Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
I enjoy 'relaxed walking' doing farmers walks for a mile with relatively light weight.One thing I highly recommend is relaxed walking - walk but do not "power" walk, simply go out for a decent length of time and try to stay as relaxed as possible to get the job done. It's wonderful.
Harald,Christian, I can totally agree with your statements. Maffetone (as I am informed) made his observations with steady state cardio (running). To classify S&S I would define it as Interval training. Looking at my hr graph after a session I have 20 spikes and 19 valleys. Trying to beat the clock makes it a HIIT, in my opinion. And yes, Maffetone is one method to stay aerobically, and I think it fits nicely because with it everyone has a valuable cue here to use the right weight, reps, sets and rest times with it, regarding S&S. I may be wrong here: another (maybe scientifically and individually correct) method would be Spiroergometrie in a lab while doing swings and get ups, or lactate testing. But the Maffetone seems to be a very usable hint for a lot, maybe for all people.
S&S is not written in stone either. It contains many hints and cues to train properly, and it is not the end of all means. Heck, even the exercises can be changed, when Pavel Macek makes his fighter use sometimes push presses instead of get ups. But I think, and here is the key: S&S is about principles, and these are written in stone. But they are no dogma. The thing is detect the principles and act/practice accordingly. The principles come out of experience from many human beings, thus out of live itself. These principles are valid for a human being, past, present and future. Androids and ego have other "principles". Another statement about S&S could be: practice mindfully with patience often and regularly in your zone and grow like grass almost all by itself.
To make this practice permanent everyone is (and should be) free to making his or her own adjustments as I said the weight, the sets, the reps, the hr for those with a hr-monitor, the talk test and then some more resting for those without, the trainingfrequency. Make your practice repeatable to stay with it.
Currently I am using the beast. I am elaborating my starting hr. For my first sessions starting last Saturday (204th session) my starting hr was 100, and my highest hr was almost 150 (142 Maffetone, + - 5bpm). The sessions felt very good, but after three days some fatigue built up . Yesterday I let my hr down to almost 90, my max was 139. It felt exceptionally well, my sleep was well, although my training was somewhat late in the evening and woke up this morning rested. As I said somewhere earlier, a lot of tinkering here, and I want to see which impact it has on my traininfrequency. So, I am just tinkering...
And by the way, the practice of zazen and practice of S&S with it's focus on attitude, posture, "egolessnes" and permanence have many things in common. This would make up a nice other thread.
Well "HIIT too often creates acidosis in the blood and muscles, which in return damages and ultimately kills mitochondria" is another statement you need to find evidence for. Lactic acid should be cleared before this happens. Clearly if HIIT builds mitochondria it is not having this affect... you need to find some evidence to suggest that doing it too often has the reverse effect. Not just the reasoning that "acid kills mitochondria, running harder more often may lead to a more permanent state of acidosis", that is not enough in itself without backing.@BladesFanUK
I think noone suggested that high intensity training wouldn't force mitochondrial biogenesis and therefore density. Recently there have been a lot of posts about this topic and it was clear that one of the results of HIIT was indeed increased mitochondrial biogenesis.
But HIIT too often creates acidosis in the blood and muscles, which in return damages and ultimately kills mitochondria.
The way i interpret the statement about the recreational runners is that they work at a intensity that is above their lactate treshold, which would be fine if they'd do that for only a few sessions. Because of the higher intensity they get the benefits that come with it (increased mitochondrial density, lactate buffering etc.), but then they continue to train at those higher intensities, create permanent acidosis and kill those new mitochondria again. So they are spinning the wheel and don't really make progress.
EDIT: The last week i read a lot of stuff about this topic and imo a lot of those studies are a bit "flawed" (for the lack of a better word). For example the second of the studies you posted.
I don't doubt the results, but the study was 4 weeks long. There's no study about what happend to those rats after 6,8,12 or 20 weeks on the same routine and i think that's exactly what we are talking about right now - long time effects of certain types of training.
I don't have a phd, I am just starting one. I am nowhere near an expert on this, which is why I am so curious.Blades, you appear to be asking a question and then seek further clarification from the respondent for having that view. You get answers which have support from published scientific papers, you then refute that view as the evidence isn't strong enough to support those claims and write it off as speculative. You then ask another, and so on. Originally you were asking for further understanding because maffetone doesn't explain his position or provide you with the answers you are looking for......you know, just a suggestion, why don't you ask maffetone himself for answers. He will provide you with them I'm sure. Don't believe him? Fine. Ask another. A different expert, another scientist. I dunno. Do your own study.
This is an Internet forum and not a peer reviewed submission portal for the public understanding of science. You know, give it a break. People are only trying to help each other understand some complex stuff to help them, and others, get results from their training. Of course, debate is healthy, people have different views and when views are not what you expect there is no need to go all hard line and overly pedantic. Don't shoot the messenger.
There is some great irony in your postings......you are the one with a phd, and in physiology too. So you know a whole lot more about this kind of stuff than I, I'm just a bloke with a bog standard science degree not in physiology, and suggest that the opinions here are rewriting the textbooks because it is all speculative, despite being given credible evidence. No one is rewriting anything. And then you go and ask a question that maffetone absolutely (sorry can't support his view with an effing paper, ask him yourself) covered in his formula........aerobic efficiency is optimised at training within 10 points of his formula, not going over into aerobic glycolysis. So maf formula is 130, train within 120 to 130. To low a hr doesn't promote aerobic efficiency as well, apparently and going too high doesn't either, so just right, does......according to him, not me that is. You already don't agree with him, so If that doesn't suit your viewpoint and you somehow feel that position is wrong, then you are absolutely a free agent to contest it and refute it. Now you already said maffetone doesn't provide you with the answers you are looking for so I certainly can't, merely being someone who on the basis of some understanding and experience think he is onto something. So to answer your question: Is that medium intensity, medium high, low medium, medium low, who knows.