Kettlebell Using a heart-rate monitor ... for the data-averse
- Thread starter Rob Lawrence
- Start date
- Status
Jeff
Level 5 Valued Member
I hope I get this right. Alistair just basically said that if you do the 180-age thing with swings you simultaneously develop the alactic and aerobic systems. The alactic system is enhanced by developing more mitochondria. Pretty cool.
If, on the other hand, you work at a higher heart rate, your body says, oh, you want me to pour resources into developing the glycolytic system. That happens at the expense of the alactic system, less mitochondria. Bummer.
And again, all three energy pathways are always active, so there.
If, on the other hand, you work at a higher heart rate, your body says, oh, you want me to pour resources into developing the glycolytic system. That happens at the expense of the alactic system, less mitochondria. Bummer.
And again, all three energy pathways are always active, so there.
ali
Level 7 Valued Member
Jeffrey, it is the framework, I think, in the overall scheme of things. It is a simplistic snapshot, not an elaboration on the exact mechanics. I really struggled to understand the thinking behind S&S, partly because I'm a thrasher led to believe that lactate is a good thing. I like 400m repeats, put it that way! And.....to totally screw it all up.....lactate is a good thing. In context, that is. So in my pursuit of understanding I went through a long period of late nights going slightly mad.....
The 2 upsides of lactate...1) it can save your life as an emergency energy supply. It can win you gold in the Olympics. 2) production of human growth hormone.
Downside: the presence of it can lead to mitochondrial explosion. Loss of strength and power. Longer recovery times due to those reasons.
.....at what point does lactate kick in where the pros outweigh the cons? Who knows. Mitochondrial adaptation takes time. If though lactate is introduced from time to time, it's presence stimulates human growth hormone.....which signals......more muscle growth.....more muscle......more mitochondria! Totally confusing.......more lactate then please....give me muscle, give me more human growth hormone....ah, hold on there, yes, different programme....no longer is it S&S. You are doing something else.
Too much lactate, destroys mitochondria. Huge spike in human growth hormone.....for a very good reason as it needs heavy duty repair. So there is a sweet spot, somewhere.......train alactic most of time, spice it up now and then but not too much......maybe a fuller picture, if a little more confusing. Which is why you need a base to work from......aerobic and alactic function first, or general physical preparedness, then go for your sports specific needs, or add more muscle, or increase speed and more power....or to put it another way...get strongfirst. You know, it is all there in Pavel's methods.
If the 180 formula is a safe guide to improve aerobic function because that number is based on how the heart is responding to the stress of whatever task you are doing. And it marks when you need back up from the anaerobic system, then we can assume from that there is one of 2 systems being used at that time, right? Is it alactic or lactate. Or max power or just a little bit?
You pick up a nice 4kg kettlebell and do S&S as written. I would think you complete the task using only the aerobic system. Well what is all the fuss about, and you grab a 32......if only it was as easy as that 4kg? The ultimate aim then is for you to complete The simple goal as if it was as easy as the 4!
It was easy because you had the strength and you could apply that strength aerobically. Wherever you are with S&S, when the protocol becomes easy-ish, you move up a bell. So easy-ish means meeting the goals without throwing up...maybe being slightly out of breath, heart rate slightly raised....or, being easy and aerobic with a low heart rate. Low enough to be less than 180-age, maybe? At what point will it become aerobic?? Answer: eventually.
Easy strength.....easy power....easy endurance.....alactic and aerobic.
The 2 upsides of lactate...1) it can save your life as an emergency energy supply. It can win you gold in the Olympics. 2) production of human growth hormone.
Downside: the presence of it can lead to mitochondrial explosion. Loss of strength and power. Longer recovery times due to those reasons.
.....at what point does lactate kick in where the pros outweigh the cons? Who knows. Mitochondrial adaptation takes time. If though lactate is introduced from time to time, it's presence stimulates human growth hormone.....which signals......more muscle growth.....more muscle......more mitochondria! Totally confusing.......more lactate then please....give me muscle, give me more human growth hormone....ah, hold on there, yes, different programme....no longer is it S&S. You are doing something else.
Too much lactate, destroys mitochondria. Huge spike in human growth hormone.....for a very good reason as it needs heavy duty repair. So there is a sweet spot, somewhere.......train alactic most of time, spice it up now and then but not too much......maybe a fuller picture, if a little more confusing. Which is why you need a base to work from......aerobic and alactic function first, or general physical preparedness, then go for your sports specific needs, or add more muscle, or increase speed and more power....or to put it another way...get strongfirst. You know, it is all there in Pavel's methods.
If the 180 formula is a safe guide to improve aerobic function because that number is based on how the heart is responding to the stress of whatever task you are doing. And it marks when you need back up from the anaerobic system, then we can assume from that there is one of 2 systems being used at that time, right? Is it alactic or lactate. Or max power or just a little bit?
You pick up a nice 4kg kettlebell and do S&S as written. I would think you complete the task using only the aerobic system. Well what is all the fuss about, and you grab a 32......if only it was as easy as that 4kg? The ultimate aim then is for you to complete The simple goal as if it was as easy as the 4!
It was easy because you had the strength and you could apply that strength aerobically. Wherever you are with S&S, when the protocol becomes easy-ish, you move up a bell. So easy-ish means meeting the goals without throwing up...maybe being slightly out of breath, heart rate slightly raised....or, being easy and aerobic with a low heart rate. Low enough to be less than 180-age, maybe? At what point will it become aerobic?? Answer: eventually.
Easy strength.....easy power....easy endurance.....alactic and aerobic.
krg
Level 7 Valued Member
Alistair,
Love the posts, I can identify with type B - without the yoga and green tea though.
Would be great to see you and Al collaborate on a full blog article tying the energy systems together with an 'easy' protocol. S+S+HR - Strength, endurance and health - optimising all 3 in a simple training regime that you can do week in / week out without burning out / injuring.
Love the posts, I can identify with type B - without the yoga and green tea though.
Would be great to see you and Al collaborate on a full blog article tying the energy systems together with an 'easy' protocol. S+S+HR - Strength, endurance and health - optimising all 3 in a simple training regime that you can do week in / week out without burning out / injuring.
Al Ciampa
Level 7 Valued Member
Back from where I left off…
Jeffrey… “Why is it important to stay in my aerobic zone when doing conditioning work but not important when doing strength work? How does my body know the difference?”
Then, “I want to develop all around strength and conditioning. I can develop my aerobic capacity by forcing my body to remain aerobic during what we call the conditioning phase, but to develop grinding strength it will be necessary to train differently. My HR very well might leave the aerobic zone during my grinds, but that will not compromise the aerobic conditioning work I have already done. By doing swings for my conditioning I get the bonus of also developing power and strength, so I get multiple benefits from swings as compared to continuous low intensity work on an elliptical trainer (which I never do).”
Nice
“But….
Do I get the “systematic acidity” if my HR leaves the aerobic zone during grinds (getups) which affects the mitochondria in a negative way? Why wouldn’t the systematic acidity be a bad thing regardless of when it was produced, be it swings or getups?”
“Aerobic zone”… quit that right now!
Systemic acidity, when strength training, is likely less than when doing A+A swings. It’s probably just enough--and being followed by a rest period increases this effect--to help improve aerobic function.
“Don’t worry about me overthinking it. For the time being I am going to stay aerobic during swings and throw caution to the wind during getups, but I anticipate the same principles applying to other workouts. I would like to be able to apply appropriately.”
Great.
“And another thing….
My HR can get above 180-age from the goblet squats during the warmup. Is that okay?”
What happened to not overthinking it?
Carl… “Very interesting thread. Jeffrey I’m not a trainer, so if I’m out of place here those who are more qualified than me please set me straight too. The Maffetone formula is a base, developed most likely through averages from testing. You may very well be able to have a higher aerobic threshold but that could only be determined through a Lactate Threshold test done in a lab.
With that said let’s suppose that a student with a 127 aerobic threshold or HR limit (HRLim) can run (oh the dishonor of even writing this) for 30 min. and keeping his HRLim at or below 127 puts in 2.5 miles or about a 12min/mi average. Later he is able to due the same but can now put in 3 miles or a 10min/mi average. Would that student now have a higher work capacity? Is the student’s energy system more efficient?”
And bingo was his name-o!
Leon… “I was assuming the swing sets is rather interval training and thereby being partly anaerobic. Then you let the heart rate go down and start again.”
Yes.
“if you stay in the aerobic zone all the time don’t you end up with a short aerobic session of five to ten minutes? Normally aerobic sessions last twenty minutes up to several hours. How can a short ten minute session be effectiv in comparison to longer aerobic sessions where I keep the heart rate in the same zone? I am referring solely to the effect on the heart itself.”
I think you’re getting confused because of that “zone” word. Your aerobic system is always operating. Maybe I do not understand the question?
Zone “thinking” is putting your thinking in a box… avoid the “zone” and think outside of the box. (Not targeting Leon here.)
Alistair… Nice rundown. Using swing intervals to HR is indeed increasing the mitochondrial mass of T2 fibers, and, using anaerobiosis to fuel work, and aerobic respiration to recover. The net effect is increased aerobic function, increased (to a lesser degree) anaerobic function, and all of the structural benefits of the swing. Note that taking the session out to at least 30min is vital, as is working to your aerobic HR. The stressors of life, which affect your physiology, are not incorporated into working intervals to time, which is one reason why I am a fan of HR, or at least, going by feel. It may turn out, however, that one can do these intervals to a greater HR than the 180-age formula, as the “ebb and flow” of acids seems to allow for greater intensity of work without compromising the results.
Note though, that the aerobic system is the foundational system. The other two are supplements to it, save for the case of the red blood cells, some nervous cells, etc. The aerobic system is always trying to catch up and cover down on the required energy needs. Any acceleration of intensity will increase supplementation of the aerobic system: glycolysis. Keeping systemic acids mild-low is key, and HR is good indicator of this.
Karl… lactate is not the issue, acid is, though they run close enough together that blood La may be used as a surrogate marker for systemic acidty. Nice post.
Jeffrey… “Why is it important to stay in my aerobic zone when doing conditioning work but not important when doing strength work? How does my body know the difference?”
Then, “I want to develop all around strength and conditioning. I can develop my aerobic capacity by forcing my body to remain aerobic during what we call the conditioning phase, but to develop grinding strength it will be necessary to train differently. My HR very well might leave the aerobic zone during my grinds, but that will not compromise the aerobic conditioning work I have already done. By doing swings for my conditioning I get the bonus of also developing power and strength, so I get multiple benefits from swings as compared to continuous low intensity work on an elliptical trainer (which I never do).”
Nice
“But….
Do I get the “systematic acidity” if my HR leaves the aerobic zone during grinds (getups) which affects the mitochondria in a negative way? Why wouldn’t the systematic acidity be a bad thing regardless of when it was produced, be it swings or getups?”
“Aerobic zone”… quit that right now!
Systemic acidity, when strength training, is likely less than when doing A+A swings. It’s probably just enough--and being followed by a rest period increases this effect--to help improve aerobic function.
“Don’t worry about me overthinking it. For the time being I am going to stay aerobic during swings and throw caution to the wind during getups, but I anticipate the same principles applying to other workouts. I would like to be able to apply appropriately.”
Great.
“And another thing….
My HR can get above 180-age from the goblet squats during the warmup. Is that okay?”
What happened to not overthinking it?
Carl… “Very interesting thread. Jeffrey I’m not a trainer, so if I’m out of place here those who are more qualified than me please set me straight too. The Maffetone formula is a base, developed most likely through averages from testing. You may very well be able to have a higher aerobic threshold but that could only be determined through a Lactate Threshold test done in a lab.
With that said let’s suppose that a student with a 127 aerobic threshold or HR limit (HRLim) can run (oh the dishonor of even writing this) for 30 min. and keeping his HRLim at or below 127 puts in 2.5 miles or about a 12min/mi average. Later he is able to due the same but can now put in 3 miles or a 10min/mi average. Would that student now have a higher work capacity? Is the student’s energy system more efficient?”
And bingo was his name-o!
Leon… “I was assuming the swing sets is rather interval training and thereby being partly anaerobic. Then you let the heart rate go down and start again.”
Yes.
“if you stay in the aerobic zone all the time don’t you end up with a short aerobic session of five to ten minutes? Normally aerobic sessions last twenty minutes up to several hours. How can a short ten minute session be effectiv in comparison to longer aerobic sessions where I keep the heart rate in the same zone? I am referring solely to the effect on the heart itself.”
I think you’re getting confused because of that “zone” word. Your aerobic system is always operating. Maybe I do not understand the question?
Zone “thinking” is putting your thinking in a box… avoid the “zone” and think outside of the box. (Not targeting Leon here.)
Alistair… Nice rundown. Using swing intervals to HR is indeed increasing the mitochondrial mass of T2 fibers, and, using anaerobiosis to fuel work, and aerobic respiration to recover. The net effect is increased aerobic function, increased (to a lesser degree) anaerobic function, and all of the structural benefits of the swing. Note that taking the session out to at least 30min is vital, as is working to your aerobic HR. The stressors of life, which affect your physiology, are not incorporated into working intervals to time, which is one reason why I am a fan of HR, or at least, going by feel. It may turn out, however, that one can do these intervals to a greater HR than the 180-age formula, as the “ebb and flow” of acids seems to allow for greater intensity of work without compromising the results.
Note though, that the aerobic system is the foundational system. The other two are supplements to it, save for the case of the red blood cells, some nervous cells, etc. The aerobic system is always trying to catch up and cover down on the required energy needs. Any acceleration of intensity will increase supplementation of the aerobic system: glycolysis. Keeping systemic acids mild-low is key, and HR is good indicator of this.
Karl… lactate is not the issue, acid is, though they run close enough together that blood La may be used as a surrogate marker for systemic acidty. Nice post.
ali
Level 7 Valued Member
Karl- glad you liked the analogy - type B being a huge generalisation of course. I am a green tea guy but non yoga...mind/body most definately...but non yoga in the lotus position, whale music, mysticism sense. Thank you for your suggestion but I am in no way qualified to publish my random thoughts, as a lot of my understanding is due to Al's descriptive accounts of the energy systems here and Pavel's S&S, of course. This has led me to become slightly obsessed in learning more, and reading to an unhealthy obsessive level of detail probably, to reach a level of understanding to satisfy me. I hope, that the way I have come to understand it all can help give a better understanding to others, who like me struggle with the often conflicting information out there in all things fitness. I am just a bloke. Thanks again Al to the above....it is all coming together.
Claude512
Level 2 Valued Member
ok, so help me with this...
Currently I am doing S&S on average 4 times a week, with 2 run days in between (one of 30 mins, and one of about 45 - 60 mins, not worrying about the distance but only about the duration and HR).
I have worked myself up to the 32kg for swings and 24 for the TGUs, working in the 32 there as well (which in itself is a WTH effect, I never thought I'd be able to do a single TGU with 32kg when I started!!)
I have been using a heart rate monitor for the last few S&S sessions too
Usually the swings take around 10 - 15 minutes (32kg bell) depending on the day
What happens is that the 10 swings will spike my heart rate to about 150 - 160BPM, and then quickly come down again (gradually increasing during the practice). I always let my HR come down to about 118 or so then go for another set of 10. Average HR is about 135-140BPM for the 100 swings
I'm 37, so the 180-formula gives me 143 bpm as threshold
here's a session from this week (a bad day, energy and concentration a bit low), took about 15 minutes
so far so good, I think that is what it does for everyone, and what it should do, it is interval training the way it should be done after all
now for the question, in light of the aerobic/anaerobic discussion, am i doing this right? Or should I focus on not letting my HR go over the 143 during the sets?
If so, then what would be the best strategy, let my HR go lower between sets (probably to around 110 or so) so that it doesn't spike beyond 143 and still do 10 sets of 10 (so the swings practice takes longer), or let it go to around 123 (160-age) and then stop the swings once it hits 143, doing less swings that way but always stay in the aerobic zone?
I have made good progress with the swings (moved up to the 32kg after all), but also my general conditioning has improved by a lot, the swings don't leave me feeling taxed (or even tired), and I can nose-breathe the whole practice without trouble.
I am in no rush to get to the simple standard, but it is a goal still.
My goals are GPP and being a very capable human being in whatever I chose to or am forced to do any day... competitive goals my come later but not right now
So... long text for not much question, feel free to correct anything or tell me to stop overthinking this!
Currently I am doing S&S on average 4 times a week, with 2 run days in between (one of 30 mins, and one of about 45 - 60 mins, not worrying about the distance but only about the duration and HR).
I have worked myself up to the 32kg for swings and 24 for the TGUs, working in the 32 there as well (which in itself is a WTH effect, I never thought I'd be able to do a single TGU with 32kg when I started!!)
I have been using a heart rate monitor for the last few S&S sessions too
Usually the swings take around 10 - 15 minutes (32kg bell) depending on the day
What happens is that the 10 swings will spike my heart rate to about 150 - 160BPM, and then quickly come down again (gradually increasing during the practice). I always let my HR come down to about 118 or so then go for another set of 10. Average HR is about 135-140BPM for the 100 swings
I'm 37, so the 180-formula gives me 143 bpm as threshold
here's a session from this week (a bad day, energy and concentration a bit low), took about 15 minutes
so far so good, I think that is what it does for everyone, and what it should do, it is interval training the way it should be done after all
now for the question, in light of the aerobic/anaerobic discussion, am i doing this right? Or should I focus on not letting my HR go over the 143 during the sets?
If so, then what would be the best strategy, let my HR go lower between sets (probably to around 110 or so) so that it doesn't spike beyond 143 and still do 10 sets of 10 (so the swings practice takes longer), or let it go to around 123 (160-age) and then stop the swings once it hits 143, doing less swings that way but always stay in the aerobic zone?
