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.)
wespom9 said:
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
Click to expand...
Ventilatory threshold. Below VT1 (breath deepens, but rate is the same), between VT1 and VT2 (breath quickens), and at/above VT2 (breath reaches maximal rate despite continued exertion/increased intensity).

This keeps it simple enough for a meathead like me who doesn't want to be obsessively looking at a watch to get in and stay in a precise "zone."
 
offwidth said:
I think that folks that are adept at various ‘breathing practices’ would probably be a good case study here.
Click to expand...
Breath control seems to be something that I have, not just from Buteyko, but also because I am a classically trained singer, French Horn, and trumpet player. I will try to pay attention to the talk test when I next do swings where I push my HR and report back. Maybe even video a talk test while holding up the HRM display on my phone!

-S-
 
wespom9 said:
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
Click to expand...
Here is a clip of Inigo San Millan relating the Zones to breathing patterns:



My notes:
Zone 1 – Easy breathing and easy conversation
Zone 2 – It takes a little effort to maintain pace. Conversation possible, but takes a little effort
Zone 3 – You can barely talk and have to catch your breath every 4-5 words
Zone 4 – Talking not possible, hard effort
Zone 5 – Eyes crossed, close to all-out

The story on the final Tour de France time trial 2020 that follows is a great one, btw.
 
Bauer said:
My notes:
Zone 1 – Easy breathing and easy conversation
Zone 2 – It takes a little effort to maintain pace. Conversation possible, but takes a little effort
Zone 3 – You can barely talk and have to catch your breath every 4-5 words
Zone 4 – Talking not possible, hard effort
Zone 5 – Eyes crossed, close to all-out
Click to expand...

As a cyclist who has been riding and tracking my heart rate for 14 years now, I agree 100% with these zone descriptions!
 
For people who aren't training for a sport or activity and don't have performance concerns, is there an aerobic capacity recommendation for the purpose of being healthy?
 
As @Anna C posted, those guidelines are fairly consistent across countries in terms of general recommendations for health. As far as what should your literal capacity be (whether maximally or submaximally determined), V02 norms slightly differ depending on the source.
https://fitnessandhealthpromotion.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/mCAFT-Data-Collection-Sheet.pdf <--- hope this link works, it is data stratified into different "health benefit zones" for different ages/genders. This chart comes from Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology. See the bottom of page 2 for the chart. You can also find further stratification into 10ths percentile as well, but again the numbers are slightly different for each source. This chart is a reasonable start


EDIT: for further gradations, see this Statistics Canada document from 2019, page 7/11 - https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/82-003-x/2019010/article/00002-eng.pdf?st=3sCVqzOh
 
the hansenator said:
For people who aren't training for a sport or activity and don't have performance concerns, is there an aerobic capacity recommendation for the purpose of being healthy?
Click to expand...
To build off what @Anna C posted, for general health it doesn't matter how you get to that time, but I like to add two caveats:

1. Once you're over 6 hrs of weekly training, the bulk of it (say, 80%) should be low intensity relative to your fitness level.
2. The "intensity" guidelines seem to be more absolute than relative. If you check out the chart here (and the paragraph above it), "vigorous intensity" example is a 6 mph jog - and accumulating 2hrs of that could be a monumentous task for some and an "cure for ADS" for others.
 
there are no medical publications that define "aerobic deficiency syndrome"
you could call it low tolerance to aerobic exercise or low functional capacity, backing it up with measure of metabolic equivalents (MET)
 
pood_swinger said:
there are no medical publications that define "aerobic deficiency syndrome"
Click to expand...
There may not be. (I don’t know)
But then again does there need to be?

I think if you read the definition provided by Dr. Maffetone (who coined the term) or the work of Scott Johnston and Steve House (folks who are at the forefront of serious endurance training) then you will have all the definition you need.
 
psmith said:
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.
Click to expand...
I went ahead and ran an HR drift test this morning, targeting pace instead of HR and trying to go a little faster than I did in November's test. I held around a 9:18 average split, with an average HR of 160 and HR drift (per Garmin) of -2.8%0. Per manual calculation I held about the same average HR but got faster, and I felt it at the time, too. It wasn't a perfect test, for various environmental reasons, but I'd say this is a broadly encouraging result.

It felt about right. Nose breathing but deeper than at rest, could speak in complete sentences, could have held it for another hour with a couple gels and some water but it would have been pretty tough. It still doesn't look like I'm doing more work per heartbeat than I did in November (~10% higher HR, ~6-7% faster), but at least I can sustain a higher work rate for the same formalization of sustainability.
 
offwidth said:
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.
Click to expand...
Def talk test. When I do HIIT I can get pretty far before I have to mouth breathe, and even then only when actually working. The instant I'm done I recover 100% nose breathing.
 
Nose breathing is definitely trainable.

The only problem I have with the talk test, is people being hones with themselves. It means being able to carry on a conversation, not take a gulp every two words.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom