Off-Topic Anyone seen this? Criticism of Pavel on Rogan by Bart Kay

[2accidental]

Children can't tolerate lactic acid, or clear it up, however you want to see it.

I don't think children particularly enjoy aerobic exercise either.

Good point with lactic acid. My kids in their early teens and homeschooled, have me as their coach (poor things) in all things physical. Currently they are learning the Olympic lifts (quite lightly), to develop explosive power. Interestingly, they do complain of soreness when the reps get a little high, and are a touch lackluster the next day. Interestingly, my son will announce his soreness like a badge of honour, but my daughter and especially my wife have no such love affair with it whatsoever and cannot stand it at all, understandably.

 

[2accidental]

Organisms can do things they are not designed for. Organisms are not perfectly designed for their environments. Aspects of organisms are matters of how the organism functions, and this is not necessarily linked directly to survival needs.

For example, humans can pack a ridiculous amount of fat on their frame, but this is not good for us. This is just a function of how our fat-storing ability works. We can also become ridiculously strong because of how our muscle-growing capabilities work, but this strength is beyond any evolutionary sense... and it's pretty darn hard to achieve too!

Reading and writing have zero evolutionary natural aspects to them. Literacy makes a mockery of our senses. It turns sights (letters) into sounds. This is a joke. It's 100% unnatural, yet in the grander scheme of things it works very well and facilitates communication. We have hijacked one sense to be used for another. Some blind people can "see" through a sense they develop almost like the sonar of bats.

While we are bound by the mechanics of our bodies, the mechanics of our bodies have potential beyond what they were originally designed for.

I doubt our hands were designed as flippers, but we use them as such in the water.

While not everything is wise, everything we do is natural since we are inextricably part of nature.

In other words, this is a remarkable world of remarkable creatures, full of remarkable surprises, and with a history that we simply have virtually no idea of. We are just either blessed or lucky to be here for a blink of an eye to experience the inconceivably
small fraction of what this seemingly endless universe reveals so reluctantly.

By the way, the word 'caveman' gets used a lot to describe our ancestors and their crude movements and lifestyle. One look at the phenomenal depth of
prehistoric cave art in Lascaux or Chauvet, France or Altamira, Spain, shows they did more than just hunt and gather...and all this high art down a long, dark hole with no lighting, for no evolutionary purposes whatsoever. As Vizzini would say, "IN-CON-CEIVABLE!!"

 

[North Coast Miller]

Children can't tolerate lactic acid, or clear it up, however you want to see it.

I don't think children particularly enjoy aerobic exercise either.

Good point with lactic acid. My kids in their early teens and homeschooled, have me as their coach (poor things) in all things physical. Currently they are learning the Olympic lifts (quite lightly), to develop explosive power. Interestingly, they do complain of soreness when the reps get a little high, and are a touch lackluster the next day. Interestingly, my son will announce his soreness like a badge of honour, but my daughter and especially my wife have no such love affair with it whatsoever and cannot stand it at all, understandably.

I know they don't produce as much, but pretty sure they clear it as well or better than an adult pound for pound.

My son at age 11 had no issues ramping up to pretty impressive 5x weeks sandbag circuit using a 1/3 bodyweight bag. Also jogging is not a problem, my daughter now jumps rope for 35+ minutes daily.

OTOH neither of them will entertain anything remotely resembling a textbook HIIT session.

 

[watchnerd]

He even admits that he doesn't know biologically "exactly" why training with volume and intensity being uncoupled works, but it clearly does. That evidence is good enough for me.

It's not just him; for example, the entire literature is still debating the underlying biological mechanisms that drive hypertrophy. It may be settling on 'things that drive mechanical tension of the most fibers by any means, including metabolic', but we'll see if that holds up over the years.

Even the idea of 'sarcoplasmic hypertrophy' is a debated research project.

However, as Pavel points out, even if the cellular understanding is a black box, you actually don't need to understand the underlying mechanisms if you have enough empirical data.

 

[Antti]

I know they don't produce as much, but pretty sure they clear it as well or better than an adult pound for pound.

My son at age 11 had no issues ramping up to pretty impressive 5x weeks sandbag circuit using a 1/3 bodyweight bag. Also jogging is not a problem, my daughter now jumps rope for 35+ minutes daily.

OTOH neither of them will entertain anything remotely resembling a textbook HIIT session.

Well 11 is getting old in this regard. By teens they should be fine.

 

[watchnerd]

OTOH neither of them will entertain anything remotely resembling a textbook HIIT session.

I agree with them:

If you don't hate Tabata, you're not doing it right.

 

[North Coast Miller]

I agree with them:

If you don't hate Tabata, you're not doing it right.

If I'm doing my HIIT right, I only hate the first two or three intervals. After that things start to go places where emotion will have to catch up after the last bell...

 

[Kozushi]

I read through a number of Dr. Kay's responses to people's questions below the video and they seemed pretty sensible. He actually isn't really against "long easy distance" unless it is far too long and not easy, if I'm understanding his responses properly. He said that hiking or walking keep your VO2 max (whatever that is) under 25% so they are safe and good for you to do.

He advocates training very specifically for exactly the event you want to excel at. You rest in between each full effort. So, if you're training for a specific race, you run _exactly_ that distance race as fast as you can, then rest, then run it again, then rest... In the video he mentions 5 times, 3 days a week (every second day) as the magic number. A runner chimed in saying that when he used to train very much like this he did better than he is doing now with the longer "easier" training.

That all seems very sensible. It is also remarkably similar to maintaining Timeless Simple - 3-4 times a week roughly every second day, you do 5 sets (each side) of swings and TGUs. If I can extrapolate from Dr. Kay's thought here, I suspect he'd see S&S as being pursued for the goal of mastering the swing and the TGU, with the 32kg being the goal weight (for whatever reason.) The discussion with Dr. Kay then about S&S would be as to the usefulness of mastering these two particular moves rather than others. I can't imagine him saying that these are not pretty wholesome movements! Dr. Kay mentioned in one comment that he is _not_ against kettlebells. I have a strong feeling that he would have good things to say about the S&S programme if it interested him to take a look at it. (He likely wouldn't have time for that but, I suspect so at least.)

I do not expect he would lie about his expertise in whatever molecular biology he was minutely picking apart. I got the impression from some of the comments that he was/is involved in research to disprove a lot of the misconceptions people have been having about lactic acid in particular- thus making that particular Joe Rogan interview especially piquing to his interest and his expertise.

I try to look past presentation style to get at truths. I think there is something to learn from all this.

 

[bluejeff]

Some points are interesting however. I don't understand fully, so maybe some of you could clarify.
1) if our way of training is wrong (a+a, antiglycolitic, etc.), why do we have the results. I vaguely remember him saying it's just "accumulated fatigue"

This actually sums up my thoughts about exercise science debates. If AGT "doesn't work," then why does it work? There is defintely a point where, if you don't take long enough rests, your performance of subsequent rounds suffers. AGT allows one to get more and more quality reps, which seems to translate to better performance. There are so many training modalities, and many serve specific purposes.

SF is perhaps most "well known" for promoting low reps, AND there's a whole chapter/essay in Beyond Bodybuilding about the advantages of training with high reps. Pavel cites studies showing that those that trained exclusively low-rep had lower vascualrity in their muscles (comparable even to untrained people!) whereas high rep folks had greater vascularity. The section goes on to recommend alternating/cycling through high intensity/low rep phases, moderately high intensity at around 5 rep range, and then low intensity with high reps.

My point is just that there isn't "one best way to train." Just like the caveman argument falls apart when we ask whether cavemen trained to snatch 300lbs or grow huge muscles.

I got the impression from some of the comments that he was/is involved in research to disprove a lot of the misconceptions people have been having about lactic acid in particular- thus making that particular Joe Rogan interview especially piquing to his interest and his expertise.

In my searching for AGT-relevant articles for my school project, I have come across studies and researchers trying to prove that lactic acid is GOOD for you..... Like I stated above, I think context and goals are relevent. But at a glance (I didn't have time to read the whole articles...yet) they seemed to be trying to "Debunk" the "lactic acid is bad" train of thought.

 

[Chris Mills]

This actually sums up my thoughts about exercise science debates. If AGT "doesn't work," then why does it work? There is defintely a point where, if you don't take long enough rests, your performance of subsequent rounds suffers. AGT allows one to get more and more quality reps, which seems to translate to better performance. There are so many training modalities, and many serve specific purposes.

SF is perhaps most "well known" for promoting low reps, AND there's a whole chapter/essay in Beyond Bodybuilding about the advantages of training with high reps. Pavel cites studies showing that those that trained exclusively low-rep had lower vascualrity in their muscles (comparable even to untrained people!) whereas high rep folks had greater vascularity. The section goes on to recommend alternating/cycling through high intensity/low rep phases, moderately high intensity at around 5 rep range, and then low intensity with high reps.

My point is just that there isn't "one best way to train." Just like the caveman argument falls apart when we ask whether cavemen trained to snatch 300lbs or grow huge muscles.


