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.but are the gains in anaerobic training offset by pure aerobic improvements?
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.Both is the right answer ie time efficiency, insulin sensitivity and lower repetitive strain issues from doing the same thing over and over again.
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.Again, my bias but ads, fatigue, overtraining could all be a function of under recovery than any specific metabolic issue.
At what point in one's training do you reach a limit?
Exactly! I couldn’t agree more.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.
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.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.
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.I actually have heard of the Uphill Athlete's Heart Rate drift test and that's an interesting way to look at aerobic base. I'm actually testing the use of heart rate zones from Runningversity (calculator linked here) for the next 12-16 weeks to see how that stacks up for aerobic performance as compared to a mostly Maffetone influenced running style.
Just curious what people's experience has been with the heart rate drift and calculating training heart rates.
Is there a recognised strongfirst set of HR zones that I should read about to better understand terms like ZR AeT etc ? I've always thought about HR Zones as shown in this calculator
I enjoyed using a book by Roy Benson and Declan Connolly called heart rate training a long time ago and keen to learn what current thinking is on this forum regarding HR training. I had the impression that several people here use training programs using Phil Maffetones ideas/books.
That is how I understand it. Or at least undertrained comparatively.Aerobic deficiency syndrome" is a little unclear. Is it insufficient aerobic capacity
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.www.strongerbyscience.com
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.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.
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.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.
I agree, however...We may or may not like the term, but there is no denying that the condition exists and always has.
The definition is specific to this group.... The rest of us do not suffer from this "syndrome".A condition common in endurance athletes who spend too much training time middle-to high-intensity efforts
Yeah… that was more or less the point I was trying to make…I agree, however...
The definition is specific to this group.... The rest of us do not suffer from this "syndrome".
Lol I was thinking of judging a fish by its ability to climb a treeThe 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)
@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.www.strongerbyscience.com
Edit: fixed clunky auto corrects.