all posts post new thread

Kettlebell Glycolytic training

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Anders

Level 6 Valued Member
Hi,

I am curious as to how often you think one should train in a glycolytic or semi-glycolytic way ?

There seem to be three alternatives. 1) Some people are doing A+A training. They seem to almost never train glycolytic, at least they don't talk about it. 2) Some people are training mostly non-glycolytic, and then every now and then they do some months of Neupert complexes or some other glycolytic training. This is an either or approach. Either you do glycolytic or you do non-glycolytic training. 3) The third alternative seem to me to mix the two things. You mostly do non-glycolytic workouts and then every week or every other week you push the pedal to the metal and get quite a lot of acid in your muscles.

Any thoughts on this ?

Anders
 
Hi,

I am curious as to how often you think one should train in a glycolytic or semi-glycolytic way ?
I think it comes down to how much rather than how often. Aside from increased neural firing rate or motor unit recruitment almost every notable metabolic benefit of exercise is in some way related to glucose metabolism or depletion, so any rounded exercise strategy should include a bit of it. Keeping in mind you can get a lot of the benefit just by mobilizing the glucose for type II fibers, you don't have to actually oxidize much of it in type I fibers.

Many methods of glucose depletion interfere with strength development either due to loads being too light or longer sets inhibiting muscle contraction (although this is primarily a by-product of CrP metabolism and not lactate or H ion accumulation). Plenty of approaches avoid/work with this in the same session by using a somewhat alactic set-up and finish with a glycolytic effort such as 5/3/1.

What are the training goals and is it for a peak event or steady state readiness? I don't think there is a clear answer in a general sense - less than will interfere with strength development, enough to increase insulin sensitivity, anti-oxidant response and improve glucose metabolism. You want to trigger or maintain an adaptive response and not just burn calories.
 
Good question, I look forward to the responses as the right balance is something I've been debating.
There won't be a single right answer. How much is required will depend on individual goals and response to a certain volume. And many of us that train primarily for "general fitness" tend to skew the balance depending on what we enjoy.
I'm especially curious if there are any objective measures for finding the right balance for say, S&S/snatch test development.
I use HR avg and drift during a standardized 30min set as my marker for A&A development. Have not settled on the ideal "anaerobic" equivalent. Have considered peak and avg swing power over 20reps measure by a PUSH device, max number of snatches, or # of swings before they drop below a set height by video.
I train about a 2:1 session bases of A&A vs high lactate response/low accumulation (think Q&D.) I train very little in a high lactate accumulated condition (timed S&S or snatch test.) Primarily because I don't enjoy it, but also as it outstrips my recovery quickly.
 
I'm especially curious if there are any objective measures for finding the right balance for say, S&S/snatch test development.
I'm not sure if it is based on any objective measurements or just the accumulation of testimonials, but in S&S 2.0 it is stated that the ideal is to push a glycolytic session once a week.
 
Yes, long rest is a good idea, but this is going to be a tough sell

Pulled in from another thread and was going to add similar.....

Long....er rests. Another antidote.
But does that fit a general health and fitness model?

A tough sell.
 
Megan Kelly has occasionally posted on instagram that she complements here AGT training (stuff like 2H Swings with pretty heavy weights, sets of 3 every 30 seconds, for up to 90 minutes) with one or two glycolytic sessions per month (Timed S&S, etc.). I don't know the reasoning behind it, but she receives her programming directly from Pavel...

Other than that there is the general observation from endurance sports that top athletes tend to spend 80% of their training time far away from glycolosis. Some completely forgo it during base building and only use it during peaking cycles. Others keep it in the mix every now and then. Team sport athletes on the other hand cannot avoid it, so this has to be factored in.
 
I think Pavel has stated glycolytic training can be done occasionally, using exercises\circumstances that will provide glycolytic stress but minimise risk of injury.

Essentially, the glycolytic stress is mimicking a severe "fight or flight" situation with the hope of a hormetic response that results in beneficial adaptation. It depends on goals ie fitness vs health & longevity. Health involves less frequent glycolytic sessions than does fitness and performance.

Some systems say once a week, others say once or twice a month.
 
I think it depends a lot on the overall training system.

If one is an endurance athlete, 10% as glycolytic training can mean two or three hours a week. For one doing only the WHO minimum, it is less than 14 minutes a week, or less than an hour a month.

As the endurance adaptations are quick to degrade I imagine it would be better to do a little more frequently than a lot more rarely.

Last, especially regarding the endurance athlete, we have to understand that there is only so much intense effort we can add to a program, which is practically almost opposite with adding low intensity work, which results in perhaps a skewed ratio compared to the average trainee with less time on their hands.
 
It seems to me that both Pavel and the scientific research on the Internet says that a bit of lactic acid is good for you, both in terms of health and muscle mass. I also read that it increase the functioning of the cells in the brain and that it can reduce the risk of Alzheimer.

Just some anecdotal evidence. This autumn I worked hard at my job, and had quite a lot of overtime and did not sleep that well. Despite this I was never sick.

Two people I know also work out regularly, but they sleep well, and the one is retired and the other has a very laid-back job. They were both sick once or twice the last six months from the flue.

I think the only difference between me and them that can explain this is that I almost always work out in a state of non-glycolytic state, while my two friends like to push themselves hard and to feel the burn. If this is so maybe too much lactic acid can lead to a reduced immune system ?

The interesting part would be what kind of amounts of lactic acid is too much, and what is too often.

Anyway. I think once or twice a month seems good.
 
Hello,

It may also depends how we perform an exercise or a group of exercises.

For a while I use this MTI complexe, 5 rounds, with a weight, with minimal rest:

It then falls into the glycolytic training. However, my trail running abilities have significantly improved.

The same complexe could be done with nasal breathing for longer period of time but the training adaptations would be different

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
Hello,

It may also depends how we perform an exercise or a group of exercises.

For a while I use this MTI complexe, 5 rounds, with a weight, with minimal rest:

It then falls into the glycolytic training. However, my trail running abilities have significantly improved.

The same complexe could be done with nasal breathing for longer period of time but the training adaptations would be different

Kind regards,

Pet'
It looks interesting.

**
I am currently doing a kettlebell front squat program from the Strong Plan manual. It is very little glycolytic. I was thinking about maybe once or twice a month to do a session where I increase the reps to maybe around 12-15, and reduce the rest. My 7RM for one month ago was 32+36. Maybe if I did 24+24 for 3*12. What do you guys think ?
 
I think the only difference between me and them that can explain this is that I almost always work out in a state of non-glycolytic state, while my two friends like to push themselves hard and to feel the burn. If this is so maybe too much lactic acid can lead to a reduced immune system ?
The research behind this demonstrates it takes a whopping amount to negatively effect immune response, and its not clear whether this has anything to do with pH. Some studies have identified decreased immune response immediately following ultramarathon and triathlete type contests. But, some of these athletes also show an improved response over baseline and compared to controls, not just immediately after but in the following days as well.

The upper limit of anti-oxidant response and buffering is incredibly high if one works up to it - in fact an upper limit has not been established. This being for an athlete that works up to it, the unaccustomed def can overwhelm ROS capacity.

The interesting part would be what kind of amounts of lactic acid is too much, and what is too often.
I'd say if you have to ask, you're nowhere near a level that could compromise your health in any way. Virtually all resistance or above aerobic threshold work is going to trigger a strong glycolytic response whether you feel the burn or not. Training goals should define your load/set/rep strategy.

A great deal of what passes for AGT is really as simple as not torching all your CrP stores. The lower you go the longer it takes to restore them - you surpass the amount of inorganic phosphate that can be cleared by...glycolysis. Is important to note that rephosphorylation of CrP continues non-stop (largely via lactate in the mitochondria) , alactic contribution struggles on at a reduced capacity and continues to generate inorganic phosphate. This is primarily what produces muscle fatigue, not lactic acid.

A build-up of lactic acid simply means your body is short of CrP and is now frantically stripping the 2 ATP from glucose to power type II fibers, heedless of what happens to the rest of the glucose molecule. Your type I fibers cannot process the remaining pyruvate and lactate fast enough and it begins to accumulate (this is the foundation of HIIT).

In practice it makes no difference what the metabolic factors are - the strategy needed to maintain or improve rapid, high force contraction (the intended training adaptation) doesn't change - longer rest, shorter exertions, high levels of tension.

There is ton of research on this that is not behind a paywall. Don't worry too much about harmful effects of glycolysis, worry about the adaptive response you want and enjoyment of training, make those your primary consideration.

A deep dive with some recent research:
 
I don't really think of my training in terms of biochemistry or energy systems. I look at is in more concrete terms: What kind(s) of things do I want to be able to do? What kind(s) of training will enable me to do it (them)? How do I balance training parameters and recovery?

I'm not saying this is a more accurate or valid way to look at. But it's a more direct, concrete, and practical way for me to think about it. Since I fall solidly in quadrant III, I am less interested in what might be theoretically optimal, and more interested in what is simple for me to understand and implement, fits relatively conveniently into my life, and is enjoyable to do. It's a bit of a semantic game because it probably leads to a more or less similar result, but I just find it easier to think in terms of the parameters of the work, instead of what might be going on inside my cells.

For instance, my current KB ballistic practice is organized around a few different Q&D variations, with different drills (snatch and double clean), rep ranges and loads, plus occasional A+A sessions.

For instance, I rotate among sessions of:
015 with just snatches or double cleans.
044 10/2
044 5/2 with a heavier bell than my 10/2 bell
044 15/2 with a lighter bell than my 10/2 bell
A+A sets of 5, generous rest, 20-60 repeats

This gives me a variety of loads, rep ranges, session lengths and volumes, session densities, drills, and perceived levels of effort.

I also do a lot of light Indian club and heavy clubbell training. This tends to be lower intensity, with longer, continuous higher rep sets.

And then I try to throw in at least one hour-long session of low intensity steady state work (NordicTrack cross country ski machine) per week, in addition to my 30-60 minutes per day of dog walking, because I've found even that little makes a difference in how I feel and how I recover from other work, both set to set within a session and from day to day. This might be referred to as aerobic base building, but I mostly think about it in terms of the actual parameters for the work (steady state, low intensity, longer duration), not energy system training.

I'm a bit haphazard and free form in how I mix and match these different types of sessions. But I enjoy the variety for its own sake, and I like to be able to be comfortable doing a variety of kinds of work. There have been times when I was doing long A+A sessions with relatively heavy bells, but would run out of gas when I tried sets of 10 or longer. I felt like I was a little too specialized
 
A build-up of lactic acid simply means your body is short of CrP and is now frantically stripping the 2 ATP from glucose to power type II fibers, heedless of what happens to the rest of the glucose molecule. Your type I fibers cannot process the remaining pyruvate and lactate fast enough and it begins to accumulate (this is the foundation of HIIT).
I'm not sure that's wrong, but I'm not sure that's right either.

Glucose (6-carbon) is split in half and becomes two pyruvate (3-carbon), generating two ATP. In the presence of O2 this can then continue through aerobic respiration in the mitochondria (the kreb's cycle + electron transport chain). If O2 is insufficient, a hydrogen is added to the excess (relative to available O2) pyruvate, and we call that hydrogenate pyruvate ... lactate. This actually prevents you from becoming acidic, and once O2 is brought back in, the hydrogen is removed from the lactate and combined with O2 into water, and we're back to pyruvate for energy (as normal). (Lactate can also be shuttled to other muscles, the heart, the liver, and even the brain where there is oxygen and it can transformed back into pyruvate and used as energy there... but other than being cool and me wanting to share that, I don't think its too relevant here...)

So a buildup of lactate is not relative to CrP, its is relative to the availability of oxygen. Additionally, lactate isn't generated because your body can't process pyruvate fast enough but because there isn't enough oxygen available to process the pyruvate (small difference, but important).

However, when CrP is depleted, aerobic metabolism isn't sufficient to to maintain output. I'll double check my science later to make sure I'm not missing a link between CrP and lactate. So while I think your chemistry is wrong, the result (more lactate, decreased power output) is the same (but more lactate doesn't cause the decreased power output).

If I misunderstood what you were saying, or if I'm missing something, please point it out! :) I'll brush up on my lactate this afternoon when I have time.
 
I'm a bit haphazard and free form in how I mix and match these different types of sessions. But I enjoy the variety for its own sake, and I like to be able to be comfortable doing a variety of kinds of work. There have been times when I was doing long A+A sessions with relatively heavy bells, but would run out of gas when I tried sets of 10 or longer. I felt like I was a little too specialized
I can't edit my posts at the moment, but I meant that last sentence above in bold to read: "Even though, in a sense it was really good general base-building, in another sense it felt overly specialized."
 
So a buildup of lactate is not relative to CrP, its is relative to the availability of oxygen. Additionally, lactate isn't generated because your body can't process pyruvate fast enough but because there isn't enough oxygen available to process the pyruvate (small difference, but important).
It is now known that lactate is formed even when there is sufficient oxygen for aerobic respiration - seems to be triggered by an intensity threshold...mostly - the body produces lactate even in a resting state.

When doing textbook Tabata HIIT the body in minutes can deplete muscle glucose to levels that would have supplied several hours of energy at a lower state - it is my understanding this is due to the glucose being used pretty much exclusively for type II fibers and very little is being oxidized (some of what is, being used to rephosphorylate creatine since lipid metabolism is suppressed). The body can mobilize glucose at a faster rate than is possible to use, at any level of activity, which is what makes this dynamic possible. This is why HIIT works best when the rate of activity exceeds ALL aerobic capacity (or as much as humanly possible). Most of what's left is converted to lactate and used throughout the body, a good bit of it recycled via Cori Cycle.

In the past it was assumed by many that the rising lactate abundance in the body indicated anaerobic conditions at the cellular level, but our understanding of lactate as a metabolically valuable carbohydrate has now replaced this traditional view...Not only is experimental support lacking for the notion that glycolytic flux is directed to lactate production only when oxygen is lacking, there is no evidence that the first step in lactate oxidation (i.e., conversion to pyruvate) occurs in the cytosol of any tissue, including the beating heart or working skeletal muscle that has a lactate to pyruvate concentration ratio (L/P) > 100, and which are net glucose consumers...

I don't know of any modern studies that demonstrated a solid link between lactate levels or even pH or H ion levels and contraction force. There are several that show buildup of inorganic phosphate from CrP impedes contraction. One study using muscle that lacked creatine kinase demonstrated that it could produce over a hundred contractions with no appreciable loss of force, while unaltered muscle started about 15% "stronger" but dropped to a fraction of its start force within 20 reps.

I'm not sure that's wrong, but I'm not sure that's right either...If I misunderstood what you were saying, or if I'm missing something, please point it out! :) I'll brush up on my lactate this afternoon when I have time.

I could certainly be wrong about some of this, but from reading a lot of what's out there it seems like a fairly accurate layman's translation? The science is constantly updating, and I've changed my very limited (!!) understanding to build a picture of how different levels of glycolysis interact with CrP metabolism. I might be holding the book upside down...
 
Any thoughts on this ?
I wonder about traditional bodybuilding work (big exericses like bench or squat are 8-12 reps, exercises with shorter ROM have more reps like row, sometimes sets of 20, 30, 50, occasionally dropset/superset).
It seems quite glycotic, but it works (build muscle, make people stronger, and people can run it year after year)
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom