Other/Mixed Aerobic Deficiency Syndrome
- Thread starter offwidth
- Start date
Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
- Status
bluejeff
Level 7 Valued Member
@Anna C I agree with you. As I was thinking about it last night, I realized that ADS might very well describe the type of athlete who is “fit but unhealthy.” Meaning, they have low
body fat, they can maybe lift impressive numbers, maybe even sprint for decent times, perform fast paced circuits (I’m trying not to say the word “CrossFit” ) but they have adrenal issues, a taxed immune system, mood and sleep issues, etc. Maffetone even lists many of those things in his description of ADS.
Taking a page from a gymnastic bodies quote, “you can always do more tomorrow, but you can’t undo what you did today” (or something like that).
I think this applies to energy systems as well. When we see the term “HIIT” in SF literature it rarely is in context of actual HIIT, as it was originally designed (as pointed out many a time by @North Coast Miller ). It’s usually in the context of things like CrossFit wods (dang it I said the word).
On that note, this was an interesting interview regarding aerobic capacity, endurance, and high intensity work (specifically CrossFit . . . )
body fat, they can maybe lift impressive numbers, maybe even sprint for decent times, perform fast paced circuits (I’m trying not to say the word “CrossFit” ) but they have adrenal issues, a taxed immune system, mood and sleep issues, etc. Maffetone even lists many of those things in his description of ADS.
My guess would be no…? At least without some dedicated research. I would think that, optimally, you would want the capacity to do both. As I read and understand it, what people like Maffetone are getting at is that one needs a decent aerobic base in order to excel or make gains anaerobically.
Again, thinking of what Maffetone has to say… he talks a lot about the aerobic fibers being the ones that do most of the support in locomotion. By appropriately building the aerobic system, I think his theory is that the fibers will be better built, their mitochondria better developed so they don’t fatigue as easily, and perhaps that may lead to less RSIs.
I personally don’t like the term “under recovered.” I think it might lead to people overdoing it, thinking that if they just sleep a little more or take an extra day off that their issues will go away. Structurally, I have come to the conclusion that tissue only knows load. Too much load is too much load, whether it’s all at once or over too long a time. The especially applies to the tissues that get injured the most: tendons and ligaments. They take about three times as long as muscle to recover and regenerate.
Taking a page from a gymnastic bodies quote, “you can always do more tomorrow, but you can’t undo what you did today” (or something like that).
I think this applies to energy systems as well. When we see the term “HIIT” in SF literature it rarely is in context of actual HIIT, as it was originally designed (as pointed out many a time by @North Coast Miller ). It’s usually in the context of things like CrossFit wods (dang it I said the word).
On that note, this was an interesting interview regarding aerobic capacity, endurance, and high intensity work (specifically CrossFit . . . )
Bauer
Level 8 Valued Member
One thing I think a lot about when thinking about strength and endurance training is risk-to-benefit ratio and return-on-investment (ROI).
The benefits, or returns, do not only include strength or better cardiovascular health, but also general wellbeing and enjoyment of the activity itself.
I am not the most robust or athletic person by nature, therefore this matters a lot.
Classic CrossFit style training is the opposite of what works for me. It might work at times, but it is not sustainable for me.
Personally, the mix of A+A style swings and getups + walking + S&S stretches is about perfect for me. Original Strength also ticks the boxes.
Walking is probably the best allaround movement there is, yielding a wide range of health benefits (also mental health wise), being accessible to a wide range of populations, being very low risk and being very easy to integrate into any type of lifestyle.
Most people I know have a fitness phase every year or two, overdo it, injure themselves and then drop out again.
But that is the sedentaty perspective. Having reached Timeless Simple I find myself transitioning to a little more performance oriented point of view. For example, I try to integrate more running into the mix. All the while reminding myself to take it slow
The benefits, or returns, do not only include strength or better cardiovascular health, but also general wellbeing and enjoyment of the activity itself.
I am not the most robust or athletic person by nature, therefore this matters a lot.
Classic CrossFit style training is the opposite of what works for me. It might work at times, but it is not sustainable for me.
Personally, the mix of A+A style swings and getups + walking + S&S stretches is about perfect for me. Original Strength also ticks the boxes.
Walking is probably the best allaround movement there is, yielding a wide range of health benefits (also mental health wise), being accessible to a wide range of populations, being very low risk and being very easy to integrate into any type of lifestyle.
Most people I know have a fitness phase every year or two, overdo it, injure themselves and then drop out again.
