all posts post new thread

Current Science on Lactate

Adachi said:
- Do lactate production rates predict performance? If so, How so?
- does lactate (or other cofactors) supplementation provide performance increases to those interested?
Click to expand...

Lactate levels and pH generally do not track with local reduction in force potential or fatigue, or recovery of either following exertion. This is outdated understanding based on in vitro testing at non physiologic temps. Muscle fatigue is most negatively effected by accumulation of inorganic phosphate from CrP ATP metabolism - its source is fundamentally alactic. There is an ongoing residual cost anytime high threshold motor units are being called upon. Two phases are required - the elimination of this inorganic phosphate (glycolysis assists with this) and rephosphorylation of Creatine accomplished via surplus ATP produced in mitochondria. This can be from glucose or lipids, and explains why only rest can truly restore CrP stores.

Metabolic harm seems to be a function of ROS levels overwhelming resident antioxidant defenses. These defenses are scalable, the upper limit of which seems to be almost beyond belief in elite endurance athletes. ROS exposure triggers all manner of positive downstream adaptive response to exercise. The poison is in the dose. ROS are only formed from the oxidation of pyruvate, not from the simple presence of lactate, which increases anytime an effort exceeds lipid aerobic ATP supply.

To the best of my knowledge, lactate supplementation is only used in head trauma care to reduce the amount of damage to the brain.

Some research has demonstrated that lactate combined with very mild muscle tissue damage is enough to trigger muscle growth, even without exercise - more research needed.

Activation of the Cori Cycle converting lactate back to glucose causes downstream anabolic signalling.

None of this reduces the effectiveness of certain training methodologies, but the stated theoretical underpinnings may need to evolve, or not. Most people don't care why something works well.
 
ali said:
A lot of the muddiness is due to the term: anti-glycolytic. I know it's been said before - this semantic interpretation - if there was a better descriptor it would clean up the model.
A stress model is more effective, again not with absolute clarity but there is agreement that too much exercise stress mixed with life stress can lead to negative health outcomes with the 'it depends' caveat applied to different populations. Which is the same point made in the video.
A mild high intensity stress done over time is in a direct clash with those that push for no pain, no gain short term quick results...which in some circumstances is warranted...and there is agreement on this: bootcamp WOD type approaches are a valid tool. But not always. And not all the time.
We arrive back at a sensible dosage of stress at appropriate times being a pragmatic choice for most populations but not all. It's called anti-glycolytic. Which is unfortunate....so the cycle continues...

Dunno. CHIT....curbed high intensity.....sorry,not sorry glycolytic anti-glycolytic...balls not quite to the wall training...going not all out whilst going all out....Schrodinger's WOD training that is both glycolytic and not glycolytic but you don't know what it is until you've posted it on Instagram.
Click to expand...
Schrodingers WOD hahaha
 
John K said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sure, lactic acid doesn't exist. Robergs did not say that H+ doesn't affect the muscles, he said it obviously does but backs himself into a corner saying we don't know how currently. Robergs mentions muscle damage caused by rhabdo, proteolytic enzymes, but he never made the connection between rhabdo and H+ presence, more the heat generated by excess energy production in the cell from either a regular human maladapted to the circumstances or from elite athletes being too elite. Unless muscle contractions failure has anything to do with cell damage, they didn't really talk about it.

Something of note is that near the end Robergs specifically calls out that we need more data on power athletes, and I'd like to mention that aerobic glycolysis, which is harmless, wouldn't be the issue here but the anaerobic glycolysis that generates the H+ would be. Mitochondria weren't mentioned outside of their buffering abilities which AGT promotes as a benefit, again, in agreement with the standard claims of AGT, misnomers aside.
 
Last edited:
Jtminster said:
This is a really great thread, I hope it continues.

I dont follow Lebe - what is his goal? To discredit Pavel? To prove AGT methods are bogus? Or both?
Click to expand...
Well,
Way out in a limb here but I think Greg thinks Pavel might be bullshitting and may just be all marketing trying to scare people with out of date science terms. Greg has interviewed many associates of Pavel's past and I'm of the mind to suggest he is possibly envious of Pavel's success and at the same time wants to understand it. Lebe Stark is also a competitor and they're probably tired of answering questions about Strong first programs, if they know how to answer them at all.

I haven't spoken with the guy, so I cannot say one way or the other, but the schtick of acting like he is just trying to understand or get to the bottom of things providing a public service of sorts, while possible, is something I've seen many times and have grown skeptical of its sincerity. If he didn't straw man every aspect of what he was trying to find out more about(notably about a competitor's product) I would actually respect what he is doing.
 
HarryBergers said:
assuming this isn't just a marketing tactic for LS
Click to expand...
Three quotes from the host that stuck out at the end;

"Its all about marketing"

"One guy said you can either be right or you can be rich"

"You can get away with the least amount of knowledge and the least amount of scientific evidence, if you have a strong marketing game"
 
Pete L said:
Three quotes from the host that stuck out at the end;

"Its all about marketing"

"One guy said you can either be right or you can be rich"

"You can get away with the least amount of knowledge and the least amount of scientific evidence, if you have a strong marketing game"
Click to expand...
Is that to discredit the scientific information presented or to express distaste with his method of doing business?
 
John K said:
Yours. I’m asking your goal of posting those quotes, as I am unsure how it affects the scientific information presented in the interview.
Click to expand...
My first thought is that this forum post is both about a clickbait video and some revelatory scientific information. My comments were on the clickbait element and in response to the comments posted by @HarryBergers, whom I felt had a good handle on the content and intention of the video.

Acknowledging that my comments won't "affect" the scientific information, its validity or whether it is peer reviewed and becomes the accepted science, I am happy to expand on why I thought it was relevant to make my post.

First i would like to acknowledgesome uncertainty on my part..., I had the impression from watching the video that this information is not yet peer reviewed. Or in other words, that it is not yet widely documented as the accepted science. It is almost thirty years since my A-Level Biology studies and I am not in any way an expert on the topic. However, I have just spent 200 quid on the Strong Endurance Express product, so perhaps I have some vested investment in that way :)

If the nomenclature around acid production, used for the last hundred years plus, is incorrect, fine by me. But what is the intention of the host in directing this mistake solely against one specific author and book? There should be no shame in accepting a scientific breakthrough.

My comments were intended to highlight that the host was attempting to intentionally conflate two separate things; one that there is no acid associated with poor performance and secondly that The Kettlebell AXE philosophy is wrong. Or in other words that the host's philosophy is in fact correct by default.

Which is also fine because, so far as I have read, both philosophies will lead to increased performance. Training to tolerate glycolysis is a widely accepted method, in so far as I am aware.

Regarding the specific quotations that I picked out, I felt that they revealed the true intentions of the host. In fact, i felt that the guest was a bit dumbfounded by the interviewer's interjection at this point, in my opinion.

Host: "Its all about marketing"

My interpretation; I'm posting this video with a scientist to validate why I am right and they are wrong.

Host: "One guy said you can either be right or you can be rich"

My interpretation; I want to be rich more than discuss the science.

Host: "You can get away with the least amount of knowledge and the least amount of scientific evidence, if you have a strong marketing game"

My interpretation; I am more interested in creating YouTube material which creates sufficient ambiguity that I can continue to successfully sell my product, which may have been put at risk due to the topic in question.

So, long story short, "to express my distaste".
 
Pete L said:
My first thought is that this forum post is both about a clickbait video and some revelatory scientific information. My comments were on the clickbait element and in response to the comments posted by @HarryBergers, whom I felt had a good handle on the content and intention of the video.

Acknowledging that my comments won't "affect" the scientific information, its validity or whether it is peer reviewed and becomes the accepted science, I am happy to expand on why I thought it was relevant to make my post.

First i would like to acknowledgesome uncertainty on my part..., I had the impression from watching the video that this information is not yet peer reviewed. Or in other words, that it is not yet widely documented as the accepted science. It is almost thirty years since my A-Level Biology studies and I am not in any way an expert on the topic. However, I have just spent 200 quid on the Strong Endurance Express product, so perhaps I have some vested investment in that way :)

If the nomenclature around acid production, used for the last hundred years plus, is incorrect, fine by me. But what is the intention of the host in directing this mistake solely against one specific author and book? There should be no shame in accepting a scientific breakthrough.

My comments were intended to highlight that the host was attempting to intentionally conflate two separate things; one that there is no acid associated with poor performance and secondly that The Kettlebell AXE philosophy is wrong. Or in other words that the host's philosophy is in fact correct by default.

Which is also fine because, so far as I have read, both philosophies will lead to increased performance. Training to tolerate glycolysis is a widely accepted method, in so far as I am aware.

Regarding the specific quotations that I picked out, I felt that they revealed the true intentions of the host. In fact, i felt that the guest was a bit dumbfounded by the interviewer's interjection at this point, in my opinion.

Host: "Its all about marketing"

My interpretation; I'm posting this video with a scientist to validate why I am right and they are wrong.

Host: "One guy said you can either be right or you can be rich"

My interpretation; I want to be rich more than discuss the science.

Host: "You can get away with the least amount of knowledge and the least amount of scientific evidence, if you have a strong marketing game"

My interpretation; I am more interested in creating YouTube material which creates sufficient ambiguity that I can continue to successfully sell my product, which may have been put at risk due to the topic in question.

So, long story short, "to express my distaste".
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying. Gregory's comments are about learning how to operate the YouTube algorithms to make money. I do not think that should negatively influence our understanding of Robergs' information. For instance, his comment about unknowledgeable but good marketing did not seem to be his goal but rather that he sees people with KILLER marketing "game" that don't know anything and yet they get a TON more business than more knowledgeable folks who refuse to play the marketing game. Of course, we can also interpret what he says as negatively as possible.

For what it is worth, I do not like Gregory's methods for generating views and leads. The marketing game rubs me the wrong way.

However, he does quite a few interviews with people I think are worth listening to - such as Nick Tuminello, Sven Rieger, Dan John, Geoff Neupert, Louka Kurcer, Brett Jones, or Valery Federenko, among others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom