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.