Other/Mixed Energy systems article

[Al Ciampa]

This was sent to me:

Understanding the Underlying Purpose of the Energy Systems - Rebel Performance

It's a good read, and mirrors most of how I understand bioenergetics. I am curious in getting feedback and seeing where this discussion goes.

My initial thoughts, in no order of importance:

- from a philosophical perspective, there is too much talk of "purpose", and, assigning function as if biology is a free agent. My concern with this is that someone who shapes their thoughts with these ideas in mind can be led to erroneous thinking. I am not saying that this article is erroneous.

- his framing of this topic illuminates a very important concept to understand: bioenergetics is always functioning from most efficient to least efficient and, moreover, that it is "bottlenecks" which decide what the overall output is. In other words, oxidative phosphorylation is the default system at work (in most tissues), with supplementation from the glycolytic and CPr (phosphagic) systems. What kicks these latter two systems into high gear are the "bottlenecks".

The tightest bottleneck (in healthy skeletal muscle cells) is probably the collective NADs' ability to grab H+ and deliver it to the ETC (which he also pointed out as being overlooked by researchers). The idea that a lack of O2 as being the bottleneck, probably came out of medicine, while researching disease. In a healthy state, there is usually plenty of O2 around... it is the sharp increase in H+ resulting from an increase in movement intensity, that overwhelms the collective NAD.

- glycolytic function is not inherently "bad" or undesirable, it is the overwhelming amount of acid (H+) that is. This is a result of too high an intensity of work (doing too much in too little time), causing lots of ATP required to fuel the work. The acid load results from the cell's "use" of ATP. This also happens to occur when glycolysis is kicked in hard. It is simply an effect of rate: more is being produced than can be buffered.

The takeaway here is that is not anaerobic or aerobic... it is aerobic + supplementation. The mitochondrion is the "source". Mitochondrial function/health is the key to your performance, and the medical literature is suggesting the same about your overall health.

From a practical perspective, what does this article suggest?
- train in a manner that results in superior mitochondrial health and function, and by extension, aerobic function
- stimulate the growth of additional mitochondria in your fast twitch/white fibers
- ditto for your slow twitch/red fibers
- the diaphragm itself, and CO2 buffers a lot of acid: learn to control and properly breathe
- competition and/or measured events will create a lot of acid: train to buffer acid so you can compete at a higher level; if you train by competing, you will end up in ill health

What are your thoughts?

 

[Steve W.]

Al,
A very nice summary/analysis/synthesis. I feel I got a lot more out of the article, having read your post.

I get your objection to the term "purpose," which seems to imply a level of intentionality that is more than just descriptive of function.

The article also doesn't really provide any specific guidance about how these ideas translate into specific training strategies or programs. That's obviously not the "purpose" of the article on this guy's site (which I infer is to establish his credibility, support the value of his products, and perhaps to educate as a side effect).

But that's what we have YOU for ;-).

 

[krg]

As a chemist I didn't like the substitution of hydrogen for hydrogen ion / proton - pH would be a simpler unifying concept IMO. But looking beyond that it was an interesting article.

What I took from it -

Proton (hydrogen ion) build-up occurs when you are using energy faster than your mitochondria can cope with.
As Al says - stimulate your mitochondria (amount of / efficiency of?) and you will be able to do more work.
This must improve your resilience - seems like a reasonable definition of good health.
I like the idea of breathing as a buffering action - breathing is cool - the one place where the autonomic nervous system and conciousness intersect - you should be able to influence your performance and health by breathing control.

What I have no idea about -

how does this fit into strength development?
How hard do you train to improve your acid buffering capacity - does this conflict with strength development?
People clearly derive improvements in work capacity from insane interval sets / tabatas etc - is this an efficient way to train acid buffering? Or a short cut to ill health.
There should be links to blood glucose levels - ultimately a discussion of energy systems should come back to what we eat - ie how energy enters the organism in the first place

 

[Steve Freides]

I don't mean to be curmudgeonly here, but

Training the energy systems of an athlete is one of the most important jobs of the strength and conditioning professional.

Why? Training an athlete for what? Define athlete.

-S-

 

[ali]

A good read, most of which left me wishing I could understand it a bit better. The takeaway points support much or all of what I understand from Pavel, you, Al C, that is and Maffetone ....all of which dovetails neatly into Dan John's quadrant training. And all the aforementioned do more than just a fine job bringing the complexities of it all down to the practical application for health....and fitness and performance.... to fit into our lifestyle choices. I sit firmly in the anti-glycolytic camp now anyway - for me and what I do and want to do that is. The article didn't add or take anything away from my understanding, flavoured it a bit perhaps with a few herbs yet lost me with some tricky jiggerypokery. The level of discussion here and the catalogue of work from the previously mentioned luminaries is the superior recipe. And I'm very grateful for it! I'd be constantly dazed and confused otherwise.

 

[Al Ciampa]

But that's what we have YOU for ;-).

When was this election voted upon? I didn't get a vote ;]

What I have no idea about -

how does this fit into strength development?
How hard do you train to improve your acid buffering capacity - does this conflict with strength development?
People clearly derive improvements in work capacity from insane interval sets / tabatas etc - is this an efficient way to train acid buffering? Or a short cut to ill health.
There should be links to blood glucose levels - ultimately a discussion of energy systems should come back to what we eat - ie how energy enters the organism in the first place

Fantastic questions/comments, and why I put this up...

- strength development in and of itself should have no concern with this (I benched 600+ while unable to walk around the block), but in the context of health, and overall performance, it likely plays a central role

- how hard? This is the domain of anecdote and coaching experience... ST fibers + systemic adaptations = low intensity; FT fibers = higher intensity. Conflict with strength work? Relative or absolute? Likely not the former, much more likely the latter.

- Insane protocols... I do not know. Maybe throwing a wrench in the works; maybe short term positive, long term negative. What else are they doing? What is their training history? Many variables.

- Yes. Eating is key!

Why? Training an athlete for what? Define athlete.

Yes, Steve... of course.

 

[Al Ciampa]

@Steve Freides ...bringing this discussion here:

Steve and I were beginning to discuss the strength and endurance continuum on another, less appropriate thread. It is a completely theoretical discussion which may, or may not have any impact on training practices.

On one end of this movement spectrum, or continuum, is strength work. I think 95-100% DL. Max neural involvement; max tension; limited repetitiveness, by design. Maybe you think something else(?).

On the other, is endurance work. I think something like a long walk: minimum neural involvement, minimum tension, max repetitiveness.

As you move from the strength end toward the endurance end, you have longer durations, and less loading (see attachment).

Steve was asking about where the current A+A protocol we are testing fits on this continuum, specifically, as compared to S&S.

When I used to brief this slide, I used it as a general example to help students "see" how to train for the their goals (more specific to a MIL application). I explained that programs like S&S, LCC&J, etc; took this whole continuum up another level, rather than expanding it out, or, lopsiding it (as in the case of the stereotypical marathon runner, or the typical gym rat). So, training in the middle of this spectrum most of the time is key, with infrequent sessions on the ends.

Both A+A swings, and S&S are close to the middle of this spectrum; but, as I am thinking "out loud", Steve... you're correct. A+A would be closer to the strength end than S&S. It is the duration of the average A+A session that has me stuck in introspection.

As an aside, a genius program like some variant of ROP sits somewhere on the top-left-ish of this spectrum + fills in the strength gaps left by traditional strength training.

Thoughts?

 

[Anna C]

I'm wondering where power development fits on the continuum; developing the rate of force application. Both S&S and the A+A protocol are great for this.

I would put TWO lines on the continuum, for both. S&S at 11:00 and 1:00; A+A at 10:00 and 2:00. Isn't that the idea of A+A (And S&S)? We are developing two things at one time.

 

[Steve W.]

Referring to the slide, I think it is a little confusing to put sprints, a relatively low load, high speed, high rep, cyclical activity, next to deadlifts, although I guess it makes sense with respect to energy system demands and duration. I'm also not sure exactly what the parameters are for the continuum on the slide. Where would you put heavily glycolytic activities/repeated efforts? Where would you put sports such as football, basketball, or soccer?

I see Anna's post that appeared as I was typing this, and I agree with the idea that A&A is developing more than one thing at a time.
I think the A&A type training is somewhat unique in that it trains the capacity for repetitive high power output, while also training the aerobic system and avoiding the negative effects of heavily glycolytic activity.

Actually, maybe that's three things, since it includes the capacity for REPEATED efforts, not just high power and aerobic capacity.

Intuitively, and based on some things I've read, I think there is something different in the way long duration cyclic activities train the aerobic system as compared to A&A/S&S, but A&A/S&S has benefits that those activities don't, while providing a significant amount of the benefits that they do.

Eric Cressey just posted an article about using circuits of mobility exercises for aerobic training, citing sustained heart rates in the aerobic "zone." However, I suspect that he may be fooling himself that this is really effective aerobic training. He measured athletes' heart rates while doing this training, but not any improvements in aerobic capacity over time (not that there necessarily weren't any, he just didn't address the topic).

Here's a link to his post:
Building Aerobic Capacity with Mobility Circuits (Another Nail in the Coffin of Distance Running for Pitchers)

 

[Al Ciampa]

I'm wondering where power development fits on the continuum; developing the rate of force application. Both S&S and the A+A protocol are great for this.

I would put TWO lines on the continuum, for both. S&S at 11:00 and 1:00; A+A at 10:00 and 2:00. Isn't that the idea of A+A (And S&S)? We are developing two things at one time.

This abstract manipulation is making my head hurt... I used to suggest that S&S, e.g; raised the whole continuum up to another level; rather than expanding the current level.

Referring to the slide, I think it is a little confusing to put sprints, a relatively low load, high speed, high rep, cyclical activity, next to deadlifts, although I guess it makes sense with respect to energy system demands and duration. I'm also not sure exactly what the parameters are for the continuum on the slide. Where would you put heavily glycolytic activities/repeated efforts? Where would you put sports such as football, basketball, or soccer?

Not sure, Steve... I used this as an education tool to make a point. I would preface this slide with, "it's not an exact depiction of reality, but it provides an illustration of this point..."

I see Anna's post that appeared as I was typing this, and I agree with the idea that A&A is developing more than one thing at a time.
I think the A&A type training is somewhat unique in that it trains the capacity for repetitive high power output, while also training the aerobic system and avoiding the negative effects of heavily glycolytic activity.

Actually, maybe that's three things, since it includes the capacity for REPEATED efforts, not just high power and aerobic capacity.

Intuitively, and based on some things I've read, I think there is something different in the way long duration cyclic activities train the aerobic system as compared to A&A/S&S, but A&A/S&S has benefits that those activities don't, while providing a significant amount of the benefits that they do.

Which is why we are both excited, and aggressively testing this protocol!

Eric Cressey just posted an article about using circuits of mobility exercises for aerobic training, citing sustained heart rates in the aerobic "zone." However, I suspect that he may be fooling himself that this is really effective aerobic training.

It might be effective; it might not. Without testing, we will never know. Depending upon what exactly he has them doing, SNS activity resulting from fear of an unstable position would skew the HR measurement. It might not be too different from using amphetamines to do your aerobic training.

 

[ali]

Al, where I see S&S/A&A as a lay person is that it fits with a developmental sequence of movement, strength and conditioning on top. It is how we do things as children. Well, what we are supposed to do as kids, you know, playing and running about with no concept of anything other than doing. A game of tag is A&A, burst of speed, out of breath, active rest. It is only when we reach a certain age where demands are placed on us to do activity to a time frame - sport training. It then becomes specific and matched to our chosen, or imposed, activity. It is here where we hold onto much of what we know, think we know or don't know about training. And it is here where the health and fitness industry mostly occupies itself with fat loss bootcamps based on this sports conditioning model. It is here where I've spent most of my life. To use Dan John's quadrants, Q2.
It is, or was, an entirely appropriate place for me to be....I was a super fit, athletic, sporty kid...judo, sprinting and football, a winger and onto martial arts, in that order, stopping at the age of 25. I had a very well developed aerobic base from not stopping doing stuff as a kid, could cope with extremely intense training, very strong, fast and mobile. That was then. Things have changed, somewhat. Yet until a few of years ago, my model of training was based on what I knew from those days...so yes, tabata style, v hard circuit interval training, push, push and push a bit more. Appropriate for me back in the day, not so much as an older beaten up, less mobile, weaker and slower version.
A&A/S&S then puts that aerobic developmental training back in, replaces what was a natural progression with a training paradigm better suited to human physiology dependent upon your current health status, or lack thereof, of course.

 

[Steve Freides]

@Anna C, I think the continuum is good as it is. Power could be even further to the end than strength but I think this complicates an otherwise simple model. We could put sitting in there, too. I don't know . . .

-S-

 

[ali]

Meant to add, sorry, hit post by mistake.....the slide, yes what @Anna C suggested with the clock face. If the spectrum represents power/strength at 9 to endurance at 3, going from least aerobic input required to most then you could also be illustrating anaerobic glycolysis too, as intensity v duration . The clock face would represent an ability of greater overall expansion....a bigger overall tank, as Pavel writes in S&S, whereas a glycolytic tank would be less and one sided. So if A&A is 10 and 2, glycolysis is 10 and 1.....ie it can produce supplementary power but not for long, as a back up. As the A&A tank expands in both directions, the glycolytic tank reduces to 11 and 1, it is always there but its role is less.
@Steve Freides, yes probably complicates things! Probably need another slide!

 

[Anna C]

Makes sense to me, Alistair! So, training the ends, to reduce the glycolytic fueling for the middle... increasing capacity for aerobic fueling for activities at the conditioning end, and increasing capacity for alactic (ATP-PCr) fueling for the strength end.

 

[Al Ciampa]

Al, where I see S&S/A&A as a lay person is that it fits with a developmental sequence of movement, strength and conditioning on top. It is how we do things as children. Well, what we are supposed to do as kids, you know, playing and running about with no concept of anything other than doing. A game of tag is A&A, burst of speed, out of breath, active rest. It is only when we reach a certain age where demands are placed on us to do activity to a time frame - sport training. It then becomes specific and matched to our chosen, or imposed, activity. It is here where we hold onto much of what we know, think we know or don't know about training. And it is here where the health and fitness industry mostly occupies itself with fat loss bootcamps based on this sports conditioning model. It is here where I've spent most of my life. To use Dan John's quadrants, Q2.
It is, or was, an entirely appropriate place for me to be....I was a super fit, athletic, sporty kid...judo, sprinting and football, a winger and onto martial arts, in that order, stopping at the age of 25. I had a very well developed aerobic base from not stopping doing stuff as a kid, could cope with extremely intense training, very strong, fast and mobile. That was then. Things have changed, somewhat. Yet until a few of years ago, my model of training was based on what I knew from those days...so yes, tabata style, v hard circuit interval training, push, push and push a bit more. Appropriate for me back in the day, not so much as an older beaten up, less mobile, weaker and slower version.
A&A/S&S then puts that aerobic developmental training back in, replaces what was a natural progression with a training paradigm better suited to human physiology dependent upon your current health status, or lack thereof, of course.

Great post, Ali! I most enjoy the philosophical-to-theoretical side of training.

- do not forget the influence of food choice on this equation
- you've pointed out the likeness of A+A to natural play, in terms of energy systems... let us not forget the movement and structural benefits of the swing
- aerobic function was likely high from being always engaged in low-intensity moving, whatever the acitivity... this is out metabolic inheritance. Beginning in the 20th century, constant (or at least consistent) low-intensity movement from a very young age became less and less a part of our lives. So, conditioning training became a "thing. It is not healthy to move; it is unhealthy not to move... we haven''t yet adapted to health in a sedentary state (I am sure that we will).

 

[Al Ciampa]

@Anna C, I think the continuum is good as it is. Power could be even further to the end than strength but I think this complicates an otherwise simple model. We could put sitting in there, too. I don't know . . .

+1

Makes sense to me, Alistair! So, training the ends, to reduce the glycolytic fueling for the middle... increasing capacity for aerobic fueling for activities at the conditioning end, and increasing capacity for alactic (ATP-PCr) fueling for the strength end.

Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that... but you could do worse. Note: PCr has limited "trainability"... in A+A we are mostly using it to promote aerobic adaptations during recovery.

 

[krg]

aerobic function was likely high from being always engaged in low-intensity moving, whatever the acitivity... this is out metabolic inheritance.

is it?

Did we evolve to hang out around a fire interspersed with manic bursts of activity (think lions hunting) or medium intensity long slow distance stuff (think wolfpack hunting) or low intensity (gathering)

or all of them?

I think the variety of activities the human body can excel at is staggering - we have people with the right genetics to become awesome distance runners (I think humans can beat horses over 500 miles) and people who can lift phenomenal loads. I think we are uniques in being able to tap into all of these energy systems and train them - would be interesting to see research in other species.

 

[Al Ciampa]

would be interesting to see research in other species

... other than rats ;]

Great point.

 

[Steve Freides]

would be interesting to see research in other species.

Some seem to think I qualify as a separate species. I can't figure out if they mean that in a good way or a bad way, though.

-S-

 

[Al Ciampa]

@Steve Freides we would hate to lose you to being harvested for research purposes ;]