all posts post new thread

Off-Topic Michondria ATP and science behind Plan Strong and Strong Endurance

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

guardian7

Level 6 Valued Member
Science background to Plan Strong and Plan Endurance.

This article is really interesting in how researchers working on Mt. Everest have found that the mitochondria and oxygen production of Sherpas is genetically different from normal populations. In short, there is a significant genetic differences in the way people produce oxygen, but there are training effects and evolutionary adaptation. Great story of a researchers who wanted to acknowledge the role of the Sherpas in Everest expeditions.

On Mount Everest, the world's highest lab is uncovering the secrets of extreme fitness | WIRED UK

"If it was all about the mitochondria, then what was it about certain mitochondria that made the difference? It would be great, they thought, if they could study some of those effective mitochondria, knowing what they now knew.
But whose mitochondria to study?"
- Sherpas
 
Interesting read, thank you.... So do S&S for thousands of years to get those mitochondrial adaptations.... That's a lot of reps!
 
It actually tells you to live in a hyperbaric chamber (if you don’t have an Everest in you backyard) for a couple of thousand years ROFL

Interesting article! The study implies that Sherpas are less efficient at higher oxygen environments, meaning they don’t cope with low oxygen environments, they thrive in them
Evolution at work!
 
Any idea how to view the original papers reported on in this article?

I'm not sure how this article explains the science behind PS and SE...
 
I read the article - I don't see that anyone tested if one could, being of non-Sherpa lineage, acquire those adaptations through a period of living and working with the Sherpas.

-S-
 
Chapter 3 of 'Training for the New Alpinism' has pretty decent layman coverage of the topic of Mitochondria and ATP Production, as it relates to endurance training for altitude.
 
It is more "deep" background on the importance of the function of mitochondria in oxygen use and aging as well as performance. The issue these days is exactly how to use intervals. There are a lot of claims about the role of HIIT training in mitochondria function and a lot of confusion. For example, almost no one who says they are doing a tabata are actually doing one according to the original research, which demands an all out or 90 percent max and the original study was cycling not weight training.

A recent study that is getting a lot of press.
How exercise -- interval training in particular -- helps your mitochondria stave off old age

Strongfirst's new plans are interesting because Pavel is contrarian to a certain degree.
StrongFirst Roadwork | StrongFirst

"Long Rests": A Revolution in Interval Training | StrongFirst

"If you let the “burn” in the muscle rise too high, you literally destroy the mitochondria, the very thing you tried to build. And, as new research suggests, being “acid” could lead to worse problems than that, in addition. Al Ciampa, SFG warns:​

Deep and frequent glycolytic training, the brand so common in fitness training today, that leaves you lying on your back sucking wind in its wake, causes an accumulation of cellular damage that will express itself on a systemic level as daily lethargy, a lack of energy, and eventually, adrenal exhaustion/shutdown which begins a cascade of endocrine problems that your doctor will not likely figure out. Research suggests that frequent exposure to the free radicals and lactate produced by continued exercising above the cell’s ability to use oxygen (high-intensity anaerobic work) causes cellular organelle damage that accelerates aging and cause ill health."​

Therefore, the interesting issue seems to be exactly how long to rest in the intervals and to what degree of intensity to work at for each set. As I understand it, Strongfirst's recent thinking (for normal workouts) is opposite to say Crossfit. The goal is to stay out of glycolytic or acidic "burn." Normally, this occurs at longer duration of 10 seconds or so to a couple of minutes. But similar effects can occur from insufficient rest periods in intervals where you slow down, basically, the "burn."

It seems that Strongfirst is arguing that even if performance results can come short term from HIIT with short rest periods, it may be at the cost of mitochondria death and aging in the long term. It is not clear to what extent it affects performance from the articles I have read. Clearly, Crossfit style training can produce results (particularly motivation from group effort) but sustainability and safety is an issue.

Both work, but what is best in terms of health for non-elite sustainable performance is an interesting question. I am particularly interested as a middle aged person that wants a sustainable long-term plan with GPP goals, but still wants results. This is why the hardstyle/Strongfirst approach is so appealing. I will find out more at a Plan Strong event soon.

Yes, sorry, the OP article link is interesting mainly because it shows incredible variation in mitochondria function in individuals and populations and its effect on performance rather than any specific take away for training. We can't be Sherpas, but we can certainly improve our aerobic capacity and combat aging with proper training.
 
Last edited:
Any idea how to view the original papers reported on in this article?

I'm not sure how this article explains the science behind PS and SE...

If an article is behind a paywall and/or you are not a part of an academic organization that has access to the article, you can often get preprint publications from researchers from their personal websites, contacting them directly, or researchgate For example,

Xtreme Everest 2: unlocking the secrets of the Sherpa phenotype? (PDF Download Available)
 
Last edited:
It is more "deep" background on the importance of the function of mitochondria in oxygen use and aging as well as performance. The issue these days is exactly how to use intervals. There are a lot of claims about the role of HIIT training in mitochondria function and a lot of confusion. For example, almost no one who says they are doing a tabata are actually doing one according to the original research, which demands an all out or 90 percent max and the original study was cycling not weight training.

A recent study that is getting a lot of press.
How exercise -- interval training in particular -- helps your mitochondria stave off old age...

Both work, but what is best in terms of health for non-elite sustainable performance is an interesting question. I am particularly interested as a middle aged person that wants a sustainable long-term plan with GPP goals, but still wants results. This is why the hardstyle/Strongfirst approach is so appealing. I will find out more at a Plan Strong event soon.

Yes, sorry, the OP article link is interesting mainly because it shows incredible variation in mitochondria function in individuals and populations and its effect on performance rather than any specific take away for training. We can't be Sherpas, but we can certainly improve our aerobic capacity and combat aging with proper training.

Hopefully choosing my words carefully.

HIIT training properly done has been proven to help with mitochondrial density in a large number of studies. Any studies refuting these benes are not forthcoming to date.

Theories re the harm of training in the glycolytic range seem to be drawn from from clinical studies, not from studies of healthy individuals. Much of the anti glycolytic bend is attributed to some extent to Verkoshansky's GAS theory where glycolytic activity = the failure stage of adaptation, beyond which negative 'adaptations' predominate. His work on Plyo is amazing, theoretical stuff is a different story. I am NOT advocating or denigrating anything - adaptive response is highly individual in many respects and I'm not willing to argue for or against in an absolute sense.

I'm not sure that this study is applicable to the conversation re GPP, the Sherpas studied only had increased efficiency at high altitude. To me this study reinforces the specificity of adaptation, both short term and on an evolutionary scale. You get the adaptations you train for, so long as you train intelligently. Either way, there are limits...
 
If an article is behind a paywall and/or you are not a part of an academic organization that has access to the article, you can often get preprint publications from researchers from their personal websites, contacting them directly, or researchgate For example,

Xtreme Everest 2: unlocking the secrets of the Sherpa phenotype? (PDF Download Available)
I've been able to get articles from the public library. They have subscriptions to some of those research sites.
 
Hopefully choosing my words carefully.

HIIT training properly done has been proven to help with mitochondrial density in a large number of studies. Any studies refuting these benes are not forthcoming to date.

Theories re the harm of training in the glycolytic range seem to be drawn from from clinical studies, not from studies of healthy individuals. Much of the anti glycolytic bend is attributed to some extent to Verkoshansky's GAS theory where glycolytic activity = the failure stage of adaptation, beyond which negative 'adaptations' predominate. His work on Plyo is amazing, theoretical stuff is a different story. I am NOT advocating or denigrating anything - adaptive response is highly individual in many respects and I'm not willing to argue for or against in an absolute sense.

I'm not sure that this study is applicable to the conversation re GPP, the Sherpas studied only had increased efficiency at high altitude. To me this study reinforces the specificity of adaptation, both short term and on an evolutionary scale. You get the adaptations you train for, so long as you train intelligently. Either way, there are limits...

Yes, I agree. At present there is support for both the protocols of HIIT and the general thrust of the efficiency of anti-glycolytic training. The issue of mitochonrian harm in HIIT does not seem to be clear in the research literature. However, scientific explanations change all the time and we may not have to fully understand why as long as it works.

The Strongfirst approaches (endurance and strength) seems very efficient, do not interfere much with normal life stress, are more applicable to learning complex motor skills (which are less effectively practiced when fatigued), are less likely to result in injury, and are more applicable to strength work, than HIIT as far as I can tell.

Yes, as I noted in the conclusion of my second post, the OP article is interesting background on extreme variation in mitochondria function and its importance, not necessarily specific for GPP workouts. My post title was a bit misleading.
 
New evidence that humans can evolve to their environment within only hundreds of years and pass on training effects genetically! Bodies Remodeled for a Life at Sea

"On Thursday in the journal Cell, a team of researchers reported a new kind of adaptation — not to air or to food, but to the ocean. A group of sea-dwelling people in Southeast Asia have evolved into better divers." ---even those that don't dive for a living!
 
Hopefully choosing my words carefully.

HIIT training properly done has been proven to help with mitochondrial density in a large number of studies. Any studies refuting these benes are not forthcoming to date.

Theories re the harm of training in the glycolytic range seem to be drawn from from clinical studies, not from studies of healthy individuals. Much of the anti glycolytic bend is attributed to some extent to Verkoshansky's GAS theory where glycolytic activity = the failure stage of adaptation, beyond which negative 'adaptations' predominate. His work on Plyo is amazing, theoretical stuff is a different story. I am NOT advocating or denigrating anything - adaptive response is highly individual in many respects and I'm not willing to argue for or against in an absolute sense.
.

Have you seen this thread? It seems a reasonable compromise position. Throwing the Baby Out with the Bath Water: Have we taken AGT too far?
 
Have you seen this thread? It seems a reasonable compromise position. Throwing the Baby Out with the Bath Water: Have we taken AGT too far?

I sure have!

Re your thoughts on boxing/standup fighting I'd think you have to work in a wave for your round duration. Not every workout, it should be tailored to your schedule (keeping in mind many pro fighters in Thailand fight far too often to train only for a "peak" window). You could go hard for 5-8 seconds and then drop back and work footwork/evasion as an active recovery for 20-30 seconds and repeat, keep those legs moving. Occasionally push the active portion for 2x and increase your evasion portion etc. You are going to produce a ton of lactate, but that's OK, its your clearance rates that count more than your absolute levels. This is also a good time to work on clinching - make the opponent carry you whenever possible.

Trained individuals can maintain higher blood lactate before they run out of poop, and a big part of that is training at intensities that encourage the mitochondria to alactically utilize carbs (pyruvate) - they clear at a much faster rate than untrained individuals.

Mitochondria don't just process lipids, they actually develop a preference for carbs at higher intensities (competitive marathon runners burn mostly carbs) and this increases ATP output over time compared to lipid oxidation - it is a faster recharge reaction.

It also improves clearance rates as a direct consequence. Increased mitochondrial density helps with long slow and higher intensity if you push it intelligently, so training to avoid this adaptive response is probably not the best strategy.

The trend to avoid glycolytic pathways as much as possible is as misguided as training to always be peaking. It takes a lot of work and poor nutrition to work someone to death, but it can be done. The literature is entirely lacking for the suppositions of metabolic harm from glycolytic training, the opposite has actually been verified through numerous studies. Only when individuals have metabolic disorders or their regimen is taken to an extreme is there a real clinical problem.
 
I sure have!

Re your thoughts on boxing/standup fighting I'd think you have to work in a wave for your round duration. Not every workout, it should be tailored to your schedule (keeping in mind many pro fighters in Thailand fight far too often to train only for a "peak" window). You could go hard for 5-8 seconds and then drop back and work footwork/evasion as an active recovery for 20-30 seconds and repeat, keep those legs moving. Occasionally push the active portion for 2x and increase your evasion portion etc. You are going to produce a ton of lactate, but that's OK, its your clearance rates that count more than your absolute levels. This is also a good time to work on clinching - make the opponent carry you whenever possible.

Trained individuals can maintain higher blood lactate before they run out of poop, and a big part of that is training at intensities that encourage the mitochondria to alactically utilize carbs (pyruvate) - they clear at a much faster rate than untrained individuals.

Mitochondria don't just process lipids, they actually develop a preference for carbs at higher intensities (competitive marathon runners burn mostly carbs) and this increases ATP output over time compared to lipid oxidation - it is a faster recharge reaction.

It also improves clearance rates as a direct consequence. Increased mitochondrial density helps with long slow and higher intensity if you push it intelligently, so training to avoid this adaptive response is probably not the best strategy.

The trend to avoid glycolytic pathways as much as possible is as misguided as training to always be peaking. It takes a lot of work and poor nutrition to work someone to death, but it can be done. The literature is entirely lacking for the suppositions of metabolic harm from glycolytic training, the opposite has actually been verified through numerous studies. Only when individuals have metabolic disorders or their regimen is taken to an extreme is there a real clinical problem.

That also makes sense as boxing/muaythai is really repeats of anywhere from 1 strike to combinations that rarely go more than 8 (I usually repeat 3-4s) if that and you would have the neurological benefit of practicing as you perform. I like how you focus on "clearance" that makes sense. I am just a middle-aged guy keeping fit, not a competitive fighter, but I know that the intensity helps adaptation because my recovery rates and tolerance of shoulder burn is much greater than when I started. I can see how hard it is for new, even young new guys when they first do padwork or partner clinching.

I will try your suggestion. My footwork is lacking anyway, so I will pay more attention to that as recovery as well.
 
That also makes sense as boxing/muaythai is really repeats of anywhere from 1 strike to combinations that rarely go more than 8 (I usually repeat 3-4s) if that and you would have the neurological benefit of practicing as you perform. I like how you focus on "clearance" that makes sense. I am just a middle-aged guy keeping fit, not a competitive fighter, but I know that the intensity helps adaptation because my recovery rates and tolerance of shoulder burn is much greater than when I started. I can see how hard it is for new, even young new guys when they first do padwork or partner clinching.

I will try your suggestion. My footwork is lacking anyway, so I will pay more attention to that as recovery as well.

There are a lot of strategies you might use - has been many years since I did much MT, but I recall a good bit of it.

The wave within a round of striking to footwork is one. Hang some rope or a towel off the top of your bag so you have something to clinch and pinch and hang on as well while doing knees. Another is to work your kicks hard and for recovery do some slow footwork and shadow box the bag with light contact/slow speed strikes.

The idea is to use the non-hard driving muscle regions to help clear the lactate being produced by the working limbs, they need to be moving enough to draw extra blood flow but not so hard that they start adding to the total excess at the same time.

You also have to train with everything working together as you would in a real fight to avoid becoming predictable/punch or kick heavy, but these are all variations on a theme.
 
I sure have!

Re your thoughts on boxing/standup fighting I'd think you have to work in a wave for your round duration. Not every workout, it should be tailored to your schedule (keeping in mind many pro fighters in Thailand fight far too often to train only for a "peak" window). You could go hard for 5-8 seconds and then drop back and work footwork/evasion as an active recovery for 20-30 seconds and repeat, keep those legs moving. Occasionally push the active portion for 2x and increase your evasion portion etc. You are going to produce a ton of lactate, but that's OK, its your clearance rates that count more than your absolute levels. This is also a good time to work on clinching - make the opponent carry you whenever possible.

Trained individuals can maintain higher blood lactate before they run out of poop, and a big part of that is training at intensities that encourage the mitochondria to alactically utilize carbs (pyruvate) - they clear at a much faster rate than untrained individuals.

Mitochondria don't just process lipids, they actually develop a preference for carbs at higher intensities (competitive marathon runners burn mostly carbs) and this increases ATP output over time compared to lipid oxidation - it is a faster recharge reaction.

It also improves clearance rates as a direct consequence. Increased mitochondrial density helps with long slow and higher intensity if you push it intelligently, so training to avoid this adaptive response is probably not the best strategy.

The trend to avoid glycolytic pathways as much as possible is as misguided as training to always be peaking. It takes a lot of work and poor nutrition to work someone to death, but it can be done. The literature is entirely lacking for the suppositions of metabolic harm from glycolytic training, the opposite has actually been verified through numerous studies. Only when individuals have metabolic disorders or their regimen is taken to an extreme is there a real clinical problem.

It worked well overall. 5-8 seconds was too short though. 10-15 worked well. You need to get into a bit of a rhythm. 20-30 active rest was way too long. I am estimating of course because I am not using a timer but I can glance at the two minute bell.

10-15 seemed about right. I was able to keep going for a long while compared to other guys who kind of attack the bag and then gas out or take long breaks. Time to focus on my footwork was good for foot health and mobility. Because the thai kick is such a technical skill, I don't think very high volume striking work with decreasing form is a good idea for those who are not competitive fighters training for endurance at least.

It is natural to pause and reset and go back to guard after each combination, so it is not really like a tabata protocol where you go all out, hence the shorter rest times. I will up the intensity but also the active rest in the future. I am sore but feel good today after a long workout.

I get in my S&S before each boxing workout, which is such a great combination. My shoulder health is decent for a middle aged guy with an academic job thanks to getups.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom