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)
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
I found this article in my newsfeed today from the fine folks at Mountain Tactical Institute as run by Rob Shaul (founder of Mountain Athlete and Military Athlete).

 
I found this article in my newsfeed today from the fine folks at Mountain Tactical Institute as run by Rob Shaul (founder of Mountain Athlete and Military Athlete).

Good article.
 
If there is a vague idea of an aerobic base pertaining to endurance sports that rely on a big aerobic base, then what about anaerobic sport?....Really vague, I suppose?
You know, if any of this stuff had a 100% clearly defined science that applied across all cases, we'd all be doing it, and there wouldn't be any debate (except among folks who don't want to believe science). And of course, strength training (or to put it in your lane, speed training) is no different. There are methodologies that have been very successful, but to any methodology it seems like you can always find an anecdotal counterpoint.

I am just as skeptical of any attempt to draw a line that says "now you have enough aerobic capacity" as I am of any attempt to draw a line that says "now you are strong enough". Such assertions are marketing pitches, not absolute truths. The measurement has to be made in the application, not in the lab; if your most strenuous activity is picking up groceries, then your aerobic capacity test should be done in the grocery store.

If I was interested in scaling mountains or running marathons, then absolutely I'd be looking for aerobic capacity recommended by guys who scale mountains or run marathons. And therein might be the real magic; we all need to find aerobic capacity recommendations from people who are doing exactly what we wish we could do. For example, the Hulk recommends enough aerobic capacity to smash at least 4 alien soldier battalions without going anaerobic.

Apologies for the non-scientific rant.
 
Great article @LoneRider ! My two favorite quotes:
These are certainly getting better and better every year, but I would argue that a person is better served learning to read their own body. Personally, I’ve found myself during many training sessions frustratedly chasing heart rates, stopping me from simply finding a zone and enjoying the experience. But if I simply settle into a comfortable, nose-breathing (or conversational) pace, I can maintain pace longer and enjoy the training much more.
Rob and I probably could’ve passed a Bill through the molasses-covered halls of Congress with all of the time we spent kicking ideas, experience and research back and forth while I slogged through this writing.

The latter because it is funny, the former because it echoes my own experiences and why I am such a proponent of ventillatory threshold as a training marker.

Anyways, in slightly unrelated news, I saw an article that Aleksandr Sorokin broke the 100 mile record running with an average pace of 6:31 min per mile. That's just mind boggling. He definitely has ADS. ;)
 
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.
Uh, well, haven't retested yet but it sure feels like pace at tested AeT HR has gotten significantly slower and easier since the test despite extensive training below that HR. Retest to follow soon.
 
For the past three days, I've been making an effort to keep my kettlebell swing sessions in Zone 2. It's been an interesting experience. It's also convinced me that I will, a few month down the road, agree with the idea of Aerobic Deficiency Syndrome for endurance athletes. What's convinced me to try this is the idea that actually using my aerobic system and developing it will be an easier way of managing my body composition in terms of reducing fat. Mind you, we're talking some fairly fine points here as my fat loss goals are measured at only a kilogram or two, but I'm curious to see where I end up if I bank some regular Zone 2 training.

Yesterday and the day before, I did 28 kg 1h swings, 5 on the minute for 16 minutes, and found that early on, my HR recovery was good but it got worse as the session continued. I know this is normal and to be expected. But even on day #2, my average and max HR were lower. My goal is to stay if simply repeating this workout and some small variations of it will gradually keep my max HR in Zone 2.

Notice that I have not used the word "enjoyable" to describe this training. Today, I let loose and pushed some Zone 3 and 4 HR's and was much happier, but I'll be back to the boring stuff soon enough. After two days of it this week, I'm aiming for 3 or 4 days of it next week. For those keeping track, I'm 153 lbs, 66 years young, and compete at least twice a year at powerlifting.

-S-
 
For the past three days, I've been making an effort to keep my kettlebell swing sessions in Zone 2. It's been an interesting experience. It's also convinced me that I will, a few month down the road, agree with the idea of Aerobic Deficiency Syndrome for endurance athletes. What's convinced me to try this is the idea that actually using my aerobic system and developing it will be an easier way of managing my body composition in terms of reducing fat. Mind you, we're talking some fairly fine points here as my fat loss goals are measured at only a kilogram or two, but I'm curious to see where I end up if I bank some regular Zone 2 training.

Yesterday and the day before, I did 28 kg 1h swings, 5 on the minute for 16 minutes, and found that early on, my HR recovery was good but it got worse as the session continued. I know this is normal and to be expected. But even on day #2, my average and max HR were lower. My goal is to stay if simply repeating this workout and some small variations of it will gradually keep my max HR in Zone 2.

Notice that I have not used the word "enjoyable" to describe this training. Today, I let loose and pushed some Zone 3 and 4 HR's and was much happier, but I'll be back to the boring stuff soon enough. After two days of it this week, I'm aiming for 3 or 4 days of it next week. For those keeping track, I'm 153 lbs, 66 years young, and compete at least twice a year at powerlifting.

-S-
Do you warm up before your swing sessions?

I'm trying to use swings/snatches to develop Zone 2 workouts. I've noticed a significant jump in HR after first 1 or 2 sets then it settles down as it gradually builds back up over the remaining sets. I am hopefully attributing that first bump to not being warmed up.
 
Uh, well, haven't retested yet but it sure feels like pace at tested AeT HR has gotten significantly slower and easier since the test despite extensive training below that HR. Retest to follow soon.

Yeah, so I spent about 6 months doing random crossfit-adjacent sweaty beatdowns, playing with kettlebells, going for the occasional easy run, doing manual labor, and taking a week or two off here and there and my MAF/AeT pace stayed pretty much the same. Then I did ~8 weeks of focused aerobic base building and I think my MAF pace got like 1:20/mi _slower_.

I haven't seen too many people say this, so I figured it was worth putting out there.
 
Uh, well, haven't retested yet but it sure feels like pace at tested AeT HR has gotten significantly slower and easier since the test despite extensive training below that HR. Retest to follow soon.

Yeah, so I spent about 6 months doing random crossfit-adjacent sweaty beatdowns, playing with kettlebells, going for the occasional easy run, doing manual labor, and taking a week or two off here and there and my MAF/AeT pace stayed pretty much the same. Then I did ~8 weeks of focused aerobic base building and I think my MAF pace got like 1:20/mi _slower_.

I haven't seen too many people say this, so I figured it was worth putting out there.

The whole thing remains a mystery to me. I am comfortable passing the talk test with my HR in Zone 4 on my Polar app.

As someone who ran regularly for about 25 years, I find all this much easier to conceive of in terms of pace, or work done in a specific time period, or other things that are more concrete to me than heart rate. Yesterday's kettlebell swing session felt easier to me than any of last week's, yet my HR was higher. If you would have asked me what I thought my HR was, I would have told you it was lower, not higher.

Go figure. I think there have to be individual differences here that we aren't accounting for, but I don't say even that with much confidence. The whole thing really remains a mystery to me.

-S-
 
The whole thing remains a mystery to me. I am comfortable passing the talk test with my HR in Zone 4 on my Polar app.

As someone who ran regularly for about 25 years, I find all this much easier to conceive of in terms of pace, or work done in a specific time period, or other things that are more concrete to me than heart rate. Yesterday's kettlebell swing session felt easier to me than any of last week's, yet my HR was higher. If you would have asked me what I thought my HR was, I would have told you it was lower, not higher.

Go figure. I think there have to be individual differences here that we aren't accounting for, but I don't say even that with much confidence. The whole thing really remains a mystery to me.

-S-

I think there's a lot of variation across individuals in static levels of pa:HR (or pw:HR or whatever), especially if you're using a canned percent-of-max zone system and/or 220-age and/or optical HR rather than actual threshold field tests and/or max HR field tests and/or a chest strap. I'm a lot less sanguine about trending changes in work:HR over multiple weeks--it's not the only thing I'm trying to improve, but it is definitely _a_ thing I'm trying to improve.

More to your point, I'm not sure how applicable any of these observed norms are to more discreet loading like 5 28kg swings EMOM(ish) anyway. The vast mass of data out there is from higher-cadence lower-load longer-continuous-duration activities like running, cycling, and XC skiing.
 
Endurance folks: What is the consensus on ideal training zone when there is divergence in talk test, MAF target, and ability nasal breath? Stated alternatively, which is the best indicator to follow?

Eg my MAF is ~153 (180-32 , +5). Tanaka method of 186 x ~80% would tell me 148 target but for sake of argument pick either.

I recently did close to a mile at a clip of 7:45 min mile.
HR was 160-165
Talk test: would not pass comfortably
Nasal breathing: close to having to switch. I was able to hold a mouthful of water through the entire (almost) mile.

In lieu of lactate testing, what would be the best recommendation - stay the same due to ability to nasal breathe, or bring HR down to ability to pass talk test?

EDIT: and another way to ask - is the talk test or nasal breathing a better indicator of "Zone 2"? I think I know the answer but would love to hear some experienced folks' thoughts
 
EDIT: and another way to ask - is the talk test or nasal breathing a better indicator of "Zone 2"? I think I know the answer but would love to hear some experienced folks' thoughts
Those tests don't work for me as a former endurance junkie. I can nasal breath at pretty high HRs that are well outside of my Z-2 and I think that was inadvertently trained from years of racing.
 
Interesting discussion.

I think for many recreational athletes, the truth is that HIIT can deliver a higher level of “fitness” (whatever that means) and can certainly do it much faster than a polarised approach to training can- hence the popularity of approaches such as CrossFit, which can also feel more productive / less boring. I also think higher intensity training can leave people feeling more ready more of the time.

However, when it comes to high output endurance, if you want the highest peak , you need a wide base to support it and you can’t achieve that with HIIT. You’ve got to put in more volume than you can manage at high intensity and you need the specific adaptations of low intensity exercise too. Then there’s the peak- whilst a big base should make it higher, you still need to peak to get there.

This only considers performance, with health and longevity coming with a different set of considerations.
 
Personally I would go with the Talk Test. From what I have experienced, seen and heard, some folks can nasal breath at HR’s much higher than their AeT, whereas fewer can do so using the Talk Test.
For my case… I know my AeT (currently) and it aligns well with the Talk Test.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom