all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Aerobic Deficiency Syndrome

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.)
Just to make sure I understand the concept - ADS is an aerobic deficiency as compared to the level of anaerobic conditioning in that individual? Implying that if both aerobic and anaerobic conditioning is low, it’s not so much ADS, they’re just out of shape?

As I understand Phil Maffetone's position, it would apply to both of these situations.

This is very un-scientific, but my perspective on it... Let's say you gave everyone a rating on a scale of 1-10 for each.

A) Aerobic conditioning:
1 - Acutely sick, severe COPD, etc.
2 - Chronic illness; type 2 diabetes, very sedentary
3 - Chronic illness; type 2 diabetes, moderately active but non-exercising
5 - Not ill, but very sedentary
6 - Not ill, and moderately active, but non-exercising
7 - Exercising, including any type of strength training, and some "metcon" or "HIIT"
8 - Exercising, including aerobic/cardio, but not focused "zone 2" etc.
9 - Exercising, high quantity of focused "zone 2" aerobic base building, high volume of training, but recreational athlete
10 - Elite endurance athlete (and within this very small number of people, there is another scale of 1-10, at least!)

B) Anaerobic/glycolytic (above "zone 2") conditioning:
1 - Acutely sick, severe COPD, etc.
2 - Chronic illness; type 2 diabetes, very sedentary
3 - Chronic illness; type 2 diabetes, moderately active but non-exercising
5 - Not ill, but very sedentary
6 - Not ill, and moderately active, but non-exercising
7 - Exercising, including any type of strength training, and some "metcon" or "HIIT"
8 - Exercising, including a lot of "metcon" or "HIIT" and lactate threshold
9 - Exercising, including a lot of "metcon" or "HIIT" and lactate threshold, power intervals, etc. relatively high volume
10 - Elite CrossFit athlete, rower, sprinter

Let's look at some combinations.

Anyone in A and B of 1-6 is not exercising. The 1-5s could really use exercise to improve their health, both present condition, and future outcomes. I believe either type would benefit them. That's why so many exercise prescriptions are non-specific for type -- because so many people are down in these categories, and they are so much in need of any type of exercise. Just about anything will help them dramatically. (This is also who you describe, @the hansenator, as "both aerobic and anaerobic conditioning is low, it’s not so much ADS, they’re just out of shape?")

Some of the 6s are in decent shape just because their lifestyle includes a lot of movement. I don't necessarily think these people have ADS, because they are in good health and have adequately developed the fuel systems that they regularly use. 6x might be laborers, might be healthy and active kids, might have to walk a lot, might just be naturally active people. I believe most 6s are generally pretty healthy if they steer clear of health impairments like excess fat, poor diet, smoking, etc. They can start either type of exercise, and get some really good results. I'm actually pretty certain that anyone in 1-6 is going to see a FASTER improvement in their condition by employing Anaerobic/glycolytic (above "zone 2") conditioning! However, their progress will be limited, and it comes with some downsides if they don't also work on the Aerobic conditioning. Then they would be working their way towards ADS.

So by Phil Maffetone's definition, anyone with A of 1 - 7 would have ADS, and maybe the 8s. I would agree with 1-5. Not the 6s, because they're not over-taxing either side and not trying for athletic performance. The 7s and 8s... maybe. Depends on the B side - what they are trying to do relative the the Anaerobic/glycolytic side.

Also, according to Phil Maffetone's definition, anyone with A of 7 or 8 who is also at a B of 8, 9, or 10 would have ADS, and I would agree. This is the group that I was describing here as "points clearly to what is missing relative to an aerobic or endurance athlete's physical qualities relative to what they are trying to do. As they race or otherwise tax their undeveloped aerobic system to perform, they are trying to cash checks on the wrong bank account. They might try HIIT or just push themselves to go harder in aerobic events. It may work in the short term, but it backfires in the long term as they become more glycolytic, more stressed, and less fuel-efficient." (This is also who you describe, @the hansenator, as "ADS is an aerobic deficiency as compared to the level of anaerobic conditioning in that individual?")