I have made good progress with the swings (moved up to the 32kg after all), but also my general conditioning has improved by a lot, the swings don't leave me feeling taxed (or even tired), and I can nose-breathe the whole practice without trouble.
I am in no rush to get to the simple standard, but it is a goal still.
My goals are GPP and being a very capable human being in whatever I chose to or am forced to do any day... competitive goals my come later but not right now
So... long text for not much question, feel free to correct anything or tell me to stop overthinking this!
ali
Level 7 Valued Member
Claude, like you, it is all new to me. Your experiences are very similar to mine. My first ventures with the maf heart rate shenanigans clearly illustrated my inability to match my effort levels with heart rate. I had stalled at 7.30 with the 32 and upon testing didn't appear that far off but subsequent days trying to maintain the upper threshold as best I could put me over 10 minutes with regular spiking in heart rate. I knocked off a couple of reps from each set and am still playing around trying to use the hr to determine a drop in power so I learn the feeling and not to chase reps - my Achilles heel? Knowing this now convinces me that I pushed it too early with lighter bells. My spike only occurs now in rest periods, hitting my max briefly before dropping. And this for me is a mix of 8 and 9 reps and it takes me 7/8 minutes. That is right where I was with 10 in terms of time but stay aerobic. I started with 8 and add a rep - it is very surprising the difference 1 rep can make - when I don't go over my range. Then I've been consolidating the extra rep ie not adding until I consistently stay aerobic. Maybe I'm being too cautious, I don't know. My new cautious approach would suggest to me that you need to back off a bit, my old self would say to add in a tabata at the end for good measure. There is the validity of the number you use too as there are adjustments with the formula. I've taken a -5 hit due to hay fever meds. Even if I wasn't taking them I would do anyway as I have had a couple of colds this year and injuries. I would experiment a bit more and give yourself a baseline, knock off some reps, add more rest, or a bit of both. At what point is going over a problem? Who knows. Maffetone and Pavel know - a drop in power and when you exceed the threshold. You may find out that they are the same......more or less....or not at all. For me, in my very basic and inexperienced ventures they is a distinct correlation.
Bill Been
Level 5 Valued Member
Claude, there's no requirement to employ the 180 minus Age formula. If your goal is to be better at the type of activity the Maffetone formula is designed for - long, slow distance running- then have at it. If your goal is to be able to produce force rapidly (power) and to repeat such efforts more and more frequently, then the more familiar 220 minus age for a "Max" to base your target HRs comes into play. Concern has been raised about blood acidity. You may want to Google up the relevant research and see if it's applicable to what you have in mind.
ali
Level 7 Valued Member
Bill, I agree, there is no need to use the 180 formula. It isn't The Law.
However, you say:
If your goal is to be able to produce force rapidly (power) and to repeat such efforts more and more frequently, then the more familiar 220 minus age for a “Max” to base your target HRs comes into play.
.......so where would you base the target? At a percentage of hr max, presumably, but where? Specifically, as you say, why? To what aim?
Maffetone pondered the same issue. He thinks, out of his experience, that the 220 minus age is too vague for most people and as heart rate is variable to each of us, he arrived at the 180-age formula as a better guide.....somewhere to start. It is adjustable depending on your situation, health and training state. So it is a number.......derived at as a percentage of hr max...to help build an aerobic base for distance runners, absolutely, yes......
So you are saying that that number is irrelevant to training for power as it is a number derived at for distance runners and it is better to use a different number, 220 - age to arrive at a percentage, rather than 180 - age? Ok.....
A 40 year old has a maf formula of 140. Using your formula this is 180 hr max, 220. - age. The maf 140 represents 77.77% of 180 hr max. So let's just round up to 75%. So the question is, if we use a percentage of hr max, what percentage do we use for our training goals, right? And without a heart rate monitor, use of own highly subjectine measurement of perceived effort, what exactly is that? 7 or 8, maybe a 9, 5 is easy.....7/8 represents moderately hard, so 7.5...say?
We are splitting hairs here, I know.....the validity of a number? That number represents your heart rate doing a task. 75%, 77.77%, or an effort level of 7 or 8, they are essentially the same thing. However if you think that training at 90%, or a 9 almost every day is sustainable then I'd like some of what your are having..........
However, you say:
If your goal is to be able to produce force rapidly (power) and to repeat such efforts more and more frequently, then the more familiar 220 minus age for a “Max” to base your target HRs comes into play.
.......so where would you base the target? At a percentage of hr max, presumably, but where? Specifically, as you say, why? To what aim?
