Other/Mixed Aerobic Deficiency Syndrome

[ali]

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.

I don't disagree generally but the issue is a) the individual and b) the point of application.

I uphold the idea of curbing an enthusiastic daily thrashing about, absolutely and the maffetone number I've found to be very helpful but you can focus in too readily to make a correlation and thus a case for subjective bias is made.
Viewed as a model, other models are available if you will...

Eg. Movement mechanics and efficiency......

By slowing down, developing an efficient running stride (or stroke whatever choice of movement) will lead to greater efficiency of energy usage. Overtime you can increase pace for the same energy use you once had when less efficient. The result: greater efficiency by being a better runner.
No mention of atp and lactate dehydrogenase.

Make the same case for swings or snatches.

Being better at a skill improves efficient use of energy to do that thing.

So: a biomechanics or cellular physiology reference point. Same outcome. Does it matter? Probably not to be honest but it shapes how a problem is potentially solved and through that possibly prevented.

Probably splitting hairs, accepted.

To me the key words here are ‘condition common in endurance athletes’

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..

Not in disagreement but think there is room for nuanced individualism and specificity....

The definition is specific to this group.... The rest of us do not suffer from this "syndrome".

Totally.
Yet what about the opposite....for non endurance sports?
Those that train anaerobically foster their aerobic capacity too.....

Seems like a contradiction but both models are more similar than different....as we can frame it all with exercise variables of intensity, volume, duration and frequency chosen for the task....

Too much, it goes pear shaped.

We are back to dosage and total stress.

Applicable to all.

Happy new year.
Hoping 2022 is stress free!!

 

[North Coast Miller]

On that note, this was an interesting interview...

What an interview! I am astounded that his approach works as well as it does, sounds like a great way to prevent CrP stores from recharging. While training relatively sedentary folks cannot be directly compared to fine-tuning athletes, it is simply not possible to regard him or his clients as outliers.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Those that train anaerobically foster their aerobic capacity too.....

The operant mechanism behind Q&D.

 

[Bauer]

Am not sure where I picked up the idea that "Cardio = bad for people wanting to exercise with weights"

Well, a lot of plans are not minimalist and don't allow for much besides it. In this case, other type of training might diminish results, at least when you try to improve in all aspects at the same time. And it is often claimed that cardio training diminishes muscle gainzz (that's how it's spelled, right?). But, for example, @Harald Motz often goes for long runs after strength training and if I am not mistaken, he is still not to be considered weak nor skinny

Personally, I want to build my aerobic fitness to build that pyruvate vacuum cleaner that TFTUA pictures, and to build that cardiovascular buffer that Pavel talks about in "How to train against a virus".

 

[wespom9]

Great thread all, enjoyed with my morning coffee here!

I think the cArdIo rUInZ gAiNz is overblown. Need a base on which to recover. No lifter here is doing the volume that will interfere.
The size of the base is different - for health, for performance. I tend to view things from the "health" perspective and a good aerobic base means low resting heart rate, high "buffer". Don't have to win marathons but probably want to be at least top 30%ile on a v02 max compared to age/gender.

2 cents

 

[BJJ Shawn]

Eg. Movement mechanics and efficiency......

By slowing down, developing an efficient running stride (or stroke whatever choice of movement) will lead to greater efficiency of energy usage. Overtime you can increase pace for the same energy use you once had when less efficient. The result: greater efficiency by being a better runner.
No mention of atp and lactate dehydrogenase.

Make the same case for swings or snatches.

Being better at a skill improves efficient use of energy to do that thing.

I know Dan John talks about exploiting this principle for fat loss, by doing things you’re inefficient at. Once you get better, you become too efficient and it doesn’t burn as many calories, so you keep switching to different modalities to keep being inefficient. The opposite tactic of minimalist strength training, since the goal is to never get good.

 

[Harald Motz]

@Harald Motz often goes for long runs after strength training and if I am not mistaken, he is still not to be considered weak nor skinny

You have to keep in mind: I lift like a runner and run like a lifter worst of both worlds.

To the ADS: the cure fore attention deficit syndrome is focus. To train focus go for a long(er) run, aim for high stride cadence towards 180 landing on the forefoot, breath through your nose make the breath syncing with your strides...longer exhales than inhales, keep the heart rate around 138 - half of your age (that number is just a rough guideline from Takana's great book 'slow jogging' - if you are too serious he recomends to just smile: 'niko niko' that might be tough when you get passed by hikers. Keep cool.). To fight ADS you need to train focus. With slow jogging there is a lot to focus on.

When doing this regularly you might still have Attention Disorder Syndrome - but have good chances to heal Aerobic Deficit Syndrome. WTH.

Uphill Athlete is just great in explaining the different metabolic events at different intensities. Very easy heart rates for longer mean mostly slow twitch fibers with high percentage of fat fueling (especially when fasted and glycogen stores are somewhat emptied).

Whe I recall correctly 'zone2' ....MAF is supposed to have 'maximal fat burning': my take is that in absolute terms that might be the case. But I think for regular folks at that hr there is considerable sugar usage too (aerobic glycolysis). I often stated that MAF for regular use personally is too tough. Uphill Athlete considers base intensity as: if you can do that each and every day -that's base building.

An eye opener was when I started working with Al 5/6 years ago and re-introduced endurance work via rowing and jogging: in about half a year doing regularly work @ 115 - 130bpm I lost almost 10kg of bodyweight: the calories I 'burned' I had not the urge to replenish. That meant to me that I spared my glycogen stores.

So for me its hard to do 'too easy' cardio. Heartratemonitoring is fun: trying to move as efficiently as possible while not rising hr. That is a real task and almost never feels too easy...

 

[bluejeff]

What an interview! I am astounded that his approach works as well as it does, sounds like a great way to prevent CrP stores from recharging. While training relatively sedentary folks cannot be directly compared to fine-tuning athletes, it is simply not possible to regard him or his clients as outliers.

I should skim through it again, as there was quite the chunk of information. That being said, some of his approaches reminded me of @CMarker 's HIRT for hypertrophy plan. I know there are some differences, but the common theme is high intensity interspersed with aerobically-driven "recovery," which is indeed similar to . . .

The operant mechanism behind Q&D.

And also A+A to an extent.

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.

+1

Lately I haven't been as focused on energy pathway stuff (as classes at school have gone into other directions for the time being) but as to the discussion of anaerobic and aerobic pathways and how they play a role in this discussion:

My thinking and understanding is that if you do NOT train your aerobic system enough/"correctly" that you will hit a wall with any anaerobic training. Or, like the athletes Hinshaw trained in the podcast I linked, you will be able to do more anaerobic, high intensity work at a high level, but not be able to go for very long (or long enough for your goal). In plain words, you will just get tired and/or not be able to maintain that output for long. By training the aerobic system, you will better be able to recycle the waste produced by glycolysis. We all should know that when cellular respiration goes anaerobic, we accumulate more lactate, and that lactate DOES start to make it harder for your muscles to function. So it seems to me that only training at high intensity (read: glycolytic) will cause your progress to stall at some point.

Things like A+A and Q&D might represent a way "around" this, but let's maybe think about it this way:

-imagine doing high intensity repeats in the fashion prescribed above. Let's pick a lower body exercise like jumping or sprinting for the sake of the example. What will happen when you have to move quickly up a steep incline, whether it's a hill/mountainside, or a flight of stairs, AND sustain that? Those methodologies will help, for sure, but what about when you've sustained effort long enough that your muscles are in full on glycolysis? Unless there's enough oxygen ciculating in the muscles, you aren't making it up that incline. Isn't that what anaerobic threshold is?

Side note: I know that one of the intents of Q&D training is to theoretically/hopefully increase mitochondrial function in the fast twitch fibers, so I'm hoping that some researcher some day will look into whether it actually does. Or is it "just" a more painless method to increase your anaerobic threshold?

Obviously this example isn't something that might apply to the general population who just wants to be healthy in a general sense. It's also goal and circumstance specific. I think that it might, however, contribute to some of the thoughts I've seen pop up here about aerobic vs anaerobic training. It seems that having a good aerobic system would make something like this more efficient and less painful. It's called a "base" for the same reason that we use the "build your foundation" analogy in the strength world to talk about the need to build connective tissue before introducing it to high load. It's why you train beginners at a 8-10 rep max instead of a 3-5 rep max. You obviously wouldn't start training your aerobic system with HIIT, hill sprints or the like. You would go for a light jog to allow not only your respiratory system to adapt, but also your joints and connective tissue.

If I'm just plain wrong, that's fine with me. Curious as to others' and @North Coast Miller 's thoughts on this, since I know he has a good knowledge of energy systems and metabolism.

 

[LarryB]

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)

I’ve always wanted to try that one after a marathon. I do think this is best described and attributed to endurance athletes, but I don’t think it means that others can’t or don’t suffer from it. If your HR is elevated from a slow jog then you could make the argument that they are deficient aerobically . I won’t try to challenge any science or research because it’s right over my head for the most part. I can talk about my own personal experiences.

I started 1/2 marathon and marathon training a few years ago. I was at a slower pace to start but my wife is a seasoned marathoner and i caught up to her quickly, but spent virtually zero time building my base. This method got me some pretty solid results in both races finishing the half in 1:47 and the marathon in 3:48. I then atarted becoming more familiar with SF philosophies and led me to People like Al Ciampa. I started focusing on LISS running and intentionally building my base. It was quite apparent that my zones were all off and i would have to walk or take walk breaks to keep my hr down. After training like this for several months i resumed some more traditional marathon training and could see a marked improvements in my runs, and especially long runs. On average i would see that my hr was about 10bpm lower than runs in the previous training cycle. I will admit that i was also training at a slower pace, but that’s kind of the whole point. Unfortunately i broke my foot and cannot compare actual race results, but i will report back in the future. Hope that gives someone a better idea or perspective on it. Feel free to point out everything i got wrong!

 

[North Coast Miller]

By training the aerobic system, you will better be able to recycle the waste produced by glycolysis. ..

The most waste from anaerobic metabolism comes from CrP pathway, training the aerobic system improves clearance of inorganic phosphate and restores CrP. Also the better your aerobic machine the higher the threshold at which you begin to fall back on type II fibers, which are ALWAYS time limited based on intensity. Glycolysis is great for borderline intensity since it can power some type II and a lot of type I for a long time. It removes a lot of waste from alactic metabolism as it does so.

Two things that need to be remembered, glycolysis uses both fiber types, and lactate accumulation doesn't cause much of a decrease in muscle contractile force at physiologic temps. Studies that demonstrated this relationship did so at room temps and have since been disproven.

I suspect a time/dose capacity in aerobic enzyme production (lipid and pyruvate) that can only be trained by time to work. Am not sure of any studies that verify this, but at some point the physical difference in capillary and mitochondrial density, fiber type % etc are probably not enough to explain performance differences, but enzyme capacity maybe can. I also suspect there is a magnitude component, both of these trainable by exposure.

....Side note: I know that one of the intents of Q&D training is to theoretically/hopefully increase mitochondrial function in the fast twitch fibers, so I'm hoping that some researcher some day will look into whether it actually does. Or is it "just" a more painless method to increase your anaerobic threshold?

It almost certainly does. The AMPK pathway referenced in Q&D is the same one activated by textbook HIIT, proven to increase not only mitochondrial density near type II fibers but also lipid and pyruvate capacity, the later also increasing in throughput rate.

The next thing to find out is if these adaptations are super site specific to the depleted type II fibers (pretty sure they are)?

 

[TimothyGander]

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.

It seems to me there may be other reasons for the "fit but unhealthy" phenomenon. Two that immediately spring to mind are dietary and sleep issues. It's anecdotal, but when I worked in a large mall I used to see hundreds of people everyday going straight to McDonald's after their workouts at the local gym. Apparently even elite athletes' diets are often completely neglected and consist largely of vegetable oil and sugar. Same goes for inadequate sleep, which can be exacerbated by overtraining and caffeine abuse.

I'm not saying ADS isn't a real issue, it's way above my pay grade to have a well-supported opinion on that. However, I'm wary of the pattern where a a list of common chronic ailments is diagnosed as a result of a single cause that can conveniently be alleviated by a method that just happens to have been developed by the diagnostician. What I'm trying to say is something as non-specific as "fit but unhealthly" is probably caused by multiple unrelated maladies; or at least that other explanations should be considered before we concede that all of these athletes are suffering from ADS.

 

[offwidth]

Health (whatever that is) vs Fitness (whatever that is) is often times discussed here; sometimes they can be at crossed purposes and sometimes complimentary. Some folks have one or the other, or both, and as we have all seen all too often… neither.

My opinion (for what that’s worth) is that ADS is a specific condition (already defined earlier) that pertains to locomotive endurance athletes. It’s not a death sentence and it’s not necessarily an indicator of overall health. Back in the day when I was actually training hard (too hard) I was most certainly suffering from ADS, yet I would have been considered by virtually every marker known to man very healthy. So let‘s not confuse ADS with health.

 

[North Coast Miller]

What a fascinating discussion!

Is anyone aware of research that tracked endurance athletes an quantified/qualified the adaptive response? Is there a point at which the physical response tapers off and the rest is mostly enzyme production?

 

[offwidth]

What a fascinating discussion!

Is anyone aware of research that tracked endurance athletes an quantified/qualified the adaptive response? Is there a point at which the physical response tapers off and the rest is mostly enzyme production?

I concur… great topic and good discussion and interchange of ideas.

There must be some good studies on this, right?; it‘s an important subject. I am not aware of any off hand however, but would be eager to hear about ones that have been done.
That being said… I will freely admit that I am a bit of a ‘black box’ kind of fellow at times. If it works and I can apply it and benefit from it, then I am less concerned as to the inner workings of the box.

 

[T T]

That being said… I will freely admit that I am a bit of a ‘black box’ kind of fellow at times. If it works and I can apply it and benefit from it, then I am less concerned as to the inner workings of the box.

+1

Ditto

 

[North Coast Miller]

I concur… great topic and good discussion and interchange of ideas.

There must be some good studies on this, right?; it‘s an important subject. I am not aware of any off hand however, but would be eager to hear about ones that have been done.
That being said… I will freely admit that I am a bit of a ‘black box’ kind of fellow at times. If it works and I can apply it and benefit from it, then I am less concerned as to the inner workings of the box.

I'm a little of both unfortunately. Is good just to know what works, but I really do want to know the "why" for my own nefarious purposes - what other ways can this be applied rather than adopt pre made programming?

 

[Anna C]

Is anyone aware of research that tracked endurance athletes an quantified/qualified the adaptive response? Is there a point at which the physical response tapers off and the rest is mostly enzyme production?

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:

#85 - Iñigo San Millán, Ph.D.: Zone 2 Training and Metabolic Health - Peter Attia

“What I have been seeing for 25 years, working with elite athletes, is that [zone 2] is the exercise intensity where I see the biggest improvement in fat burning and the biggest improvement in lactic clearance capacity. Therefore, that means that the mitochondria is where you see the biggest...

peterattiamd.com

 

[John K]

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:

#85 - Iñigo San Millán, Ph.D.: Zone 2 Training and Metabolic Health - Peter Attia

“What I have been seeing for 25 years, working with elite athletes, is that [zone 2] is the exercise intensity where I see the biggest improvement in fat burning and the biggest improvement in lactic clearance capacity. Therefore, that means that the mitochondria is where you see the biggest...

peterattiamd.com

That’s a podcast I’ve listened to twice at this point. So much information in there.

 

[LarryB]

@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.


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 . . . )

This podcast is amazing!

 

[the hansenator]

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)

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?