Alwyn's AFTERBURN - from the newsletter

[Alwyn]

Originally posted by dos:

I look at it like this...#1 I don't ever want to make 'joggers out of jumpers' by compromising their fast twitch capabilities. Therefore, you won't see my volleyball girls, football players, basketball players jogging around a track. #2 if their ability to recover and not only remove but also USE lactate as a fuel does not improve over hundreds and hundreds of high intensity intervals done for months and months what will..jogging? I don't buy it as this implies that these athletes who train anaerobically won't improve this very specific energy system mechanism (recovery). BTW, I have taken our cross country athletes and done repeat 50 yard sprint intervals and seen them drop like flys due to their inability to recover from such high bouts of intensity...hmm, wonder where all their recovery improving aerobic power was/went? Could the laws of specificity be right on on this topic? Take care!

NICE !!!
DISCLAIMER: this post is now about sports performance in anaerobic sports. Not health.

I think it defies logic to suggest that your ability to recover from maximal sprinting can be enhanced by submaximal jogging or walking. In my experience the best way to recover fast from high intensity sprinitng is for the athlete to become EXTREMELY efficient at high intensity sprinting.

The aerobic base has been disproven repeatedly. Going slow at submax levels will do nothing to enhance ability or recovery for speed and power sports. You play like you train. Train slow - you'll be slow - that's the SAID principle (specific adaptation to imposed demand).

AC

[laxcdn]

Thanks. That makes sense. When I coach lax I was gettting the guys to do lots of sprints since that is most of the game, but I did get them to do some jogging, thinking it was helping the endurance and recovery. I try to tell them, that the way they practice is the way they play, and perfect practice make perfect. So if they didn't practice everything full out, then they would play that way. Thanks, this will help me figure out how to run some parts of my practices better.

[Bill2380]

This is why I read this forum. Information like this is not available to regular guys anywhere else. Thank you for sharing.

[kinney1]

I agree with Bill, and I believe this is a very important topic. I know that some of you find this post to be little repetitive, but I think it is extremely informative...The more information I can gather on the long term effects of cardio/and or weight training the better! Keep up the debate.

QUESTION:
I am 32 years old and my cholesterol is pretty high at about 235 (family history of high cholesterol but not specifically heart disease). The question now is, should I focus on running or weight lifting?...This question has dogged me for years.

[Alwyn]

Originally posted by kinney1:

QUESTION:
I am 32 years old and my cholesterol is pretty high at about 235 (family history of high cholesterol but not specifically heart disease). The question now is, should I focus on running or weight lifting?...This question has dogged me for years.

I'm not really comfortable getting into medical advice. And the family history muddies the waters because of genetics.

First off focus on DIET - start a nutrition plan that will naturally lower your cholesterol. The benefits of fiber (oatmeal etc) are well documented.

Secondly - As far as exercise goes - do both. I'd definitely do some cardio vascular activity (shoot for 20-30 mins daily). I'm not concerned if it's interval training or steady state as long as your heart rate for the duration falls within your target heart rate. I'd also do a full body weights workout three times per week.

Again - I'm not a doctor and don't even play one on TV - so check with your MD.

As a side note I have had two clients on cholesterol medication that came off it after a similar program.

AC

[Q.]

Kinney,

To follow Alwyn's comments, my cholesterol was the same place yours is (I'm 50) but, through diet and a balanced exercise program (basically like Alwyn described), I got it down and avoided medication. I also was able to get off the blood pressure meds (doctor approved) I had been on for 11 years and have never had to go back. This all started about three years now when I dropped about 40 lbs and I get checked annually to keep track. By the way, I eat the oatmeal everyday and also eat lots of fats, just not trans-fats and minimal saturated!!! Although my LDL was higher, my HDL was at 61 this past month so the ratio was still good.

This is a good GENERAL HEALTH topic so I'll throw out my plug once again for a HEALTH forum here. JP, you there?

[Alwyn]

Also note that the Finnish study compared individual sports to team sports. I wonder if there is a social effect there also. It's hard to believe that 90 mins of soccer doesn't qualify as even somewhat of an endurance activity in terms of benefits when compared to a 5k runner.

Intensity does seem hard to quantify in these studies - because the trend seems to suggest that more vigorous exercise is better.

I would like to see a study that compares 30 mins steady state cardio at an average HR of x bpm to an interval program of 30 mins at an average of x bpm. It's kind of a pointless exercise because the whole premise of interval training is to perform a greater amount of work at a higher intensity than steady state, so if you're not going to do that I doubt there'd be any difference. However it would be intersting to see if just going very high intensity for even brief periods of time had any health benefit over steady state despite overall bpm being similar.

The only thing I have is this:
Do you remember the Paffenberger study on longshoremen ? He showed that dock workers lived longer and were healthier than crane and machine operators. This was interpreted to suggest that aerobic training helped health and fitness.
Dock workers lift boxes (also known as weights) - they don't maintain a steady state [img]smile.gif[/img]

It's also kind of funny that we're trying to figure out what is the best form of training for health/ fat loss etc - when the reality is EVERYTHING helps. The American public is still obese and very unhealthy -- our question shouldn't be - what is the best method for maximum results ? - It should be what is the best method to get as widespread results as possible ?

The steady state/interval/weights debate is irrelevant, because in terms of health and obesity - most people in this country aren't doing anything.


AC

[kinney1]

Thanks for the responses, and I certainly understand that you guys are not MD's. Just the same, the more input the better! I also apologize for going a little off of the subject...I already am a oatmeal for breakfast everyday guy, and I try to limit my saturated fats (although I am not perfect) I feel like I am doing the necessary things as far diet is concerned. I guess I need to decide what to focus on in terms of my exercise so that I can avoid statins. My doctor is monitoring my cholesterol carefully, and he has already hinted at taking statins if it doesn't decrease in the future. I feel like I am a little young to be taking statins, so I am trying to educate myself on the subject.
Thanks again,
Kevin

[searcher]

I'm a little late getting in on this , but I'm new.

Unless, I missed it no one has yet mentioned, John Berardi's aerobic recommendation for optimal fat loss. In his "The Winning Formula - part 2" ttp://www.johnberardi.com/arti cles/training/winning_2.htm

Berardi suggests that in addition to resistance training and interval training, one hour per week of aerobic training is also important. This is because:

" 1. Aerobic exercise is the most energy costly exercise.
2. Aerobic exercise can increase maximal oxygen consumption during any given work intensity (and therefore fat metabolism during any sub maximal work intensity)
3. Aerobic exercise can increase the aerobic/oxidative enzymes by 40-50%. This leads to better fat burning at rest and during exercise.
4. Aerobic exercise can lead to an increase in capillary density by 50%. This means more blood flow to the working muscles.
5. Aerobic exercise can lead to an increased reliance on fat metabolism while sparing glycogen."

I know that some of his reasons have been addressed, but I was curious what everyone thought about the others.

[dos]

1. Aerobic exercise is the most energy costly exercise.
2. Aerobic exercise can increase maximal oxygen consumption during any given work intensity (and therefore fat metabolism during any sub maximal work intensity)
3. Aerobic exercise can increase the aerobic/oxidative enzymes by 40-50%. This leads to better fat burning at rest and during exercise.
4. Aerobic exercise can lead to an increase in capillary density by 50%. This means more blood flow to the working muscles.
5. Aerobic exercise can lead to an increased reliance on fat metabolism while sparing glycogen."

1. there is no way that one can say that aerobic exericse is anywhere near as costly (energy) as high intensity interval-style training (anaerobic)

2. Don't exactly understand the logic on this one....how can aerobic exercise increase max O2 comsumption at ANYgiven work intensity?

3. perhaps

4. sure, but blood flow for only aerobic activity (specific)????

5. We already know that anaerobic (high intensity) conditioning is superior in terms of total fat loss (calories used). I think this statement might be a bit of a stretch? Sounds a bit infomercial-ish if you know what I mean.

[Alwyn]

Originally posted by RaphyG:
Berardi suggests that in addition to resistance training and interval training, one hour per week of aerobic training is also important.

These type of statements always bug me. Dos did a good job of refuting these points. But let's look at something else.

Weight training is intermittent high intensity periods of work with rest periods.
Interval training is intermittent high intensity periods of work with rest periods.
If this is the key to fat loss - I'll buy it. These are very similar to each other.

An hour of aerobic training is steady state lower intensity work.
If that's the key to fat loss - I'll buy it.

What I won't buy is that these EXACT OPPOSITE training modalities are BOTH the secret to fat loss. That makes no sense - they are NOT similar to each other (in terms of what's actually going on physiologically), so it makes no sense that you need BOTH. Sprinters never do an hour of aerobic work and are ALWAYS lean. Aerobic training is counterproductive for a sprinter yet it never seems to be counter productive for bodycomp.

Doing either one can be argued as effective -- doing both defies logic because the training systems are on a dichotomy. It's like complementing your 40 yd sprint training with marathon running.

It's like the old Bill Phillips plan. Eat 6-7 times a day - never go hungry - it's the key to losing fat. BUT get up in the morning after an 8 hour fast and do cardio and wait at least an hour before you eat - it's the key to losing fat.

So which is it ? You can't have it both ways. It's either - never have an empty stomach or exercise hard on an empty stomach after fasting for eight hours. It can't be both.

Again - I am not talking about health or anything else. For fat loss reasons I think it's a real stretch to say you NEED aerobic training at an hour per week.

AC

[Chris Correia]

Originally posted by Alwyn:

Do you remember the Paffenberger study on longshoremen ? He showed that dock workers lived longer and were healthier than crane and machine operators. This was interpreted to suggest that aerobic training helped health and fitness.
Dock workers lift boxes (also known as weights) - they don't maintain a steady state [img]smile.gif[/img]

AC

Having worked in a couple of "box loading" jobs in my younger days:

Workers (particularly if unionized, as are most longshoremen, I imagine) definitely don't maintain a steady state. It's "heave-ho" for a bit, and then chill a bit, then repeat. I remember getting chastized by an old timer who said, "Slow down, kid, you're gonna make the rest of us look bad. Just take 'er easy and get done what we're expected to get done. Don't do more or they'll expect more all the time."

Just HAD to chime in on this never-ending debate.

BTW, what's the deal with the capillary density business? I remember reading something about that in terms of longer-lasting aerobic activity. But, I also wonder, do some folks (even John Berardi, maybe?) use the term aerobic, but actually include interval-type activity in their meaning?

As most of you probably know, we need common operational definitions of some of these terms when discussing them, research, etc. Does someone saying aerobic mean "not exceeding X% of MHR, lasting at least Y minutes", or do they mean "lasting more than a half hour, regardless of heart rate"?

[dinabol]

lets look at the metabolic dynamics of exercise post oxygen consumption. after exercise especially high intense exercise your body temperature is higher, increased blood catecholamines, increased metabolic rate, and a raised vo2 max. there is also deoxygenation of HB and myoglobin. The elevated metabolism produces ATP to replenish CP and ATP stores within the muscles.
then, you have a redistribution of ions (ca,Na,K) the "Pump" which requires atp coming from this enhanced metabolism. this is supported by elevated heart rate and breathing rate. support is also from gluconeogenesis in the liver (la->glucose), enrgy prime to support gluconeogenesis.about seventy percent of produced lactic acid is oxidized in the heart and skeletal muscle, 20 percent converted to glucose and 10 percent is converted to amino acids.
-here's the catch the extent of epoc is proportional to intensity and duration. the more intense an activity is the more depletion and the more a need to require more o2 to produce atp for replenishment. the replenishment of o2 stores requires atp because venus side is less than the arteriole side and because less oxygen goes to the venus side because you are still consuming.
the punch line, short burst high intensity raises the epoc slope and requires oxidation or a raised rmr for a greater length of time.

[dos]

Does someone saying aerobic mean "not exceeding X% of MHR, lasting at least Y minutes", or do they mean "lasting more than a half hour, regardless of heart rate"?

I would assume that the term aerobic implies a pretty constant intensity (steady state). Normally under well 80% of ones maximal effort (you can use your heart rate to determine this intensity).

[Iceztiq]

after reading this topic, i think i can start being a health & fat loss consultant in my gym .

[Lost Dog]

That Berardi articles is about two and a half years old, so his ideas might have changed a bit.

Plus, the article still recommends an hour a week of aerobic training, PLUS an hour and a half a week of anaerobic/interval training.

That he wants his athletes to do both doesn't change his list of reasons for doing aerobic training, but 2 1/2 years might have.

[dinabol]

this is what endurance training WILL do
-increase cardiac output which will increase the oxygen delivery capacity
-increase the capillary density which will increase perfusion of skeletal muscle
-there will be an increased surface area for oxygen diffusion
-decreased diffusion distance
-decreased rate of blood flow, but increased time available for diffusion
-increased rbc production and increased oxygen carrying/delivery system
-increased myoglobin which increases oxygen transport into the mitochondria
-increased mitochondrial volume and increased compartments to consume oxygen.
*endurance training will enhance the reliance of fatty acids due to a decrease in lactic acid production and an increase in blood fatty acids.
-you will have increased transport (blood to muscle) why?-increased capillarization (more diffusion), increased transport mechanism (fabp) and increased capillary density
-increased fatty acid transport (muscle to mitochondria) why? increased mitochondrial volume because of increased surface area, incrased amount of carnitine, and carnitine transferase, increased ezymes for box,kc, etc.
increased fatty acid oxidation because of higher citrate levels decreased pfk which retards cho metabolism. in other words you have a sparing of muscle glycogen