Maffetone pondered the same issue. He thinks, out of his experience, that the 220 minus age is too vague for most people and as heart rate is variable to each of us, he arrived at the 180-age formula as a better guide.....somewhere to start. It is adjustable depending on your situation, health and training state. So it is a number.......derived at as a percentage of hr max...to help build an aerobic base for distance runners, absolutely, yes......
So you are saying that that number is irrelevant to training for power as it is a number derived at for distance runners and it is better to use a different number, 220 - age to arrive at a percentage, rather than 180 - age? Ok.....
A 40 year old has a maf formula of 140. Using your formula this is 180 hr max, 220. - age. The maf 140 represents 77.77% of 180 hr max. So let's just round up to 75%. So the question is, if we use a percentage of hr max, what percentage do we use for our training goals, right? And without a heart rate monitor, use of own highly subjectine measurement of perceived effort, what exactly is that? 7 or 8, maybe a 9, 5 is easy.....7/8 represents moderately hard, so 7.5...say?
We are splitting hairs here, I know.....the validity of a number? That number represents your heart rate doing a task. 75%, 77.77%, or an effort level of 7 or 8, they are essentially the same thing. However if you think that training at 90%, or a 9 almost every day is sustainable then I'd like some of what your are having..........
Bill Been
Level 5 Valued Member
I want to condition in the glycolytic pathway, but without excessive lactic acid buildup. This "nominally" happens somewhere around 80-87%. Clearing lactic acid efficiently is a trainable adaptation.
And he replaced one number that needs to be fine-tuned for some trainees with another number that needs to be fine-tuned for some trainees. The well-studied thresholds are all based on 220 minus Age, but there are some "more refined" equations out there. They move my HRmax by one beat.
The number is not the problem. Trying to train for power exclusively in the aerobic energy system is. Conversely, if I was a serious runner whose aerobic development needed to optimized for my competition event, I would use a different implement.
I think without a HR monitor, people are highly unlikely to remain below 180 minus age. However, I also have little faith in trainee assessments of effort.
"Almost every day"? Where'd you get that? Massive amounts of work across numerous long sessions per week forever is a hallmark of endurance training thinking and I'm not interested. Endurance adaptations are transitory, arriving quickly and detraining equally quickly, meaning I'm going to use such training for specific purposes not as the focus.
ali
Level 7 Valued Member
Bill
"I want to condition in the glycolytic pathway, but without excessive lactic acid buildup".
.....but that isn't the same thing as alactic capacity in S&S, the goal is to train the pcr system, not glycolysis.
"This “nominally” happens somewhere around 80-87%. Clearing lactic acid efficiently is a trainable adaptation."
.....absolutely.
“Almost every day”? Where’d you get that? Massive amounts of work across numerous long sessions per week forever is a hallmark of endurance training thinking and I’m not interested. Endurance adaptations are transitory, arriving quickly and detraining equally quickly, meaning I’m going to use such training for specific purposes not as the focus".
to re-quote my suggestions that a rating of 9 is very hard effort, or 90% hr max....yes, we are essentially saying the same thing. I'm specifically using alactic/aerobic for S&S training and you are using a glycolytic training protocol. Your nominal range of 80-87%, isn't far off a 9, really. That's what I mean...hard ball busting effort...which glycolytic training is.
The almost everyday is S&S.....the goal is just crashing over the line in a winded heap but to be able to do it 'almost every day'. This is the rationale isn't? Once there, you will have sufficient strength, power and endurance for most things, laying the foundation for sports specificity.....to train the glycolytic pathway if you want to/need to. There is no requirement to train alactic/aerobic to reach a goal, just that is the S&S goal.
S&S is in part a glycolytic training protocol if you frame it that way and it will be glycolytic for some, more or less, at different stages.....and that is the issue, ultimately...when does training become too glycolytic, too much for the system, where overtraining becomes an issue? Training hard all the time isn't the way to go...we can agree on that.....and that is regardless of goals. Training frequently, moderately hard with a blast now and then is S&S....when it becomes moderately less hard then move on up a bell or do another programme and train the glycolytic pathway a bit harder....for a while.
This is what maffetone is saying too. If you run hard all the time it is detrimental, both in terms of performance and health. And by definition, if running is done fueled by the anaerobic glycolytic pathway, the increase in hydrogen ions is a cause to that decrease in performance, one of them anyway. It doesn't really matter if you are running or training for strength and power, spending a long time there is to be avoided, or to be minimised.......
"Endurance adaptations are transitory, arriving quickly and detraining equally quickly",
.....I would argue the other way around, glycolytic training is quick to train, quick to detrain....
Bill, I'm mostly onside with you here.....running badly with constant effort is not good for anyone but that isn't the same thing as running well with good form with minimal effort...ie no anaerobic glycolysis. It is the same as training for strength and power with good technique, at least striving for good technique, using minimal anaerobic glycolysis. With both, once there is a solid base of power and endurance, the stakes can be raised in a more healthy sustainable way in general....and as a by-product performance will be enhanced. The maf formula is a good tool...perhaps....for S&S that is.
"I want to condition in the glycolytic pathway, but without excessive lactic acid buildup".
.....but that isn't the same thing as alactic capacity in S&S, the goal is to train the pcr system, not glycolysis.
"This “nominally” happens somewhere around 80-87%. Clearing lactic acid efficiently is a trainable adaptation."
.....absolutely.
“Almost every day”? Where’d you get that? Massive amounts of work across numerous long sessions per week forever is a hallmark of endurance training thinking and I’m not interested. Endurance adaptations are transitory, arriving quickly and detraining equally quickly, meaning I’m going to use such training for specific purposes not as the focus".
to re-quote my suggestions that a rating of 9 is very hard effort, or 90% hr max....yes, we are essentially saying the same thing. I'm specifically using alactic/aerobic for S&S training and you are using a glycolytic training protocol. Your nominal range of 80-87%, isn't far off a 9, really. That's what I mean...hard ball busting effort...which glycolytic training is.
The almost everyday is S&S.....the goal is just crashing over the line in a winded heap but to be able to do it 'almost every day'. This is the rationale isn't? Once there, you will have sufficient strength, power and endurance for most things, laying the foundation for sports specificity.....to train the glycolytic pathway if you want to/need to. There is no requirement to train alactic/aerobic to reach a goal, just that is the S&S goal.
S&S is in part a glycolytic training protocol if you frame it that way and it will be glycolytic for some, more or less, at different stages.....and that is the issue, ultimately...when does training become too glycolytic, too much for the system, where overtraining becomes an issue? Training hard all the time isn't the way to go...we can agree on that.....and that is regardless of goals. Training frequently, moderately hard with a blast now and then is S&S....when it becomes moderately less hard then move on up a bell or do another programme and train the glycolytic pathway a bit harder....for a while.
This is what maffetone is saying too. If you run hard all the time it is detrimental, both in terms of performance and health. And by definition, if running is done fueled by the anaerobic glycolytic pathway, the increase in hydrogen ions is a cause to that decrease in performance, one of them anyway. It doesn't really matter if you are running or training for strength and power, spending a long time there is to be avoided, or to be minimised.......
"Endurance adaptations are transitory, arriving quickly and detraining equally quickly",
.....I would argue the other way around, glycolytic training is quick to train, quick to detrain....
Bill, I'm mostly onside with you here.....running badly with constant effort is not good for anyone but that isn't the same thing as running well with good form with minimal effort...ie no anaerobic glycolysis. It is the same as training for strength and power with good technique, at least striving for good technique, using minimal anaerobic glycolysis. With both, once there is a solid base of power and endurance, the stakes can be raised in a more healthy sustainable way in general....and as a by-product performance will be enhanced. The maf formula is a good tool...perhaps....for S&S that is.
Jeff
Level 5 Valued Member
So if a 53 year old man wanted to train the alactic and aerobic systems he would keep the HR spike which occurs after each set of swings below 180-53=127.
If he wanted to train the alactic and glycolytic systems he would keep the HR spike which occurs after each set of swings below 85% of 220-53 = 142. And the aerobic system would help all it can.
If he wanted to train the alactic and glycolytic systems he would keep the HR spike which occurs after each set of swings below 85% of 220-53 = 142. And the aerobic system would help all it can.
Bill Been
Level 5 Valued Member
I'll just come out and say what I think: I think trying to do a power production program like S&S using the 180 minus Age max HR formula is dumb. It's a recipe for glacial progress. We've already seen plenty of glacial progress on this very board. We don't need any more ways for guys to make exceptionally slow improvements.
Here's my thinking: since exceeding the energy demand your aerobic system is capable meeting is going to happen in every sport and in every serious training regime and every emergency event that rises above noticeable effort; and since intentionally exceeding it allows training the ability to quickly remove the lactic acid byproducts that shut down proceedings as the contest draws on; and since intentionally venturing into glycolytic training ALSO conditions the aerobic energy system; and since aerobic-only training DOES NOT improve anaerobic (glycolytic) capacity; and since high intensity interval training takes approximately 1/3 the time of LSD; and since high intensity interval training burns fat and glycogen stores at the same time, the excess post-exercise caloric demand is quite large and quite prolonged making it a nice tool for fat loss; and since high, explosive force production is the only way to train the Type II muscle fiber that preferentially disappears in sarcopenia after age 45ish; and since there's no reason not to unless you're actually a competitive 5k + distance runner, I'm not going to abide Mr. Maffetone.
Here's my thinking: since exceeding the energy demand your aerobic system is capable meeting is going to happen in every sport and in every serious training regime and every emergency event that rises above noticeable effort; and since intentionally exceeding it allows training the ability to quickly remove the lactic acid byproducts that shut down proceedings as the contest draws on; and since intentionally venturing into glycolytic training ALSO conditions the aerobic energy system; and since aerobic-only training DOES NOT improve anaerobic (glycolytic) capacity; and since high intensity interval training takes approximately 1/3 the time of LSD; and since high intensity interval training burns fat and glycogen stores at the same time, the excess post-exercise caloric demand is quite large and quite prolonged making it a nice tool for fat loss; and since high, explosive force production is the only way to train the Type II muscle fiber that preferentially disappears in sarcopenia after age 45ish; and since there's no reason not to unless you're actually a competitive 5k + distance runner, I'm not going to abide Mr. Maffetone.
Jeff
Level 5 Valued Member
I doubt anyone here feels insulted. This sure had been an interesting discussion.
In your opinion, is there a sweet spot? Closer to 87%, closer to 80%, or right in the middle?
Someone mentioned training hard too often, but I wonder if you monitored your HR you could prevent that. If your body is up to it you can stay in your target HR with less rest between sets, and if your body is more run down you take more rest to stay in your target HR.
Does Pavel have an opinion of what target HR fits in with S&S?
In your opinion, is there a sweet spot? Closer to 87%, closer to 80%, or right in the middle?
Someone mentioned training hard too often, but I wonder if you monitored your HR you could prevent that. If your body is up to it you can stay in your target HR with less rest between sets, and if your body is more run down you take more rest to stay in your target HR.
Does Pavel have an opinion of what target HR fits in with S&S?
My own take, not from any formal sports education... just learning from others, self study, and 7 years of using a HR monitor for my own exercise... bike riding, and more recently kettlebell training:
HR is useful to know in S&S sessions, and it's better to lean towards allowing adequate rest (HR recovery being one indicator) between sets of swings. Why? You have more power in each set of swings, therefore better alactic power development; AND, less stress on the body from daily high-intensity training. But although a lower HR is better, it's not necessary to stick to a strict HR limit such as 180-age with the 10x10 swings in straight S&S.
It does become more important when using swings for a different type of training. The swing protocol I'm doing now under Al Ciampa's guidance is sometimes 30 or more sets of 8 or 10 swings. It goes on for quite a while, sometimes 40 or 60 minutes. In order for this to be a low-stress session (low acidity or whatever - but lower stress on the body), it's important to keep HR below a limit (such as 180-age, though I've had my lactate threshold tested in a lab so I use a slightly higher limit). Now, what will this type of training build? I haven't yet re-tested my MAF test, snatch test, and 1.5 mi run since my baseline, but no matter what these show when I do, I know already that in 10 weeks I've been able to develop significantly more power in the swing, and more volume with the 24kg, than I've ever had before. I feel recharged after the sessions and they don't leave me drained as I have experienced with other workouts in the past. Just like regular S&S sessions, but now I'm doing a LOT more swings. So, bottom line for me, it's working well...
HR is useful to know in S&S sessions, and it's better to lean towards allowing adequate rest (HR recovery being one indicator) between sets of swings. Why? You have more power in each set of swings, therefore better alactic power development; AND, less stress on the body from daily high-intensity training. But although a lower HR is better, it's not necessary to stick to a strict HR limit such as 180-age with the 10x10 swings in straight S&S.
It does become more important when using swings for a different type of training. The swing protocol I'm doing now under Al Ciampa's guidance is sometimes 30 or more sets of 8 or 10 swings. It goes on for quite a while, sometimes 40 or 60 minutes. In order for this to be a low-stress session (low acidity or whatever - but lower stress on the body), it's important to keep HR below a limit (such as 180-age, though I've had my lactate threshold tested in a lab so I use a slightly higher limit). Now, what will this type of training build? I haven't yet re-tested my MAF test, snatch test, and 1.5 mi run since my baseline, but no matter what these show when I do, I know already that in 10 weeks I've been able to develop significantly more power in the swing, and more volume with the 24kg, than I've ever had before. I feel recharged after the sessions and they don't leave me drained as I have experienced with other workouts in the past. Just like regular S&S sessions, but now I'm doing a LOT more swings. So, bottom line for me, it's working well...
- Status