Is anaerobic training totally crazy?

[dmaxashman]

When your body produces energy anaerobically, for each glucose, you get 2 energy ATP. When you do it aerobically, you get 35 ATP. So using your aerobic energy system is literally 15x more efficient.

Is anaerobic training totally crazy? Why on earth would anyone want to spend time here burning themselves out and feeling tired, when they could build up their amazingly efficient aerobic system or using the super powerful ATP-PC.

For instance, a quick google search shows that in football the average play is 4 seconds. That is not even anaerobic glycolysis, that would be ATP-PC for maximum kick butt power.

The only time you need this dumb anaerobic glycolysis system is for max efforts of 30 seconds. That is totally crazy. Almost no sport that people actually care about has plays like that except for maybe UFC. Do we need to start checking people into the crazy house if they are training in intervals of max effort at 20-50 seconds?

 

[guardian7]

When your body produces energy anaerobically, for each glucose, you get 2 energy ATP. When you do it aerobically, you get 35 ATP. So using your aerobic energy system is literally 15x more efficient.

Is anaerobic training totally crazy? Why on earth would anyone want to spend time here burning themselves out and feeling tired, when they could build up their amazingly efficient aerobic system or using the super powerful ATP-PC.

For instance, a quick google search shows that in football the average play is 4 seconds. That is not even anaerobic glycolysis, that would be ATP-PC for maximum kick butt power.

The only time you need this dumb anaerobic glycolysis system is for max efforts of 30 seconds. That is totally crazy. Almost no sport that people actually care about has plays like that except for maybe UFC. Do we need to start checking people into the crazy house if they are training in intervals of max effort at 20-50 seconds?

There are many jobs that require sustained physical effort like a firefighter carrying a hose up stairs quickly, or a first responder carrying someone out of a danger area, military personal carrying ammunition or a wounded colleague, police officers apprehending a resisting suspect. Construction workers or warehouse workers carrying or lifting heavy objects for sustained periods.

You are right to say that the average sedentary office worker should build an aerobic base. Peter Attila promotes this a lot for healthy aging. In other words, we need all systems especially for emergencies.

I just saw a Netflix docudrama about a flood. They were stacking sandbags for hours.

In short, aerobic should be a greater priority for most of the population I agree but all the systems should be trained and reinforce each other. As Strongfirst has studied, glycotic conditioning should be minimized but there are cases where even StrongFirst would agree that it should be trained such as towards the end of a fighter's training camp.

 

[metaldrummer]

I would recommend training what you're trying to be good at and leaving other people alone. OP obviously is just trying to start s***.

 

[dmaxashman]

There are many jobs that require sustained physical effort like a firefighter carrying a hose up stairs quickly, or a first responder carrying someone out of a danger area, military personal carrying ammunition or a wounded colleague, police officers apprehending a resisting suspect. Construction workers or warehouse workers carrying or lifting heavy objects for sustained periods.

You are right to say that the average sedentary office worker should build an aerobic base. Peter Attila promotes this a lot for healthy aging. In other words, we need all systems especially for emergencies.

I just saw a Netflix docudrama about a flood. They were stacking sandbags for hours.

In short, aerobic should be a greater priority for most of the population I agree but all the systems should be trained and reinforce each other. As Strongfirst has studied, glycotic conditioning should be minimized but there are cases where even StrongFirst would agree that it should be trained such as towards the end of a fighter's training camp.

I don't understand this use of the term "glycotic training" because it seems to refer to anaerobic training but aerobic energy also uses glycolysis. Maybe I don't understand the cell biology going on here, and if I don't, please correct me. But my understanding is that aerobic training uses glycolysis.

Then this other point about how the "systems should be trained and reinforce each other", is that actually true? It seems to me these are actually competing systems. We want to decrease the input of anaerobic glycolysis as much as possible and use the aerobic system. Plus anaerobic training seems almost even harmful to the body, or at the least, it fatigues the body significantly more and takes more time to recover, leaving less energy for other training. Really seems like it should be avoided.

 

[guardian7]

I don't understand this use of the term "glycotic training" because it seems to refer to anaerobic training but aerobic energy also uses glycolysis. Maybe I don't understand the cell biology going on here, and if I don't, please correct me. But my understanding is that aerobic training uses glycolysis.

Then this other point about how the "systems should be trained and reinforce each other", is that actually true? It seems to me these are actually competing systems. We want to decrease the input of anaerobic glycolysis as much as possible and use the aerobic system. Plus anaerobic training seems almost even harmful to the body, or at the least, it fatigues the body significantly more and takes more time to recover, leaving less energy for other training. Really seems like it should be avoided.

There are three systems that overlap to some extent. Think of it like a rocket as a loose analogy. There is the liftoff boost, the second stage, and then separation stage. All are needed at different times.

"It is important to remember that all three of these systems contribute to the energy needs of the body during physical activity. These systems do not work independently of each other, but rather dominate at different times, depending on the duration and the intensity of the activity." The Three Primary Energy Pathways Explained

 

[Carter0105]

I read Derek Toshner's article the other day about when the task in front of you is below submaximal; it's a lot easier to show great endurance without it being incredible. What I took from that is that if I want to be good at the snatch test, for example, with the 24kg kettlebell, I should get better at snatching the 28-32kg bell, and the 24kg will be below submaximal. Therefore, it will be easier to snatch the 24kg for 100 reps. I wouldn't do this by snatching loads and getting glycolytic, but by using my CP energy system with some A+A. The point being you can build endurance with glycolytic tasks without it being your primary routine; however, I do believe you need to do some glycolytic conditioning, just in fewer sessions. There's nothing quite like feeling that burn and breath while snatching and not rehearsing how to react or knowing how it feels; it's like shadow boxing and then getting in the ring and getting punched – you haven't practiced that part of things. So my point is that both are needed in certain situations.

 

[Ap0c]

There's nothing quite like feeling that burn and breath while snatching and not rehearsing how to react or knowing how it feels; it's like shadow boxing and then getting in the ring and getting punched – you haven't practiced that part of things. So my point is that both are needed in certain situations.

Good analogy.

 

[Chris Hall]

Yes anaerobic training is crazy. But crazy does not necessarily mean bad. S&S talks about ‘flipping the crazy switch’ for good reason. There is a time and a place for it, but anyone contemplating glycolytic training should probably ask themselves ‘Am I sure this is a good idea’

 

[offwidth]

Anaerobic Training….
This is a tool much like any other.
Used in the right fashion it serves a valuable purpose for some people and activities.

As usual two maxims come to mind, (which are also answers to almost all questions posted here):

It depends…

and

The poison is in the dose…

 

[Chris Hall]

Anaerobic Training….
This is a tool much like any other.
Used in the right fashion it serves a valuable purpose for some people and activities.

As usual two maxims come to mind, (which are also answers to almost all questions posted here):

It depends…

and

The poison is in the dose…

The poison is the dose…absolutely. And for many people partaking in a sport or other activity that involve glycolysis, just playing that sport is already taking you up to (or beyond) the correct dose. In this case doing more glycolytic work as training would be counter productive.

 

[North Coast Miller]

I don't understand this use of the term "glycotic training" because it seems to refer to anaerobic training but aerobic energy also uses glycolysis. Maybe I don't understand the cell biology going on here, and if I don't, please correct me. But my understanding is that aerobic training uses glycolysis.

Then this other point about how the "systems should be trained and reinforce each other", is that actually true? It seems to me these are actually competing systems. We want to decrease the input of anaerobic glycolysis as much as possible and use the aerobic system. Plus anaerobic training seems almost even harmful to the body, or at the least, it fatigues the body significantly more and takes more time to recover, leaving less energy for other training. Really seems like it should be avoided.

Anaerobic can be almost entirely associated with type 2 fast twitch, high threshold. Some will pitch in with almost any effort level, but if the intensity is high the % of ATP turnover in fast twitch will dominate the output.
CrP is short term (at a nearly full effort) and triggers glycolysis. This keeps fuel running for type 2 fibers, and feeds higher octane to the type 1 fibers. CrP pathway at a full burn lasts about as long as it takes for the glycolytic reaction to hit full speed from a cold start (15 seconds or so, probably not a coincidence!). Glycolysis produces more potential energy than can be used per unit time, hence lactate. Lactate basically being nothing more than a more stable form of pyruvate.
It is possible to be in a steady state output of alactic glycolysis - effort level too high for only fat to supply ATP, too low to require a lot of type 2 activation to sustain the effort. When increasing type 2 contribution is needed, it creates an imbalance between the 2 or 3 ATP usable by type 2 and the balance - the body cannot consume the pyruvate fast enough. This is an important operating principle of HIIT.

Also important to note that CrP is constantly being recharged as you go, and the inorganic phosphate from that reaction reduces force potential for all muscle fiber types. At a high enough output relative to capacity, failure is inevitable. It sounds like a "no duuh" statement, but the mechanics behind it are maybe not obvious.

The systems do not compete really, they support each other. The same hardware is used across energy sources, glycolysis overlaps both. The byproducts of glycolysis (mostly ROS and lactate) are major signaling pathways that trigger all manner of adaptive response, especially when combined with higher tension on the muscle.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the original question...

 

[bluejeff]

The systems do not compete really, they support each other.

This. ^
Why would your body have a system that’s not intended to be used?

 

[Adachi]

When your body produces energy anaerobically, for each glucose, you get 2 energy ATP. When you do it aerobically, you get 35 ATP. So using your aerobic energy system is literally 15x more efficient.

This is defined for the given cell. not the body writ large.

so there are peak energy production cases where it'll be defined as many cells working at 35 ATP, + additional cells padding the effort with 2 ATP, so at the peak, it will approach the production of 37 ATP produced by the working muscle. And as uptake rates of oxygen are depleted, that will decline.

Is anaerobic training totally crazy?

No.

The only time you need this dumb anaerobic glycolysis system is for max efforts of 30 seconds.

this is likely for a lot of muscle cells, but 30 seconds is a range of time wherein a maximal dynamic effort demands oxygen to the extent that this becomes the dominant condition. But, even that dominant condition is a composite of many energetic conditions all mixed together accross the range of the working cells.

a hard set of strength lifts, like a deadlift or press, will vary from a hard sprint on a bike, or rower, versus an 800m race, etc. etc.

Do we need to start checking people into the crazy house if they are training in intervals of max effort at 20-50 seconds?

No.

there are other secondary effects like Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy which are associated with such efforts.

maybe training like this all the time is not the best of all worlds for all people. but, it is, as they say, another tool in the toolbox.

-----------------------------

this is a very clear explanation of the differences between the two.



Anaerobic Glycolysis in the skeletal muscle is ( as far as I can tell ) another way in which the muscle eeks out as much energy as possible. which may or may not be optimal.

 

[dmaxashman]

Here's a question for you guys please, can we say that a 100m max effort sprint is aerobic? It relies on the ATP-PC system, energy stored in the cells, and it is the aerobic system which will make more ATP-PC to replace what was used up.

 

[Period]

I'm not sure I understand the argument.
On one hand, if you are involved in a given sport, you have to adapt your training to the reality of that sport. Sure, you can decide to do more aerobic and less anaerobic training or vice-versa, and see how it plays out, which gives you better results short, mid and long term, which leaves you more tired etc. However, if your sport has anaerobic components, you better be prepared to handle those regardless of how energy inefficient the body operates under these conditions (which I would argue doesn't really matter, since there is no competition in "least energy spent during the event regardless of performance" - unless I'm overlooking something here). I would also disagree that "almost no sport" has high activity periods of around 30 seconds - wrestling, Judo, boxing, soccer, middle distance running (incl. the 400 m), every racing event that might include an intermediate sprint to "thin the herd", various swimming events, underwater rugby, crossfit, rowing short distances etc.
On the other hand, if fitness is just a hobby for you, you can define your own goals and do whatever you like anyway, so there is strictly speaking no "need" for any specific form of training.

 

[Don Fairbanks]

Here's a question for you guys please, can we say that a 100m max effort sprint is aerobic? It relies on the ATP-PC system, energy stored in the cells, and it is the aerobic system which will make more ATP-PC to replace what was used up.

For 100m I've seen a range, 9% aerobic 91% anaerobic to 21% and 79%.

 

[dmaxashman]

Wow, Pavel agrees with me, this is amazing. Look at what he wrote last year:

'Anaerobic glycolysis is the sugar burning that supplies faddish “high intensity interval training” and “metcons.” This highly inefficient process pollutes your body with lactic acid, ammonia, and free radicals and messes with your hormones if you tap into it too much or too often.

A+A, in contrast, relies on the clean burning “rocket fuel” of creatine phosphate (CP) to power high intensity efforts and an equally clean aerobic system to replenish the CP.'

 

[dmaxashman]

I'm not sure I understand the argument.
On one hand, if you are involved in a given sport, you have to adapt your training to the reality of that sport. Sure, you can decide to do more aerobic and less anaerobic training or vice-versa, and see how it plays out, which gives you better results short, mid and long term, which leaves you more tired etc. However, if your sport has anaerobic components, you better be prepared to handle those regardless of how energy inefficient the body operates under these conditions (which I would argue doesn't really matter, since there is no competition in "least energy spent during the event regardless of performance" - unless I'm overlooking something here). I would also disagree that "almost no sport" has high activity periods of around 30 seconds - wrestling, Judo, boxing, soccer, middle distance running (incl. the 400 m), every racing event that might include an intermediate sprint to "thin the herd", various swimming events, underwater rugby, crossfit, rowing short distances etc.
On the other hand, if fitness is just a hobby for you, you can define your own goals and do whatever you like anyway, so there is strictly speaking no "need" for any specific form of training.

Yes, as mentioned in the first post, maybe UFC and wrestling and judo do have this anaerobic glycolysis aspect to it. I strongly contest that soccer does. IMO, it's extremely rare for a player to have a continuous 30 second max effort. Most max efforts in soccer are like 5 seconds, maybe 10 seconds, followed by walking.

 

[dmaxashman]

For 100m I've seen a range, 9% aerobic 91% anaerobic to 21% and 79%.

Surely that "91% anaerobic" you are talking about here is the ATP-CP system (which I believe can be replenished by the aerobic system), not the disgusting polluting anaerobic glycotic system which we're talking about as the problem from the first post

 

[Period]

Yes, as mentioned in the first post, maybe UFC and wrestling and judo do have this anaerobic glycolysis aspect to it. I strongly contest that soccer does. IMO, it's extremely rare for a player to have a continuous 30 second max effort. Most max efforts in soccer are like 5 seconds, maybe 10 seconds, followed by walking.

Well, that makes it quite a few sports, actually (including mine), which means for me, the topic of including anaerobic work isn't really up for debate. Interestingly enough, a few years ago, traditional supplemental training in combat sports (largely aerobic-based, little to no weightlifting, lots of partner work, lots of specific conditioning) was under heavy critique by people claiming that it ought to be anaerobic, etc. Some people listened, some people didn't (and continued to produce world champions).
As for soccer, I am not a sports scientist, and therefore I don't know how exactly energy systems are taxed if you run hard for 10 seconds, rest ten, then run another ten, and so on. I would expect you cannot do that continously without occasionally entering the anaerobic zone.

I still don't really get the argument, though: are you trying to argue that all sports with an anaerobic component are somehow "toxic" to the body? And what is the alternative supposed to be?