Maximum aerobic work – the measure of optimal development

Posted on September 15, 2011 by Josh

In other news…this paper by Apanasenko is GREAT!

He’s talking about a way to categorize fitness testing for children, but some of the statements he makes are fantastic, and can help our understanding of the way our bodies work. Check it:

“PD [Physical Development] is regarded as the key criterion of ontogeny optimality, reflecting the “physical strength resources…”

“Manifestations of life, however diverse, are always inseparably linked to energy transformation. The entire evolution of life on Earth is a process of the improvement of intracellular respiration (energy production) and the transition from predominantly anaerobic to aerobic energy-production mechanisms [8]. This means that evolution resulted in the successive appearance of animals with increasingly higher levels of respiration intensity (Fig. 1).”

“The biological meaning of this process consists in an increase in active metabolism, providing the completeness of adaptive reactions. The physical meaning of progressive evolution is to move farther and farther away from the state of equilibrium, from the state of the primary environment where the first living systems appeared. The conclusion is obvious: progressive evolution of life is associated with an increase in the intensity of the energy production of organisms.”

“The higher the available reserves of bioenergetics, the more viable the organism. The ability to mobilize the resources of organs, systems, and the body as a whole is the first condition of its immediate adaptation to extreme factors. All basic complexes of stress reaction, i.e., the increase in active metabolism, providing the completeness of adaptive reactions. The physical meaning of progressive evolution is to move farther and farther away from the state of equilibrium, from the state of the primary environment where the first living systems appeared. The conclusion is obvious: progressive evolution of life is associated with an increase in the intensity of the energy production of organisms. Thus, the increase in active metabolism, or energy intensification of the secretion of the adrenocorticotropic hormone and corticosteroids, hyperplasia of the adrenal cortex, and even ulceration of thegastrointestinaltract(mobilization of proteins for gluconeogenesis), are links of the immediate adaptive response aimed at mobilizing the energy potential. The more energy per body mass unit is produced, the more effective the biological function. Scientific literature shows a lot of evidence that the resistance of the body to various factors, from hypoxia and hemorrhage to penetrating radiation, is determined by the maximum energy production capacity [9, 10].”

Why is aerobic oxidation “more important” to consider than anaerobic? Well, as Jamieson points out in his fantastic book – the aerobic system is the one that is working all the time. Apanasenko adds “aerobic oxidation is several times more effective (economic) than anaerobic oxidation. Besides, it is necessary to take into account that aerobic oxidation, in addition to glucose, utilizes fats with twice higher energy values.”

Below is a picture of the testing model Apanasenko is proposing. Interesting for the “lay-viewer” because it shows what are currently considered to be key mortality/morbidity measures in physical health.

Ultimate MMA Conditioning – Review

Posted on June 22, 2011 by Josh

Joel Jamieson has done the world of conditioning a great service in his book “Ultimate MMA Conditioning.” He provides a very concise account of the energy systems of the body, their role in different types of activity, and how best to train them.

While the title suggests that he’s focused on MMA conditioning, Joel does a really good job of making his discussion general. Energy systems don’t change, and the best ways to train them may vary in the particular movement used, but not in their fundamental attributes/acute variables (intensity, amount of time per rep or set, etc.).

I bought the book looking for precisely this sort of expert-view on energy system training theory and methods. Jamieson has been training athletes for many years, and has studied or consulted with many of the top strength and conditioning coaches in the world.

One of Jamieson’s main points is in regards to the misguided notion that “explosive” athletes only need to train anaerobically. While he doesn’t go into the evolutionary history of energy systems, the aerobic system is the oldest, and it is the one we utilized constantly (as Jamieson says in his lecture to a VA State Coaches group – “If you’re sitting here, you’re using your aerobic system right now). Anaerobic energy systems are evolutionarily younger, and develop in individuals later (fully maturing anytime between 7 and 18 years of age).

To further support Jamieson’s ideas, a recent paper by Apanasenko (“Maximum Aerobic Capacity for Work as a Criterion of Optimal Ontogeny“) says that aerobic work capacity may be the best criterion for judging the health of a human being. Apanasenko makes the great point that energy usage – bioenergetics – is the main factor in the functional range of an organism.

If you have any desire to better understand the fundamentals of energy system function or development, and how to train (including testing/benchmarking) those systems – buy the book!

Backpedaling and, The Death of Reason

Posted on October 30, 2009 by Josh

I posted a couple of days ago about Mike Boyle’s claim that people shouldn’t do bilateral barbell (especially, back) squats anymore.

His reasoning is that the back is a bad “transducer” of force from the legs to the upper body.

While I disagree with this use of the word “tranducer,” we won’t go into that here.

Instead, let’s talk about what Coach Boyle wrote on his blog today. At the bottom, in the post script, it reads:

PS- We haven’t stopped doing bilateral exercises or, lifting heavy weights. We still Trap Bar Deadlift and Olympic lift. I also think that bilateral exercise is crucial for beginners. However, if you have experienced athletes and you want to keep them healthy and get them strong consider the Rear Foot Elevated Split Squat.

Wait Coach Boyle…your athletes still do the Olympic Lifts and deadlifts?! But I thought the back was a bad “transducer” of force from lower to upper body – the limiting factor in people’s ability to move force with their legs!

What lift requires more “transduction” of power than the Olympic lifts?! What lift requires more transduction of force than the deadlift?

So you don’t do backsquats anymore, because the back is the limiting factor in gaining leg strength? So your athletes with weak backs go from their single-leg squats to deadlifts and O-lifts?

I’m confused.

