all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Aerobic Deficiency Syndrome

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)

Antti

Level 9 Valued Member
Resident podcast addict here.

At about 1:55 in this podcast Dr Peter Attia talks about just that. Dr. Peter Attia on Longevity Drugs, Alzheimer’s Disease, and the 3 Most Important Levers to Pull (#517)

Thanks. The site even had a transcript of it.

I checked it out. I'm not a native speaker but I got the impression that he's starting to believe more in the health effects of sauna? Or was it the opposite?

There were a couple of things I'd like to correct:
-there really is no sauna lobby. The sauna is incredibly popular, and they're almost everywhere. It's researched because of the popularity and because of the effects. There is no big sauna business to market.
-regarding the population of sauna users being in a different demographic in the Finnish studies is also mistaken. As the saunas really are popular and everywhere, they're by no means an upper class thing.

If you don't believe they're everywhere...: There's over three million saunas in Finland, and our population is just over five. There's practically a sauna for every enthusiast. Almost every new house or apartment being built gets one, apart from the smallest studios.
 

silveraw

Level 7 Valued Member
I checked it out. I'm not a native speaker but I got the impression that he's starting to believe more in the health effects of sauna? Or was it the opposite?
He is for it. ”Bullish” is slang for rapidly rising value. “Bearish” is slang for rapidly decreasing value. (commonly used in describing the stock market as a bull market or a bear market)
 

John K

Level 7 Valued Member
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.

Aerobic Dismissive Syndrome might be a better term .
It is well known that a lot of people - me included - have an inclination that more is better. For endurance guys that can be going longer ...or the same route faster and faster - the easy (very aerobic) miles are junk miles.

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

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

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

Easy endurance is good. Period.
These are interesting perspectives, and ones I hadn't really gone down. I understood ADS more in light of "weak point training" - what is the limiting factor holding one back from excelling in their chosen activity? It seems that for many (low level) endurance athletes, their easy work is too hard and their hard work is too easy, and polarizing their training address both weak point simultaneously.

I am starting to think that over-polarization can lead to an alternative deficiency, where one lacks the capacity to endure the glycolytic suck. This could be mental as much as physiological, but it is still something that may need to be trained.
 

Anna C

Level 9 Valued Member
Elite Certified Instructor
Sinister
I am starting to think that over-polarization can lead to an alternative deficiency, where one lacks the capacity to endure the glycolytic suck. This could be mental as much as physiological, but it is still something that may need to be trained.
Absolutely. The difference is, that (glycolytic capacity) only needs to be trained if one needs it for performance. There is a lot less health benefit, and potentially there is even a negative health impact if one tries to train it too heavily without the aerobic base to support it.

Think of the newbies in the gym after New Years that make this mistake -- Going from zero to doing HIIT or metcons. Yes they'll see fast results for a few weeks. But they'll burn out quickly.

In contrast, the aerobic side and the strength side need to be trained for both a health and fitness base perspective... at least, in my mind, to a "7" on my scale above, if one is not a naturally active "6". And then, as they progress on the A 7 side, it's important to start balancing the work to incorporate that A 8 or A 9 training so they're not just pushing into B 8 or B 9 without the aerobic base.
 

offwidth

Level 9 Valued Member
Absolutely. The difference is, that (glycolytic capacity) only needs to be trained if one needs it for performance. There is a lot less health benefit, and potentially there is even a negative health impact if one tries to train it too heavily without the aerobic base to support it.
Yeah… I tend to mostly agree with this perspective. To performance I would add a very related factor… fun.
 

North Coast Miller

Level 8 Valued Member
I think a lot of this just comes down to staying in your lane and changing lanes when you have the need or drive to do so, and with an adults expectations of the outcome.

Anyone who has a fairly well developed strength base and does HIIT for most of their aerobic training (the typical ADS sufferer) is going to have plenty of aerobic capacity for just about anything they might need to do up to about a 10k. Intelligent glycolytic training increases aerobic capacity, it doesn't diminish it.

After that you need to train specificity - again, this is going about things as an adult would. If you're that kind of athlete you aren't going to just do a 2-3 hour endurance event, any more than a typical marathon junkie is going to overhead 1/2 their bodyweight in sand and do stair climbs.

From a health standpoint, our ADS sufferer is going to have good to excellent insulin sensitivity, very good carb and lipid metabolism, good mitochondrial and cardiac health, and by some markers be more metabolically flexible for much of the year than the specialized distance athlete who tailors their macros by training cycle. We're talking about specialized athletes here, completely disassociated from general health or fitness concerns.
 

Antti

Level 9 Valued Member
Instead of more fuel I think I'll add sand into the fire and repeat an earlier point.

The syndrome, so to speak, I obviously a specific one for specific people. Worth a discussion, certainly, we're all very interested in these things, even if most of us don't have that much skin in the game.

I would see the syndrome as a bit of a question of training cost and results. Training at a higher intensity is great. However, it is something that can only be done so much. If we want to go further or get there faster, and we can't add intense work, what do we do? We add light work. And with light work, with reasonable planning, I'm not sure there is a practical limit to how much one can do. And this will, of course, skew the ratio between different intensity ranges massively.

I think this is very well parallelled in strength training. We're always told the Soviets trained at 75+-2% average intensity. However, why was the intensity at that range? Look at the laws of sports training - specificity is king. Even if so many arm chair experts are against it, heavy singles are the best tool for training to do heavy singles. However, we can't do hour upon hour and week upon week of them. What do we do? We add some lighter work.
 

Anna C

Level 9 Valued Member
Elite Certified Instructor
Sinister
Instead of more fuel I think I'll add sand into the fire and repeat an earlier point.

The syndrome, so to speak, I obviously a specific one for specific people. Worth a discussion, certainly, we're all very interested in these things, even if most of us don't have that much skin in the game.

I would see the syndrome as a bit of a question of training cost and results. Training at a higher intensity is great. However, it is something that can only be done so much. If we want to go further or get there faster, and we can't add intense work, what do we do? We add light work. And with light work, with reasonable planning, I'm not sure there is a practical limit to how much one can do. And this will, of course, skew the ratio between different intensity ranges massively.

I think this is very well parallelled in strength training. We're always told the Soviets trained at 75+-2% average intensity. However, why was the intensity at that range? Look at the laws of sports training - specificity is king. Even if so many arm chair experts are against it, heavy singles are the best tool for training to do heavy singles. However, we can't do hour upon hour and week upon week of them. What do we do? We add some lighter work.

This is a great common-sense perspective and probably covers most bases with cardio and strength training.

I think the difference is that with aerobic training we can physiologically measure that different things are going on at different exercise intensities as far as substrate usage and cellular energy production. That then has has global health and performance impacts for an individual or athlete. Would there be a parallel difference in strength training? Maybe... on a muscular scale, movement patterns, motor unit activation, or some other aspect.
 

offwidth

Level 9 Valued Member
One of the other things that I personally enjoy about ‘lighter work’ is that it often affords me the opportunity to focus on getting better at form and technique. That being said… some form and technique can only be dialed in at higher levels of intensity.
 

Coyote

Level 6 Valued Member
One of the other things that I personally enjoy about ‘lighter work’ is that it often affords me the opportunity to focus on getting better at form and technique. That being said… some form and technique can only be dialed in at higher levels of intensity.
Yeah, I run barefoot and/or fast occasionally, mainly for form purposes. Strides are excellent for this,

I will also say that a ton of sub-aerobic running does enhance my tempo rate running. By a bunch. It is a very slow process, though.

As an old guy , that needs to be able to earn my keep, I can handle a pretty high volume of aerobic training, but a HIIT session leaves me wiped. I will admit, I do very little high intensity. I only do it occasionally, to remind of how much I dislike it, and to prove that I still can. Mentally I need to train daily. I do not do well otherwise.
 

TrailNRG

Level 6 Valued Member
That's the beauty of the MAF approach if you're training daily as it affords repeatability. If an endurance based event (i.e., greater than an hour) catches your fancy it's easy to add in some intensity or specificity when you have an aerobic base. This is analogous to the Strong First S&S principal of establishing a base of strength and mobility.
The Uphill Athlete and related approaches (e.g., Daniels, Twight, et, al.) are tailored for very specific endurance events where a large aerobic base supports locomotive efficiency. I've used these programs in the past with success and I wholeheartedly agree that they and ADS don't relate to the general fitness population.
 

Antti

Level 9 Valued Member
This is a great common-sense perspective and probably covers most bases with cardio and strength training.

I think the difference is that with aerobic training we can physiologically measure that different things are going on at different exercise intensities as far as substrate usage and cellular energy production. That then has has global health and performance impacts for an individual or athlete. Would there be a parallel difference in strength training? Maybe... on a muscular scale, movement patterns, motor unit activation, or some other aspect.

But I'm not sure at which point the differences come up and how exactly we compare the methods.

Take a sedentary person, and have them do a textbook HIIT session and I would expect them to improve on about everything. Yet, take an athlete and add a similar HIIT session on top of other training and it will by no means have a similar effect.

Also, what would be the best way to compare the different modalities? To me it sounds like it comes down to preference or time constraints.
 

Anna C

Level 9 Valued Member
Elite Certified Instructor
Sinister
But I'm not sure at which point the differences come up and how exactly we compare the methods.

Take a sedentary person, and have them do a textbook HIIT session and I would expect them to improve on about everything. Yet, take an athlete and add a similar HIIT session on top of other training and it will by no means have a similar effect.

Also, what would be the best way to compare the different modalities? To me it sounds like it comes down to preference or time constraints.

Agree... For the 1-6s on my scale, anything will help, and anything works.

Beyond that, preference and time constraints are still important considerations... but the 7-10 are already dedicating some time and effort to exercise. IMO, they should also put some time and effort into figuring out what qualities and capabilities they want to develop. Generally speaking, people stepping up their exercise from a 7 to anything higher should work to develop a bigger aerobic base, a bigger strength base, or preferably both. If they fail to pursue either of those and just pursue glycolytic capacity training, their progress will be limited and they will be incurring more stress relative to any positive training adaptations.
 

Boris Bachmann

Level 7 Valued Member
I'm late to this discussion because from a competitive swimming (where events rarely last longer than 15mins and most are 2mins or less) or a general S&C standpoint (where most athletes are usually training for strength and power for short bursts in the weight room), I don't know how much I knowledge/experience I can bring to the table.

I guess the questions I would ask are from a practical health or performance perspective (I apologize if any of the posts/links already mentioned go over these):
*How much lower intensity work does a person who's in reasonably good shape to begin with need to maintain good overall health and longevity?
*How much am I limiting my aerobic growth by not doing a lot of lower intensity work.
*AND, how much should one add if their goal is, for example, to chug away for an hour or two of 24kg kettlebell snatches or do an hour of barbell squats (tasks which, for me, really push all kinds of thresholds)?
 

Boris Bachmann

Level 7 Valued Member
Also, let me just add (from a competitive swimming and coaching background) that the idea of junk miles ('garbage yardage' in swimming lingo) is one I never thought was apt. There is no such thing as 'garbage yardage' to me - every yard is a chance to improve technique and get better. Slow work is just as important as (and often more important than) race pace work.
 

Anna C

Level 9 Valued Member
Elite Certified Instructor
Sinister
*How much lower intensity work does a person who's in reasonably good shape to begin with need to maintain good overall health and longevity?

Seems like I recall from Peter Attia that 40 minutes of zone 2 aerobic training 3x/week is considered a "minimum".

*How much am I limiting my aerobic growth by not doing a lot of lower intensity work.
I would say you're limiting it. But how much that limits YOU in what you want to do, depends on what you want to do. I do think it will help towards the goals you list below!

I would not guess that your aerobic capacity currently is in any way limiting your health.

AND, how much should one add if their goal is, for example, to chug away for an hour or two of 24kg kettlebell snatches or do an hour of barbell squats (tasks which, for me, really push all kinds of thresholds)?

I don't know, but I would say go with the 40 min 3x/week just under MAF HR for 12 weeks and see if you get any good effects. Easy... right? ;) (This is what I would do if I could wave a magic wand and make it happen without actually doing it... I am not sure if I can get that much time in, but I am intending to try to work towards it this spring/summer).

If you seem to "need" recovery from this activity, lower the HR target by 5 or 10 beats. Be sure to have a 5-15 min slow ramp-up to the target HR and 5-10 min ramp-down at the end. Ideally, the 40 min would be at the target HR with the warm-up and cool-down added to it, but if 40 min is all you have, just work it into that time.
 

Anna C

Level 9 Valued Member
Elite Certified Instructor
Sinister
Also, let me just add (from a competitive swimming and coaching background) that the idea of junk miles ('garbage yardage' in swimming lingo) is one I never thought was apt. There is no such thing as 'garbage yardage' to me - every yard is a chance to improve technique and get better. Slow work is just as important as (and often more important than) race pace work.

It makes sense to me as a cyclist, because I do it all the time. :D These past few years my normal ride is a group ride on the weekend of 2-3 hours. I usually ride it "hard-ish"... which is probably zone 3, normally referred to as "junk miles". If I was actually training to be a better cyclist, I would do at least three zone 2 rides per week, probably a zone 1 ride, and one or two short zone 4 or higher targeted sessions such as LT intervals, power intervals, or tempo. I would stay out of zone 3 altogether, because it's hard enough to require recovery, but not hard enough to drive any positive new adaptations. But... I am not currently trying to be a better cyclist. I just want to continue to ride with my group once per week, and it works for maintenance. We usually step it up a bit in the summer and back off a bit in the winter, in terms of speed and mileage.
 

KLB81

Level 3 Valued Member
Seems like I recall from Peter Attia that 40 minutes of zone 2 aerobic training 3x/week is considered a "minimum".





I don't know, but I would say go with the 40 min 3x/week just under MAF HR for 12 weeks and see if you get any good effects. Easy... right? ;)

Zone 2 is +/- 15 bpm less than MAF correct?

MAF being Zone 3
 

Anna C

Level 9 Valued Member
Elite Certified Instructor
Sinister
Zone 2 is +/- 15 bpm less than MAF correct?

MAF being Zone 3

No, I would say MAF is the bottom end of zone 2. I'm 54 yrs old and with none of the MAF adjustments, that would put my MAF at 126. I estimate my zone 2 HR zone would be 125-135. But I'd have to do some current testing to know for sure.

But that's a mix and match between 2 different systems... and there are many systems that define zones... so others opinions may vary.
 

KLB81

Level 3 Valued Member
No, I would say MAF is the bottom end of zone 2. I'm 54 yrs old and with none of the MAF adjustments, that would put my MAF at 126. I estimate my zone 2 HR zone would be 125-135. But I'd have to do some current testing to know for sure.

But that's a mix and match between 2 different systems... and there are many systems that define zones... so others opinions may vary.

Many sources (including the Polar App) indicate Zone 2 is 60-70% of Max and Zone 3 is 70-80% of Max

If Im 40 (180 MHR) my MAF would be about 140 + or - adjustments

Zone 3 126-144
Zone 2 108-126
 
Top Bottom