Gassyndrome
Level 5 Valued Member
This is fantastic information - what a great post Al. I love this forum!
Kettlebell My S&S Swing and heartrate
- Thread starter Abdul-Rasheed
- Start date
- Status
Al, top of the screen, click on Watch Thread if you haven't already.
Will send this to you in a PM as well.
-S-
Will send this to you in a PM as well.
-S-
Christian Gelderblom
Level 1 Valued Member
Christa and Al:
My last swing-session (still on the research-protocoll 102) did look like this:
60 min, 24kg, one-hand-swings, 40 sets of 7 - 8 swings. HR max of 141, average of 125
Zone 0: 12min
Zone 1/2: 38min
Zone 3: 10min
(Karvonen)
So while I did peak close to Zone 4, I did most of my work in the Zones 2 and 3.
So how is this "low-intensity-interval-training" comparable to the recommended training-zones, which are mostly for runners, cyclists and swimmers - where you aim to train close to your max resulting in a much higher averageHR?
My uneducated guess would be: it's not comparable.
What may work is a combination of a low average HR with peaks in a higher zone up to 4. And the ocasional testing, high-intensity, however you want to call it. At least this works for me... I never did this much volume of swings and still felt energized after training. So while I never may hit Sinister, Al's ultimate goal is OK for me.
My last swing-session (still on the research-protocoll 102) did look like this:
60 min, 24kg, one-hand-swings, 40 sets of 7 - 8 swings. HR max of 141, average of 125
Zone 0: 12min
Zone 1/2: 38min
Zone 3: 10min
(Karvonen)
So while I did peak close to Zone 4, I did most of my work in the Zones 2 and 3.
So how is this "low-intensity-interval-training" comparable to the recommended training-zones, which are mostly for runners, cyclists and swimmers - where you aim to train close to your max resulting in a much higher averageHR?
My uneducated guess would be: it's not comparable.
What may work is a combination of a low average HR with peaks in a higher zone up to 4. And the ocasional testing, high-intensity, however you want to call it. At least this works for me... I never did this much volume of swings and still felt energized after training. So while I never may hit Sinister, Al's ultimate goal is OK for me.
jrosto
Level 1 Valued Member
I have really enjoyed reading, and learning from, these threads on heart rate and S&S. So far as using actual heart rate numbers, I am an outlier. Between some nerve damage that occurred during my lung transplant last January, anti-rejection drugs that affect my heart rate, and the drugs to counteract those effects, the best I can do is use my HR for trend analysis.
Watching my in between set heart rate, and allowing it to drop to ≈90 BPM before the next set, has really helped me increase my swing effort throughout all of the sets, increase my weight used, and recover faster after my workout. Using this method has been of great benefit to me.
Thanks again for all of this great information.
Watching my in between set heart rate, and allowing it to drop to ≈90 BPM before the next set, has really helped me increase my swing effort throughout all of the sets, increase my weight used, and recover faster after my workout. Using this method has been of great benefit to me.
Thanks again for all of this great information.
Pavel
CEO
An excellent post, Al!
Ladies and gents, remember that S&S is designed for you to do in a manner of "I can do it again tomorrow with the same level of energy and the day after tomorrow...", so listen to Al and do not push hard.
HIIT has many faces. Most people for some reason gravitate towards lower power output/higher acidity and HR glycolytic capacity training. A far preferable form of HIIT, in my opinion, is glycolytic power—a higher power output, shorter sets, longer rests. E.g., there have been studies in which subjects did a Wingate test (30sec of all out biking) 4-6 times with 4-4.5min between them. The results for healthy untrained were excellent.
These studies had them do it 3/week and went on for 6 weeks. Going longer than that in the same manner would be too much for one's endocrine system. And even for a short haul 3/week of intense glycolytic work is rarely a good idea. Most people would be better off with 1/week, occasionally pushing to 2 for several weeks.
Ladies and gents, remember that S&S is designed for you to do in a manner of "I can do it again tomorrow with the same level of energy and the day after tomorrow...", so listen to Al and do not push hard.
HIIT has many faces. Most people for some reason gravitate towards lower power output/higher acidity and HR glycolytic capacity training. A far preferable form of HIIT, in my opinion, is glycolytic power—a higher power output, shorter sets, longer rests. E.g., there have been studies in which subjects did a Wingate test (30sec of all out biking) 4-6 times with 4-4.5min between them. The results for healthy untrained were excellent.
These studies had them do it 3/week and went on for 6 weeks. Going longer than that in the same manner would be too much for one's endocrine system. And even for a short haul 3/week of intense glycolytic work is rarely a good idea. Most people would be better off with 1/week, occasionally pushing to 2 for several weeks.
Kettlebelephant
Level 6 Valued Member
Thanks Pavel!
So glycolyctic power training doesn't produce as much acidity as glycolyctic capacity training, right?
Is there any benefit for an average joe who just wants to be fit & healthy and train for longevity to train glycolyctic capacity at all?
So glycolyctic power training doesn't produce as much acidity as glycolyctic capacity training, right?
Is there any benefit for an average joe who just wants to be fit & healthy and train for longevity to train glycolyctic capacity at all?
Christa
Level 1 Valued Member
I may be able to expound on the biochemistry/physiology of heart rate training another time, but first and foremost I'd like to clarify a few things that may have been misread or misunderstood about what I was trying to say.
But before that, allow me to emphasize that a lot of this stuff depends on the individual. Their training history, their healthy history, their diet, their sleep, how they recover, etc. Generalized prescriptions usually become problematic because they miss key pieces of this.
A second point I want to emphasize too, is that how one applies heart rate training, or any training really, is highly dependent on the individual's goals. Are you training for bigger muscles? For weight/fat loss? Are you training for a competition? What are the parameters for doing well at that competition (powerlifting vs. half-marathon race)? Are you training for health and longevity? It's important to define one's goals because you simply can't have it all. If you want to be competitive in a half-marathon, you're going to have to train to be fast. However, cardio training at high intensities for long durations necessitates hypertrophy of the left ventricle of the heart. We see a not insignificant number of endurance athletes develop A-fib, LVH, need pacemakers or even have massive heart attacks on the track because of this physiologic response. In this case, your training goal to be fast & competitive at a 13.1 miles may supersede your goal to be healthy or to live a long life. It's important that your training not only support your primary goal, but that one be aware of areas where the training for a primary goal and the training for a secondary goal may be in conflict.
So anyway, back to my original point from my previous post. HIIT is not always a bad thing, when used appropriately. Getting your heart rate up and using those glycolytic pathways can be beneficial (As previously described, literature has shown increase in EPOC, insulin sensitivity and fat loss with HIIT training). However, for the health & fitness goals that most people have (feel good, look good naked), the emphasis should be on the ratio of this aerobic/below lactate-threshold work volume to anaerobic/glycolytic work volume.
So, in the context of an endurance-biased athlete who is running/jogging say, 360 minutes a week at a heart rate below lactate threshold, 10 minutes of KB swings 6 days a week (weekly total of 60 minutes) is only spending about 16.7% of their total training volume above lactate threshold (as measured by heart rate. Let's note here that lactate threshold only roughly correlates with a specific heart rate, which is subject to the individual in question and their prior training. That is, the heart rate at which one can work at while staying below lactate threshold can and should increase with fitness. Lactate threshold however, is technically a measure blood lactate levels, but since its pretty impractical to stick a needle in one's arm and measure blood lactate throughout a set of KB swings, we are using heart rate for a proxy measure of blood lactate). And that's assuming that they are staying above that lactate threshold heart rate for the entire ten minutes of kettlebells swings, including rest periods. If we parse this out further, to only include the actual time swinging with the heart rate above the approximate lactate threshold, we could safely estimate that the percentage of total training volume above lactate threshold is at or below 10%.
However, if this athlete were to only perform the S&S program, those numbers obviously do a big flip-flop (Maybe not a complete flip flop, but the time above lactate threshold significantly increases compared to ~10%). Which is why if it is the only training one is doing, it would be beneficial to do it as aerobically as possible.
In the context of the OP's initial question, he seemed to indicate that he didn't have the time to devote to performing S&S in a purely aerobic fashion, so my suggestion was to mimic the first scenario above- let his S&S routine be more or less his little bout of HIIT, or <10% of training volume/activity and then find other ways to increase the volume of purely aerobic work- walking to and from work or employing the use of a tread desk at work to capitalize on time in order to include that greater volume of aerobic work. What I was definitely NOT advocating for is that his S&S routine should be done HIIT-style 6 days a week as his only training.
