I think it is interesting you hear that Robergs confirms AGT when he states that there is no lactic acid only lactate, that lactate is a good thing, and that the low pH from H ions doesn't negatively effect the muscle or mitochondria. Clearly I need to reread AGT stuff.
I felt the same way as Harry. I am mostly steeped in the Strong Endurance manual, I've read it cover to cover many times. i think I'm on my 7th go-around, now. I actually found myself to be in agreement with the good doctor, when he was discussing these things.
so, I'm no expert, but I don't see what the conflict with AGT is, excepting certain misnomers.
I thought I heard the doctor describe that there's a threshold beyond which the Hydrogen Ions do more harm than good, it becomes not just a problem for the muscle, it's a problem for the whole body. this would be in agreement with AGT.
ON AGT And Low pH
AGT does not demand zero rates of hydrogen ion production, nor does it demand zero acidosis.
where it draws the line is that relative to a target adaptation, the acidity, the hydrogen ions, would be more intelligently utilized acutely and purposefully, rather than generally, and systemically. The acidity, once induced should be cleared promptly, and not pushed to its possible limits; with a chronic or lingering presence in the system. There are secondary and tertiary effects that AGT eschews.
For strength and power expression, that bar to acidosis is lower; not zero. for hypertrophy, it is a higher level of employment of acidosis, to induce hypertrophy; purposefully, in controlled doses, to mitigate undesired effects.
And while previous research employed such terminology that associated Lactate to acidosis, I don't see a conflict with the so-called training methods. I sense agreement. the clarifications don't effect the conclusions as much as intermediary effects in the causal cascade of events. some of which might be interesting for other reasons.
ON MISNOMERS
For better or worse, (maybe for worse) I have some sympathy for some of his colleagues' views. He is not alone in being faced with misnomers and mistakes in nomenclature, taxonomy, or topology. And most everyone finds methods of coping with it. But, he's kind
Example:
In electrical engineering, there is this thing we call reverse electron flow. this is completely untrue. Edison was wrong.
Edison, (along with anyone else at the time) described the Positive side of a circuit as being positively charged. He and everyone else would describe that the positive side of the battery was the source of energy. He and everyone else was wrong. but it was a part of every document attempt, explanation, etc. that the positive side was the source side of the energy in the circuit. this is oppositely true. it is the ground side of a circuit which is the source side of energy. the electron flow - so-called - (another misnomer, still) actually sources the energy from the negative or ground side of the circuit. and then even still - electrons DO NOT FLOW from one material to another. The electrical field dictates the electrical charge behavior.
that's two biggies(1. Reverse flow of electrons, and 2. Electrons do not actually flow, only the signal "flows"). And, it has disturbed Electrical Engineering, not one wink. it is a kind of labeling problem. And, it has become quite literally a kind of term of art, in the industry and education that we still use the positive flow from the positively charged side to the negatively charged side of a circuit, with silly arrows and diagrams that have little if anything to do with any of the underlying phenomena. the excitation, and participation in a defined field (which is often definable by an ever-changing state, but for mathematical purposes is often(if not always) evaluated in some static state; often utilizing matrices) it has little to no bearing on the usefulness, and utility of the previously established models, that we also understand these more recently developed ideas about how and why power works the way it does. to reiterate, the labeling problem has little or nothing to do with the utility of the preexisting models.
so, I'm about to step well outside of my ken(I'm spitballing here), but in my view, the good doctor, if he's serious about revising The Paradigm, he has a certain kind of choice to make. if he's serious about making things change enough to rewrite textbooks. (something that on average happens very rarely, these days, even when it's warranted.) He has to either raze the construct to the ground, embarrassing everything in his path into submission, so that they have no choice but to do away with the old idea, post-haste; or he has to provide a sufficiently complete substitute. you can not knock out a column in a building without at least shoring up the surrounding floor plate. and you MUST have a plan to replace it. I believe that it is not enough for his industry, to remove the useful short-hand heuristic without something to hold its stead. This comports with my study of Logic (under philosophical schools, not mathematics/comp sci) that largely, sets of information are organized architecturally. the addition of components of thought, understanding, etc. are added in certain configurations, not all of which are mutually compatible. so, a sufficiently valuable substitute assembly of knowledge may be required to compensate for the destroyed utility of the old one; whether it was right or wrong in certain ways.
But, I digress.
as far as AGT is concerned I don't see a huge disagreement. some clarification possibly.
I don't see the material differences about ...
- avoidance of systemically high amounts of Hydrogen Ion accumulation, because
muh lactic acid
-
or-
- avoidance of systemically high amounts of Hydrogen Ion accumulation, because of the temporal region of exercise exposure where both lactate and Hydrogen ion is principally produced, and the lactate production (apparently) doesn't always keep up with Hydrogen ion production, inviting negative side effects in large enough doses. and which is sometimes associable to effects that are not the target adaption(s) of AGT.
the same paradigm seems to apply.
work hard, and don't overdo it.
(maybe there's some discussion to be had about what constitutes overdoing it, within a set, session, week, month, etc.)
points of clarification I find to be of interest
- Do lactate production rates predict performance? If so, How so?
- does lactate (or other cofactors) supplementation provide performance increases to those interested?
