Off-Topic Anyone seen this? Criticism of Pavel on Rogan by Bart Kay

[Tbone77]

I attended Strong Endurance , I couldn’t really understand a lot of the biochemistry , as fascinating as it is. One note I took , and I remember Al Ciampa echoing this , and I apologize if I am misquoting him or pavel , is that there is no way to get around or replace long slow steady
Cardio.Specifically running .

 

[william bad butt]

 

[offwidth]

All this talk of the pros and cons of long slow distance is not particularly helpful when there isn't a set definition of what constitutes long slow distance.

Well...being an endurance guy... I haven’t found any cons, but then again I have only been doing this for 45+yrs, so there is a chance something negative might still come up.

As I have said before (many times) the ‘slow’ in LSD is a bit of a misnomer. A lot of serious endurance folks prefer the term LED; with the ’E’ meaning easy. Easy doesn‘t have to be slow, it has to be easy. Easy in the endurance world generally means at or just below ones AeT. So with that in mind there is a better (albeit still incomplete) definition of LED.

It does however become individualistic and somewhat situational in nature. My LED and that of Kilian Jornet, are going to be different. (By a lot...)

 

[wespom9]

The problem is that AGT (A+A/QnD) isn't science-based. RSA studies (effort<10s, rest 20-45s) show some improvement in mitochondria, but far less than other interval protocols. Pavel's main theory, lactic acid "killing" mitochondria is a myth and was heavily debunked. The opposite is true: lactic acid (and not only a little) seems necessary to improve mitochondria as well as long-steady state cardio. For me, it's difficult to find a solid base in StrongEndurance. Neither sprinters (a lot more rest), neither endurance athlete (longer intervals) train like what is teached in StrongEndurance. And the scientist/coaches working with theses elite athletes are way more qualified than Pavel.

The RSA stuff, I don't think that it was ever intended to be a health promoting protocol - more a goal to improve team sport performance. As far as I've read, I've only seen Pavel relate those studies to mitochondrial benefit. As he says, a side effect.

A+A, at it's core, is most similar to sprinters, although you're right the rest periods are not nearly to the same degree. That being said, theory aside, in practice it helps increase strength, power, and power endurance in a way that feels very different from a "smoker". Ex Phys notwithstanding, I propose that to be a good thing.

Q&D, the science behind it...I know a decent amount of Ex Phys but not enough to confirm or refute Pavel's findings on it re: the ideal amount of acidity (or whatever substrate causes fatigue).
Does the program work to gain strength, power, and power endurance? Yes. It's more demanding that "pure" A+A though, more to the middle of continuum of HIIT----------A+A.

 

[Lotto]

I endured half the video. Bart Kay provides only opinion without actually saying he physically tried Pavels programs. From personal experience of S+S and NW,
the proof is in the pudding for me, they quite simply work. It is easy to offer opinions, critique and snipe from the sidelines a program which you have never tried yourself. If Bart Kay rolled his sleeves up, put some work in (say achieve Simple Timed) his opinions to me may offer some more validity. So as it stands for me, unless he tries Pavels programs, his opinion does not trump fact (for my personal experience) that Pavels systems are bloody brilliant.

 

[2accidental]

There is a lot that can be learned in a lab, but on the flipside, much that is learned in the field tends to always be discovered as the truth first, perhaps not as eloquently, but science usually catches up later.
If i may use music as an example, having taught many, those naturally geared towards searching for hours and playing, enjoying thoroughly, tends to rocket upwards when they add theory to their grit and efforts. However, the same cannot be said for those that destroy page after page of music theory, buy the finest instruments and have the most expensive teachers. Said another way, there's something about a crude Marciano or Frazier that when you fine tune the angles here and there, leads to something remarkably unbreakable. Whereas, no matter how many great coaches and scientific theories you can expound, or spending hundreds of thousands on state-of-the-art training, some fighters sleeping on silk sheets (no names need be mentioned here) just cannot get that 'it' factor, and fade out against a hungry fighter, less talented, with a .500 record.

Most of us cannot ever afford a lab, but we all have one that we can find empirical evidence, and that is our own bodies.
And I will say, that after taking almost a year off S&S, I have noticed some things:
-my deadlift went down even though i focused on it.
-pullup strength suffered.
-the lack of goblet squats in my warmups left me less flexible for back squats, and left me feeling 'a bit old'

On the other hand, when i did S&S almost everyday, i started getting that drowning-in-cortisol feeling and craved other things. At 47yrs old, cycling from a perfect 2x/wk 80% of the time, to a 4x/wk once in a while, seems perfect...in my lab. When I did 4x, my strength/endurance on the wrestling mats surprised everyone, and most definitely myself.

I missed S&S due to renovations at home, so i have come back to it, hopefully permanently. Starting tonight with the 16kg again was fun and interesting- and I need this rather than the half-dead nature of HIIT 3x every week...science be damned, 'kay, Bart?!

 

[Kozushi]

I attended Strong Endurance , I couldn’t really understand a lot of the biochemistry , as fascinating as it is. One note I took , and I remember Al Ciampa echoing this , and I apologize if I am misquoting him or pavel , is that there is no way to get around or replace long slow steady
Cardio.Specifically running .

But Al Ciampa has said on these forums that walking is "probably better for you".

 

[Kozushi]

There is a lot that can be learned in a lab, but on the flipside, much that is learned in the field tends to always be discovered as the truth first, perhaps not as eloquently, but science usually catches up later.
If i may use music as an example, having taught many, those naturally geared towards searching for hours and playing, enjoying thoroughly, tends to rocket upwards when they add theory to their grit and efforts. However, the same cannot be said for those that destroy page after page of music theory, buy the finest instruments and have the most expensive teachers. Said another way, there's something about a crude Marciano or Frazier that when you fine tune the angles here and there, leads to something remarkably unbreakable. Whereas, no matter how many great coaches and scientific theories you can expound, or spending hundreds of thousands on state-of-the-art training, some fighters sleeping on silk sheets (no names need be mentioned here) just cannot get that 'it' factor, and fade out against a hungry fighter, less talented, with a .500 record.

Most of us cannot ever afford a lab, but we all have one that we can find empirical evidence, and that is our own bodies.
And I will say, that after taking almost a year off S&S, I have noticed some things:
-my deadlift went down even though i focused on it.
-pullup strength suffered.
-the lack of goblet squats in my warmups left me less flexible for back squats, and left me feeling 'a bit old'

On the other hand, when i did S&S almost everyday, i started getting that drowning-in-cortisol feeling and craved other things. At 47yrs old, cycling from a perfect 2x/wk 80% of the time, to a 4x/wk once in a while, seems perfect...in my lab. When I did 4x, my strength/endurance on the wrestling mats surprised everyone, and most definitely myself.

I missed S&S due to renovations at home, so i have come back to it, hopefully permanently. Starting tonight with the 16kg again was fun and interesting- and I need this rather than the half-dead nature of HIIT 3x every week...science be damned, 'kay, Bart?!

Very cool that you have access to a wrestling club as an adult. It's a bit annoying that in Canada wrestling tends to be limited to university and high school students.

 

[Kozushi]

I doubt that theories of acidity have any real impact on the development of S&S and other Strong First programmes.

Ask me questions about something other than my specialty and I'll say things that aren't quite right. This does not or at least should not detract from what I have to say about things I am well versed in.

 

[2accidental]

Very cool that you have access to a wrestling club as an adult. It's a bit annoying that in Canada wrestling tends to be limited to university and high school students.

In Australia, it is almost non existent ...unlike bjj which is everywhere. I'm just lucky a real wrestling coach, (ironically Canadian!) opened up a school here. I havent been in a couple of years due to conflicts with my teaching and performing. Great gym, tough folk.

 

[Kozushi]

In Australia, it is almost non existent ...unlike bjj which is everywhere. I'm just lucky a real wrestling coach, (ironically Canadian!) opened up a school here. I havent been in a couple of years due to conflicts with my teaching and performing. Great gym, tough folk.

BJJ has a big advantage in that it's frankly in my opinion a lot safer than judo or wrestling.

 

[North Coast Miller]

I attended Strong Endurance , I couldn’t really understand a lot of the biochemistry , as fascinating as it is. One note I took , and I remember Al Ciampa echoing this , and I apologize if I am misquoting him or pavel , is that there is no way to get around or replace long slow steady
Cardio.Specifically running .

For the casual fitness enthusiast or time-crunched you can certainly make do with HIIT for your cardio health - there are tons of studies on short and long term effectiveness and it absolutely is a viable option. I don't think anyone can claim it is the "best" or "better" way - HIIT done proper is absolutely not enjoyable for most.

If you're a competitive athlete and CV drift and/or maintaining the longest possible duration at high intensity is a real concern, you HAVE to train LISS.

You don't have to train slow steady to get big improvements to mitochondrial or capillary density, HIIT can do that too, and does so very well. Is more about getting the best lipid enzyme profile and that big, easy stroke volume. There's only one way to do that, you have to use it.

 

[Pasibrzuch]

Unfortunately it was unbearable for me to watch it. It's a shame - I just glimpsed through the discussion here and a lot interesting points are being made. Had the creator of the video chosen another attitude, it could spark an interesting debate.

The SS vs Interval evolutionary argument is fascinating in and of itself. Clear which side this guy is on. I've read valid arguments for both sides and admit to be unsure.

Sounds extremely interesting, but as I said - watching this video poses difficulties for me and, as I see, others. Could you elaborate what is "The SS vs Interval evolutionary argument" or link some layperson-friendly sources?

 

[offwidth]

I finally bit the bullet and started watching...
Couldn’t make it past his opening salvo. (Not because he was contradicting Pavel either....)

 

[Anna C]

Could you elaborate what is "The SS vs Interval evolutionary argument" or link some layperson-friendly sources?

I think this discussion refers to the question of: What did we evolve to be fit to do? What type of fitness was required for survival? Caveman examples abound, from running from tigers or chasing prey (intervals) to walking for days to forage food or migrate across continents (steady state), but whatever fitness is required, the fittest survive to perpetuate the species. So this argument can be used in favor of one type of exercise or the other.

For fitness (able to do what is required), as @bluejeff pointed out, does it really matter? "did we evolve to fly in airplanes? Did we evolve to send emails and stare at smartphones and use Twitter?"

For health, I'd go with the recommendations that have data supported by the medial establishment for reducing health risks.

For performance, I'd go with whatever the coaches in your sport recommend.

For enjoyment and overall benefits of exercise, I'd do whatever floats your boat and keeps you active and moving.

 

[Don Fairbanks]

I finally bit the bullet and started watching...
Couldn’t make it past his opening salvo. (Not because he was contradicting Pavel either....)

I think I made it to 40-50 sec. Creepy as hell to sit there and pick apart a live interview.

 

[ali]

Interesting to hear his views on Kenyan running culture. Gazillions of miles running at an easy pace producing the world's best endurance runners. Are they wrong?

 

[Chris Mills]

Interesting to hear his views on Kenyan running culture. Gazillions of miles running at an easy pace producing the world's best endurance runners. Are they wrong?

I listened to the whole thing (long drive yesterday) and, as I understood it, he did address that question. It went like, roughly, this:

"They are probably right, in a vacuum, but the whole notion of endurance running is unnatural, unsafe and stupid; as is any attempt to be good at it, let alone the best; so the effectiveness of that training strategy is beside the point."

 

[SteveR]

I have a natural inclination not to trust somebody who needs to tear somebody else down to build themselves up.

 

[ali]

@Reardon55 I get that, in a sense.
But, Kenyan's run culturally. It's a thing. Kids run miles to school everyday. It's not training for them, it's cultural and a means to get somewhere ie a function of their daily life.