In regards to our evolutionary history, I may have simplified, but I don't believe I 'romanticized.' We only have to look at our current physiology to see what conferred reproductive fitness on our ancestors. Physiologically speaking, we can perform large volumes of work over long periods of time aerobically- walking, easy jogging, light hiking. Aerobically, we can produce 38 molecules of ATP through oxidative phosphorylation (ATP being the energy currency of the cell) and we can also use glucose, fatty acids and amino acids as substrates for this. Anaerobically, we can produce 2 ATP through lactic acid fermentation. Furthermore, the build up of H+ ion from this reaction inhibits phosphofructokinase, effectively shutting off the glycolytic pathway in order to prevent metabolic acidosis, which would lead to death. However, as metabolically inefficient as lactic acid fermentation is, it can produce ATP for muscle contraction MUCH more quickly than the lengthy oxidative phosphorylation process. So, for our earliest ancestors (and these biochemical pathways go back further than just primates and hominids), being able to sprint away from danger kept you alive to reproduce another day. The metabolic inefficiency of it though and the fact that the acid build up would kill you, meant it could only be endured for a short period of time (10-20 second max) and the needed recovery period from the increased cortisol and adrenaline levels meant that is was for emergency situations only. (High cortisol levels can negatively impact fertility by depleting progesterone levels in women and testosterone levels in men.)
So if aerobic metabolism has so many benefits- more ATP, greater volume of work that can be performed at lower intensities, larger variety of substrates that can be used, more favorable hormone profile, etc., why bother to train anaerobic pathways with HIIT training at all? Again, I think this makes sense in light of evolutionary biology. Any exercise or training is a physical stress. With sufficient rest, the body recovers and becomes stronger, in order to be able to better handle that stressor in the future. Going back to our sprinting ancestor, the faster/stronger one survived- and reproduced. The slower/weaker one did not. But how did that individual get to be the faster one? Adaptations like greater muscle strength (specifically hypertrophy or greater number of muscles fibers), greater power via increased motor pool recruitment, etc. As those physiological strategies enabled greater survival, they become more widely incorporated in the physiology of the population. So the ancestor who sprinted from danger and then adapted by getting stronger or burning more fat for energy is the one who got to pass their DNA along to the next generation and that's why we see individuals express those adaptations to HIIT training in the exercise physiology experiments we conduct in the lab.
So again, I don't think I'm romanticizing the idea that based on evolutionary history and biology, for health and longevity purposes as well as reproductive fitness and attractiveness purposes, the optimal strategy is simply a high volume of low intensity work- walking, jogging, hiking, playing with your dog, aerobic KB swings with lots of rest in between sets mixed with little bouts (low volume!) of high-intensity work occasionally ('occasionally ' depends on a number of individual variables). If anything, I was trying to simplify my argument without the having to go into introductory biochemistry, which I totally love to geek out on, but realize, like an Islay Scotch, is a finely acquired taste.
But before that, allow me to emphasize that a lot of this stuff depends on the individual. Their training history, their healthy history, their diet, their sleep, how they recover, etc. Generalized prescriptions usually become problematic because they miss key pieces of this.
A second point I want to emphasize too, is that how one applies heart rate training, or any training really, is highly dependent on the individual's goals. Are you training for bigger muscles? For weight/fat loss? Are you training for a competition? What are the parameters for doing well at that competition (powerlifting vs. half-marathon race)? Are you training for health and longevity? It's important to define one's goals because you simply can't have it all. If you want to be competitive in a half-marathon, you're going to have to train to be fast. However, cardio training at high intensities for long durations necessitates hypertrophy of the left ventricle of the heart. We see a not insignificant number of endurance athletes develop A-fib, LVH, need pacemakers or even have massive heart attacks on the track because of this physiologic response. In this case, your training goal to be fast & competitive at a 13.1 miles may supersede your goal to be healthy or to live a long life. It's important that your training not only support your primary goal, but that one be aware of areas where the training for a primary goal and the training for a secondary goal may be in conflict.
So anyway, back to my original point from my previous post. HIIT is not always a bad thing, when used appropriately. Getting your heart rate up and using those glycolytic pathways can be beneficial (As previously described, literature has shown increase in EPOC, insulin sensitivity and fat loss with HIIT training). However, for the health & fitness goals that most people have (feel good, look good naked), the emphasis should be on the ratio of this aerobic/below lactate-threshold work volume to anaerobic/glycolytic work volume.
So, in the context of an endurance-biased athlete who is running/jogging say, 360 minutes a week at a heart rate below lactate threshold, 10 minutes of KB swings 6 days a week (weekly total of 60 minutes) is only spending about 16.7% of their total training volume above lactate threshold (as measured by heart rate. Let's note here that lactate threshold only roughly correlates with a specific heart rate, which is subject to the individual in question and their prior training. That is, the heart rate at which one can work at while staying below lactate threshold can and should increase with fitness. Lactate threshold however, is technically a measure blood lactate levels, but since its pretty impractical to stick a needle in one's arm and measure blood lactate throughout a set of KB swings, we are using heart rate for a proxy measure of blood lactate). And that's assuming that they are staying above that lactate threshold heart rate for the entire ten minutes of kettlebells swings, including rest periods. If we parse this out further, to only include the actual time swinging with the heart rate above the approximate lactate threshold, we could safely estimate that the percentage of total training volume above lactate threshold is at or below 10%.
However, if this athlete were to only perform the S&S program, those numbers obviously do a big flip-flop (Maybe not a complete flip flop, but the time above lactate threshold significantly increases compared to ~10%). Which is why if it is the only training one is doing, it would be beneficial to do it as aerobically as possible.
In the context of the OP's initial question, he seemed to indicate that he didn't have the time to devote to performing S&S in a purely aerobic fashion, so my suggestion was to mimic the first scenario above- let his S&S routine be more or less his little bout of HIIT, or <10% of training volume/activity and then find other ways to increase the volume of purely aerobic work- walking to and from work or employing the use of a tread desk at work to capitalize on time in order to include that greater volume of aerobic work. What I was definitely NOT advocating for is that his S&S routine should be done HIIT-style 6 days a week as his only training.
In regards to our evolutionary history, I may have simplified, but I don't believe I 'romanticized.' We only have to look at our current physiology to see what conferred reproductive fitness on our ancestors. Physiologically speaking, we can perform large volumes of work over long periods of time aerobically- walking, easy jogging, light hiking. Aerobically, we can produce 38 molecules of ATP through oxidative phosphorylation (ATP being the energy currency of the cell) and we can also use glucose, fatty acids and amino acids as substrates for this. Anaerobically, we can produce 2 ATP through lactic acid fermentation. Furthermore, the build up of H+ ion from this reaction inhibits phosphofructokinase, effectively shutting off the glycolytic pathway in order to prevent metabolic acidosis, which would lead to death. However, as metabolically inefficient as lactic acid fermentation is, it can produce ATP for muscle contraction MUCH more quickly than the lengthy oxidative phosphorylation process. So, for our earliest ancestors (and these biochemical pathways go back further than just primates and hominids), being able to sprint away from danger kept you alive to reproduce another day. The metabolic inefficiency of it though and the fact that the acid build up would kill you, meant it could only be endured for a short period of time (10-20 second max) and the needed recovery period from the increased cortisol and adrenaline levels meant that is was for emergency situations only. (High cortisol levels can negatively impact fertility by depleting progesterone levels in women and testosterone levels in men.)
So if aerobic metabolism has so many benefits- more ATP, greater volume of work that can be performed at lower intensities, larger variety of substrates that can be used, more favorable hormone profile, etc., why bother to train anaerobic pathways with HIIT training at all? Again, I think this makes sense in light of evolutionary biology. Any exercise or training is a physical stress. With sufficient rest, the body recovers and becomes stronger, in order to be able to better handle that stressor in the future. Going back to our sprinting ancestor, the faster/stronger one survived- and reproduced. The slower/weaker one did not. But how did that individual get to be the faster one? Adaptations like greater muscle strength (specifically hypertrophy or greater number of muscles fibers), greater power via increased motor pool recruitment, etc. As those physiological strategies enabled greater survival, they become more widely incorporated in the physiology of the population. So the ancestor who sprinted from danger and then adapted by getting stronger or burning more fat for energy is the one who got to pass their DNA along to the next generation and that's why we see individuals express those adaptations to HIIT training in the exercise physiology experiments we conduct in the lab.
So again, I don't think I'm romanticizing the idea that based on evolutionary history and biology, for health and longevity purposes as well as reproductive fitness and attractiveness purposes, the optimal strategy is simply a high volume of low intensity work- walking, jogging, hiking, playing with your dog, aerobic KB swings with lots of rest in between sets mixed with little bouts (low volume!) of high-intensity work occasionally ('occasionally ' depends on a number of individual variables). If anything, I was trying to simplify my argument without the having to go into introductory biochemistry, which I totally love to geek out on, but realize, like an Islay Scotch, is a finely acquired taste.
TravisS
Level 5 Valued Member
Al, Click the "watch thread" link at the upper right part of the thread and make sure its set for email notifications. If it says you're already watching the thread, "unwatch" it and then retry so it gives you the option for email notifications.
Pavel
CEO
Kettlebelephant, there is no 100% certainty, but it appears most people, including athletes, can do very well w/o glycolytic capacity training. (Besides, upping your glycolytic power indirectly ups your glycolytic capacity.)
Pavel
CEO
Christa, you are absolutely right: redlining the HR (>190) for long stretches over and over does destroy the heart, as Russian research on retires cross country skiers and even soccer plays have demonstrated. The mechanism is interesting. At a high HR the diastole practically disappears—the heart has no time to relax. So, even though it is beating like crazy, it is not pumping much blood. Before you know it, there is a shortage of oxygen getting to the heart itself. Some fibers go glycolytic, H+ forms and destroys some tissue. Autopsies of endurance athletes show many scars and micro heart attacks.
One thing that can be done to reduce the HR is training for hours at 120-140 HR and stretch the heart (L-hypertrophy) so it can pump more blood each stroke and does not have to go as fast. But generally this recommendations is reserved for LSD athletes.
Another thing (more practical) that one can do to reduce the HR at high exertions is to develop more mitochondria in skeletal muscles. When one sucks wind, it is less from an increased oxygen demand and more from so called “non-metabolic” CO2—excessive CO2 formed as end product of H+ buffering in the blood.
Regarding the sprinting in the wild, I would speculate that a predator sprints in the alactic pathway (a friend timed a leopard make a kill in 16sec); the glycolytic pathway of desperation is reserved for the prey.
One thing that can be done to reduce the HR is training for hours at 120-140 HR and stretch the heart (L-hypertrophy) so it can pump more blood each stroke and does not have to go as fast. But generally this recommendations is reserved for LSD athletes.
Another thing (more practical) that one can do to reduce the HR at high exertions is to develop more mitochondria in skeletal muscles. When one sucks wind, it is less from an increased oxygen demand and more from so called “non-metabolic” CO2—excessive CO2 formed as end product of H+ buffering in the blood.
Regarding the sprinting in the wild, I would speculate that a predator sprints in the alactic pathway (a friend timed a leopard make a kill in 16sec); the glycolytic pathway of desperation is reserved for the prey.
Kettlebelephant
Level 6 Valued Member
Thx Pavel,
good to know.
Nice post Christa!
I like to compare the human body to a car, because most people get it that way. Ask a person who is constantly pushing to his/her limits if he/she would always drive their car in the red rpm zone. Of course they wouldn't, because it would wreck the engine over time.
It's the same with fuel (food), tyres (shoes) and more things.
EDIT:
I don't want to start a new thread just for this, but how does hypertrophy training fit into all this?
I (hopefully
) know why i should not care about my HR during strength training. Since if you keep the reps low (1-5) and rest long (3+min) you can be certain to stay ATP-PC dominant (alactic) and therefore you don't need to look at you HR.
But hypertrophy training with its 8-15reps (30-60sec work) and only short rest (60-90sec) looks totally glycolyctic to me. Bodybuilders even aim for that burn, which is corelated to lactic acidosis. Another example would be the last weeks of KB Muscle where the work:rest ratio of the complexes goes down to 1:1. Hypertrophy training seems to be closely related to what many people do for HIIT (when you look at intensities and work:rest ratios)
So can we say that you should be careful with hyperthrophy training too? Maybe do only 1 or 2 short periods (4-8weeks) per year?
I'm asking all of this in the context of longevity and health and not athletic performance.
good to know.
Nice post Christa!
I like to compare the human body to a car, because most people get it that way. Ask a person who is constantly pushing to his/her limits if he/she would always drive their car in the red rpm zone. Of course they wouldn't, because it would wreck the engine over time.
It's the same with fuel (food), tyres (shoes) and more things.
EDIT:
I don't want to start a new thread just for this, but how does hypertrophy training fit into all this?
I (hopefully
) know why i should not care about my HR during strength training. Since if you keep the reps low (1-5) and rest long (3+min) you can be certain to stay ATP-PC dominant (alactic) and therefore you don't need to look at you HR.But hypertrophy training with its 8-15reps (30-60sec work) and only short rest (60-90sec) looks totally glycolyctic to me. Bodybuilders even aim for that burn, which is corelated to lactic acidosis. Another example would be the last weeks of KB Muscle where the work:rest ratio of the complexes goes down to 1:1. Hypertrophy training seems to be closely related to what many people do for HIIT (when you look at intensities and work:rest ratios)
So can we say that you should be careful with hyperthrophy training too? Maybe do only 1 or 2 short periods (4-8weeks) per year?
I'm asking all of this in the context of longevity and health and not athletic performance.
Last edited:
Al Ciampa
Level 7 Valued Member
Christa,
You and I agree. This is an older, more general discussion on this forum that takes many forms in response to more specific questions. It is continually updated as we learn more. Like Pavel introduced above, mitochondrial function, and its increased biomass, seems to be center-mass, of this, and other issues. As you put it (and another asked about) "aerobic swings", still kicks up enough mild acidity to provoke type II fiber mitochondrial biogenesis unseen in pure LSD work, and, without the fall out of protein and cellular degradation as seen in more traditional, long-term HIIT programs. HIIT, but not HIIT, as it were...
As an aside, and far less important, I still think that you're romanticizing early man. We are obviously migratory animals, the out of Africa theory being fueled by purely low-level aerobic work. But the idea that "most" of us sprinted to escape threat, even occasionally is not supported by even contemporary primates, much less the anthropological literature (at least, what I read). I would agree that high intensity sprints were performed more likely as a result of individual quarrels and social pressures that are still observed in living primates; rather than fleeing from a lion or other predator. And of course, children will always play ;] Either way, it's almost not worth the debate.
You and I agree. This is an older, more general discussion on this forum that takes many forms in response to more specific questions. It is continually updated as we learn more. Like Pavel introduced above, mitochondrial function, and its increased biomass, seems to be center-mass, of this, and other issues. As you put it (and another asked about) "aerobic swings", still kicks up enough mild acidity to provoke type II fiber mitochondrial biogenesis unseen in pure LSD work, and, without the fall out of protein and cellular degradation as seen in more traditional, long-term HIIT programs. HIIT, but not HIIT, as it were...
As an aside, and far less important, I still think that you're romanticizing early man. We are obviously migratory animals, the out of Africa theory being fueled by purely low-level aerobic work. But the idea that "most" of us sprinted to escape threat, even occasionally is not supported by even contemporary primates, much less the anthropological literature (at least, what I read). I would agree that high intensity sprints were performed more likely as a result of individual quarrels and social pressures that are still observed in living primates; rather than fleeing from a lion or other predator. And of course, children will always play ;] Either way, it's almost not worth the debate.
ali
Level 7 Valued Member
Wonderful discussion. To add further fuel to the fire so to speak, this new study has cropped up on the radar recently, from the British Medical Journal.....I know it is bound to be right, I read it whilst having a cup of tea with the Queen:
Ken J Hetlelid, Daniel J Plews, Eva Herold, Paul B Laursen, Stephen Seiler. Rethinking the role of fat oxidation: substrate utilisation during high-intensity interval training in well-trained and recreationally trained runners.” BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med, 2015.
Can be found here, free access:
http://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/1/1.author-index#G
The relevant upshot:
...... The novel finding, however, was that higher fat oxidation rates explained the WT participants’ greater capacity to perform high-intensity intermittent work......it said,
.....so aerobic training does assist in HIIT and it burns fat!
......oh, the confusion, argh.
Ken J Hetlelid, Daniel J Plews, Eva Herold, Paul B Laursen, Stephen Seiler. Rethinking the role of fat oxidation: substrate utilisation during high-intensity interval training in well-trained and recreationally trained runners.” BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med, 2015.
