Are we over thinking antiglycolic training?

Bro Mo

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Induce stimulus, recover, induce stimulus, recover. High stress stimulus = more recovery needed. Low stress stimulus = less recovery needed. Stimulus = whatever you want your body to do. Recovery = rest, sleep, nutrients, etc.

What gets measured, gets done. We easily track stimulus via sets, reps, rest, load, volume, HR, etc. Recovery doesn't get measured though. Nobody says for every X watts of power (load * distance / time) I expend, I will recover X amount (X hours of sleep * X mg of Y micronutrient * X mg of Z macro nutrient * X amount of meditation, etc).

Beauty of SF principles is the stimulus includes recovery or doesn't exceed "average everyday recovery" so stress doesn't over accumulate.
 

MikeMoran

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
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...



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.
LIKE A BOSS!!! Thanks Al. I am loving this type of training myself and improving tremendously.
 

pet'

More than 5000 posts
Hello,

IMO, as long as you progress without being permanently tired and / or injured (so it is less scientific and more feeling based) you can consider that you are adjusting well your daily life and your training.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 

mprevost

More than 500 posts
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.
Not true at all. High intensity exercise, including resistance exercise increases the release of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). VEGF stimulates capillary formation. See this article for the science: Basal and exercise-induced regulation of skeletal muscle capillarization

High intensity exercise and lactate production also stimulates mitochondrial biogenesis. See this article for some of the science.
Mitochondrial lactate oxidation complex and an adaptive role for lactate production. - PubMed - NCBI

There are plenty more references and studies available. Both high intensity exercise, and lower intensity aerobic exercise stimulate capillary biogenesis, mitochondrial biogenesis and the conversion of type IIx fibers to IIa (fast to intermediate) and improve lactate clearance and the ability to produce ATP aerobically.
 

ali

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
For the sake of argument, if one girevik did S&S by the book, say from a 24 to 32 simple standard 6 days a week (G1).
Another did S&S twice a week at 85% max hr (G2). Another did it twice a week at maf hr/talk test with 2/3 days of maf aerobic Lsd (G3).
All physical factors the same, training history the same but with many, many lifestyle variables kept as in life, random and varied.
Would they all meet the standards at the same time? Would they all adapt in the same way?
Just a thought experiment......
 

Robert Noftz

Triple-Digit Post Count
Not true at all. High intensity exercise, including resistance exercise increases the release of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). VEGF stimulates capillary formation. See this article for the science: Basal and exercise-induced regulation of skeletal muscle capillarization

High intensity exercise and lactate production also stimulates mitochondrial biogenesis. See this article for some of the science.
Mitochondrial lactate oxidation complex and an adaptive role for lactate production. - PubMed - NCBI

There are plenty more references and studies available. Both high intensity exercise, and lower intensity aerobic exercise stimulate capillary biogenesis, mitochondrial biogenesis and the conversion of type IIx fibers to IIa (fast to intermediate) and improve lactate clearance and the ability to produce ATP aerobically.
I believe there is a good chance you are trying to overwhelm me with scientific articles you do not understand.
 

Robert Noftz

Triple-Digit Post Count
@Robert Noftz, @mprevost has stated his credentials here; I see no reason to doubt his understanding of what he's posted. Please refrain from speaking ill of another forum member.

Thank you.

-S-
Ok Steve, so if that is the case then the material Pavel has presented is wrong and he needs to be educated. Perhaps I don't understand either Pavel or mprevost and you or someone else can clear this up. I was paraphrasing information I found in something Pavel wrote at my amateur level of understanding. I could quote it exactly if necessary. Mprevost said it is all wrong.

Have you verified mprevost's credentials. Trying to blind people with science is a common tactic. I still believe it is happening. If mprevost is correct then maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about following Pavel's advice. Perhaps you can help clear this matter up.
 

Robert Noftz

Triple-Digit Post Count
Ok Steve, so if that is the case then the material Pavel has presented is wrong and he needs to be educated. Perhaps I don't understand either Pavel or mprevost and you or someone else can clear this up. I was paraphrasing information I found in something Pavel wrote at my amateur level of understanding. I could quote it exactly if necessary. Mprevost said it is all wrong.

Have you verified mprevost's credentials. Trying to blind people with science is a common tactic. I still believe it is happening. If mprevost is correct then maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about following Pavel's advice. Perhaps you can help clear this matter up.
Yes, if mprevost is correct then I could get glycolitic to my heart's content and not worry about all the other advice I have received. I"m not ready to go there yet. I will keep following Pavel's advice until I have a very good reason to do otherwise.
 

pet'

More than 5000 posts
Hello,

I will keep following Pavel's advice until I have a very good reason to do otherwise
Nobody tells you to change your training routine, do not worry about that.

It all depends on your goals and the sustainability of your training. I use glyco protocol once or twice a week only, while doing my 100 daily swings the anti-glyco way, with good results. There is nothing bad or wrong in any protocol, it is all about "smart training" and having a clear idea of what we want to achieve.

For instance, glycolytic training will help (more than anti-glyco) you if you have any "sprinting activities". This is the main interest here. I admit gains of this kind of protocol are not sustainable and can be exhausting. You have to do it only you do not feel already tired or doing them accordlingly to your routine.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
  • Like
Reactions: ali

Al Ciampa

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Certified Instructor
Yes, if mprevost is correct then I could get glycolitic to my heart's content and not worry about all the other advice I have received. I"m not ready to go there yet. I will keep following Pavel's advice until I have a very good reason to do otherwise.
Robert, there is no need for accusations. Mike was a physiologist in the Navy for a career, and is now a professor in the field at a well known American university.

To clarify this post, Mike extrapolated from the data in his cited papers to support his assertions, which is commonly accepted. Second, he did not recommend that you change your training in any way; and third, he did not recommend that you bathe your tissues in acid 6-7x/week though high intensity training. He has an opinion that seems to subscribe to: "the dose makes the poison".... and I agree with this.

While I disagree with the assertion that excessive high intensity training does not lead to tissue damage and eventual aerobic dysfunction, this is not what I hear Mike saying. However, I agree with you that Mike did not properly support his claims, so your initial response should have been to counter these with a gentlemanly discussion.

If anyone is "blinded by the science", they can always opt out of the discussion. Either way, please keep an open mind, so the discussion stays alive. The tension between alternate theories is a very good thing.
 

Steve Freides

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Senior Certified Instructor
@aciampa, thank you - you have expressed how we wish to handle disagreements on our forum very well, and also put forth a very good thought when you said, "The tension between alternate theories is a very good thing."

@Robert Noftz, welcome to StrongFirst.

-S-
 
  • Like
Reactions: ali

mprevost

More than 500 posts
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...



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.
Hi Al
True, but the polarized model is ideal for high volume athletes. Those who do not train with a high volume of aerobic exercise should optimally choose a different approach. For non high volume endurance athletes, the threshold model is more appropriate. The threshold model is simply a greater distribution of volume in zone 4. It could be more like a 50/50 mix or even a 60/40 mix (zone 4/zone 2). If you are only going to do a little bit of aerobic exercise, most of it should be done at a vigorous intensity. If you are going to do high volume, most needs to be done at a lower intensity. If you are going to do low volume, more needs to be done at a higher intensity, in order to achieve overload. Simple. My main point is that if you decrease volume and intensity, you don't get more fit.

Mike
 
Last edited:

mprevost

More than 500 posts
Robert, there is no need for accusations. Mike was a physiologist in the Navy for a career, and is now a professor in the field at a well known American university.

To clarify this post, Mike extrapolated from the data in his cited papers to support his assertions, which is commonly accepted. Second, he did not recommend that you change your training in any way; and third, he did not recommend that you bathe your tissues in acid 6-7x/week though high intensity training. He has an opinion that seems to subscribe to: "the dose makes the poison".... and I agree with this.

While I disagree with the assertion that excessive high intensity training does not lead to tissue damage and eventual aerobic dysfunction, this is not what I hear Mike saying. However, I agree with you that Mike did not properly support his claims, so your initial response should have been to counter these with a gentlemanly discussion.

If anyone is "blinded by the science", they can always opt out of the discussion. Either way, please keep an open mind, so the discussion stays alive. The tension between alternate theories is a very good thing.
Very diplomatically done Al. I don't expect anybody to take my word for it. But they should view all claims with skepticism and do their own research. Google Scholar is a good resource.
 

Matts

More than 300 posts
very interesting discussion...I looked up some of the TID studies, and, as an athlete, this was my favorite para:

"It may be a hard pill to swallow for some exercise physiologists, but athletes and coaches do not need to know very much exercise physiology to train effectively. They do have to be sensitive to how training manipulations impact athlete health, daily training tolerance, and performance, and to make effective adjustments. Over time, a successful athlete will presumably organize their training in a way that maximizes adaptive benefit for a given perceived stress load. That is, we can assume that highly successful athletes integrate this feedback experience over time to maximize training benefit and minimize risk of negative outcomes such as illness, injury, stagnation, or overtraining."

Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training

Stephen Seiler1 and Espen Tønnessen2

Sportscience 13, 32-53, 2009 (sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm)
 

ali

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
There is a broad consensus here isn't there?

The 80/20 thing.....80% of work at a moderate/low intensity with 20% higher intensity. Andrew Read discusses this approach (not read the book but listened to his explanations).
S&S......every couple of weeks go all out swings, once an established base as been reached (working the 32 for blokes).
ROP....M/L/H days plus 2 moderate variety days....1 of 5 sessions is heavy with hard swings.
MAF....at or below maf hr to establish a base before introducing anaerobic work.
Dan John.....bus/park bench. In a 12 month period, 2 months of bus, the rest easy moderate park bench.
Probably many others too ( @aciampa A&A and manual, Scott Sonnon's programming)....proven methods that work very well with a nod towards health keeping an eye on creating the 'right' amount of adaptive stress for most people, most of the time, given life's uncertainties.

.....and then HIIT/bootcamp/met con/tabata/crossfit, possibly creating a maladaptive response and too much stress with injury, ill health and overtraining lurking close by....IF....done too often at an inappropriate level of intensity for the individual.

Things maybe different, with different tweaks, for specialist athlete/elite athletes....or maybe not, dunno really. You know, broadly speaking.
 
Last edited:

Steve W.

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
I don't have anything of substance to add. However, I would like to say that I tagged Al and Mike early on in this thread because they both have relevant credentials, expertise and experience, and I was interested in what they might have to say.

I appreciate their contributions to the discussion, as well as their gentlemanly tone.
 

the hansenator

More than 500 posts
Those who do not train with a high volume of aerobic exercise should optimally choose a different approach. For non high volume endurance athletes, the threshold model is more appropriate.

Mike
What would be considered high volume in this context? Would that be relative to the individual or is there a generalized answer?
 

Kettlebelephant

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Nice discussion!

"It may be a hard pill to swallow for some exercise physiologists, but athletes and coaches do not need to know very much exercise physiology to train effectively. They do have to be sensitive to how training manipulations impact athlete health, daily training tolerance, and performance, and to make effective adjustments. Over time, a successful athlete will presumably organize their training in a way that maximizes adaptive benefit for a given perceived stress load. That is, we can assume that highly successful athletes integrate this feedback experience over time to maximize training benefit and minimize risk of negative outcomes such as illness, injury, stagnation, or overtraining."
To my understanding exactly what @aciampa recommends on this forum: Don't focus too much on Maf HR and things like that. The most important thing is how you feel/your body reacts!
If that happens to be Maf HR +10BPM then so be it...
 
Top Bottom