Are we over thinking antiglycolic training?

offwidth

More than 5000 posts
I am thinking that high volume would probably be very situational in nature. Depending upon the individuals goals. But I will defer to the experts like Al and Mike on a more definitive answer.

Additionally I think that training for 'Health' and training for 'Fitness' and possibly training for high end sport performance, can be very different, and in some cases mutually exclusive.

I know some people that perform at a very high level, but are pretty much running on the ragged edge when it comes to health. Again, it comes back to goals. Some people are willing to trade health for short term performance. It may be short sighted but....
 

Bro Mo

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
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.
I don't think it's only applicable to aerobic exercise either. I think the intensity/volume relationship pertains to all training. I would want to do more than 100 swings and 10 TGUs if I were only doing it twice per week. This starts to align with the INOL discussion in another thread. The SF principles are based around high frequency but the opposing side of low frequency has worked very well for plenty of strength athletes.
 

Kettlebelephant

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Additionally I think that training for 'Health' and training for 'Fitness' and possibly training for high end sport performance, can be very different, and in some cases mutually exclusive.

I know some people that perform at a very high level, but are pretty much running on the ragged edge when it comes to health. Again, it comes back to goals. Some people are willing to trade health for short term performance. It may be short sighted but....
In Intervention Dan John says that training and performing at an elite level is not healthy.
Just because most athletes look ripped (a look that most people would consider healthy) doesn't mean they're healthy on the inside.
Throwing a spear for thousands of reps, running full speed into a row of 275lbs guys, running 42km for time, squatting 1000+lbs...all things which will affect your health negatively to some extent.
 

Robert Noftz

Triple-Digit Post Count
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.
There is only one other point I would like to address in this. Mprevost did not say he had a different view. He did not say there were some disagreements and he had another point of view. He said that the things Pavel is teaching are all wrong.
If mprevost has his own group or books he has written I will consider reading them. Perhaps he has some work published that a fitness enthusiast like myself can read without having academic preparation in the field. If so I will read some of his stuff when I have the time.
What he did was come into someone else's domain and say that what they teach is all wrong.

I will stick to the anti-glycolitic approach that Pavel recommends for training. If someone wants to say what Pavel teaches is all wrong then he should take it up with him in private, not come onto his organizations discussion board and tell members that his approach is all wrong.


Ok, I won't pursue the matter any farther. Thanks for the comment. The Strongfirst discussion board and articles are a great source for information and inspiration.
 
Last edited:

Robert Noftz

Triple-Digit Post Count
@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-
Thanks for your response. I only have one further point to make and I won't keep stirring the matter up. If mprevost has his own materials or has written materials that an amateur like myself can read I will look at them when I have the time.
He did come into someone else's domain and say that what they teach is wrong. That is what got me fired up. He didn't say that he has seen some research or evidence that gives him reason to believe otherwise, he said that what Pavel teaches is all wrong.
If you come into someone else's house and say they are all wrong you should expect trouble. If you come into a community discussion where the people adhere to that teaching and tell the people there they are all wrong you should expect to be challenged not coddled.

Ok, I will let the matter drop and I will keep my focus on the anti-glycolitic approach that Pavel teaches for my daily training.

Thank you and thanks for your response. The articles and the discussion board on the Strongfirst page are a great source of information and motivation.
 
Last edited:

Mark Kidd

More than 500 posts
@Robert Noftz

No offence man, but you are being far more sensitive about this than you need to be.

You can't always assume that Pavel is 100% correct 100% of the time. No one is perfect. I've never met Pavel, but I imagine being StrongFirst also means you can take/hear deserting point of views. S&S is a damn good program for most average Joes/Janes. Doesn't mean it's perfect for everyone. Doesn't mean it will meet everyone's needs. I wouldn't be shocked if Pavel himself doesn't know this. What I respect about Pavel is how he doesn't publish much. That means when he does, it means there was thought/care put into it.

Maybe you are new to forums, but I thought your response could be viewed as far more offensive* than @mprevost's. He atleast back his stance up with sources. He didn't dismiss Pavel's sources or accuse Pavel of not understanding his sources. Could he have worded his response better? Maybe. I didn't think there was anything wrong with his response, so i will let others weigh in.

For the record I'm still not convinced the average Joe/Jane trains hard enough or often enough to really worry about antiglycolic training. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Do I believe the majority of people who hang out here might be in category that DO have to worry about antiglycolic training? Yup. One day I hope to rebuild the work capacity where I am in that category as well.


Take care,

Have a good day

*offensive is too strong of a word to apply to both of you. I just can't think of a milder one.
 

Steve Freides

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Senior Certified Instructor
He did come into someone else's domain and say that what they teach is wrong.
@Robert Noftz, I didn't read it that way, especially after he explained himself further, but I understand how one could read it that way.
If you come into someone else's house and say they are all wrong you should expect trouble.
If you'll forgive me teasing this out into a little more detail, we don't mind anyone disagreeing with what we say, here or elsewhere. Where it's important to draw the line is to refrain from attacking a person - attack someone's ideas all you like, but do it from a place of mutual respect for each other as thinking, caring human beings who, having seen some of the same things, have chosen to interpret them differently. Such differences are what make the world go 'round and make life interesting.

Thank you and thanks for your response. The articles and the discussion board on the Strongfirst page are a great source of information and motivation.
Robert, your heart seems to be in the right place. Thank you for understanding, thank you for being a part of our community, and much success and health in your training.

-S-
 

mprevost

More than 500 posts
Thanks for your response. I only have one further point to make and I won't keep stirring the matter up. If mprevost has his own materials or has written materials that an amateur like myself can read I will look at them when I have the time.
He did come into someone else's domain and say that what they teach is wrong. That is what got me fired up. He didn't say that he has seen some research or evidence that gives him reason to believe otherwise, he said that what Pavel teaches is all wrong.
If you come into someone else's house and say they are all wrong you should expect trouble. If you come into a community discussion where the people adhere to that teaching and tell the people there they are all wrong you should expect to be challenged not coddled.

Ok, I will let the matter drop and I will keep my focus on the anti-glycolitic approach that Pavel teaches for my daily training.

Thank you and thanks for your response. The articles and the discussion board on the Strongfirst page are a great source of information and motivation.
Hi Robert

I apologize for the tone of my post. It was not intended to be sarcastic or critical at all, but sometimes, in a written venue like this (as opposed to face to face communication), the tone or intent is a bit lost. I should have also established who I was and my background, and intent.

I am Mike Prevost, born in 1967, from Louisiana, and graduate of Louisiana State University, with a PhD in exercise physiology. Back in graduate school (in the late 90s) my specialty was muscle physiology and metabolism. I was really interested in biochemistry and took many biochemistry courses and I managed the department's biochemistry lab. My advisor and I were keenly interested in the control of gene expression in skeletal muscle. What we observed was that any experimental treatment that challenged the energy charge of the cell (expended energy and reduced stored energy in the cell), turned on a whole host of genes that caused a shift to a more energy efficient muscle cell, and a shift towards slow twitch properties. I was looking mainly at the type of myosin protein expressed, but also looked at some other muscle enzymes involved in metabolism. Other labs were measuring mitochondrial density and aerobic enzyme concentration/activity. It was more groundbreaking at the time, but is old news now. What we (collectively, the scientific community) discovered was any time a muscle is recruited and active, it turns on gene expression aimed at increasing aerobic capacity of that muscle. this included high intensity exercise. What has been demonstrated in numerous studies is that you can shift the fiber type of muscle cells from IIx (fast) to IIa (intermediate) with an increase in activity, regardless of if that activity is high intensity, or continuous, low intensity. What integrates all of this is a decrease in the energy charge of the cell. While capillary density does not typically increase with resistance training, and increases only a little with high intensity aerobic exercise, capillary biogenesis does occur. For example, if a muscle gets bigger and capillary density is preserved, some capillaries must have been added. The prevailing view was, and is, that high intensity training adds aerobic capacity to the recruited skeletal muscles, plus it increased stroke volume (amount of blood pumped per beat) in the heart.

The second point was from watching the American College of Sports Medicine's position stand on quantity and quality of exercise for preventing disease and death. I have been watching the changes in this position stand for over 20 years. The trend is that they have been emphasizing higher intensity exercise more and more over the years. This is a significant shift from 20 years ago, when the emphasis was on low intensity cardio exercise. However, the research evidence has begun to demonstrate that shorter, higher intensity exercise seems to be protective from heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and probably cancer (and more). They are now talking about a dose/response relationship where more is better (up until a point). So, the new position stand discusses either doing more volume of low intensity work, or a lighter volume of high intensity work. The recommendation is to accumulate 500-1000 MET minutes per week. A MET is a metabolic equivalent, or the equivalent of resting metabolic rate. So a work rate of 10 METs is 10X resting metabolic rate, and if you do this for 10 minutes, you have accumulated 100 MET minutes. I can hold 10 METs for a long, long time. I do 90 minutes of rucking and 90 minutes of running per week at about 10 METS, so between those two workouts I get 1800 Met minutes (10 METS X 180 minutes). I also do about 9 minutes at about 17 METs (6 X 1/4 mile hard intervals). This short workout alone gives me 153 MET minutes. I am exceeding the ACSM recommendation, but the evidence shows a benefit from exceeding the recommended dose, as long as you recover adequately.

Finally, VO2 max is strongly correlated with less risk of "all cause mortality" and less cardiac damage and better survival rates in the event of a heart attack. It is not known if this is due to the higher VO2 max itself, or if it is due to the training that improves VO2 max. I am not waiting 20 more years for scientists to figure this out. I am actively trying to improve my VO2 max. As Izumi Tabata showed many years ago, and others as well, high intensity work provides big "bang for the buck" in improving VO2 max. Plus, as an older athlete (49 years old) I can see my top end fitness (VO2 max) declining, and keeping some high intensity work is key to slowing that decline.

I meant no disrespect to Pavel. I have purchased several of Pavel's books and have recommended Pavel's work to others countless times. I don't think we are at the opposite ends of this discussion either. I fully understand and agree with avoiding excessive high intensity anaerobic work. Too much is definitely a problem. But I do feel like some anaerobic or high intensity work is necessary, especially for aging athletes. It is also a powerful stimulus for improving/maintaining VO2 max, which seems to be important.

One, final, final point. By posting a short reply earlier, with no background, and not identifying myself clearly, I was (unintentionally) making an unethical post. Unethical in that I had no "skin in the game." By clearly identifying who I am below, and putting my credibility and reputation at risk, by stating my position in public, I have put "skin in the game" and have cleared up the ethical issue, in my mind anyway. My intent is to share what I have been given.

Mike Prevost
US, Navy Retired
Visiting Assistant Professor, Loyola Marymount University
Department of Health and Human Science

P.S. feel free to PM me if you want more explanation, or copies of research reports.
 

Steve Freides

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Senior Certified Instructor
@mprevost, that was way more than you needed to post, but thank you for taking the time and bending over backwards to let us know who you are and where you've been.
Finally, VO2 max is strongly correlated with less risk of "all cause mortality" and less cardiac damage and better survival rates in the event of a heart attack. It is not known if this is due to the higher VO2 max itself, or if it is due to the training that improves VO2 max. I am not waiting 20 more years for scientists to figure this out. I am actively trying to improve my VO2 max.
Here, based on my own experience, I want to mention I've taken a different approach - I spent years trying to better my 5k time, and eventually hit a lifetime PR at age 45, a time in my life when I'd already begun serious strength training but had yet to give up on running. I have no science to support this, but I feel great when I deadlift, overhead press, and relaxedly walk a few miles every day. My own theory, with zero science to support it that I'm aware of, is that one ought to spend some times at the opposite ends of the muscle tension continuum. For me, that's strength training on one end, and then relaxed walking (certainly not "power" walking) at the other.

All that is my way of saying that I'm not convinced improving my VO2Max is going to do anything for my health and well-being in a general sense.

FWIW, I've recently begun incorporating kettlebell swings into my training for the first time in a number of years, and I cannot say I feel any healthier, really. Someone looked at me the other day, in a tie and jacket having come from a church service, and said I looked like a little kid - my clothes weren't tight on me, and I move freely and easily. I'm 61 years old and compete as raw, DL-only, in the 67.5 kg class of powerlifting.

One point Al has made, and I agree with (again, based on my own experience) is that, if you want to improve your performance at something that uses the glycolytic energy system, then you must train it some. But I would also ask the question of whether someone who isn't interested in running a better 5k or doing a better SFG snatch test or similar has any need of training in any way other than our A + A style. Does training to improve one's VO2Max make you healthier? My contention - well, let's call it my theory - is that it does not. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that the idea, advanced in S&S, of doing something a little "all-out" once every couple of weeks or so, is sufficient for whatever health benefits there may be.

JMO, YMMV, and thank you again for your thoughtful participation here.

-S-
 

offwidth

More than 5000 posts
Very well said Mr. Prevost.
I am also a 'senior' athlete specializing in high endurance activities such as alpine climbing, bike racing, off road trail racing, and obstacle course racing. So you could say I have a vested interest in this and related topics. I for one certainly welcome your experience and perspective, and am glad you are participating in the Strong First community.
 

pet'

More than 5000 posts
Hello,

In terms of Tabata protocol, I noticed that my free diving times are better when I train with HIIT (especially burpees) than when I do not.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 

Rif

More than 500 posts
Master Certified Instructor
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)
Love this paragraph. This is "art" of training and coaching, not in opposition to the science, but in conjunction.
 

mprevost

More than 500 posts
@mprevost,

One point Al has made, and I agree with (again, based on my own experience) is that, if you want to improve your performance at something that uses the glycolytic energy system, then you must train it some. But I would also ask the question of whether someone who isn't interested in running a better 5k or doing a better SFG snatch test or similar has any need of training in any way other than our A + A style. Does training to improve one's VO2Max make you healthier? My contention - well, let's call it my theory - is that it does not. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that the idea, advanced in S&S, of doing something a little "all-out" once every couple of weeks or so, is sufficient for whatever health benefits there may be.

JMO, YMMV, and thank you again for your thoughtful participation here.

-S-
Hi Steve

It is all relative. The data shows that a person with an aerobic capacity of 4-5 METs is about 4.5 times more likely to die prematurely than a person with an aerobic capacity of 10 METs. Beyond 10 METs there are diminishing returns. For some perspective, 10 METs is pretty low. It would be equivalent to a 1.5 mile run time of about 19 minutes. In your case, you are probably in the top 5% for your age, and any benefits from further improvement will be marginal. Me too. But I still want to maintain and improve from a performance perspective. The data also shows that the hither your VO2 max, the more intensity you need to improve it. I don't have an elite VO2 max by any measure, but it is high enough that it will not budge with low intensity training. I need to go hard regularly to get it to budge, especially now that I am approaching 50.

What you say makes sense and I do not disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rif

Steve Freides

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Senior Certified Instructor
It is all relative. The data shows that a person with an aerobic capacity of 4-5 METs is about 4.5 times more likely to die prematurely than a person with an aerobic capacity of 10 METs. Beyond 10 METs there are diminishing returns. For some perspective, 10 METs is pretty low. It would be equivalent to a 1.5 mile run time of about 19 minutes.
I would think the average adult human could walk 1.5 miles in 19 minutes - backwards, even. That's pretty slow. I'm no speed demon by any means - 5k PR is 20:10, which is 6:30 per mile, set at age 45.

-S-
 

Rif

More than 500 posts
Master Certified Instructor
@aciampa, @mprevost where do you think heavy rucking falls into this spectrum? I ruck two hours once a week and one hour on another day with a 50 lb pac ( I weigh 165). HR usually ends up around 120-125.
 

offwidth

More than 5000 posts
@Rif
I'm sure you are younger than me. If we are using MAF as a reference then the HR you are mentioning during your rucking would be below that threshold so therefore anti-glycolytic.
My MAF rate is in the range you mention.
 
Top Bottom