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)

Boris Bachmann

Level 7 Valued Member
Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of that either. GS (kettlebell sport) athletes who do the marathon or half marathon events might have some insights.

I can't help but think that anything that requires a lot of fuel production, as your events do, would be helped by a big aerobic engine. It is the most efficient way for the body to produce ATP, and with the least metabolic waste.
GS athletes typically do a lot of jogging, I think. For me, that's just not going to happen. If I lived somewhere where winter didn't suck so much, and I didn't have a wife or kid, I'd probably do a lot long slow rucking. Maybe after I retire...
 

Antti

Level 9 Valued Member
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.
Seems like I recall from Peter Attia that 40 minutes of zone 2 aerobic training 3x/week is considered a "minimum".


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.



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.

Yes, we are in agreement that people with athletic pursuits need some aerobic work.

I'm not sure it's that necessary for overall health, at least the dedicated aerobic work.

Looking at the bigger picture I can't but help consider how much this all needs time. Strength training for three times a week for an hour or two each. Mobility/flexibility/restorative work for an hour or two a week. A higher intensity cardio session once a week. Now add 3*40 minutes of aerobic on top? It can get hard for someone with lots of work and a family to take care of.
 

Antti

Level 9 Valued Member
Agreed, but then neither is dedicated strength work.
Depending of course on ones definitions….

I'm not sure of the condition of the horse, but, according to WHO, two sessions of resistance training are recommended along 75 minutes of highly elevated heart rate or 150 minutes of slightly elevated heart rate. According to these guidelines, low intensity training is not necessary for health.
 

Anna C

Level 9 Valued Member
Elite Certified Instructor
Sinister
I'm not sure of the condition of the horse, but, according to WHO, two sessions of resistance training are recommended along 75 minutes of highly elevated heart rate or 150 minutes of slightly elevated heart rate. According to these guidelines, low intensity training is not necessary for health.

Yes, for health, I'm a believer in the minimum activity guidelines which are evidence-based recommendations for keeping people out of high-risk health categories. Screen capture below is from https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf

(But also note, "Additional health benefits are gained by... >300 min")

I also think, going back to my arbitrary scale definitions, that a lot of 6s accumulate a lot of time with that slightly elevated heart rate just through their labor jobs, or a lot of walking, or being naturally active in a way that they wouldn't consider exercise. However, a lot of us are sedentary during almost all of the time that we're not "training". In these cases, we have a lot of time to make up.

1641391010751.png
 

North Coast Miller

Level 8 Valued Member
I guess alongside my isometric experiment I'm also going to be a case study in long term use of HIIT for aerobic fitness. Am planning to get back into LSD later this year, but being short on time and starting a new job am not going to be devoting 3+ hrs a week to aerobic health anytime soon.

Have only broken out my HIIT into separate days for about 4 weeks now. Will have to test it with some form of LSD in another month. I really need to get a new HR monitor, the old Polar crapped out and am unsure what to replace it with that isn't too expensive.
 

Antti

Level 9 Valued Member
Yes, for health, I'm a believer in the minimum activity guidelines which are evidence-based recommendations for keeping people out of high-risk health categories. Screen capture below is from https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf

(But also note, "Additional health benefits are gained by... >300 min")

I also think, going back to my arbitrary scale definitions, that a lot of 6s accumulate a lot of time with that slightly elevated heart rate just through their labor jobs, or a lot of walking, or being naturally active in a way that they wouldn't consider exercise. However, a lot of us are sedentary during almost all of the time that we're not "training". In these cases, we have a lot of time to make up.

View attachment 15763

Yes, the recommendations aren't by any means a lot and go to show how little exercise some people get or do.

With more exercise than the recommended minimum the positive developments go up and up almost endlessly, so that more low intensity exercise is practically always better than less, though with more and more diminishing returns.

It also soon becomes a matter of opportunity cost. 20 hours of low intensity aerobics a week is healthier than two hours. But what if the 18 hours more mean less time sleeping? Less time doing healthy cooking and shopping? Less time meditating? Less time with family and friends? Etc. Even if more is good on paper in a vacuum, it's always a different thing in reality.
 

Anna C

Level 9 Valued Member
Elite Certified Instructor
Sinister
With more exercise than the recommended minimum the positive developments go up and up almost endlessly, so that more low intensity exercise is practically always better than less, though with more and more diminishing returns.

I don't think the evidence shows this, for health. Yes, it is a dose-dependent relationship, but I don't think the health benefits continue to go up at the same rate, as one increases the time. Perhaps for performance... and then, depends how one goes about it and what the objectives are. And then in either case, as you say:

It also soon becomes a matter of opportunity cost. 20 hours of low intensity aerobics a week is healthier than two hours. But what if the 18 hours more mean less time sleeping? Less time doing healthy cooking and shopping? Less time meditating? Less time with family and friends? Etc. Even if more is good on paper in a vacuum, it's always a different thing in reality.
 

