Are we over thinking antiglycolic training?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Mark Kidd

Level 5 Valued Member
Hello all,

I read this article and it made me wonder, is avoiding glycolic training necessary as long as we are not over training?

I admit I am new to antiglycolic training and have been kind of naturally training that way for ages. Being new to the concept, I am probably missing something.

Here is the article:
Conditioning: You're Doing It Wrong - Juggernaut

Thoughts? It was mainly the graphs and descriptions that made me think avoiding glycolic training might be unnecessary as long as we are not over training.
 

offwidth

Level 9 Valued Member
@Mark Kidd
One thing I always come back to is... goals. Avoiding glycolysis in training is a good thing... depending upon your goals. Going into glycolysis in training is a good thing (within limits) depending upon your goals.

There are certain events that people train for that require them to go pretty deep. If you don't train that way (intelligently) you won't stand a chance.

You are correct (from my perspective) that avoiding overtraining is a good thing no matter how you slice it.

One persons overtraining may be another's warm up.
 

Steve Freides

Staff
Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
@Mark Kidd, as is often the case, the answer is, "It depends." I think our anti-glycolytic experts would agree that, if you compete using your glycolytic energy system, you need to train it some, but the wisdom we are acquiring suggests that

we don't need to train it as much as we thought,

or train it all the time,

in order to achieve our maximum performance potential or to achieve maximum health benefits. In fact, for maximum health benefits, we may not need to try to train it at all. NB: Trying not to train it doesn't mean we aren't training it at least a little.

@aciampa? @Anna C?

-S-
 

Mark Kidd

Level 5 Valued Member
@Steve Freides and @offwidth

My thoughts were if all three systems fire up at the start of activity, training intelligently (and not over training) would enhance the aerobic tank and the anaerobic tank and still improve they glycolic tank while avoiding the burn that does the damage. Or atleast that is my understanding for what the burn does.

So like a 15s on 45s off scenario that uses nasal breathing or the talk test to check when you are good to go at the top of each minute.
 

Steve W.

Level 7 Valued Member
Hello all,

I read this article and it made me wonder, is avoiding glycolic training necessary as long as we are not over training?

I admit I am new to antiglycolic training and have been kind of naturally training that way for ages. Being new to the concept, I am probably missing something.

Here is the article:
Conditioning: You're Doing It Wrong - Juggernaut

Thoughts? It was mainly the graphs and descriptions that made me think avoiding glycolic training might be unnecessary as long as we are not over training.
@aciampa or perhaps @mprevost could give a more authoritative response, but here's my take from reading the article, and the Oetter article linked to within the Juggernaut article. The Juggernaut article is mainly a restatement/summary of part of the Oetter article.

To my reading, the article is not questioning or arguing against anti-glycolytic training. In fact, it does the OPPOSITE, emphasizing the importance of aerobic base training, even for strength/power athletes.

The study cited in the article, part of an article by Eric Oetter on Joel Jamieson's site and linked to within the Juggernaut article, is used as a justification for the importance of aerobic training. It basically illustrates what happens during A+A style intervals (the intervals in the study were 6 seconds work/30 seconds rest, so a relatively low 1/5 work rest ratio). Even though all three energy systems are active, the work is heavily fueled by the alactic system, even more so as the intervals accumulate (this was a surprise to me). The aerobic system allows the alactic system to recover sufficiently for the next work interval.

The Oetter article dives a lot deeper and includes specific training recommendations (maybe this is what the Juggernaut author will address in the promised next part to her article). Surprise, surprise, Oetter's recommendation is A+A style training, although, he makes a disctinction between alactic POWER training with full recovery for maximum power, and alactic CAPACITY training, with more compressed recovery. He does emphasize that for competitive/advanced athletes, these types of training should be carefully periodized (and of course, Joel Jamieson sells a book on his site about how to do that for MMA athletes).

I think it is fair to say that "anti-glycolytic" is a misnomer in the sense that you can't actually shut off or completely avoid using the glycolytic system. However, the principles of emphasizing alactic work with aerobic recovery, and the importance of a strong base of aerobic capacity to make that recovery more efficient, are fully supported by the article.
 
Last edited:

pet'

Level 8 Valued Member
Hello,

@Mark Kidd
is avoiding glycolic training necessary as long as we are not over training?
I practice it weekly for a long while. However it depends : if you already have a significant amount of training (above all a "cardio" training), it can be exhausting. Otherwise, this energy metabolism is worth considering. For instance, if you are a sprinter, short but intense efforts are fundamental.

Otherwise, we often talk about V02 max when talking about glycolytic training. Yes VO2 can be increase thanks to that. However, gains are fast lost.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 

Mark Kidd

Level 5 Valued Member
@Steve W.

You mentioned the second part of the article. Can you send me the link? for some reason it is not standing out on my phone, and when I click on other articles by, the box is empty. My computer is inaccessible at this time.

@pet'

Maybe it is just me, but I always found aerobic improvements difficult to make, quick to lose. Very frustrating.
 

Steve W.

Level 7 Valued Member
@Steve W.

You mentioned the second part of the article. Can you send me the link? for some reason it is not standing out on my phone, and when I click on other articles by, the box is empty. My computer is inaccessible at this time.
I don't think there is a second part of the article yet. At the end, she writes to stay tuned for part 2 in which she will lay out some specific methods/programs, but there is no link to part 2.

Since the first half of the article is basically a rehash of the Oetter article on Joel Jamieson's site (which she links to in her article), I would expect the second half to also follow the content of that article:

Repeated-Sprint Athletes: Energy Systems & Training
 

pet'

Level 8 Valued Member
Hello,

@Mark Kidd
Maybe it is just me, but I always found aerobic improvements difficult to make, quick to lose. Very frustrating.
No it is not just you. We are at least two !

Once, I did an "experience". I ran 3 times a week during 1h30. Then I stopped for a while. When I got back to running, even if it was more difficult than before, I still could endure my session.

Then I did HIIT for a while. The samy way I stopped. I was completely out of breath when I got back to it.

It seems antiglycolytic gains are more sustainable.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 

Matts

Level 3 Valued Member
I don't see what the article has to do with anti-glycolictic training...seems like she's just saying the swerve away from aerobics to HIIT by fitness industry wasn't necessarily the best thing....and having a good aerobic base helps support the alactic system for further efforts by it, so doing some aerobic base work is good. Well, that's good advice, that's been practiced by most athletes for decades... Base, sharpen, peak. repeat... If you don't compete, just find a nice mix that makes you feel good and experience progress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rif

mprevost

Level 6 Valued Member
The concept of MAF training or easy aerobic training comes primarily from training elite endurance athletes. It is often misunderstood and misapplied. If we break training intensity into 5 zones (common methodology) we get:

Zone 1: 55-75% max heart rate, easy pace, recovery pace
Zone 2: 75-85% max heart rate, steady pace, marathon race pace
Zone 3: 85-90% max heart rate, moderately hard pace, 1/2 marathon pace
Zone 4: 90-95% max heart rate, hard pace, 10K race pace
Zone 5: 95-100% max heart rate, very hard pace, 5K- 1 mile race pace

The MAF pace is going to be zone 1 or 2 for most people. This is the easy aerobic zone. Training intensity zone distribution for elite endurance athletes tends to be about 80% /20% for Zone 1-2 / Zone 4-5. In other words, they do lots of volume in zone 1-2 with a sprinkling of zone 4-5 work. They do not avoid zone 4-5 completely, even in the off season. The only reason they are minimizing zone 4-5 is to be able to do more volume in zone 1-2. It is a recovery issue. Zone 4-5 work is hard to recover from. Also, the type of physiological adaptations that occur in zone 4-5 tend to plateau after 6-10 weeks, while the adaptations in zone 1-2 don't plateau, even after several years.

The point is, that elite endurance athletes do not slow down to avoid zone 4-5 work. On the contrary, they minimize zone 4-5 work so that they can do more zone 1-2 work. A typical cross country runner might be running up to 120 miles per week!

For the average Joe, who is not doing a high volume of zone 1-2 work, I see no reason to limit intensity to zone 1-2, especially since the American College of Sports Medicine now says that there is a bigger benefit in terms of health and all cause mortality from more intense aerobic exercise.

Those who are not doing a high volume of aerobic exercise (i.e., more than 6 hours per week), would get more health benefits from including some zone 4-5 work. Absolute beginners should do a period of zone 1-2 work first, for a few weeks, before starting zone 4-5 work.

One final point. Fitness comes through progressive overload. If you decrease aerobic exercise intensity, but do not increase volume, you have DECREASED overload. You will detrain. Remember, the reason that elite athletes decrease intensity is so that they can increase volume.

Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2006 Feb;16(1):49-56.
Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an "optimal" distribution?

Seiler KS1, Kjerland GØ
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise:
July 2011 - Volume 43 - Issue 7 - pp 1334-1359
doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213fefb
SPECIAL COMMUNICATIONS: Position Stand
Quantity and Quality of Exercise for Developing and Maintaining Cardiorespiratory, Musculoskeletal, and Neuromotor Fitness in Apparently Healthy Adults: Guidance for Prescribing Exercise
Garber, Carol Ewing Ph.D., FACSM, (Chair); Blissmer, Bryan Ph.D.; Deschenes, Michael R. PhD, FACSM; Franklin, Barry A. Ph.D., FACSM; Lamonte, Michael J. Ph.D., FACSM; Lee, I-Min M.D., Sc.D., FACSM; Nieman, David C. Ph.D., FACSM; Swain, David P. Ph.D., FACSM
 

Mark Kidd

Level 5 Valued Member
@Steve W.

Appologies. I thought by your comments you found it.

@pet'

Glad it is not just me.

@Matts

It was the charts with sprinting eventually becoming less dependent on glycolic and more dependent on aerobic.
 

Matts

Level 3 Valued Member
@Mark Kidd yeah, but that's biology/biochemistry, not training focus- they're just observing what the subjects' bodies did in their study. Seems consistent with the A+A programs- the alactic can fuel the hard efforts (after initial gly. burst), and the aerobic can replenish it with the right recovery intervals. I think where she's going is a larger aerobic tank can then replenish it even better than a smaller one, so it's good to develop that a little extra periodically.

If you keep at cardio a long time, it will last a very long time. There are many, many effects of cardio in the body, and the ones that take the longest to develop, like capillarization, also last the longest.
 

pet'

Level 8 Valued Member
Hello,

Seems consistent with the A+A programs- the alactic can fuel the hard efforts (after initial gly. burst), and the aerobic can replenish it with the right recovery intervals. I think where she's going is a larger aerobic tank can then replenish it even better than a smaller one, so it's good to develop that a little extra periodically.
Yes that is true.

And so, to complete my previous message
Once, I did an "experience". I ran 3 times a week during 1h30. Then I stopped for a while. When I got back to running, even if it was more difficult than before, I still could endure my session.

Then I did HIIT for a while. The samy way I stopped. I was completely out of breath when I got back to it.
I combined for a while glycolytic and anti-glycolytic to see what happen. My performance in glycolytic (running) was far better with the combination that alone. I think it supports @Matts's assertion.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 

offwidth

Level 9 Valued Member
The concept of MAF training or easy aerobic training comes primarily from training elite endurance athletes. It is often misunderstood and misapplied. If we break training intensity into 5 zones (common methodology) we get:

Zone 1: 55-75% max heart rate, easy pace, recovery pace
Zone 2: 75-85% max heart rate, steady pace, marathon race pace
Zone 3: 85-90% max heart rate, moderately hard pace, 1/2 marathon pace
Zone 4: 90-95% max heart rate, hard pace, 10K race pace
Zone 5: 95-100% max heart rate, very hard pace, 5K- 1 mile race pace

The MAF pace is going to be zone 1 or 2 for most people. This is the easy aerobic zone. Training intensity zone distribution for elite endurance athletes tends to be about 80% /20% for Zone 1-2 / Zone 4-5. In other words, they do lots of volume in zone 1-2 with a sprinkling of zone 4-5 work. They do not avoid zone 4-5 completely, even in the off season. The only reason they are minimizing zone 4-5 is to be able to do more volume in zone 1-2. It is a recovery issue. Zone 4-5 work is hard to recover from. Also, the type of physiological adaptations that occur in zone 4-5 tend to plateau after 6-10 weeks, while the adaptations in zone 1-2 don't plateau, even after several years.

The point is, that elite endurance athletes do not slow down to avoid zone 4-5 work. On the contrary, they minimize zone 4-5 work so that they can do more zone 1-2 work. A typical cross country runner might be running up to 120 miles per week!

For the average Joe, who is not doing a high volume of zone 1-2 work, I see no reason to limit intensity to zone 1-2, especially since the American College of Sports Medicine now says that there is a bigger benefit in terms of health and all cause mortality from more intense aerobic exercise.

Those who are not doing a high volume of aerobic exercise (i.e., more than 6 hours per week), would get more health benefits from including some zone 4-5 work. Absolute beginners should do a period of zone 1-2 work first, for a few weeks, before starting zone 4-5 work.

One final point. Fitness comes through progressive overload. If you decrease aerobic exercise intensity, but do not increase volume, you have DECREASED overload. You will detrain. Remember, the reason that elite athletes decrease intensity is so that they can increase volume.

Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2006 Feb;16(1):49-56.
Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an "optimal" distribution?

Seiler KS1, Kjerland GØ
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise:
July 2011 - Volume 43 - Issue 7 - pp 1334-1359
doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213fefb
SPECIAL COMMUNICATIONS: Position Stand
Quantity and Quality of Exercise for Developing and Maintaining Cardiorespiratory, Musculoskeletal, and Neuromotor Fitness in Apparently Healthy Adults: Guidance for Prescribing Exercise
Garber, Carol Ewing Ph.D., FACSM, (Chair); Blissmer, Bryan Ph.D.; Deschenes, Michael R. PhD, FACSM; Franklin, Barry A. Ph.D., FACSM; Lamonte, Michael J. Ph.D., FACSM; Lee, I-Min M.D., Sc.D., FACSM; Nieman, David C. Ph.D., FACSM; Swain, David P. Ph.D., FACSM
Exactly...
 

Robert Noftz

Level 5 Valued Member
Hello all,

I read this article and it made me wonder, is avoiding glycolic training necessary as long as we are not over training?

I admit I am new to antiglycolic training and have been kind of naturally training that way for ages. Being new to the concept, I am probably missing something.

Here is the article:
Conditioning: You're Doing It Wrong - Juggernaut

Thoughts? It was mainly the graphs and descriptions that made me think avoiding glycolic training might be unnecessary as long as we are not over training.
One of the big benefits of anti-glycolitic training, or training that focuses on the alactic and aerobic systems, is that it helps the fast muscle fibers become more aerobic. When you engage in glycolitc training it makes the system acidic and impedes that process. According to Pavel Tsatsouline the scientists from the former Soviet Union found the anti-glycolitic training could cause mitochondria to grow on fast muscle fibers and make them more endurable. If you train in a manner that increases glycosis you will impede that process.
Perhaps someone addressed that in the comments but I didn't notice it.
For someone doing Simple and Sinister it is very important to understand the difference between training and testing. Training causes adaptation to take place in your body which helps you perform better when it is time to take the test. Your daily training should be training, not testing. You will get into a glycolitic mode on testing day. That is what I have taken from reading Pavel Tsatsouline's work.

Simple & Sinister Progression Tactic
 
Last edited:

Al Ciampa

Level 8 Valued Member
Certified Instructor
I read this article and it made me wonder, is avoiding glycolic training necessary as long as we are not over training?
To this original question, it is not about avoiding glycolytic training but minimizing it in relation to your goals. Related: I would expand the term "overtraining" to include the total amount of stress in your life in a ratio to your biological resilience to stress... a mathematical equation that does not exist, so...

The point is, that elite endurance athletes do not slow down to avoid zone 4-5 work.
I agree with most of what you said, but for the typical application on this forum, slowing down a bit to avoid some zone 4-5 work will put most at the 80/20 split/polarized approach that the literature has expanded upon for decades.

Most general users will tend to read S&S, or the like, and then end up spending far too much time (even though it is far less in volume as compared to elites) in zone 4-5. As you are well aware, the current trend is still "kill yourself for gains", and most folks will reach this forum with this paradigm. What seems like an anti-glycolytic approach, here, is simply an explanatory response to this erroneous paradigm.
 

ali

Level 7 Valued Member
This may not apply here but to the fitness cosmos generally, the issue isn't over thinking glycolytic training but under thinking anti-glycolytic training.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Top Bottom