Other/Mixed Lactic Acid ? from HIIT

[Waffles03]

Hi, from the article "Long Rets": A Revolution in Interval Training", it states that deep and frequent glycolytic training causes an accumulation of cellular damage. However I have read that your lactate acid level return to normal within an hour after doing intense conditioning.

My question is, even though your lactate acid return to normal after an hour of training, do you still need to avoid frequent glycolytic training to avoid the accumulation of fatigue and damage?

 

[Kettlebelephant]

My question is, even though your lactate acid return to normal after an hour of training, do you still need to avoid frequent glycolytic training to avoid the accumulation of fatigue and damage?

The guideline a lot of us around here follow is: Yes, avoid frequent glyocolictic training.
There is still a lot of discussion about this, which you can see if you search through the forum as we have a good number of threads regarding that topic.

Just a thought about that 1 hour window.
Does it really matter how fast or slow the lactic acid levels return to normal?
Think about alcohol for example. Just like the lactic acid alcohol will be broken down by your system, but what do you think is better for your body, having a couple of drinks once every week or drinking heavily 3 or 4 times per week?
I'm not saying lactic acid is as bad as alcohol or something like that, it's just an example to show you that it's probably about total doses and not about "time it takes to get it out of your system" or similar things.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Hi, from the article "Long Rets": A Revolution in Interval Training", it states that deep and frequent glycolytic training causes an accumulation of cellular damage. However I have read that your lactate acid level return to normal within an hour after doing intense conditioning.

My question is, even though your lactate acid return to normal after an hour of training, do you still need to avoid frequent glycolytic training to avoid the accumulation of fatigue and damage?

It seems there is scant evidence to support that assertion. As a general rule if you train full-on glycolytic you should give yourself more recovery time. How much depends on how hard you've trained, for how long etc. Deep and frequent will require more recovery and perhaps greater attention to diet.

That said, all exercise causes damage. It is the recovery and adaptation that makes us stronger, more enduring...

 

[Al Ciampa]

That said, all exercise causes damage. It is the recovery and adaptation that makes us stronger, more enduring...

Actually, this isn't true... some moderate-easy exercise is restorative and not damaging. Think walking.

My question is, even though your lactate acid return to normal after an hour of training, do you still need to avoid frequent glycolytic training to avoid the accumulation of fatigue and damage?

One substrate is called lactic acid, and it's conjugate is called lactate. Lactate is a salt without the extra proton that would make it an acid. It has been argued that the mammalian body doesn't actually produce lactic acid, only lactate. Evidence of this would come from basic chemistry: lactate is formed to reduce the acid load; that it might convert to lactic acid in the blood is not completely understood or known. A chemist would better understand this.

Anyway, it is not the lactate that is the problem, as this is a buffering mechanism. The problem is the acid and ROS load resulting from outpacing aerobic metabolism and buffering capacities. A little is probably no problem; more is less of a problem with those who are resilient and have chill lifestyles; a lot, only the elite can absorb.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Actually, this isn't true... some moderate-easy exercise is restorative and not damaging. Think walking.

This is true, the poison is in the dose. I know a couple of mail-carriers who are on the edge of all manner of knee and foot problems who would fall apart if it weren't for Sunday.

 

[Bill Been]

I think the assertions that the metabolic byproducts and/or Reactive Oxygen Species created by exercising hard enough to demand ongoing output from glycolysis is damaging to cells has been pretty conclusively de-fanged. It still gets repeated now and again in various contexts, but the flat assertions that HIIT in high dosage destroys cellular mitochondria - particularly heart muscle mitochondria - has mercifully gone the way of the dodo. This is not to say that it isn't easier to "over-do" High Intensity training that intentionally aims to train the glycolytic energy pathway. I think we'd all agree that it's easier to get overtrained, drained, unrecovered, spent, smoked, or done-in by pushing a 270lb Prowler sled twenty meters and repeating every time your heart rate drops below 85% - for about 15 minutes - 5 times a week......than it would be to get spent by.....going for a 15 minute walk 5 times a week. The difference is as plain as "squatting 315x5x5 is harder to recover from than 5 sets of 5 swings". The difference is that almost nobody is going to squat 315 for 5 sets of 5 and turn around and try to do it day after day. It's sorta....self correcting. Now, look at HIIT and the dumb stuff people attempt to do with it. That protocol I described is hellaciously hard, but yet we have muttonheads prescribing their trainees do HIIT stuff that's just as hard - then turn around and try to have them do it again several days a week. They try to treat it like aerobics. Part of the beauty of HIIT is exactly that you DON'T have to do it day in and day out. See, it's MUCH HARDER than aerobics, so you need time to recover from it. HIIT seems to lend itself to being misunderstood, misapplied, abused, then discredited because people.....misunderstand, misapply, and ultimately abuse it.

 

[Al Ciampa]

I think the assertions that the metabolic byproducts and/or Reactive Oxygen Species created by exercising hard enough to demand ongoing output from glycolysis is damaging to cells has been pretty conclusively de-fanged. It still gets repeated now and again in various contexts, but the flat assertions that HIIT in high dosage destroys cellular mitochondria - particularly heart muscle mitochondria - has mercifully gone the way of the dodo. This is not to say that it isn't easier to "over-do" High Intensity training that intentionally aims to train the glycolytic energy pathway. I think we'd all agree that it's easier to get overtrained, drained, unrecovered, spent, smoked, or done-in by pushing a 270lb Prowler sled twenty meters and repeating every time your heart rate drops below 85% - for about 15 minutes - 5 times a week......than it would be to get spent by.....going for a 15 minute walk 5 times a week. The difference is as plain as "squatting 315x5x5 is harder to recover from than 5 sets of 5 swings". The difference is that almost nobody is going to squat 315 for 5 sets of 5 and turn around and try to do it day after day. It's sorta....self correcting. Now, look at HIIT and the dumb stuff people attempt to do with it. That protocol I described is hellaciously hard, but yet we have muttonheads prescribing their trainees do HIIT stuff that's just as hard - then turn around and try to have them do it again several days a week. They try to treat it like aerobics. Part of the beauty of HIIT is exactly that you DON'T have to do it day in and day out. See, it's MUCH HARDER than aerobics, so you need time to recover from it. HIIT seems to lend itself to being misunderstood, misapplied, abused, then discredited because people.....misunderstand, misapply, and ultimately abuse it.

In this long and oft repeated post of yours, you make essentially two statements:

- in the latter half: the dose makes the poison... and I think most if not all of us would agree, and have agreed in the past

- and, in the initial half: the reason that you feel like dogshit after even a single HIIT session is not due to the acid and ROS load, or any of the metabolic by-products of heavy glycolytic function... Ok. What is the cellular mechanism to explain this systemic-wide fallout from intense activity?

In the several years now of your argument, I don't remember you ever offering an alternative theory.

In the end, you can believe what you want; and so can the rest of us. No amount of theoretical discussion/debate changes the observations.

 

[North Coast Miller]

From my observation the poison is in the dose, and this is true of all physical activity. If you put someone on moderate exercise but never give them any time off, as with the mailcarriers I know, you can work anyone to death. Only if the workload is so minimal that it produces no measureable adaptive response will it require no recovery.

When bodybuilding and doing a large amount of glycolytic work, as long as you break the routine into a sensible weekly mix and eat for the work, you will not burn out over time or even feel like crap after a single workout.

I find this to be true of all glycolytic work - as long as you have rest commensurate to the work performed you will not only recover fine but feel great after each workout. With progressive resistance you will also get stronger and have greater endurance under load. Incidence of DOMS drops way off. If you feel like poop you are probably depleted of glycogen stores or more likely you've dehydrated yourself.

But for the ROS response, muscle hypertrophy potential is not nearly as pronounced as it could be. All depends on the goal. The hypothetical harm hasn't been observed outside of folks with metabolic impairment (to the best of my "research"). This is not so say it isn't easier to work someone to death if they are doing a lot of glycolytic work, only that it isn't at all an inevitable outcome of such work.

Disclaimer - any poorly structured workout is liable to leave you feeling poorly. Add to this a lousy diet and no flexibility work and anyone will feel like garbage no matter what metabolic pathway they're training.

 

[BladesFanUK]

Al - not having an alternate explanation to the cellular mechanism to fallout from intense activity does not validate your story. I'm sorry to sound rude, but if you had even a basic understanding of scientific process you would know this. The only valid answer at the stage is that we don't really know..

Unless you actually have cellular evidence that this is what is happening, then you are just speculating, and being intensely misleading in asserting that you actually know what is going on. I do not get why you are trying to explain this at the cellular level when you don't have the evidence to do so.

If you really want to know what is going on, work with a real research-based physiologist and conduct some proper studies.

Imagine how frustrating it is for people who work in science to read all this?

 

[Steve Freides]

@BladesFanUK, those of us who don't work in science are content to take the word of people we trust. The ideas advanced in Kettlebell Simple and Sinister, and the recent Strong Endurance seminar, in several blogs posted here at StrongFirst.com, and in any number of forum posts by Al - that's plenty for me.

One point I took away early from reading Pavel T. was that the Russian approach was, in a nutshell, to try _everything_, keep what worked and discard what didn't, and then and only then start wondering about why what works does actually work. I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of it as I think of it.

Pavel T. has read tons of research, and I don't think he advances the idea of anti-glycolitic (sp?) training lightly. You may choose to not believe until you see evidence which satisfies you, but that approach is neither desirable nor beneficial to many of the rest of us. I have zero interest in understanding the science beyond the level I'm already at, which tells me I should do some aerobic activity and some anaerobic activity and try to stay away from the middle zone of intensity for the most part.

Just my non-scientific opinion.

-S-

 

[BladesFanUK]

Hi Steve,

Well that is kind of my point. The ideas of "easy" strength and "easy" conditioning or the training concepts aren't what I (or any of the other posters who have also commented on this) have issues with.

It is this point of "anti-glycolitic". Its not that there is not enough evidence to satisfy me - it is that there is NO evidence. Why bring "anti-glycolytic" into it, causing in irrational fear of one of the fundamental metabolic processes into people? Why bring un-substantiated molecular science into something which doesn't need it? These training concepts at strongfirst are clearly enough, people are obviously getting good results with them. Spare the pseudo-metabolic biology.

Im pretty sure Pavel himself is quoted at some point saying something along the lines of stick with what works and don't fuss about the science trying to explain it - seems like this trap has been fallen into here.

 

[North Coast Miller]

My take-away from a lot of Pavel's approach(es) is that if one is to use glycolytic training, it produces best results with adequate rest between sets. Esp if strength is a big part of your fitness goal.

If you want to “get in shape” and your cardiologist has approved this type of training, HIIT undoubtedly will improve your body composition and many fitness components — if you are motivated enough to push yourself. High stress and acidity promoted by this type of training stimulates release of hormones that make you leaner and more muscular.

But do not automatically presume that rest intervals between hard efforts must be short.
One version of glycolytic training we have been very successful with at my organization involves “repeats” rather than “intervals”. Do three to five all-out sets of 15 to 25 reps of a quick-lift kettlebell snatch, jerk or swing — for, with long recovery, about five minutes, between them. Recovery must be active: walk around, shake the tension out of your muscles, do breathing exercises. This protocol produces impressive body composition changes and performance — “what the hell effects”.
----Pavel Tsatsouline


The other factor is that improving the aerobic base increases mitochondrial density and is a big help not only for aerobic effort but to recharge the anaerobic pathways. I've also come across references that mitochondria develop greater efficiency with pyruvate if one trains with intensity with any regularity. One will still get the benefit of improved fat utilization for energy at lower intensities. This factor also implies that if one does not train at these intensity levels, the mitochondria will not improve their base ability to process carbohydrate-based sources of aerobic fuel.

Personally I have no doubt that burn-out is more prevalent at higher levels of glycolytic workload, mostly due to lack of proper recovery and nutrition. This is based on a hypothetical average person though, some folks deal better, some worse. I believe there is real merit to A&A whatever the science. I also believe there is real merit to training glycolytic pathways as well.

 

[Al Ciampa]

Al - not having an alternate explanation to the cellular mechanism to fallout from intense activity does not validate your story.

Of course not.

I'm sorry to sound rude

Not at all. I encourage the discussion from all perspectives.

The only valid answer at the stage is that we don't really know.

I completely agree and have stated as much elsewhere. This is a forum, and I simply don't repeat my prefaces in every thread.

Unless you actually have cellular evidence that this is what is happening, then you are just speculating, and being intensely misleading in asserting that you actually know what is going on. I do not get why you are trying to explain this at the cellular level when you don't have the evidence to do so.

Again, I am long past trying to convince and/or convert. Your religion is yours. There is plenty of evidence, and I and others have submitted them. Is there some extrapolation, meaning, there is no paper that claims HIIT causes such and such? Sure. And I don't think that there will ever be.

But in my religion, the evidence is strong enough to suggest that there is a causal chain between too much high-intensity exercise>>the stress reaction cascade>>and, ill health.

But like you said in your later post, chasing theories doesn't change the observations, and our observations are sound. I am trying to explain the observations; and the explanations will always be a form of religion, not in the least due to humans interpreting their conclusions.

Imagine how frustrating it is for people who work in science to read all this?

I imagine it might cause them ask questions... unless they already know everything. Perhaps I don't understand science?

Im pretty sure Pavel himself is quoted at some point saying something along the lines of stick with what works and don't fuss about the science trying to explain it - seems like this trap has been fallen into here.

How do you see trying to interpret the data to make some substance out of the underlying causes as "a trap we have fallen into"? Interesting.

 

[Al Ciampa]

@North Coast Miller, your point(s) is and has been taken; and it is valid, but repeating it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

 

[North Coast Miller]

@ aciampa, The same is true for every opinion angle expressed here. Anecdotal evidence exists for all.

This topic has been (re)hashed to death and lacking any new scientific data I'm not sure we have an actual discussion here that can be added to.

 

[Steve Freides]

Do three to five all-out sets of 15 to 25 reps of a quick-lift kettlebell snatch, jerk or swing — for, with long recovery, about five minutes, between them. Recovery must be active: walk around, shake the tension out of your muscles, do breathing exercises. This protocol produces impressive body composition changes and performance — “what the hell effects”.
----Pavel Tsatsouline

Thank you - that's pretty much what I do sometimes.

-S-

 

[Steve W.]

 

[Al Ciampa]

@ aciampa, The same is true for every opinion angle expressed here. Anecdotal evidence exists for all.

This topic has been (re)hashed to death and lacking any new scientific data I'm not sure we have an actual discussion here that can be added to.

True that.

 

[BladesFanUK]

Of course not.

But in my religion, the evidence is strong enough to suggest that there is a causal chain between too much high-intensity exercise>>the stress reaction cascade>>and, ill health.

But like you said in your later post, chasing theories doesn't change the observations, and our observations are sound. I am trying to explain the observations; and the explanations will always be a form of religion, not in the least due to humans interpreting their conclusions.

I am not denying you have observations about too much high-intensity exercise been detrimental.

I am saying you do not have observations that acid load from glycolysis is the problem, this cannot possibly have been observed. There is not even anecdotal evidence to support this. It is an unnecessary part of the story. This is the kind of point you do actually need scientific literature to back up. Cellular biology can't be inferred and anecdotal evidence can't help.

Not only that, the literature that does exist suggests this is actually incredibly unlikely to be the explanation - glycolysis drives mitochondrial production in fast-twitch muscle. A primary function of mitochondria in fast-twitch muscle (aside from energy for basic cellular functions) is to clear the by-products of high-intensity exercise. If you look around the animal kingdom, animals with high glycolytic potential in their fast-twitch muscle also have relatively high levels of mitochondria. There is actually quite a sizable amount of literature now suggesting high-intensity exercise not only increases mitochondrial content but improves mitochondrial function. I'm not saying you should take this as gospel or that it is the final answer to the story, research should always be placed in its proper context (this never happens in the media), and hasn't really considered the problem of what happens when it is taken too far. There does seem to be a gap there, but there is no apparent reason to think glycolytic exercise is anything other than good for your mitochondria, as long as you don't have some sort of metabolic disease.

Again, I am not denying what you are saying about observation that too much high-intensity is detrimental, I just think the "anti-glycolytic" angle is unlikely and unsupported. If I was to have a guess myself I would suggest that hormonal changes are more likely to account for the effects you see - excessive production of stress hormones long-term. I am just speculating there though. Maybe even stress-related changes to gut bacteria. Who knows? No one.

 

[Al Ciampa]

I am not denying you have observations about too much high-intensity exercise been detrimental.

I am saying you do not have observations that acid load from glycolysis is the problem, this cannot possibly have been observed. There is not even anecdotal evidence to support this. It is an unnecessary part of the story. This is the kind of point you do actually need scientific literature to back up. Cellular biology can't be inferred and anecdotal evidence can't help.

Not only that, the literature that does exist suggests this is actually incredibly unlikely to be the explanation - glycolysis drives mitochondrial production in fast-twitch muscle. A primary function of mitochondria in fast-twitch muscle (aside from energy for basic cellular functions) is to clear the by-products of high-intensity exercise. If you look around the animal kingdom, animals with high glycolytic potential in their fast-twitch muscle also have relatively high levels of mitochondria. There is actually quite a sizable amount of literature now suggesting high-intensity exercise not only increases mitochondrial content but improves mitochondrial function. I'm not saying you should take this as gospel or that it is the final answer to the story, research should always be placed in its proper context (this never happens in the media), and hasn't really considered the problem of what happens when it is taken too far. There does seem to be a gap there, but there is no apparent reason to think glycolytic exercise is anything other than good for your mitochondria, as long as you don't have some sort of metabolic disease.

Again, I am not denying what you are saying about observation that too much high-intensity is detrimental, I just think the "anti-glycolytic" angle is unlikely and unsupported. If I was to have a guess myself I would suggest that hormonal changes are more likely to account for the effects you see - excessive production of stress hormones long-term. I am just speculating there though. Maybe even stress-related changes to gut bacteria. Who knows? No one.

Well said. And I agree with most of it.

I do not have a paper that states: "the acid load from skeletal muscle glycolysis during high-intensity exercise causes XYZ". It is my extrapolation of the current literature, so my hypothesis, that this is one of the contributors of damage/ill health if chronic. I believe that there is enough scientific evidence to at least suggest a scenario that a little critical thinking can bridge the, in my opinion, "small" gap to my hypothesis. And, you disagree with my thinking. That's a good thing.

I've never advertised my hypothesis as scientific law, and in fact, I've always said that we don't really know much beyond the patterns in nature we observe. I just don't repeat this in every post I make to online forums, but I believe that the readers who follow me understand this.

Thank you for your contribution here.