Can be found here, free access:
http://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/1/1.author-index#G
The relevant upshot:
- The greater capacity to perform high-intensity intermittent work is mostly explained by the higher fat oxidation rates in well-trained runners.
...... The novel finding, however, was that higher fat oxidation rates explained the WT participants’ greater capacity to perform high-intensity intermittent work......it said,
.....so aerobic training does assist in HIIT and it burns fat!
......oh, the confusion, argh.
Christa
Level 1 Valued Member
LOL! Its not that its confusing per se, its more that we are making over-simplifications here. During exercise, you are not strictly aerobic or strictly anaerobic- it's not either/or. It's a blend of both happening at the same time, and even feeding each other. For instance, lactate can be converted to pyruvate via lactate dehydrogenase. Pyruvate can then enter the citric acid cycle to yield ATP via oxidative phosphorylation. If pyruvate builds up more quickly than it can be metabolized, it can be converted to lactate and undergo lactic acid fermentation (anaerobic mechanism).
It could be argued that the whole point of aerobic training is to increase the efficiency of aerobic metabolism by forcing favorable adaptations (increase mitochondrial density and capillarization) so that substrates (fatty acids, glucose or amino acids) can be used for oxidative phosphorylation at increasing intensities.
As I see it, this study corroborates much of what has already been discussed in this thread. Most 'recreational runners' train at medium intensity- which is neither hard enough to fine tune anaerobic metabolism, yet is too hard for fatty acid oxidation, capillarization or increased mitochondrial density. A well-trained runner is more likely to have a coach that recognizes and understands this mistake, and guides the athlete's training to be structured around a high volume of low intensity work, with a small amount of high-intensity speed work. Over years of training this way, they would be more efficient aerobically.
Al Ciampa
Level 7 Valued Member
+1!
krg
Level 7 Valued Member
Ali - thanks. I intended to get some work done last night but instead ending up reading.....
I think Christa is spot on. From my reading of the paper the well trained runners had a larger aerobic capacity. It is interesting that they could tap into this significantly at very high levels of effort - conventional wisdom would have assumed a drop off in the role of the aerobic system at this point - however these were 1 minute intervals not a mad 20 second type Tabata. Also interesting that there was a correlation with vO2max.
I also think it is reasonable to assume some role of genetics here. If you are a regional level runner then you have probably been better than average at running forever and maybe are just predisposed to building a powerful aerobic system.
A real weakness of the study was the classification of well trained vs recreationally trained whilst giving no training history.
How this applies to strength training? no idea. In the meantime training in the manner Pavel outlines above (ie you can do it everyday) really agrees with my needs in life.
If I could expand on Al's goal - yes I want to wipe my own butt on my last day - but I also don't want my last day to be anytime soon....
I think Christa is spot on. From my reading of the paper the well trained runners had a larger aerobic capacity. It is interesting that they could tap into this significantly at very high levels of effort - conventional wisdom would have assumed a drop off in the role of the aerobic system at this point - however these were 1 minute intervals not a mad 20 second type Tabata. Also interesting that there was a correlation with vO2max.
I also think it is reasonable to assume some role of genetics here. If you are a regional level runner then you have probably been better than average at running forever and maybe are just predisposed to building a powerful aerobic system.
A real weakness of the study was the classification of well trained vs recreationally trained whilst giving no training history.
How this applies to strength training? no idea. In the meantime training in the manner Pavel outlines above (ie you can do it everyday) really agrees with my needs in life.
If I could expand on Al's goal - yes I want to wipe my own butt on my last day - but I also don't want my last day to be anytime soon....
ali
Level 7 Valued Member
Yes, indeed it does corroborate what has been said in this thread and in others when comparing advantages and disadvantages of aerobic v HIIT. And more.
Of course, a simplified version is: well trained runners are fitter than untrained runners. That we know, without stating the bleeding obvious. This study though demonstrates the role of anaerobic glycolysis is the same in the trained v untrained. It would be the expected outcome, would it not, that the trained had improved aerobic function and anaerobic function and one of those markers would be less blood lactate? As the HIIT was perfromed at over 85% max, the energy system dominant would be glycolytic in both, with the trained relying on it less......right? So the trained would have improved lactate buffering and therefore less blood lactate and therefore a greater input from aerobic respiration and less rpe because of their training. Except it wasn't. Rpe was the same, blood lactate was the same, the amount of glucose utilised was the same in both groups. So regardless of training, the role of anaerobic glycolysis was the same.........isn't that quite significant? Perhaps I'm reading too much into it and taking too much inference from the results but does it not suggest that training HIIT to perform HIIT isn't as necessary as perhaps it is thought? It is the same anyway, at least for endurance runners. The fact that they could measure a threefold increase in fat oxidation isn't perhaps that much of a revelation if they were running at an easy pace, nor is it revelatory comparing the trained v untrained but as this was over 85% max it doesn't conform to the expected norm of energy utilisation at a high intensity. And the further inference from this is back to the advantages of training alactic/aerobic to improve performance, no need to train anaerobic glycolysis as its role is the same for the trained and untrained....you know, more or less. There is a great deal of confirmation bias in making assumptions regarding the conclusions of scientific studies and perhaps I'm reading too much into it but when I heard of it and read most of it, thought it was worthy of a mention.
Of course, a simplified version is: well trained runners are fitter than untrained runners. That we know, without stating the bleeding obvious. This study though demonstrates the role of anaerobic glycolysis is the same in the trained v untrained. It would be the expected outcome, would it not, that the trained had improved aerobic function and anaerobic function and one of those markers would be less blood lactate? As the HIIT was perfromed at over 85% max, the energy system dominant would be glycolytic in both, with the trained relying on it less......right? So the trained would have improved lactate buffering and therefore less blood lactate and therefore a greater input from aerobic respiration and less rpe because of their training. Except it wasn't. Rpe was the same, blood lactate was the same, the amount of glucose utilised was the same in both groups. So regardless of training, the role of anaerobic glycolysis was the same.........isn't that quite significant? Perhaps I'm reading too much into it and taking too much inference from the results but does it not suggest that training HIIT to perform HIIT isn't as necessary as perhaps it is thought? It is the same anyway, at least for endurance runners. The fact that they could measure a threefold increase in fat oxidation isn't perhaps that much of a revelation if they were running at an easy pace, nor is it revelatory comparing the trained v untrained but as this was over 85% max it doesn't conform to the expected norm of energy utilisation at a high intensity. And the further inference from this is back to the advantages of training alactic/aerobic to improve performance, no need to train anaerobic glycolysis as its role is the same for the trained and untrained....you know, more or less. There is a great deal of confirmation bias in making assumptions regarding the conclusions of scientific studies and perhaps I'm reading too much into it but when I heard of it and read most of it, thought it was worthy of a mention.
ali
Level 7 Valued Member
krg - sorry I kept you up late! I know, no mention of training history.....maybe though that was a good thing, in terms of science......no pre conceived ideas, sort of thing. Had the runners trained exclusively in aerobic or did they do a 6 week HIIT training programme in preparation for a HIIT study? And as you say, what does that mean for strength? Did the trained runners strength train too? There is always more issues raised than problems solved perhaps......anyway can't beat a good dose of energy system porn. Interesting stuff.
BladesFanUK
Level 5 Valued Member
Can you support that medium-intensity exercise doesn't increase mitochondrial density, capillarisation and fatty acid oxidation with literature? Considering there is a decent amount of literature supporting high-intensity exercise increasing muscular mitochondrial density and function, I would be interested to see whether you can support these statements. Maffetone does a poor job of it. I am not saying you are wrong, I just want to see how you can back this up. Specifically, if you could find good evidence that capillarisation, fatty acid oxidation and increeases in muscular mitochondrial density decreases between low and medium-intensity exercise it would make your argument a lot stronger.
I have been a lurker at these forums for some time and have a few observations. It is good that when people post scientific literature people are critical of it; you absolutely should be. However, it is important you apply the same critical thinking and challenge what Pavel, Al Ciampo et al say rather than meekly believing every word. Challenge them and see how strongly they can back claims up. In the end, this sharpens everyones sword and it is how progress is made. If you are attempting to base this thing off science, you have to face being challenged intensely. Otherwise you can end up with severe misintepretations of science you see a lot of personal trainers making and selling as scientifically-backed programmes.
- Status