form of 'easy endurance' and staying aerobic, and I've also seen it mentioned on this Forum a few times. I've tried it a few times myself, though admittedly not as consistently as would probably be desirable for achieving the benefits of it; obviously the main thing that I noticed was that I had to run MUCH slower than I usually would in order to maintain the ability to breathe easily through only my nose. Question is, could nose-only breathing be considered a 'poor man's MAF'? Basically, I don't have the dollar for a HR monitor right now so would like an alternative for when I run/skip...

Thoughts would be appreciated! :)
 
I'd also add that nose-only breathing is also mentioned at one point in Easy Strength as an appropriate training method for those who don't put running endurance at the top of their priorities, but rather use it as a means of training for other activities (massively paraphrasing there but it's words to that effect), which is basically what I'd use running for at the moment; I need to be able to endure a fight, but it doesn't matter if I'm not a world class 5k runner...
 
Harry Westgate said:
could nose-only breathing be considered a 'poor man's MAF'?
Click to expand...

Interesting observation. Yes but equally you could argue it is a more holistic and integrated marker for what a MAF number measures. A MAF number is a guide, there are caveats to that number, variables or adjustments either side to reflect a training state and that guide is an estimate as to when there is input from anaerobic glycolysis. If follows to that breathing hard and harder is another. Somewhere in there is the 'right' number or point and not only is that variable in terms of training state it is also variable in terms of stress, real or perceived, and overall health factors as in sleep and diet. So with all these variables, a good guess, a start point is a MAF number OR when you have a greater need to breath and suck some air. Mouth breathing promotes glycolysis as it reflects a high state of stress, so by nasal breathing its action counters that desire. So going from nasal breathing to mouth breathing is another marker that captures, more or less, the breathing rate what a MAF number is to heart rate. Possibly? I've been messing around with this idea recently as it turns out, trying to gain a better understanding. My MAF number, without adjustments, is 128. I can deep nasal breathe there and upto around 135 in S&S during the high spike during rest. It falls quickly enough from a high point where I don't have to focus so much for control. Over that and the urge to mouth breathe is too strong and I can't gain control until I stabilise. So a MAF number is only an estimate, having a insight into 'your' nasal breathing interface is also only an estimate but it is probably, I think, a better estimate once you have an internal feel for it all. Breath control is where it is all at. The MAF stuff is great and very useful to base training on and explore from but ultimately it leads to breath mastery with your own internal monitors. When I've messed around with runs, short runs that is, maintaining MAF pace, nasal breathing is easy but a couple beats over I start mouth breathing. Makes sense, as in S&S recovery is recovery, there is no output going on so I can cope with nasal breathing to a higher corresponding heart rate whilst running there is constant work and nasal breathing is harder to maintain. So in my very unscientific ponderings about with this stuff nasal breathing is not a poor man's MAF buf MAF is a poor man's nasal breathing. Kind of, maybe.
 
ali said:
Breath control is where it is all at.
Click to expand...
Yes!

I think, in answer to a nasal breathing being a poor man's MAF test or rate, we'd have to take different diameters of nasal passages into account - someone with larger passages will likely be able to sustain nasal-only breathing at a higher heart rate, all other things being equal. I'm pretty sure that, with my "rather severely deviated" septum (from the radiology report), I couldn't reach my MAF heart rate and sustain it breathing only through my nose.

-S-
 
Harry Westgate said:
@offwidth glad you responded about MAF training; I was sure it was you who I had seen mentioning using it regularly... Question for you (or anyone in the know) - I've read Easy Strength, in which Pavel/Dan mention multiple times nose-only breathing whilst running as a form of 'easy endurance' and staying aerobic, and I've also seen it mentioned on this Forum a few times. I've tried it a few times myself, though admittedly not as consistently as would probably be desirable for achieving the benefits of it; obviously the main thing that I noticed was that I had to run MUCH slower than I usually would in order to maintain the ability to breathe easily through only my nose. Question is, could nose-only breathing be considered a 'poor man's MAF'? Basically, I don't have the dollar for a HR monitor right now so would like an alternative for when I run/skip...

Thoughts would be appreciated! :)
Click to expand...
Harry, I'm on the road for the next two weeks, and I don't have access to my notes and resource material, but there are several respiratory/ventilation based exertion scales that some people use quite successfully. If nothing crops up from other posters in the interim I will send what I have upon my return. (Please remind me...)
 
Harry Westgate said:
@offwidth Question is, could nose-only breathing be considered a 'poor man's MAF'? Basically, I don't have the dollar for a HR monitor right now so would like an alternative for when I run/skip...

Thoughts would be appreciated! :)
Click to expand...

When I cycle into work I wear a HR and try to keep 5 beats under my MAF rate. I often do it with a mouth full of water, breathing through my nose, and yes, my ability to continue to nose breath basically lines up exactly with my MAF. Any harder (4 or 5 beats) and I need to drink the water and breathe though my mouth.

However, I'm not fit so your mileage may vary.
 
Great discussion here, and exactly where my article was heading.

- MAF is a formula, and like any population statistic, it wont describe everyone. The genious behind MAF is the individual adjustments, which only a few on this forum seem to subscribe to. The base function (180-age) is nothing more than 77-80% of HRmax, based on the 220 formula. Its the further "health adjustment" that is most meaningful.

- what MAF is actually trying to capture is the intensity of work that targets slow twitch muscle fibers, and systemic aerobic metabolism. This can only be done through low intensity locomototive activity, and responds to high volumes of work. Your MAF during power work is almost meaningless.

- training type I fibers requires the use of oxygen... you need to be breathing easy for this to happen. If air is moving too fast through the lungs, poor gas exchange is taking place. Nasal breathing alone does not override this basic physical fact. You should be relatively "easy" nasal breathing.

- practicing some form of breathing the rest of the day probably affects all of the above.

- I have my ideas on how to dial in one's aerobic rate of work, but it requires a lot of time and trial & error. MAF is in the ballpark in many cases.

Please continue, and offwidth, Im curious about your intensity table.
 
If you have and maintain a wide aerobic base, as Al talked about, and supplement that with S&S (to get that alactic/aerobic synergy), you would probably be well off without need for much else. Now obviously, if you are an athlete with no time/rest constraints, you could also include separate strength and/or cardio training for even more benefit. For someone like me (normal guy, family, busy,who can't be too tired or sore to work), aerobic work combined with S&S, has changed my life. Special thanks to Al Ciampa, for his manual, email mentoring, and being a generous patriotic bad a#@, which put me on this path. Thanks to you sir!
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom