Building mitochondria

ali

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
someone who trains 3-5x per week, even if it's HIIT or other high intensity stuff, is still better off than someone who's not exercising at all.
Yes, no doubt in general.....and I'm not arguing that at all, of course BUT.....high intensity or HIGH intensity.....for how long.....how frequent?
As said there is a tipping point....an individual's response, is, er, individual, isn't it? Otherwise the 100m final will be a close call between 7.1 billion people. Bit of a photo finish.

another one.....

While exercise-induced addition of new mitochondria is of extreme importance, the maintenance of a healthy population of mitochondria may be of equal or greater value. Mitochondrial damage induced by reactive oxygen species (ROS) (2) can lead to the accumulation of metabolic intermediates (19), which in turn further impair mitochondrial function and trigger a vicious cycle. These pathological changes ultimately hinder the ability of mitochondria to function properly. It is conceivable that efficient removal of damaged mitochondria is critical in maintaining overall mitochondrial function in a tissue/organ like skeletal muscle. Furthermore, an accumulation of damaged mitochondria, associated with sedentary lifestyle and/or high-fat diets, may impair skeletal muscle contractile and metabolic functions.

from: Exercise training-induced Regulation of Mitochondrial Quality

Exercise training-induced Regulation of Mitochondrial Quality
Zhen Yan, Ph.D., Vitor A. Lira, Ph.D., and Nicholas P. Greene, Ph.D.

.....which kind of backs up both arguments for exercise as a positive adaptation and too little/too much exercise being maladaptive due to oxidative stress. Hopefully, maybe not, supports what I'm badly trying to say...

Cells are damaged and replaced/renewed....well they do, otherwise we wouldn't be here, exercise or not.....I'm not backing that up, please, give me that one! But those beastly little mitochondria are delicate things....

from the appropriately titled:
Mitochondrial Death Channels
Mitochondrial Death Channels

Related to cardiac mitochondria during a heart attack....not that swinging a kettlebell induces a heart attack but nonetheless explains what happens to a cell in extreme oxygen debt, like none....

there is no oxygen available to accept electrons from the electron-transport chain. Electron transport backs up, proton translocation stops, and ATP production by ATP synthase ceases. An alternative ATP-producing pathway, glycolysis, meets the energy needs of the cell temporarily until glycolysis is halted by the exhaustion of glucose and the buildup of acidic end products. Cell death follows unless the oxygen supply is restored.

....so extreme glycolysis and acidity causes cell death in the absence of oxygen.....That isn't your normal swing session, well hopefully not anyway....

The article describes 2 forms of mitochondrial suicide, the death channels. One of which is when the ph of the cell is acidic/oxidative stress, the other by disruption of calcium.

You can read up on stress and disease at your leisure suffice to say that there are numerous articles related to oxidative stress.
The earlier comment.....the poison is in the dose.....it really is and it really depends on the individual from a coach potato to elite athletes and the cumulative effects of stress overtime. One session can give you a heart attack? Sure, in untrained, or genetic predisposed cardiac issues, it could and s*it does unfortunately happen.
Excessive thrashing in the glycolytic pathway? Good for some, bad for others....no? Recovery, stress, all very important variables that affect positive or negative outcomes...no?
Very hard thrashing requires greater recovery costs....what you've just built needs to be re-built, including but not limited to....mitochondria.

I freely admit that doesn't give a definitive account of the mystery of life, forgive me. And mitochondrial cell death isn't stopping me from doing what I do but what is an absolute truth that I hope you do not want to give a peer reviewed study....no atp, we dead. And on that note mitochondria are important things to have around. Sure, blow them out from time to time in competition, an event, an escape for your life, a test....and recover. But for training? Do we really need to thrash ourselves to death, all the time? Some people do, I know. Fair enough, each to their own.
 

North Coast Miller

More than 2500 posts
Do we know that?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a supporter of taking it "easy" most of the time and only going for the glycolictic burn once every 1-2 weeks, but what you say is highly debatable.
Anecdotal evidence shows me that someone who trains 3-5x per week, even if it's HIIT or other high intensity stuff, is still better off than someone who's not exercising at all.
I think the effects of proper nutrition and sleep combined with a high intensity training protocol are seldom mentioned in these discussions.

I personally trained pretty much non-stop glycolytic for over two years at high intensity, normally six days a week, and I don't believe I've ever felt better or been stronger for my bodyweight in my life. I did periodize a bit, but lower rep/slower pacing work was always secondary.

Based on the weights I was moving and the 100% natural gains I made in that period I cannot imagine I was suffering from serious metabolic harm.

I did begin to burn out, but that was mostly slacking on my nutrition, lack of variety, and environmental (my favorite gym closed). My weights didn't go backward until I stopped training and switched to more MA focused work.

I believe it is conceivable to harm oneself from overtraining, but again, pretty much all the physical evidence of mitochondrial harm is extrapolated from clinical examples. ROS signaling might indicate harm, but then it is also implicated in triggering positive adaptive responses in muscle tissue, particularly for hypertrophy as type 2 fibers produce much higher levels of ROS than type 1 fibers even with lower mitochondrial density. Back to my theory that the harm is in the dose and there are probably many factors that influence tolerance.

Reactive oxygen species are signalling molecules for skeletal muscle adaptation

Similar to the aforementioned cell culture studies, numerous reports support the concept that exercise-induced ROS production alters muscle gene expression and contributes to exercise-induced adaptations of skeletal muscle in vivo.


I find it very interesting that a lot of the speculation on this topic emerged concurrent with the (re)discovery of low carbohydrate diets and the unproven assertion that metabolizing carbs is somehow harmful. But this is way off topic.

I still train glycolytic most often as it does the most in the least amount of time, and has carry-over benefit to the other two metabolic pathways while the inverse is not as obvious. Could I be stronger for my bodyweight or have more aerobic endurance? Sure, but it keeps my weights up and my endurance is very good for not actively targeting it. I train no more than 90 minutes a week.

Relative to the OP, if double polling is the example of a training goal my recommendation stands - moderate aerobic, limited strength training with low reps and compound movements, and spend extra time on the actual activity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ali

ali

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
@North Coast Miller, absolutely agree with you......

The question of mitochondria came up some time ago on the old forum where Pavel referred to Russian science where the mitochondria death via excess acidity was observed. I looked into all then and since and kept some stuff I had read. Rabbit holes lead to further rabbit holes....and there has been a lot of very interesting and new research of muscle fibres, hence why I referred back to the question of mitochondria and muscle fibres.
Building hybrid type1/2a muscle fibres...enduring power. Coupled with some aerobic training builds mitochondria.
It's not the only way, totally agree. Good food, good sleep and a life free of mortgages, teenagers, traffic and Brexit. If only.....
 
Last edited:

305pelusa

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
The guy in this link doesn't quote any sources, yet again says "some studies have shown". Is it in the textbook at the end?

It's important to see what he's quoting because high acidosis due to running workouts (where you might fight "the burn" for many minutes) is very different than a 1-2 min effort with DBs/BBs where the lactic acid is cleared right after.

@ali : To be honest, I'm very unconvinced by your studies. One was on an elite guy who trained very hard for 7 years, and seemed to damage a lot of his leg musculature. Not just mitochondria, everything seemed damaged. I have zero clue how a 17 year old elite runner trains for 7 years but I wouldn't be surprised if at that level, he's training daily, with multiple sessions, pushing his physical limits. The study simply tries to prove it's possible to damage mitochondria without a genetic issue, but I don't see it being relevant to anyone here who might train much, much less. You could do HIIT daily and probably would still do a quarter of that guy's training.

I also don't totally see how the other two are too useful. Like yeah, I get it. If you train too damn hard all the time, or if the stress is very high, you could damage mitochondria. Just like if you trained extremely hard, you can literally break down your muscle and pee blood (Rabdomyolysis). Yet strength training, daily, even multiple times a week, won't cause it.

So yes, as you said. Poison is in the dose. I just think the doses needed are much larger than you think they are. I'm not even convinced that you should only hit glycolitic work 1-2 times a week. Every boxer, MMA, UFC, etc. Every rower, tennis player, soccer player, etc is training in the glycolitic region, almost daily (in training and competition).

I'll go so far to say it is precisely training hard and often that builds mitochondria, which is why athletes and BBers are choke full of them (and you know these populations hit the burn). And why O-lifters and PLer don't have as much. I won't state that as fact because I don't really want to look up studies for this. I know this is the case having read Supertraining.


To put it in perspective, this all feels to me like you're making the argument "drinking too much water is bad for you" and then showing me a few narrow studies where a few people could actually get vitamin deficient and detrimental effects from too much water. Like yes, I admit there can be too much. I think the tipping point is a magnitude higher than what you make it out to be.

Anywho, that's the way I see it. I don't mean to just angrily s*** on your studies. I'm just personally unconvinced having read them. What I would like is a study that takes X amount of people, trains one HIIT 5 times a week, and the other aerobically 5 times a week, and then proves to me that the first group actually decreased in mitochondria while the second group increased in mitochondria. Any fitness level is cool with me too, as long as they aren't couch potatoes or elite athletes. I understand that might not be available right now, but until then, I remain very skeptical to apply the experience of one elite runner, or cardiac arrest populations, into my practice. That's all. Hope it doesn't sound belligerent once again.
 
Last edited:

ali

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Not at all, what can I say, I agree, haha!

It all works....until it doesn't and then why is that?

I haven't had any biopsies to check on my mitochondria but feel pretty good these days doing what I do. There's a whole lot more to health and fitness than just cellular energy delivery of course, many factors combine to result in overtraining and movement breakdowns. I dunno, maybe the whole mitochondria thing is part of that, maybe not. I'm not sitting in any camp by the way other than to say doing too much high intensity for me these days ain't great, it used to be but not now. I look for another way. It isn't an issue, I'm strong, move well and still have speed in the old legs....I put that down to strongfirst training and S&S. The details fascinate me but the results are more important as are the health benefits. Stress, age and lifestyle are significant components to address in a holistic view of strength and health. I hope that's not too controversial!
I agree with you, no need to alter doing what you are doing in case you come a cropper with a heart attack. Absolutely. I've altered doing what I did because I'm in my 50s and can't do what I used to do, oh hum. And I like what I do now and rather oddly in better shape and can do what I used to do better! If it ain't broke, don't fix it.....
And grateful for it with informative discussions and help on this forum.
 

ali

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Sorry all, not going to bleat on...

What I would like is a study that takes X amount of people, trains one HIIT 5 times a week, and the other aerobically 5 times a week, and then proves to me that the first group actually decreased in mitochondria while the second group increased in mitochondria.
Just to clarify....yes agree but S&S is absolutely high intensity!! We are talking about the same benefits here. There is this thing that I feel I seem to be advocating not doing high intensity when I'm actually doing the thing and enjoying the benefits of high intensity!!

An interesting little ditty here:

Best anti-ageing exercise is high intensity interval training

On discussing the benefits of high intensity and improving mitochondrial density (which it does)......and compared to weight training.....

"Nair says the greatest benefit from weight training was the addition of new muscle mass, but it triggered none of the mitochondrial and respiratory benefits."
(caveat, not read the paper, just using that observation to make a point of agreement)
There is a distinction to be made between S&S 5/6 times a week versus bootcamp 5/6 times a week, the latter being more the common interpretation of high intensity. Is one better than the other for mitochondrial biogenesis? Is one going to lead to burn out more than the other? Is doing a higher intensity twice a week the same as S&S 5/6 for positive adaptation....at what point does the balance shift towards maladaptive or negative responses.....and further more there is a whole lot more going on in S&S than just power endurance. It isn't rep chasing, a very important distinction. The nod is toward recovery not fatigue. And breathing.

So to build mitochondria, as was asked.....high intensity fits the bill and S&S provides. I think we agree there. Do it another way and those days end up too glycolytic and stress becomes an issue, possibly, for some.....oxidative stress and potentially disruptive mitochondria.......as possibly one of many mechanisms involved in fatigue and overtraining. And counter-productive if that's the case but maybe it isn't. And greater recovery costs are involved, maybe, for some.....that's all.

I don't know but to me it makes sense but may be I'm very wrong and also maybe it's my fault for not explaining it very well.
 
Last edited:

305pelusa

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
@ali : Haha, umh, by HIIT I meant bootcamp. I mean metcons. I mean the training that drains your adrenal glands and burns hard. The kind of training millions of college/high school/pro athletes do on a weekly basis as part of their sports practice. I don't mean 10 sets of 10 swings with lots of rest between sets, and with each swing as crisp as the first one.

There are many drawbacks to doing that kind of training too often (overtraining, high injury risk, adrenal fatigue, etc). I just didn't feel like mitochondria destruction due to lactic acid is one of them. I just feel like mitochondria have been with us for way too long for it to be affected by it unless in the most absolute extreme situations. And if it did that, I feel like we would've realized this a long time ago. Mitochondria damage means a serious deterioration in your abilities (like that elite runner). But most people, doing this kind of training (provided they recover and are young perhaps) can improve upon their past benchmarks for many years. So it doesn't seem consistent with mitochondria damage.

Would be an interesting study. I feel like HIIT gets knocked down constantly in this forum because its high acidosis is damaging mitochondria and I'm frankly unconvinced. Which is ironic because there's many other things to knock HIIT for, that I think are easily proven by just doing a week of it haha.
 

NoahMarek

More than 500 posts
Preface: I have a deep respect for Pavel and the brilliant minds at Stronfirst, and I want to say what I think honestly. So please interpret this post as respectful questions and thoughts that I have rather than an attack on A+A or S&S :)

I have always looked at the return of investment of A+A type work compared to traditional kettlebell conditioning (ETK or escalating density plans, plans that significantly involve the glycolytic pathway but not going all out or above 90% effort often). If S&S is done by the book, it seems to take about 45 minutes per session if you truly rest the amount you are supposed during swings (could be longer for some) and is supposed to be done 6-7 days a week. Now compare that to ROP from ETK which is 3 times per week with an average of about 45 minutes per session (or less). I just have a hard time justifying the trade off there especially when S&S conditioning doesn't seem to improve conditioning or strength any faster.

Now, I understand that for those that have a high stress life/ compromised recovery conditions, S&S might be just what they need. But what about those that sleep 7-9 hours a night, have low to moderate life stress, and eat well? Unless they are in their late fifties to sixties, I see no reason why they couldn't easily recover from about 3 short and more intense conditioning sessions (a la ROP) that are waved each week.

I see a lot of people dichotomizing kettlebell conditioning into 2 categories: A+A and glycolytic. Well what about the 50-60% day from ETK or doing 5+5 snatches emom for 10-20 minutes? That would not be A+A but it is far from all out efforts. So why do we tend to say A+A or glycolytic when it is most definitely a spectrum? I currently do more "in between" type sessions that are more time efficient than S&S but much less taxing than all out efforts. I can spend half the time and seemingly get the same results as A+A. The only reason I give A+A this much of a chance was because a lot of smart minds at SF stand behind it, but I just am not convinced that it is significantly better (in terms of fitness and longevity) than traditional waved conditioning efforts (I will not say "glycolysis" because that is only one of the energy systems involved). If I really wanted to improve my aerobic conditioning, I would do 3+ LSD runs a week and 1-2 intense bouts of conditioning personally. The research for the negative affects of glycolysis is far from convincing, and it seems that Pavel and Al refer to all out 90%+ efforts rather as being the worst than more "in between" type sessions that many others and I use.

So to sum up, I think A+A works well or even great if you have the time, but I have a hard time with the fact that the time commitment is HUGE compared to more traditional types of shorter more intense (but waved and not all out) conditioning sessions for basically the same results.

Well guys, what do you think? Does this make some sense to you and sound reasonable for the person who doesn't want to unnecessarily spend twice the time working out?
 

ali

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Perfectly reasonable.....

refer you to this post by @mprevost a little while back:

All good questions. Based on the American College of Sports Medicine Recommendations, and research I have gathered, plus some informed estimates on my part, here is what I think in terms of cardiovascular training for health. Pick one of the zones below (or mix and match) and perform the workout 3-5 times per week (5 times is better). I would consider each to be approximately equivalent in terms of reducing risk of mortality and improving health. So, for example, 45 minutes in zone 1 would be about the same as doing 5 minutes on zone 5 in terms of health outcomes. Again, this is for health, not performance. I am in the process of preparing an e-book or document that discusses all of this in more detail. It is mostly for my students for now.


Zone (% of Max Heart Rate) Time (minutes)
1 (60-72) 30-60
2 (72-82) 20-60
3 (82-87) 15-30
4 (88-92) 10-15
5 (93-100) 4-6

mprevost, Jan 2, 2017
 

Anna C

More than 5000 posts
Elite Certified Instructor
I think A+A works well or even great if you have the time, but I have a hard time with the fact that the time commitment is HUGE compared to more traditional types of shorter more intense (but waved and not all out) conditioning sessions for basically the same results.
As to the time commitments, I don't feel that it's much different. I can do a 40 min A+A session in about the same amount of time as a 5 min warm-up + 20 min metcon + 10 min cooldown. And at my age I definitely need some warm-up before intensity, and some cool-down after a sweat session. A+A I can get right into and out of it if I need to, time-wise.

As to results, I feel like I get more out of A+A, because I can do more heavy work. For example, short fast repeats of heavy snatches - I can do maybe 160 total snatches with the 24kg in a 40 min session. With more of a metcon session in 20 minutes, maybe 200-300 total with the 16kg, but more likely I'd have to mix it up and do snatches plus burpees or whatever. The increased heavy power work that I can do in A+A gets me more results in muscle-building, endurance-building, resilience, recovery training, grip training, etc...

As to energy pathways, I agree that the lines are much more blurred and overlapping than we often portray. The body supplies the energy we need for our activities in many amazing ways, and it cares not for our theories.

To me the biggest plusses are 1) the increased work that I can do in A+A manner and 2) the decreased stress response of A+A compared to metcons. A+A leaves me feeling fresh. Metcons leave me wiped out and increase my overall stress. But I will say that there is nothing quite like the feeling of a good sweat session, working hard, breathing hard, getting amped-up, and giving it all you've got... I definitely do that type of "workout" now and then too, and I do believe they can be a powerfully good stimulus as one component of the overall physical training picture. It just shouldn't be the default or standard of a good session.
 

North Coast Miller

More than 2500 posts
Preface: I have a deep respect for Pavel and the brilliant minds at Stronfirst, and I want to say what I think honestly. So please interpret this post as respectful questions and thoughts that I have rather than an attack on A+A or S&S :)

I have always looked at the return of investment of A+A type work compared to traditional kettlebell conditioning (ETK or escalating density plans, plans that significantly involve the glycolytic pathway but not going all out or above 90% effort often). If S&S is done by the book, it seems to take about 45 minutes per session if you truly rest the amount you are supposed during swings (could be longer for some) and is supposed to be done 6-7 days a week. Now compare that to ROP from ETK which is 3 times per week with an average of about 45 minutes per session (or less). I just have a hard time justifying the trade off there especially when S&S conditioning doesn't seem to improve conditioning or strength any faster.

Now, I understand that for those that have a high stress life/ compromised recovery conditions, S&S might be just what they need. But what about those that sleep 7-9 hours a night, have low to moderate life stress, and eat well? Unless they are in their late fifties to sixties, I see no reason why they couldn't easily recover from about 3 short and more intense conditioning sessions (a la ROP) that are waved each week.

I see a lot of people dichotomizing kettlebell conditioning into 2 categories: A+A and glycolytic. Well what about the 50-60% day from ETK or doing 5+5 snatches emom for 10-20 minutes? That would not be A+A but it is far from all out efforts. So why do we tend to say A+A or glycolytic when it is most definitely a spectrum? I currently do more "in between" type sessions that are more time efficient than S&S but much less taxing than all out efforts. I can spend half the time and seemingly get the same results as A+A. The only reason I give A+A this much of a chance was because a lot of smart minds at SF stand behind it, but I just am not convinced that it is significantly better (in terms of fitness and longevity) than traditional waved conditioning efforts (I will not say "glycolysis" because that is only one of the energy systems involved). If I really wanted to improve my aerobic conditioning, I would do 3+ LSD runs a week and 1-2 intense bouts of conditioning personally. The research for the negative affects of glycolysis is far from convincing, and it seems that Pavel and Al refer to all out 90%+ efforts rather as being the worst than more "in between" type sessions that many others and I use.

So to sum up, I think A+A works well or even great if you have the time, but I have a hard time with the fact that the time commitment is HUGE compared to more traditional types of shorter more intense (but waved and not all out) conditioning sessions for basically the same results.

Well guys, what do you think? Does this make some sense to you and sound reasonable for the person who doesn't want to unnecessarily spend twice the time working out?

Makes sense to me. This is why I tend to periodize my training. Most of my time is spent doing higher intensity work - most of my sets are 60-90 seconds and tend to go to tech failure with about 90 seconds between sets.

I also do circuits where I am not going to tech failure on any given movement but at the finish of each circuit I feel like I've done 80-90% of what I've got in the tank.

I enjoy the slower pacing and higher weights of alactic work, but for me is the least well tolerated of anything I do in terms of how my joints feel aside from isometric work, and has the least enduring effect physically - if I do not work consistently on my high end strength it does not stay in that range. If I up weights or increase tempo on my other workouts I feel more of an adaptive response that carries over to my next workout. That said, if high end strength is the goal, this is the path to achieve it.

I do not normally do puke fest metcon - or at least what I interpret as such. My heart rate average over 25 minutes or so is probably in the 80% range, spiking at 90 and dropping to 70 between exertions.

We're all different in terms of fiber makeup/metabolism and I believe this is the biggest single factor in program "enjoyment", age being another. I'll be 50 in September. While I've always enjoyed higher intensity work, I haven't done a lot of it for the last 15 years. Over the last couple of years have gotten back to it and it seems to be an even better fit than when I was younger.

I appreciate the aim of S&S but haven't given it a real try as yet for two reasons - my fitness routine is 90% of my hard physical work in a given day, so keeping a lot in the tank doesn't make sense. And there isn't enough variety. TGUs and swings are a great one-two but leave too many gaps that, for me, won't be filled in with other work. I have no doubt it delivers what it claims.

Interesting discussion - BTW has the OP been on since their second post?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ali

NoahMarek

More than 500 posts
Well said about the benefits, Anna, but I still feel you are referring to the really hard "workouts" rather than those that average at about 70% intensity. They are wayyyyy different in my mind. Here is an analogy I though of: I am not going to max out my lifts frecuently in the same way I am not going to do all out conditioning sessions frequently. Why? Those are saved for testing and competition times because the stress they incur is so high. However, I still lift heavy (60-90%) often and in the same way, I still do hard conditioning sessions (50-90% effort) often. It is a stimulus-adaption model right? So an all out effort is night and day different from an 80% effort let alone 50%! So why do we lump apples and oranges together and say they are both bad?

It is well known that those over the age of 50 should not train as heavy or as often as say a 20 year old. So naturally their conditioning should reflect that too. So again, the frecuency, intensity, and duration are all hugely important factors that don't seem to be considered here.

I just feel that the pendulum is swinging too far towards A+A for not good enough reasons. In my understanding, both should be perfectly valid options when programmed well for a given goal(s), yet so many people are criticizing "glycolytic-dominant work" (or really anything that isn't A+A) as being all out sessions all the time when that is far from being the case.
 

NoahMarek

More than 500 posts
Note: I think A+A is awesome in that it delivers both legitimate strength and conditioning, and I plan to dive into a A+A snatch program in the near future. However, I can't shake the frustration that all the criticizing of "more intense but intelligently programmed conditioning" doesn't have much ground.
 

Anna C

More than 5000 posts
Elite Certified Instructor
Well said about the benefits, Anna, but I still feel you are referring to the really hard "workouts" rather than those that average at about 70% intensity. They are wayyyyy different in my mind.
Point taken, but by the same token, I also feel that too many people think of A+A as "easy". It's not easy, when properly done. It is intense and difficult work... for 10-12 seconds. Then recovery. Then repeat. Etc...

Conditioning is such a broad term. I like to ask two questions:
  1. What muscle fiber types am I using/training with this workout?
    1. If it's something ballistic like kettlbell swings/snatches, or slower but intense like lifting heavy weight, it's fast fiber. In that case, I usually don't want to do it very long such as sets of 20 swings or more, or I start using slower fibers to do the work. Pavel explains this in S&S. (Exception would be a slower, "conditioning" swing that you do for longer sets for a different effect). Something like push-ups - when I slow down, it's a good idea to stop. Weaker slow fibers are doing the work. Injury becomes more likely. The primary objectives of strength and power are not being achieved.
    2. If it's cardio (running, cycling, rowing) at low to moderate intensity, it's slow fibers, and aerobic training.
  2. What adaptation am I trying to elicit with this workout? Aerobic base improvements? Some specific work capacity? Lactate threshold improvements? Some specific skill or ability (such as a certain sprint speed, and let the energy/fiber types cards fall where they may?) For me this helps determine the target intensity.
 

Kettlebelephant

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
@NoahMarek
I don't know if it applies to all kinds of "fitness", but those "hard, but still not so hard"-sessions are not very productive, at least in an endurance context (running, cycling, etc.). "Junk miles" is the associated term.
You will always hear the phrase "the easy sessions are too hard and the hard sessions too easy".
What you're talking about reminds me of those junk miles a lot.
Again, I don't know if it applies here aswell, but it's a thing to think about.
 
Last edited:

NoahMarek

More than 500 posts
@Anna C I am trying to improve overall conditioning and specifically gunning for the 200 snatches in 10 minutes with 24kg/ trying to improve my TSC snatch score while doing it in a sustainable and healthy way. I am considering doing a half marathon in the future for fun, but I would start 2-3 LSD runs a week and complement it with 2 A+A sessions likely (or something along those lines).

@Kettlebelephant I honestly don't know if that applies. Without doing anything but some kettlebell conditioning, I am able to run a 5k while breathing only through my nose easily with no running beforehand. I could go longer too but my calves need time to build up or they are too sore the following few days. And let's say that the work I am doing, is in fact effective because well, it has been. It has improved my 5k+ running and snatching. So I would not label it as junk miles if it is producing the results I am after and leaving plenty in the tank. I think you forget that I am talking about what I am calling "intelligently programmed shorter more intense sessions" (I need a better name for it lol). Meaning that there is a sustainable sense of progression to it all.
 

NoahMarek

More than 500 posts
Also let's take a step back for a moment. As Pavel has mentioned before, physiological mechanism explanations are constantly changing and generally way more complicated than we understand (seriously, we still know so little about the human body, neuroscience is a case in point), so if something works well and matches your goals, then do it! My comments are not an attack on A+A, they are a defense for more traditional ETK style programming. I have heard many, many people reach the goals in ROP by... following the program! And I rarely hear that it is too demanding except for those over 50-60 (which makes sense to me, I would not recommend 50+ heavy presses plus conditioning in a session to my grandpa). Many people across a wide variety of ages have stayed on ROP for years with no signs of any overtraining. So if it works, why say it is wrong? Why not just say this other way (A+A) works too and may be more appropriate for certain goals?
 

ali

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
1.1 Deep Adaptations - The Body Of Knowledge (podcast)

A really brilliant overview of the current and historical understanding of muscle fibre adaptation.
I don't know when fibre adapted to fiber, another story perhaps.

The phd boffin is Andy Galpin, some stuff on his site too. And as said above, very complex, they really don't know much but what they do know is that they adapt very differently than previously thought.

"Kenny and Andy dive deep into the science and applications of physiological adaptation. Research has shown that people can significantly change the composition of their muscle fibers and the magnitude of such changes can be shockingly high. Human beings can alter their physiology with exercise and nutrition far more than previously believed."

Type 1/2a hybrids, type 1s and type 2s.....very, very, few people trained or untrained have pure type 2x superfast fibres. Type 2s start off as 2a/2x but become more 2a with training.Many fibres adapt with different percentages of each - the calf is 80% slow. Packed full of interesting stuff, if you like a summer blockbuster of that sort of thing.

btw....'research has shown'....don't shoot the messenger, I merely copied and pasted. He's a phd, take it up with him! haha
 
Top Bottom