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)

North Coast Miller

Level 8 Valued Member
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).
This would have to be someone who does almost zero conditioning of any kind. Even HIIT will greatly improve fat metabolism at zones 1&2.
 

offwidth

Level 9 Valued Member
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.
Yeah. The basic philosophy they espouse is… ‘train on fats, race on carbs…’
 

Bauer

Level 7 Valued Member
This would have to be someone who does almost zero conditioning of any kind. Even HIIT will greatly improve fat metabolism at zones 1&2.
Maybe, but according to TFTUA, the point where carbs exced fat for fuel happens very early in HIIT-only trainees, for example, at 56% of max HR, compared to 73% in well-trained endurance athlete or to 88% in an elite XC-skier (p. 85). By the TFTUA definition, this means that their Zone 2 upper limit (AeT) will be very low.

Thus HIIT might lead to a condition where you are reliant on carbs even at low intensities. This might not matter much in events below 30 minutes or even below 60 minutes (at least for recreational athletes). But you might plateau earlier.
 

offwidth

Level 9 Valued Member
Maybe, but according to TFTUA, the point where carbs exced fat for fuel happens very early in HIIT-only trainees, for example, at 56% of max HR, compared to 73% in well-trained endurance athlete or to 88% in an elite XC-skier (p. 85). By the TFTUA definition, this means that their Zone 2 upper limit (AeT) will be very low.

Thus HIIT might lead to a condition where you are reliant on carbs even at low intensities. This might not matter much in events below 30 minutes or even below 60 minutes (at least for recreational athletes). But you might plateau earlier.
Exactly! And in the real ‘endurance world’ 60 min isn’t even entry level activity.
 

North Coast Miller

Level 8 Valued Member
Maybe, but according to TFTUA, the point where carbs exced fat for fuel happens very early in HIIT-only trainees, for example, at 56% of max HR, compared to 73% in well-trained endurance athlete or to 88% in an elite XC-skier (p. 85). By the TFTUA definition, this means that their Zone 2 upper limit (AeT) will be very low.
That doesn't really jibe with the resting RER values observed in a lot of the research, unless RER is not so closely correlated with oxidatitive capacity once you start moving or is overshadowed by other factors. Also needed would be a definition of "HIIT-only", what sort of training are they doing specifically?
 

Anna C

Level 9 Valued Member
Elite Certified Instructor
Sinister
Great points in today's post discussions, @Bauer @offwidth @John K @psmith ... I agree with all.

Charts like this (from this paper) make it look so linear. Starting at low intensity and increasing to max intensity, it appears that substrate usage starts out all fat, ends up all carbohydrate, and there's a precise crossover point:

1641491338738.png

In reality I think it's much more blurry. When I was tested on a metabolic cart (LT and VO2 max test, which, BTW, some say should not be done at the same time to get the most accurate readings for each... but often are), it stuck out to me just how "blended" the RER was. Here are some results from 10 years ago when I was probably in my best cycling shape:

1641490631679.png

So I was burning a mix of fat and carbs all the way up to 100 watts, then mostly all carbohydrate at 125 watts and above, according to the RER ("An RER near 0.7 indicates that fat is the predominant fuel source, a value of 1.0 is indicative of carbohydrate being the predominant fuel source, and a value between 0.7 and 1.0 suggests a mix of both fat and carbohydrate.[4] In general a mixed diet corresponds with an RER of approximately 0.8.[5] The RER can also exceed 1.0 during intense exercise. A value above 1.0 cannot be attributed to the substrate metabolism, but rather to the aforementioned factors regarding bicarbonate buffering.")..... Yet 125 watts I was at a HR of 130, which was well below MAF HR at the time (age 43), and lactate at 1.1, still well below 2.

So I take a lot of these "zones" with a big grain of salt. The body is continuously adjusting and adapting, so these crossover points and switches that we like to try to define don't really exist in reality.... though the concepts are certainly real, and do help us understand what's going on, and how best to stimulate the body for training adaptations.
 

Anna C

Level 9 Valued Member
Elite Certified Instructor
Sinister
help us understand what's going on, and how best to stimulate the body for training adaptations.
I could actually phrase that a little better by adding a lot of hedge words...

... help us understand what is likely going on, and how best to structure our training efforts to attempt to target a certain physical stress/stimulation that may achieve our intended training adaptations.
 

LoneRider

Level 6 Valued Member
Exactly! And in the real ‘endurance world’ 60 min isn’t even entry level activity.
Assuming by that you mean alpinism, ultramarathoners, marathon runners and the like?

Interestingly enough, talking to one of my NCOs (a master fitness trainer in the US Army among his many skills) we both talked about running versus rucking and importance to Soldiers. He said for the average Soldier running more than 3 miles is too much and my opinion was along a similar vein, seeing how I tend to be of the opinion that a healthy Soldier outta be capable of running between 1-8 miles nonstop without any specialized training.

We both agreed rucking is the more important discipline for any Soldier when it comes to the proper 'manifestation' of aerobic fitness.
 

offwidth

Level 9 Valued Member
Assuming by that you mean alpinism, ultramarathoners, marathon runners and the like?

Interestingly enough, talking to one of my NCOs (a master fitness trainer in the US Army among his many skills) we both talked about running versus rucking and importance to Soldiers. He said for the average Soldier running more than 3 miles is too much and my opinion was along a similar vein, seeing how I tend to be of the opinion that a healthy Soldier outta be capable of running between 1-8 miles nonstop without any specialized training.

We both agreed rucking is the more important discipline for any Soldier when it comes to the proper 'manifestation' of aerobic fitness.
Yes, events and activities lasting multiple hours perhaps stretching into days. (mind you… even a standard marathon is pretty short) Although one could argue that, at some point, mental endurance or something akin to that becomes the overriding concern, especially when you are getting into 20+ hrs of pretty much non-stop movement.
There have been some pretty impressive endurance swims, and paddles as well.

I concur about rucking being the more important discipline of the two for soldiering. (Did enough of both)
 

Steve Freides

Staff
Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
We had threads, and disagreements, in the past about whether or not one needs to "enjoy" one's training. I've argued that I don't feel like I pursue training that I enjoy, but I'm realizing that what I _do_ enjoy is the pursuit of a goal, and therein lies my enjoyment, so in that way I _do_ "enjoy" my training because, even if I don't particularly like what I'm doing at the moment, I like knowing what I do will advance me towards my goal. So I will admit to, in this regard, choosing training I enjoy.

This train of thought brings me back to Aerobic Deficiency Syndrome, which I don't have because being deficient in something that doesn't matter is kind of like having a deficiency in being red-headed - I don't care if I have red hair or black hair, so yes, I'm red-haired deficient, but so what?

Item #2 on my list is health because wanting to be healthy is a well, healthy goal. If you enjoy the pursuit of what you think is healthy, and you're lacking in a measure of health, then you're deficient. But there is such a wonderfully wide range of things one can do, e.g., pursue a black belt in a martial art, that one could argue don't have specific strength or aerobic requirements, and people for centuries have pursued that kind of goal in traditional ways, i.e., practicing the art to get better at the art, without wanting or needing to either run a marathon or deadlift twice their bodyweight.

So I think it's fair to say that aerobic deficiency threshold is set much lower for one's health than it is for the pursuit of almost any athletic goal.

I also think, although I have no science to support this (but I think that science might be out there) that even someone who does nothing but minimalist strength training and does no aerobic (zone 1/2) training is likely still healthier than the general population who don't exercise for the simple reason that being stronger makes everything easier. Even if it's an aerobic activity, it'll still be easier when you're stronger.

JMO, YMMV.

-S-
 

Coyote

Level 6 Valued Member
I have to be honest, I think aerobic ability is not the primary concern in most long endurance events. I am speaking from a hiking , or running perspective.

You never hear of an ultra-runner quitting because they were out of breath. Now, if you are training for speed, or even health , it is fascinating the benefits of zone 2 training....

And.... It allows you to log the miles that are needed(in my opinion) to complete long events.

Its also fascinating that some of the best ultra-runners in the world have a history of mainly hiking or walking. There is a great book " Feet in the Clouds" by Richard Askwith about British fell running. There are guys who have accomplished feats that have never been equaled that were nothing more then sheep farmers before getting involved in racing.

Flying Brian Roberts and Andrew Skurka are two guys who have a history of through hiking and have won some of the toughest ultras in the world.

So... I think for a lot of people, volume of training at a level they can physically stand, is at least one of the ways to skin the cat.
 

Bauer

Level 7 Valued Member
As a society we have become unbelievably sedentary. I like my desk job, but of course, a couple of generations ago everyone was moving all day and I guess aerobic deficiency was not their primary concern :)

At least my wife and I don't own a car and go almost everywhere by foot or by bike, which adds up, especially in the summer.
 

offwidth

Level 9 Valued Member
At least my wife and I don't own a car and go almost everywhere by foot or by bike, which adds up, especially in the summer.
This is great. You have my respect and envy. But I’m guessing that you aren’t living in rural or suburban North America.
 

John K

Level 7 Valued Member
Assuming by that you mean alpinism, ultramarathoners, marathon runners and the like?

Interestingly enough, talking to one of my NCOs (a master fitness trainer in the US Army among his many skills) we both talked about running versus rucking and importance to Soldiers. He said for the average Soldier running more than 3 miles is too much and my opinion was along a similar vein, seeing how I tend to be of the opinion that a healthy Soldier outta be capable of running between 1-8 miles nonstop without any specialized training.

We both agreed rucking is the more important discipline for any Soldier when it comes to the proper 'manifestation' of aerobic fitness.
90% agree. It depends on job and testing. I had several 5 mile and one 8 mile (running) tests. When I was only training up to 3 miles, these seemed like marathon distances. Otherwise, training rucking improved my skillset significantly compared to training running. Of course, this was a decade ago and I had no idea that what lactate was, let alone that it had a threshold. :oops:
I have to be honest, I think aerobic ability is not the primary concern in most long endurance events. I am speaking from a hiking , or running perspective.

You never hear of an ultra-runner quitting because they were out of breath. Now, if you are training for speed, or even health , it is fascinating the benefits of zone 2 training....

And.... It allows you to log the miles that are needed(in my opinion) to complete long events.

Its also fascinating that some of the best ultra-runners in the world have a history of mainly hiking or walking. There is a great book " Feet in the Clouds" by Richard Askwith about British fell running. There are guys who have accomplished feats that have never been equaled that were nothing more then sheep farmers before getting involved in racing.

Flying Brian Roberts and Andrew Skurka are two guys who have a history of through hiking and have won some of the toughest ultras in the world.

So... I think for a lot of people, volume of training at a level they can physically stand, is at least one of the ways to skin the cat.
This reminds me of an at-one-time popular trainer who attempted the Badwater Ultra only training long distances. He dropped around I think mile 8 because of shoe/foot problems. edit - he only trained short distances. Short.

It also reminds me of that Aussie guy, I think Cliff Young. I don't think he trained much, but daggum could he kill an ultra.
 
Last edited:

offwidth

Level 9 Valued Member
90% agree. It depends on job and testing. I had several 5 mile and one 8 mile (running) tests. When I was only training up to 3 miles, these seemed like marathon distances. Otherwise, training rucking improved my skillset significantly compared to training running. Of course, this was a decade ago and I had no idea that what lactate was, let alone that it had a threshold. :oops:

This reminds me of an at-one-time popular trainer who attempted the Badwater Ultra only training long distances. He dropped around I think mile 8 because of shoe/foot problems.

It also reminds me of that Aussie guy, I think Cliff Young. I don't think he trained much, but daggum could he kill an ultra.
The Badwater in its original configuration was indeed a great event…
 

offwidth

Level 9 Valued Member
We had threads, and disagreements, in the past about whether or not one needs to "enjoy" one's training. I've argued that I don't feel like I pursue training that I enjoy, but I'm realizing that what I _do_ enjoy is the pursuit of a goal, and therein lies my enjoyment, so in that way I _do_ "enjoy" my training because, even if I don't particularly like what I'm doing at the moment, I like knowing what I do will advance me towards my goal. So I will admit to, in this regard, choosing training I enjoy.

This train of thought brings me back to Aerobic Deficiency Syndrome, which I don't have because being deficient in something that doesn't matter is kind of like having a deficiency in being red-headed - I don't care if I have red hair or black hair, so yes, I'm red-haired deficient, but so what?

Item #2 on my list is health because wanting to be healthy is a well, healthy goal. If you enjoy the pursuit of what you think is healthy, and you're lacking in a measure of health, then you're deficient. But there is such a wonderfully wide range of things one can do, e.g., pursue a black belt in a martial art, that one could argue don't have specific strength or aerobic requirements, and people for centuries have pursued that kind of goal in traditional ways, i.e., practicing the art to get better at the art, without wanting or needing to either run a marathon or deadlift twice their bodyweight.

So I think it's fair to say that aerobic deficiency threshold is set much lower for one's health than it is for the pursuit of almost any athletic goal.

I also think, although I have no science to support this (but I think that science might be out there) that even someone who does nothing but minimalist strength training and does no aerobic (zone 1/2) training is likely still healthier than the general population who don't exercise for the simple reason that being stronger makes everything easier. Even if it's an aerobic activity, it'll still be easier when you're stronger.

JMO, YMMV.

-S-
Another quote I’ve used a fair bit here…

You don’t have to be having fun, for it to be fun
- Barry Blanchard
 

LoneRider

Level 6 Valued Member
Yes, events and activities lasting multiple hours perhaps stretching into days. (mind you… even a standard marathon is pretty short) Although one could argue that, at some point, mental endurance or something akin to that becomes the overriding concern, especially when you are getting into 20+ hrs of pretty much non-stop movement.
There have been some pretty impressive endurance swims, and paddles as well.

I concur about rucking being the more important discipline of the two for soldiering. (Did enough of both)
A fellow by the name of Scipio Africanus put it rather succinctly, "What good is a soldier to anyone if he cannot walk."
 

oab

Level 2 Valued Member
On Cliff Young, the Aussie, he jogged around his farm in gum boots as he rounded up and herded sheep . No sheep dogs or horses for Cliff, not sure he even drove a car on the farm. Relying on media reports here.

According to Wikipedia his running to replace animal helpers started when he was a child during the depression as they could not afford them. Wikip says that in later life when he became well known he was a potato farmer .. potatoes need no herding but, there was no comment on manual labour and he was still running around the farm in gum boots then.
 
Top Bottom