I also described earlier "I would add a third category of people - and @Steve Freides is probably among them, as are many people who do kettlebell or barbell training primarily - who exercise regularly, do enough aerobic activity to keep them out of high-risk health categories (i.e. walking), and have enough of an aerobic base that supports their training. For them, I would suggest, there is no aerobic deficiency." So who is this? I would say this is the A of 7 or 8, and B of 7. If they're not going for a B of 8, 9, or 10, then there's no problem; no deficiency.

Worth noting, too, that in my definitions above, there can be a whole world of development within the 9s and the 10s -- in terms of years of development, time and effort training, and performance outcomes.

FWIW, I would put myself at an A of 8 and a B of 7. I do strength training, some of which has a glycolytic aspect at times (barbell lifting complexes, kettlebell swings), and I'm a decent and long-time recreational cyclist who gets 2-3 hours of riding time per week (probably zone 3 on average), and I also walk 2-3 hours per week (zone 1 on average). I would like to further build my aerobic base (an A of 9 -- as I have at times, mainly 2009- 2011 with a lot of cycling), but I don't consider myself current "aerobically deficient" for what I do.
 
Nothing constructive to add but I find this fascinating. I have loved switching to kettlebells from barbell because of the increased “conditioning”. I spent a few years building my knee up at the expense of any kind of fitness/conditioning and am now looking to increase my fitness/conditioning further. I will be down the google rabbit hole today looking into all of this.

I definitely notice walking with my wife a few times a week will drop a few kg over a few weeks. Whenever life gets in the way and I miss the walks, I seem to creep back the kg’s.
 
Aerobic Dismissive Syndrome might be a better term .
It is well known that a lot of people - me included - have an inclination that more is better. For endurance guys that can be going longer ...or the same route faster and faster - the easy (very aerobic) miles are junk miles.

It is also known that different tribes foster different viewpoints: 'cardio kills your gains' 'dishonour of aerobics' 'lifting lighter weight faster is enough'.

the informed and experienced contemporary knows and feels that easy aerobics is very valuable - in my opinion a real treasure - me as a recreationalist does not need doing any testing on different lactate points. Rule of thumb description like 2-3 sessions around MAF for 30 -60 min...alternated with strength training days.

Personally I like building aerobic functioning at 'my polar blue zone 111-130bpm' my MAF would be 136 without the recommended intervention of + or -.

Easy endurance is good. Period.
 
Its going to take a couple of slow read-throughs, but this is a good part of what I was looking for:

 
I'm not sure of the answer to this, but wanted to point out a great resource for anyone interested in a deep and fascinating discussion on this subject:

This podcast is a gem for me as I'm a borderline pre-diabetic. Thanks @Anna C.
 
I think this quote took on a live of it's own. In Pavels early KB texts he was talking about KBs as an alternative to Jane Fonda style Aerobics that were huge in the 90s. Not that aerobic endurance training is crap.



True :D


Oh man you got me in my favourite aerobics attire but I swear I use it with honourable aerobics only
Screenshot_2022-01-03-11-37-37.png

I definitely notice walking with my wife a few times a week will drop a few kg over a few weeks. Whenever life gets in the way and I miss the
That's the slow but powerfull impact of easy locomotion as I experienced the same as I got back to low hr aerobics. Completely in line with N C Millers post above. Stay on fat and you will not be urged to eat.
 
Its going to take a couple of slow read-throughs, but this is a good part of what I was looking for:

Interesting. I have skipped some parts, but I have a follow up question: Can fat-oxidation be build generally or is it movement specific?

A friend of mine, a dedicated runner, told me that some runners replace some long runs (> 2hrs or so) with easy cycling to improve fat burning capacities.
 
Interesting. I have skipped some parts, but I have a follow up question: Can fat-oxidation be build generally or is it movement specific?

A friend of mine, a dedicated runner, told me that some runners replace some long runs (> 2hrs or so) with easy cycling to improve fat burning capacities.
That is one of the things that I'm curious about, although am pretty sure it is not so much movement specific as motor unit specific. Pretty sure the mitochondrial improvements to HIIT are closely related to the means used to create the demand (and also regards to Q&D). There will be some peripheral improvements due to lactate being dispersed through the bloodstream.

With mitochondrial improvements from LISS I also suspect it is closely tied to the region of fibers that are mostly being fatigued. Distribution will be different in a runner than a rower. Per the first example the distribution will be different on a sprint bike or Q&D pushups. If you want the most general distribution you'd have to chose the most general movements. But this is something I haven't found much specific information on.
 
Interesting. I have skipped some parts, but I have a follow up question: Can fat-oxidation be build generally or is it movement specific?

A friend of mine, a dedicated runner, told me that some runners replace some long runs (> 2hrs or so) with easy cycling to improve fat burning capacities.

As a cyclist, I have a few guesses:
  • We have more potential to build muscle in the legs than anywhere else, so by cycling at MAF/LISS pace, we are getting the maximum slow-twitch-fiber-building stimulation possible in the biggest muscle groups.
  • With cycling, the work is mostly in the legs, compared to a whole-body movement like running, so we get more concentrated aerobic muscle activity at the same HR.
  • Since the aerobic metabolism is happening mostly in the legs, the body gets more "practice" shuttling lactate around to other muscles for use elsewhere in the body.
Then the more slow-twitch fiber is onboard the body as a whole, the more it can be used in any exercise, including running.
 
Interesting. I have skipped some parts, but I have a follow up question: Can fat-oxidation be build generally or is it movement specific?

A friend of mine, a dedicated runner, told me that some runners replace some long runs (> 2hrs or so) with easy cycling to improve fat burning capacities.
I think there are a lot of general adaptations with running and cycling from a cardivascular standpoint probably a lot in regards to muscles too. Allthough looking at the movement there might be considerable differences.


Screenshot_2022-01-03-11-37-28.png
putting my cyclist hat on...

For an avid runner it would make a lot of sense to me to use the bike regularly. A lot of miles by running has impact on the involved structures bones, tendons, cartilage...cycling is concentric only, no pounding. Much less recovery cost than running.

Got this gravel bike above in summer after over 25 years or so ago after my last purchase . In past times I rode quite frequently for some middle distances. Forgot how great of a tool it is. It is definitely 'the' tool when it comes to be getting long duration endurance work in. It is relatively easy on the body and for the psyche too.
At same heart rates for me there is this line up from suck the most to less:
rowing (no chilling effect, as the body gets warmer and warmer) - running - cycling.

The bike is really excellent for 30 - 40 min to do after a strength/harder session to wind down.

On a flat terrain I can keep a pretty flat hr, hilly terrain gives hilly heart rates with exertions and recoveries. Kind of (random) interval like.

That is one of the things that I'm curious about, although am pretty sure it is not so much movement specific as motor unit specific. Pretty sure the mitochondrial improvements to HIIT are closely related to the means used to create the demand (and also regards to Q&D). There will be some peripheral improvements due to lactate being dispersed through the bloodstream.

With mitochondrial improvements from LISS I also suspect it is closely tied to the region of fibers that are mostly being fatigued. Distribution will be different in a runner than a rower. Per the first example the distribution will be different on a sprint bike or Q&D pushups. If you want the most general distribution you'd have to chose the most general movements. But this is something I haven't found much specific information on.
Many years ago I read an article, it was about Lance Armstrong's marathon debut - the author seemed to be somewhat disappointed that he only got to around 3h then. Apples and oranges... google said his best is around 2:45 which is pretty good in my book. For running I think it takes a lot of miles to have thin competitive springy legs.
 
For an avid runner it would make a lot of sense to me to use the bike regularly. A lot of miles by running has impact on the involved structures bones, tendons, cartilage...cycling is concentric only, no pounding. Much less recovery cost than running.
Yes... That is probably the best reason.
Many years ago I read an article, it was about Lance Armstrong's marathon debut - the author seemed to be somewhat disappointed that he only got to around 3h then. Apples and oranges... google said his best is around 2:45 which is pretty good in my book. For running I think it takes a lot of miles to have thin competitive springy legs.
The development of running economy (springiness) gives running a higher potential to do better over time, I think. Personally I suspect that the "do more work at the same HR" after doing a period of base training has a lot to do with this, in addition to actual aerobic development. In other words, if you can go 12 miles with the same total heartbeats that you used to go 10 miles with, it's not ONLY that your heart and lungs and aerobic system is that much more efficient. It's also that you literally are doing less work each mile because your tissues are springier. Cycling doesn't really have the same potential for development of economy of movement.
 
Cycling doesn't really have the same potential for development of economy of movement.
Whilst I whole heartedly agree with this statement, there is still a lot of room for improvement for many cyclists in this area of ‘economy of movement’ I have the opportunity to ride with and observe a lot of cyclists. Lots of them have really poor form and are wasting a bunch of energy. Some of this is related to poor bike fit (I see a lot of this), but a lot is not as well.
 
Whilst I whole heartedly agree with this statement, there is still a lot of room for improvement for many cyclists in this area of ‘economy of movement’ I have the opportunity to ride with and observe a lot of cyclists. Lots of them have really poor form and are wasting a bunch of energy. Some of this is related to poor bike fit (I see a lot of this), but a lot is not as well.
True, and I agree! The difference is with the bike you can "fix" these things with a fit and form correction, and a bit of time to adapt to it, because the magic is in how you use what you have, and then learn to put it to good use. With running, it seems to takes years to develop the economy of movement because the magic is in the materials you're working with actually changing over time.
 
True, and I agree! The difference is with the bike you can "fix" these things with a fit and form correction, and a bit of time to adapt to it, because the magic is in how you use what you have, and then learn to put it to good use. With running, it seems to takes years to develop the economy of movement because the magic is in the materials you're working with actually changing over time.
Maybe.
With many(most?) skills, the earlier one learns good form the better. It can take a lot of time and effort to unlearn bad form. Many people spend years practicing inefficient movement in running, cycling, and a bunch of other stuff.
 
Fascinating discussion everyone.

I've often wondered how sauna fits into to the aerobic development/recovery picture. Anecdotally I feel like it contributes for me. I'm curious about your thoughts.

Attached are a couple screenshots from a typical session for me. About 30 mins of the session roughly in the MAF range. Five or six sessions per week equates to more than three hours in that zone just by sitting on my butt and only really using the heart muscle.

Edit: couldn't attach the files for some reason. Graph shows average heart rate of 114bpm for the hour, with a ramp up to a fairly steady 115-145 for the last 30-40 minutes.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to running economy I remain eternally grateful for books like The POSE Method of Running by Dr. Romanov. That and Slow Jogging are two keystones in my understanding of LISS/Aerobic base building. The TLDR: Run with good form to prevent injury and low intensity to build the aerobic “gas tank”.
 
Fascinating discussion everyone.

I've often wondered how sauna fits into to the aerobic development/recovery picture. Anecdotally I feel like it contributes for me. I'm curious about your thoughts.

Attached are a couple screenshots from a typical session for me. About 30 mins of the session roughly in the MAF range. Five or six sessions per week equates to more than three hours in that zone just by sitting on my butt and only really using the heart muscle.

Edit: couldn't attach the files for some reason. Graph shows average heart rate of 114bpm for the hour, with a ramp up to a fairly steady 115-145 for the last 30-40 minutes.

That's something I always wonder about as well.

The sauna is, obviously, well researched here in Finland. There's plenty of health effects, and I wouldn't be opposed to someone comparing them to similar effects from aerobic exercise.

This ties in to the earlier discussion of "anything that elevates heart rate in a relaxed manner" which the sauna fits perfectly.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom