Strong Endurance We are to Conduct Scientific Experiments and Write a Paper on Anti-Glycolytic Training

[John K]

At present, we have a broad thesis: to authenticate the supremacy of AGT

I would suggest the study concept be the opposite - to invalidate AGT. If the course is set to demonstrate it is ineffective, and yet it shows it is effective, this is a much more meaningful result than the latter. For instance, if the idea behind AGT is that it increases the density of mitochondria in a muscle fiber, then you can say it doesn't and assess pre/post for AGT Group - Control Group - HIIT Group - LISS Group. If the idea behind AGT is it improves VO2max, then say it doesn't an assess pre/post.

The goal should not be to prove you are right, but to prove you are wrong. We get better science that way, with less biased study design and less biased interpretation of the results.

 

[Training for Life]

This sounds really cool!

I can’t really say what would be the most valuable research questions for the common good, but I would personally love to learn more about different training protocols’ effects on mitochondrial density, respiration and biogenesis. Would be very interesting to see something like LISS vs. AGT vs. HIIT effects on mitochondria. Another very interesting topic would be regarding the AXE claim of ”installing aerobic [energy system] to your fast twitch fibers” (or something along those lines). This claim sounds very intriguing, almost outrageous. I feel like confirming or invalidating it would be very beneficial for the future of S&C training.

 

[North Coast Miller]

It would very interesting to even see the current state of the art in research. A great deal seems to be inferred, there is a limit to what has been observed in vivo.

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physiol.00038.2018

 

[ali]

A good read. Yup, it's complicated. Science is hard and difficult. Parsing out the known from the unknown unknowns is a challenge unless you're Donald Rumsfeld.

 

[Paotle]

At present, we have a broad thesis: to authenticate the supremacy of AGT. This will undoubtedly become more refined as we progress.

You won't find any AGT supremacy. If the method were supreme, it would be adopted by the majority of trainers in the world. But it isn't.

Believe me, absolutely all coaches of Olympians athletes know the Soviets' methods. Pavel popularizes things that scientists and elite coaches already know. Western coaches didn't wait for Pavel to make repeated alactic efforts.

Secondly, science has already studied the impact of repeated efforts of <5 seconds on performance. Not with kettlebells, but with sprinting.