Antti

Level 9 Valued Member
Maybe I’m being obtuse here, but to me… ‘slightly elevated heart rate’ = ‘low intensity training’

Yes, but it can be replaced with high intensity exercise in the guidelines.

I don't think the evidence shows this, for health. Yes, it is a dose-dependent relationship, but I don't think the health benefits continue to go up at the same rate, as one increases the time. Perhaps for performance... and then, depends how one goes about it and what the objectives are. And then in either case, as you say:

Yes, I tried to say it goes up with diminishing returns. By no means do the benefits improve linearly with time spent. They go up, but by very very little in the end.

I'd say it stands for both health and performance.
 

ali

Level 6 Valued Member
As we're talking about a defined group of endurance athletes, are we not talking about subtle differences at elite level of population and sub groups within?

There is a genetic component to lactate clearance capability as there is to many attributes....tendon strength et etc.

So we could be talking about the lower end of an elite group attempting to get to a level higher....and they are at their limits. And those limits are markedly higher than the population below.....I dunno.

Is the strength analogue: blowing a bicep tendon deadlifting 3.2 bodyweight to get to 3.25?

Limit strength and limit endurance.
 

Anna C

Level 9 Valued Member
Elite Certified Instructor
Sinister
As we're talking about a defined group of endurance athletes, are we not talking about subtle differences at elite level of population and sub groups within?

That's what I was getting at earlier:

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.

So we could be talking about the lower end of an elite group attempting to get to a level higher....and they are at their limits. And those limits are markedly higher than the population below.....I dunno.

Interesting to think of the distribution of predisposition among them. Those who get to the 9 level might be not very gifted but train intelligently and intently for years. Those who get to 10 might train less so but have more genetic predisposition.

Speaking of genetic predisposition, mitochondrial DNA is different from the rest of our DNA, and it comes from our mothers. So if you're an aerobic beast, thank your mom!
 

Bauer

Level 7 Valued Member
These days I personally subscribe (as many here already know) to the zone system outlined by the good folks over at Uphill Athlete

Zone 1: AeT-20% to AeT-10%Zone 2: AeT-10% to AeTZone 3: AeT to LT(AnT)
The ‘catch’ is that ones needs to determine ones AeT. In order of accuracy from highest to least the ways to do this are: Gas Exchange Test | Blood Lactate Test | Talk Test / MAF

the zone 2 talked about in the podcast (which I believe would also correspond with Uphill Athlete zone 2)
I wondered the same. It seems to be a bit fuzzy, because "aerobic" and "anaerobic" are not black and white. There is a huge overlap. The aerobic system contributes even during anaerobic phases and vice versa. And there patterns are different for sedentary folks and experienced athletes.

I think the key metric is measuring blood lactacte levels, as those tell us a lot about which energy system is dominant at a given HR.

Here are some quotes from TFTUA that help with finding the Aerobic Threshold (upper end of Zone 2 and supposedly also MAF).
Zone 1: "Blood lactate concentrations for this intensity should range between less than 1 to around 1.5mMol/L. ." (TFTUA, p. 125)
Zone 2: "Zone 2 intensity requires the maximum output of the fat/oxidative (aerobic) metabolism." (p. 127) "The heart rate of the AeT is reached when the lactate level reaches or exceeds 2mMol/L, or the first stage where the lactate number increases by 1mMol/L." (p. 226 f.)

"we have seen a good correlation between the heart rate that can be maintained while breathing only through the nose or while carrying on a conversation with the blood lactate level of 2mMol/L (the commonly accepted measure of AeT). The caveat here is that this works only for those with good aerobic training backgrounds." (p. 225)
House, Steve; Johnston, Scott; Jornet, Kilian. Training for the Uphill Athlete. Patagonia. Kindle-Version.

So HR at 2mMol/L blood lactate levels should be a good marker for AeT + pace/HR which allows allows for talking or nose breathing for 30+ minutes.

San Millan seems to use the 2mMol/L point, too, though this might have some individual variation , depending on how quickly the lactate numbers increase. As you can see in the following chart from his article on trainingpeaks.com Zone 2 is not fat-burning only, but also glycogen-burning.

zone2-screenshot_1.png


(Side note: He is against using low-carb or Paleo diets - at least for athletes.)

--
So what does that mean? For beginners, I think a "smiling pace" (niko niko) should be about right.
For everyone with some months of endurance traning in the back, the most reliable way would probably be a lactate step test. Otherwise the good ol' talk test or the AeT tests from TFTUA.

According to TFTUA Zone 2 training might be a bit too recovery demanding for high volume trainees. When training daily, they should replace some Zone 2 work with Zone 1 work.
However, San Millan is all for Zone 2 training.

Here is simple half-marathon plan by San Millan (following a couple of months of 3x 60min per week Zone 2 only).
A typical half-marathon training week for the author as prescribed by the Human Performance Lab at the Anschutz Health and Wellness Center on the University of Colorado Medical Campus.

Monday
Rest

Tuesday
60 minutes at Zone 2; 2×7 minutes at Zone 4

Wednesday
Rest

Thursday
75 minutes at Zone 2

Friday
Rest

Saturday
60 minutes at Zone 2; 2 x 7 minutes at at Zone 4

Sunday
90 minutes at Zone 2

KEY
Zone 2: The author’s heart rate zone that builds endurance; 160–165 beats per minute. Zone 4: The author’s heart rate zone that is closer to “race pace”; 175–180 beats per minute. 2 x 7 minutes: Two seven-minute intervals done at heart rate Zone 4.
 
Last edited:

offwidth

Level 9 Valued Member
According to TFTUA Zone 2 training might be a bit too recovery demanding for high volume trainees. When training daily, the should replace some Zone 2 work with Zone 1 work.
At times of the year I probably fall into moderate to high volume training, and I find that going into Zone 1 for a good amount is beneficial. Even some Zone R (recovery)
It seems to work for me.
 

John K

Level 7 Valued Member
As you can see in the following chart from his article on trainingpeaks.com Zone 2 is not fat-burning only, but also glycogen-burning.

zone2-screenshot_1.png


(Side note: He is against using low-carb or Paleo diets - at least for athletes.)

--
So what does that mean? For beginners, I think a "smiling pace" (niko niko) should be about right.
For everyone with some months of endurance traning in the back, the most reliable way would probably be a lactate step test. Otherwise the good ol' talk test or the AeT tests from TFTUA.
I seem to remember one of the markers for ADS was an over-reliance on carbs for fuel, despite the presence of fat, at very low intensities (e.g. zones 1 and 2 in your model above). I believe this was actually a significant part of Maffetone's definition, and I believe he is an advocate for lower-carb diets. Now when I'm talking about this level of chemistry I'm really out of my depth, but has this been much part of the discussion of ADS, whether it exits, and how it impacts health/longevity? I don't recall reading much about that in the past 7 pages, but maybe its there and I just don't remember. Not picking on you @Bauer , just that this thought got dredged up because of your post.

As a side note, Maffetone has stated in the past that "anything works" to develop the aerobic base in the short term, but the issue with long-term development (the 6 mo - 1 yr to get it "good") of the aerobic base using high intensity is injury, fatigue, and poor health - what he calls "fit and unhealthy." I mostly bring this up to stir the pot, it seems that everyone has mostly stated their thoughts already, and this thought was brought to you by low quality coffee so it too might be low quality...
 

psmith

Level 5 Valued Member
At times of the year I probably fall into moderate to high volume training, and I find that going into Zone 1 for a good amount is beneficial. Even some Zone R (recovery)
It seems to work for me.

For sure. If I have a weekly big day in the mountains, I'm not going to be too stressed about speeding up on the downhills or shuffling in place while I eat my sandwich to keep my heart rate above 120, the point is being out for a long one.

According to TFTUA Zone 2 training might be a bit too recovery demanding for high volume trainees. When training daily, the should replace some Zone 2 work with Zone 1 work.
I think the issue here is not just total volume but pace--as your zone 2 pace gets faster, it beats you up more. Marathon pace is about Z2, and for a highly trained marathoner that's a pretty good push. Non-impact modalities have more leeway.
 

Bauer

Level 7 Valued Member
seem to remember one of the markers for ADS was an over-reliance on carbs for fuel, despite the presence of fat, at very low intensities (e.g. zones 1 and 2 in your model above).
Yes, over-reliance on carbs on low intensities. But this lowers the thresholds of the zone definitions.
Thus, ADS means a very broad Zone 3 and a very low AeT. There are some interesting charts in TFTUA on this.
I believe this was actually a significant part of Maffetone's definition, and I believe he is an advocate for lower-carb diets.
Oh yes, he is. He advises a two week carb-free test and then, IIRC, some moderate complex carbs and sugar from fruits. This is actually pretty central in his approach. But you are encouraged to individualize based on carb tolerance.

I think TFTUA sometime uses low-carb and fasted training during based training, but still advocates carbs for performance. But this is not a general recommendation. They advocate a clean food diet, not going to extremes.

Acording to San Millan (in this podcast) Kenyan runners eat really high amounts of carbs (up to 10g per kg/bw, IIRC). And the top 3 Western State Ultra Marathon finishers were also using lots of carbs. San Millan himself likes to eat croissant with marmelade (I guess he means jam/jelly - which is called marmelade in continental Europe) before racing. But he warns against drinking large amounts of sportsdrinks, (which overload the glycogen shuttles and thus lead to digestion issues, IIRC).
 
Top Bottom