In my searching for AGT-relevant articles for my school project, I have come across studies and researchers trying to prove that lactic acid is GOOD for you..... Like I stated above, I think context and goals are relevent. But at a glance (I didn't have time to read the whole articles...yet) they seemed to be trying to "Debunk" the "lactic acid is bad" train of thought.

As I understand it, AGT allows "normal people" to train pretty effectively without spending nearly as much time training (or recovering from said training) as someone who has devoted their life to getting good at a sport (i.e., professional / olympic / "elite" athletes).

Dr. Kay, whose "job" (i had a look at his LinkedIn page) seems to be "YouTube Provacateur" (i.e., be outrageous, yet believable enough to get eyeballs on my site and get You Tube to send me checks; all while attempting to look like I'm providing a public service by protecting the masses from bad information), implies that SF is "wrong" because heavy glycolytic training is actually more efficient (though "efficiency" is relative; and one has to relate it to the rest of your life.....; it's not just about time spent training; it's also about time spent recovering and not....soldiering, policing, fire protecting, doing your physical job @ the mill, playing with your kids, practicing your martial art; whatever) than either AGT or LISS.

As near as I can tell, elite endurance athletes (and he actually makes the case that the whole notion of BEING an endurance athlete is just....stupid) generally mix glycolytic work with loads of LISS because they have TIME, and, time or no time, elite or not elite, humans can only do SO MUCH glycolytic work without getting sick/injured (and thus going backward). For my part, I attempted to train like this for a few months at the beginning of COVID and found that I was usually "fighting a cold".

SF doesn't, as near as I can tell, contend that elite (particularly endurance) athletes should not do glycolytic training; just that it might not be the ideal/healthiest way for non-elite athletes to train; and that if you ARE going to go down that road, you should have your eyes open and think it through.

He's obviously a smart guy and likely (I'm in no position to judge) didn't say anything that was "wrong", but, as near as I can tell, he cherry-picked and took a lot of the points made in the JRE podcast out of their larger context, and as a "YouTube Provocateur", perhaps willfully.

 

[bluejeff]

it's not just about time spent training; it's also about time spent recovering and not....soldiering, policing, fire protecting, doing your physical job @ the mill, playing with your kids, practicing your martial art; whatever

Indeed.

That is why I like AGT. I'm not an active responder or anything, but doing ~3 really intense workouts that I have to recover from (meaning: be sore and tired from) is not something I enjoy. Perhaps part of his argument was that 3 intense sessions is "more effecient" than a bunch of less intense ones? Either way, AGT serves its purpose, and so does HIT, in their own contexts.

This whole things reminds me of the ongoing debates in the nutrition world about what is "right/wrong," or what we "evolved" to eat..... The established nutrition "group" (typically the carb-loving group) targets the low, carb-high fat group and says that it's unsustainable, that you'll wreck your thyroid, that you can't perform glycolytic work, etc etc. . . .and yet....there are tons of low carb athletes without any issue. Maybe, just mayyyybe it depends on the person, and what they wnat to do, and their medical history, and their mental health.......

Hit pieces (if you can call it that) serve little purpose in furthering whatever the relevent field is. 99% of the time it seems like there are a lot of "it depends" and "what is the context" and similar questions/statements that don't get asked or stated. There's a lot of grey area. But that stuff doesn't make a good (read: "popular") critique.

 

[North Coast Miller]

This actually sums up my thoughts about exercise science debates. If AGT "doesn't work," then why does it work? There is defintely a point where, if you don't take long enough rests, your performance of subsequent rounds suffers. AGT allows one to get more and more quality reps, which seems to translate to better performance. There are so many training modalities, and many serve specific purposes.

SF is perhaps most "well known" for promoting low reps, AND there's a whole chapter/essay in Beyond Bodybuilding about the advantages of training with high reps. Pavel cites studies showing that those that trained exclusively low-rep had lower vascualrity in their muscles (comparable even to untrained people!) whereas high rep folks had greater vascularity. The section goes on to recommend alternating/cycling through high intensity/low rep phases, moderately high intensity at around 5 rep range, and then low intensity with high reps.

My point is just that there isn't "one best way to train." Just like the caveman argument falls apart when we ask whether cavemen trained to snatch 300lbs or grow huge muscles.


In my searching for AGT-relevant articles for my school project, I have come across studies and researchers trying to prove that lactic acid is GOOD for you..... Like I stated above, I think context and goals are relevent. But at a glance (I didn't have time to read the whole articles...yet) they seemed to be trying to "Debunk" the "lactic acid is bad" train of thought.