For one thing, it’s potentially dangerous to have legs that are inordinately stronger than your back. The back is the place where force is transferred from legs to upper body.

As anyone knows, who ever watched “The Weakest Link” – the weakest link goes first!

In this case, the weakest link is Coach Boyle.

I have nothing against you Coach, but it’s this type of thoughtless sensationalist self-aggrandizing bullshit that’s destr0ying the physical training industry in this country and getting people hurt!

So STOP IT.

1. Stop the reductionism.
The body is not a bunch of independently moving limbs connected by “transducers.” The body is a single unit. Any effect to one part of it, effects all of the rest of it.

2. Stop the stupid/sensationalist claims for specific exercises.
There’s no “magic exercise” for any bodypart or for the body as a whole. The body cannot be pigeonholed, as much as you might like to do that. You have to work the whole thing, you have to do it all, you have to figure it out. You have to break it down and let it rebuild itself. Strictly “anaerobic” training (which is a misnomer anyway) will make you a fumbling oaf. Strictly “aerobic” training will make you a sickly Auschwitz-victim-looking ghost of a human being.

Stop pushing this bullshit information. Learn the basics. Practice the basics. Preach the basics.

In case you don’t know what I mean, I’ll give you a brief outline of what the basics are here:

Basic Human Anatomy/Physiology – learn it.

Basic Biomechanics – force-transfers

Basic Exercise Physiology – things like “progressive resistance,” allo-/homeo-stasis, overload, adaptation, etc.

Basic Dietary Facts – so simple that a child knows them naturally…

Basic Games, Basic Play – if you shut your chattering brain down for a few minutes, you’ll be able to remember these yourself…you don’t have to pay anyone or read anything.

Basic Psychology – Know Thyself.

Six things. Figure them out. Take a class. You can download/view/listen to most of that information for free on the internet (check out Wikipedia, and the iTunes University site).

I think that’s it. Is there anything else? Anyone out there in Readerland?

Spark! – Play, and pop-science

Posted on June 16, 2009 by Josh

I’ll be honest. I haven’t read John Ratey’s book “Spark.” I’d like to, but I have a few others on the list ahead of it. But I’m looking forward to it!

At the same time, I have to share my misgivings about the book. Especially in light of my recent experiences with pop-science books about talent.

Dr. Ratey is a scientist. But he’s not a medical doctor. Or a movement scientist. Or a physical educator. He’s a psychiatrist. That shouldn’t detract from his message, its importance, or its timeliness. The book is no less important because of his qualifications. However, I think it is slightly misguided.

I’ve read an article by Jacob Sattelmair (a doctoral student in epidemiology at Harvard, where Dr. Ratey teaches) and Dr. Ratey, called “Physically Active Play and Cognition, An Academic Matter?” In it, they describe some of the argument for physical activity, in however a reductionist and atomistic manner. I don’t want to deal with the entire article, but would like to focus on one point made in it. Particularly, that “Animal and human research primarily supports the importance of aerobic activity to enhance cognitive function” (pg 369). There are no references provided to support this statement, and it seems very strange to me.

My question relates to the specification for aerobic activity versus anaerobic activity to realize the vast number of benefits afforded by exercise, or, really, where the distinction or line is drawn between aerobic and anaerobic play for the purposes of this paper.

My understanding of the concept is that there are three types or “levels” of respiration that occur in the human body – cellular (intra-cell, glucose-to-energy), internal (inter-cell), and external (air-to-lungs). As far as I know, “aerobic” means that metabolic processes occur using oxygen, while “anaerobic” processes occur in the absence of oxygen molecules.

In exercise physiology (particularly, for me, when working with my clients), there are two ways that I recognize whether or not someone is training “aerobically” or not – 1. They’re able to pass the “talk test” – that is, they can keep up a conversation with me while they’re working; and 2. They can maintain their level of exertion for 30 seconds or more.

While the talk test isn’t always accurate, it appears to be fairly reliable. The second method is a little more “scientific,” since I’m relying on my understanding of cellular (particularly muscle-cell) energetics. As the intensity increases (either the frequency or severity of contractions), metabolism works to maintain the homeostasis of the cell. When metabolism can’t keep up, and oxygen is unable to make it into the cell at a sufficient rate to fuel cellular reactions, it goes into “anaerobic” metabolism. 30 seconds is an arbitrary number, but seems to work for most of my clients.

The common understanding of “aerobics” is long, slow, distance exercise, that can be maintained for up to an hour or more – such as jogging, aerobics/group-exercise classes, etc.

However, weightlifting activity can be maintained during aerobic cellular action. This is often done using weightlifting circuits, where exertion is circulated among different muscle groups throughout the exercise session to avoid total fatigue of a particular group. Also, heavy bouts of anaerobic weightlifting result in increased post-exercise oxygen consumption (aerobic metabolism) over/above the increase experienced from a similar-duration aerobic activity.

In light of my understanding of human evolution, every type of muscular action or metabolism has its place. As animals, we had to be able to sprint, sometimes for long distances, to avoid danger. Similarly, we had to be able to maintain long-duration activity when tracking animals, or moving to new territories. We had to be capable of lifting very heavy things at times, as well as lifting or carrying light things for long periods. Is there evidence to support strictly “aerobic” activity as a sole or preferential stimulus for brain development? It seems to me that the activity shaped the brain. And if that’s the case, then the same rules for growth now would apply as then – the rules that determine growth in anything – the more varied the stimulus (before sheer erratic randomness), with sufficient time for recovery (here – mental and physical, if you have to make that distinction, which I think is arbitrary), over a sufficient period of time, the more adaptation (“learning”) occurs.