But that is the sedentaty perspective. Having reached Timeless Simple I find myself transitioning to a little more performance oriented point of view. For example, I try to integrate more running into the mix. All the while reminding myself to take it slow
offwidth
Level 10 Valued Member
lenses
Level 1 Valued Member
The best method is to go to a lab and do an aerobic threshold test or a metabolic efficiency test using a gas exchange method. The next best is to do a incremental step test in which you measure your blood lactate at ever increasing speeds/HRs. There are articles covering these tests in detail on this website. These will tell you about your own unique metabolic response to exercise.
The HR drift test is simple and does not require a GPS. It only requires a treadmill and a HR monitor. Start with a nice gradual warm up wherein you settle on the pace/HR that you feel should pretty close to your AeT. Then hold that pace for 60 min and record your HR. Using Training Peaks you can see what your average HR was for the first 30 min and compare that your average HR for the second 30 minutes. If the second 30min average is more than 5% greater than the first 30 min average, you were above your AeT for this run. You may need to do this test a few times to dial it in. We use this test with many of our coached clients and it shows their AeT improving over time and is nice simple test as well as motivating.
So, don’t worry about what someone else’s “fast” is. Do one of these tests to set a base line and then re-test in a few weeks/months. The HR drift test is simple and cheap.
The HR drift test is simple and does not require a GPS. It only requires a treadmill and a HR monitor. Start with a nice gradual warm up wherein you settle on the pace/HR that you feel should pretty close to your AeT. Then hold that pace for 60 min and record your HR. Using Training Peaks you can see what your average HR was for the first 30 min and compare that your average HR for the second 30 minutes. If the second 30min average is more than 5% greater than the first 30 min average, you were above your AeT for this run. You may need to do this test a few times to dial it in. We use this test with many of our coached clients and it shows their AeT improving over time and is nice simple test as well as motivating.
So, don’t worry about what someone else’s “fast” is. Do one of these tests to set a base line and then re-test in a few weeks/months. The HR drift test is simple and cheap.
offwidth
Level 10 Valued Member
You know… I used to think exactly along these lines of under recovery… but this thinking promotes a sort of dichotomy between training and recovery so I started shifting my worldview to one that looks at training and recovery being part of the same thing. And certainly not a balance thing either because that is also a loosing game. It’s a bit like cream in coffee (not that I would ever do such a ridiculous thing…) in that it’s a blended whole thing…. Something that cannot be easily separated.
Waxing philosophical I know….
psmith
Level 5 Valued Member
Just did this myself for the first time. Lined up pretty much dead on with MAF. I'll retest with about 8 weeks elapsed and see how it's changed. I think it's probably a bit sensitive to environmental conditions, running surface, fasted/fed, caffeine status, ..., but I could be wrong and of course exact precision isn't so important.
Seiler's take is worth a look, partly because he's the guy doing the research on intensity distributions of elite endurance athletes and partly for the unification across lactate/heart rate/ventilatory thresholds.
oab
Level 6 Valued Member
"Aerobic deficiency syndrome" is a little unclear. Is it insufficient aerobic capacity? Insufficient recovery ie sympathetic overactivity, or parasympathetic overcompensation (secondary to chronic sympathetic overactivity)? Or is it insufficient capacity as a cost of of some other aspect of adaptation ? Also see Pavel T's article: https://www.strongfirst.com/the-cost-of-adaptation/ Also see: How to Train Against a Virus | StrongFirst
Health and performance are distinct goals. For health, it is a matter of the right amount , not too little and not too much. For performance, it depends upon how much "cost" regarding loss of health, longevity and quality of life one decides to invest (or inadvertently invests!).
Personally, I exercise for health reasons. Whether other people opt for health or performance or some balance of the two is really a matter of personal choice. However, I think it is important to be clear about the differences in goals. How you interpret the research also depends on goals.
Health and performance are distinct goals. For health, it is a matter of the right amount , not too little and not too much. For performance, it depends upon how much "cost" regarding loss of health, longevity and quality of life one decides to invest (or inadvertently invests!).
Personally, I exercise for health reasons. Whether other people opt for health or performance or some balance of the two is really a matter of personal choice. However, I think it is important to be clear about the differences in goals. How you interpret the research also depends on goals.
silveraw
Level 9 Valued Member
That is how I understand it. Or at least undertrained comparatively.
One thing that I haven’t seen talked about in this thread is the importance of aerobic capacity with your strength training. I’m seeing a few people kind of stating them in either/or terms but they are complementary of each other. Stronger by science has a good article detailing the case for building aerobic capacity to support strength training. The main theme seems to be that most people are deficient in it and it holds them back. Which sounds a lot like ADS.
Avoiding Cardio Could Be Holding You Back
Strength athletes fear cardio like the plague, but aerobic training actually has a host of benefits if you're trying to get stronger and recover faster.
www.strongerbyscience.com
Edit: fixed clunky auto corrects.
Last edited:
I’m late to the party, life has been full.
I think TUA, SF, Maffetone, and Stephen Seiler - and others I’m not mentioning - are all noticing, commenting on, and designing systems around the same observation - people who train tend to go too hard, following programs that aren’t appropriate for them, and end up under-developing a physical base. Build your base so you can achieve greater things when you do start incorporating more intensity. Some of this base seems to be an almost forgotten form of GPP - easy playing in qualities that aren’t your chosen focus - in addition to “normal” GPP of building a base in your chosen focus. Maybe this forgotten base is easy strength or easy running, or maybe it’s going for a hike. Most of the population has become so sedentary that the only activity they do (if they do any) is their chosen physical activity, leading to underdeveloped physical qualities that may lead to less development that they could achieve - especially if those qualities take time to develop, either in long sessions or over the course of a year or more.
It reminds me in shooting of the now trite truism (but still true) of “slow is smooth smooth is fast.” You can’t miss fast enough…
I think TUA, SF, Maffetone, and Stephen Seiler - and others I’m not mentioning - are all noticing, commenting on, and designing systems around the same observation - people who train tend to go too hard, following programs that aren’t appropriate for them, and end up under-developing a physical base. Build your base so you can achieve greater things when you do start incorporating more intensity. Some of this base seems to be an almost forgotten form of GPP - easy playing in qualities that aren’t your chosen focus - in addition to “normal” GPP of building a base in your chosen focus. Maybe this forgotten base is easy strength or easy running, or maybe it’s going for a hike. Most of the population has become so sedentary that the only activity they do (if they do any) is their chosen physical activity, leading to underdeveloped physical qualities that may lead to less development that they could achieve - especially if those qualities take time to develop, either in long sessions or over the course of a year or more.
It reminds me in shooting of the now trite truism (but still true) of “slow is smooth smooth is fast.” You can’t miss fast enough…
North Coast Miller
Level 9 Valued Member
That is how I understand it. Or at least undertrained comparatively.
One thing that I haven’t seen talked about in this thread is the importance of aerobic capacity with your strength training. I’m seeing a few people kind of stating them in a either or terms but they are complementary of each other to a strong degree. Stronger by science had a really good article detailing the case for building aerobic capacity to support strength training. The main theme seems to be that most people are deficient in it and it holds them back. Which sounds a lot like ads
Avoiding Cardio Could Be Holding You Back
Strength athletes fear cardio like the plague, but aerobic training actually has a host of benefits if you're trying to get stronger and recover faster.
Over the last few years I've had several bouts of near total detraining for a couple months, physically losing very little mass etc. Upon restarting it is always the reduction in aerobic capacity that hurts the most.
Takes about 2 weeks to get back up to speed, is more of an enzyme reduction rather than drop in hardware capacity. Effects everything - a 5 minute warmup that barely made my hairline damp turns into a wind-sucking trial, recovery between sets requires 3 or 4 x the amount of time.
I might suggest that what tends to be lost quickly, as you said is aerobic capacity. This is mostly aerobic glycolytic capacity. I my experience, the pure aerobic base is very long-lasting even during weeks of mostly down-time or very low level of activity. But the glycolytic aerobic capacity does indeed go away after a few weeks.
Also as you said, it has a lot to do with enzymes. This is why a couple of weeks of glycolytic peaking works so well for events like a snatch test. Quick to build, quick to lose.... and doesn't say a lot about base fitness other than the aerobic base does provide the launching pad for it and makes it less stressful to build and use the glycolytic capacity when needed.
Last edited:
North Coast Miller
Level 9 Valued Member
Is important to recognize that lipid enzymes experience the same up/down regulation based on need and are nearly as short lived as glycolytic enzyme capacity. I had all the cellular machinery, but the catalyzer was geared for much lower output. I was probably in even worse shape for having that extra muscle demanding fuel compared to being 10 or 15 lbs lighter.
This has really opened my eyes to what rank beginners must be feeling at start of their journey, I've been at it consistently for so long I had lost all recollection. Imagine not knowing that the initial suck will fade in 2 weeks, long before you see any other real adaptive response. "Get through the first 2-3 weeks".
Is one thing to read about these base timeframes in a textbook, very informative to feel it in real time.
WhatWouldHulkDo
Level 8 Valued Member
I don't have enough biochemistry under my belt to comment on the science, just some observations:
It seems to me the word "deficiency" tends to make the hairs on the back of folk's necks stand up, particularly folks who train as much as we do. "I'm not deficient, you are!" And, of course, the question is always, deficient for what? I'd wager all of us are deficient for a brisk hike up a mountain with the uphill athlete guys.
I translate the whole ADS concept as saying that, if you are trying to optimize performance (aka finding/pushing your limits), you ought to address all the energy pathways, so you don't develope a choke point. Work the high-power short-duration pathway. Dip into the acid occasionally. And work the long-duration acid-free aerobic pathway. And I do think there's a tendency among strength junkies in particular to ignore that last one. I certainly did for a long time.
If you aren't trying to optimize performance, and you're still breathing, then you aren't deficient.
It seems to me the word "deficiency" tends to make the hairs on the back of folk's necks stand up, particularly folks who train as much as we do. "I'm not deficient, you are!" And, of course, the question is always, deficient for what? I'd wager all of us are deficient for a brisk hike up a mountain with the uphill athlete guys.
I translate the whole ADS concept as saying that, if you are trying to optimize performance (aka finding/pushing your limits), you ought to address all the energy pathways, so you don't develope a choke point. Work the high-power short-duration pathway. Dip into the acid occasionally. And work the long-duration acid-free aerobic pathway. And I do think there's a tendency among strength junkies in particular to ignore that last one. I certainly did for a long time.
If you aren't trying to optimize performance, and you're still breathing, then you aren't deficient.
offwidth
Level 10 Valued Member
We may or may not like the term, but there is no denying that the condition exists and always has. Maffetone first coined it in1985, so even the terminology has been around a while.
From the glossary in TFTUA:
A condition common in endurance athletes who spend too much training time middle-to high-intensity efforts, which causes an increased development of the anaerobic glycolytic metabolic pathway and reduced development of the basic aerobic metabolic pathway in the affected muscles. If this training state persists long enough, the athlete will see a lowering of his or her Aerobic Threshold.
To me the key words here are ‘condition common in endurance athletes’
This was me at one time (but I’m getting better….)
Pages 46 and 47 of TFTUA contain detailed information and examples.
From the glossary in TFTUA:
A condition common in endurance athletes who spend too much training time middle-to high-intensity efforts, which causes an increased development of the anaerobic glycolytic metabolic pathway and reduced development of the basic aerobic metabolic pathway in the affected muscles. If this training state persists long enough, the athlete will see a lowering of his or her Aerobic Threshold.
To me the key words here are ‘condition common in endurance athletes’
This was me at one time (but I’m getting better….)
Pages 46 and 47 of TFTUA contain detailed information and examples.
I agree, however...
The definition is specific to this group.... The rest of us do not suffer from this "syndrome".
offwidth
Level 10 Valued Member
Yeah… that was more or less the point I was trying to make…
offwidth
Level 10 Valued Member
The corollary of it all however is that non-endurance athletes will likely be ‘deficient’ in both aerobic and anaerobic metabolic pathways but only when unfairly compared to endurance athletes. The reverse obviously being true for strength markers when comparing endurance only athletes to strength athletes.
Like the old story of the two guys (one strength and one endurance) carrying the beer kegs up stairs. (that’s an experiment I could get behind)
Like the old story of the two guys (one strength and one endurance) carrying the beer kegs up stairs. (that’s an experiment I could get behind)
Lol I was thinking of judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree
BillSteamshovel
Level 6 Valued Member
@silveraw Thankyou, thats a useful and easily understood article. Over the last few months I had become quite confused regarding whether or not using the rowing machine and the bike were good or bad for my future kettlebell training. I had dropped back on cardio to doing relatively short warmup pieces prior to my kettlebell warmups and the occassional weighted ruckwalkThat is how I understand it. Or at least undertrained comparatively.
One thing that I haven’t seen talked about in this thread is the importance of aerobic capacity with your strength training. I’m seeing a few people kind of stating them in either/or terms but they are complementary of each other. Stronger by science has a good article detailing the case for building aerobic capacity to support strength training. The main theme seems to be that most people are deficient in it and it holds them back. Which sounds a lot like ADS.
Avoiding Cardio Could Be Holding You Back
Strength athletes fear cardio like the plague, but aerobic training actually has a host of benefits if you're trying to get stronger and recover faster.
Edit: fixed clunky auto corrects.
Will start doing a bit more now. Am not sure where I picked up the idea that "Cardio = bad for people wanting to exercise with weights"
- Status