Most of the research definitely supports the value of lactic acid and ROS specifically as a signalling factor for muscle growth, improved anti-oxidant response, improved insulin sensitivity. The negative aspect is largely extrapolated from studies of metabolic dysfunction or extreme overperformance and so very tough to pin down as a negative factor.

Additionally, recent research demonstrates most fatigue comes not from lactic acid but from accumulated inorganic phosphate from the PCr (anti-glycolytic) pathway.

But...training at higher levels of muscular fatigue for longer duration automatically means you're training with less weight.

The value in AGT is it allows one to work with heavier loads. If you used the same work:rest scheme but were unable to keep your loading relatively heavy, the long rests would probably eliminate 80% of the benefit. Also, heavier loading weighs you more toward the tension end of muscle stimulation as opposed to metabolic stress, this effects tendon density/stiffness and this effects how many adjacent motor units can contribute to force generation.

Ultimately you need to train with variety. There is a place for longer duration, steady state, intervals, high tension, rapid force production, slow grinds.

 

[bluejeff]

Ultimately you need to train with variety. There is a place for longer duration, steady state, intervals, high tension, rapid force production, slow grinds.

This sounds suspisciously like a "wave"..... ?

 

[Kozushi]

Training with practice swords that are the correct weight, weigh more and weigh less are all used by a lot of good fencers around the world. Weight training often involves cycles with progressively heavier weights only to fall back to light again. Humans seem to need variety to be at their best.

 

[rwleonard]

Knowing THAT something works and knowing WHY something works are two very different things. Trying to extrapolate from pure science to a training program is fraught with peril. Trying to gain some understanding of why a particular program works, so that one might improve upon it further has merit. All I know for sure is that S&S and Q&D have given me more for less than anything else I have ever done.

So, should the day arrive when Pavel is proven dead wrong about everything he has ever written about the science behind his protocols, I might have to change my understanding of why those protocols work, but it won't mean those protocols suddenly don't work anymore.

 

[Antti]

Most of the research definitely supports the value of lactic acid and ROS specifically as a signalling factor for muscle growth, improved anti-oxidant response, improved insulin sensitivity. The negative aspect is largely extrapolated from studies of metabolic dysfunction or extreme overperformance and so very tough to pin down as a negative factor.

Additionally, recent research demonstrates most fatigue comes not from lactic acid but from accumulated inorganic phosphate from the PCr (anti-glycolytic) pathway.

But...training at higher levels of muscular fatigue for longer duration automatically means you're training with less weight.

The value in AGT is it allows one to work with heavier loads. If you used the same work:rest scheme but were unable to keep your loading relatively heavy, the long rests would probably eliminate 80% of the benefit. Also, heavier loading weighs you more toward the tension end of muscle stimulation as opposed to metabolic stress, this effects tendon density/stiffness and this effects how many adjacent motor units can contribute to force generation.

Ultimately you need to train with variety. There is a place for longer duration, steady state, intervals, high tension, rapid force production, slow grinds.

This is such a good post that I feel a like is not enough and I want to point it out separately.

 

[jimmyrottencauliflower]

Managed two minutes before deciding Pavel was right and turning off .......Long steady distance ...or LSD as it was known is what old time pro cyclists used in base training at the start of the year, in fact they were forbidden to go hard as they believed lactic acid interfered with this base building phase

 

[John K]

Knowing THAT something works and knowing WHY something works are two very different things. Trying to extrapolate from pure science to a training program is fraught with peril. Trying to gain some understanding of why a particular program works, so that one might improve upon it further has merit. All I know for sure is that S&S and Q&D have given me more for less than anything else I have ever done.

So, should the day arrive when Pavel is proven dead wrong about everything he has ever written about the science behind his protocols, I might have to change my understanding of why those protocols work, but it won't mean those protocols suddenly don't work anymore.

I find this to be quite true. The theory can be wrong but that doesn't mean the practice is.

 

[TheKarmaHammer]

I have never seen/heard this guy before, but good lord.. his attitude and mannerisms give him the MOST punch-able face I have ever seen. To sit and pause a discussion like this every 5 seconds, and add your own critique, rebuttle free, is cowardly to say the least. I'm sure he knows his stuff, but his chosen persona/format makes it almost possible to care about what he says.

 

[Kozushi]

Frankly speaking, the S&S books are quite direct about the fact that the science is not in itself sufficient to base a training regimen around.

I've been involved in academic research, and from my experience it is very easy to "not see the forest through the trees". You can get caught up on one small thing but miss other things, because you are not specialized in them. The "guys on the ground" know what works in many different areas from experience and some kind of interaction between them and you can produce some spectacular results. I think both the intellectual research and the practical experience of people count. One is not, generally speaking, more important than the other.