New Video on Explosive Power

Miaou,

You seem geniune in your discussion and I can only say my interest is simply in responding with my thoughts to your statements and points. I agree we seem to be debating different points on some level, but you also say things and then when I respond your answer is that you didn't say it or I didn't interpret it correctly.

You also want to talk about practicality but don't respond to points that I make that are of clear pracical importance. You made the statement that 400m was almost entirely anaerobic and yet I showed research that it is almost half aerobic.

The research itself pointed out the clear correlation in performance in aerobic % for 400m for women and 800m for men. I pointed out that to see the correlation at lower % you'd have to have markers of aerobic fitness to see the correlation, which were not addressed in the research.

Regardless, it showed that nearly half the energy produced comes from the aerobic system, it's foolish therefore that if you were to look at measures of aerobic fitness in these people, that there would be no correlation to performance. If 40-50% of the energy is coming from the aerobic side of the equation, obviously having a higher level of aerobic fitness is going to have an impact on performance. It's silly to think that a system responsible for half the energy demands of the event has no bearing on performance. This correlation between measures of aerobic fitness and performance is the more important question than % of contribution to begin with.

The exact relationship between aerobic power and aerobic/anaerobic % and correlation to performance is going to depend on the individual. To continue with the 400m as an example, there are those who will have great first 200m times and be very fast but fade towards the end of the race. Then there will also be those that may have a good strong push at the end but they are slow out of the blocks and in the first 100 or 200. In the first example, the real question is are they fading towards the end because they lack anaerobic capacity i.e. tolerance, or because they lack aerobic power? In this case, two totally different training strategies need be employed depending on which one you believe the answer is. This is the real distinction I'm trying to get across.

In shorter events, obviously, no one is saying that the deciding factor in 100m times will purely be aerobic power, but that doesn't mean it won't play any role in performance at all. Why do you think world renowned sprint coaches like the late Charlie Francis, Dan Pfaff, Jon Smith, etc. have their sprint athletes perform a fairly significant amount of aerobic work? A great deal of very well respected coaches around the world now spend a significant % of time training aerobic power for sports of high power that are short duration.

You also said you'd have to expose mitochondria to very high levels of lactate to improve the rate of oxidation. I said this was completely wrong and the exact opposite would happen because you'd decrease mitochondria and thus rate of oxidation. You implied lactate production only occurated at high levels above threshold and I pointed out why this was incorrect. You never seemed to address my response to this.

Which of these statements is correct obviously has very clear practical implications for training. If you believe driving up high levels of lactate will improve the rate of lactic oxidation, this will obviously lead to a different training strategy than if you believe doing so, as I said, will actually lower the rate of oxidation.

"You can't say that in longer events "the answer is to develop very high levels of aerobic power" without adding in something about the anaerobic system depending on the event. Would you say that the answer for a 400m runner is aerobic power and no local muscular endurance training (which is of anaerobic nature) and explosive strength work?"

Again, obviously no one is saying you don't need anaerobic work in an event that requires at least half the energy from the anaerobic systems. Now you are the one putting words in my mouth. The point is simply that the traditional view has been that the lactic capacity was the primary limiting factor in such performances and the aerobic system had very little if any contribution in shorter high powered events, and my point is that this has been shown to be incorrect.

Over the last several years, many of the best coaches in such events have begun working far more on aerobic power than in the past and performances have improved. Rather than just believing anaerobic capacity was the only limiting factor, they've realized the importance of aerobic power and the relationship it has with allowing anaerobic energy to be produced for longer without fatigue. This paradigm shift has taken place over the last several years in many sports traditionally thought to primarily rely on anaerobic energy production.

I'm trying to make practical points and address fundamental training strategies relevent to a sport like MMA. If your only point is that whether you call it lactate or lactic acid isn't important, that's fine, my only response was that it's an issue of accuracy.

If you're trying to make the points, and it seems to me that you are, that % contribution of aerobic/anaerobic isn't going to correlate to performance, that driving up lactate levels very high will increase mitochondria and the rate of lactate oxidation, that you can effectively use strategies to increase aerobic power and anaerobic capacity at the same time, etc. then I completely disagree with you.

If you're not making any of these points then please clarify exactly what points you are making and aren't making so that we're debating the same issues. My interest in this is whole thing is simply to make my points clear as they are of a great deal of practical importance when it comes to training. I don't care about winning an online argument, I care that people have an accurate view of how energy systems work and appropriate training strategies accordingly.
 
Last edited:
EZA said:
Miaou,

You seem geniune in your discussion and I can only say my interest is simply in responding with my thoughts to your statements and points. I agree we seem to be debating different points on some level, but you also say things and then when I respond your answer is that you didn't say it or I didn't interpret it correctly.

So you genuinely thought I suggested training both strength and cardio, both maximally, both at the same time? If so, then maybe it was my fault for not being clear on it.

You also want to talk about practicality but don't respond to points that I make that are of clear pracical importance. You made the statement that 400m was almost entirely anaerobic and yet I showed research that it is almost half aerobic.

I conceded that point and admitted to not knowing the specific numbers, but you are welcome to repeat it. I then put forth the proposition that it may not necessarily be that that the key is to increase the aerobic performance. For instance, in 100m sprinters (where the effort is 20-25% aerobic) it is obviously not necessarily the athlete with the best aerobic capacities that has the best performance, and spending too much of the athlete's training time on increasing the aerobic capacity may not be the best way to go. Where is the line where that changes? Is it at 40%, less or more?

The research itself pointed out the clear correlation in performance in aerobic % for 400m for women and 800m for men. I pointed out that to see the correlation at lower % you'd have to have markers of aerobic fitness to see the correlation, which were not addressed in the research.

I agree with this and it is related to my previous point. Does this not mean that it is possible there is no correlation in men's 400m?

Regardless, it showed that nearly half the energy produced comes from the aerobic system, it's foolish therefore that if you were to look at measures of aerobic fitness in these people, that there would be no correlation to performance. If 40-50% of the energy is coming from the aerobic side of the equation, obviously having a higher level of aerobic fitness is going to have an impact on performance. It's silly to think that a system responsible for half the energy demands of the event has no bearing on performance. This correlation between measures of aerobic fitness and performance is the more important question than % of contribution to begin with.

The last sentence is exactly what I've been pointing out from the very beginning, but I also agree with the rest of this proposition. So the point now becomes to which degree the aerobic system needs to be trained.

The exact relationship between aerobic power and aerobic/anaerobic % and correlation to performance is going to depend on the individual. To continue with the 400m as an example, there are those who will have great first 200m times and be very fast but fade towards the end of the race. Then there will also be those that may have a good strong push at the end but they are slow out of the blocks and in the first 100 or 200. In the first example, the real question is are they fading towards the end because they lack anaerobic capacity i.e. tolerance, or because they lack aerobic power? In this case, two totally different training strategies need be employed depending on which one you believe the answer is. This is the real distinction I'm trying to get across.

I see what you are saying. The way you put it here, it makes much sense. Do you think the current evidence can conclusively point towards lack of aerobic power (seeing as there is no info on the correlation discussed above)?

Generally speaking, good 400m sprinters with a less-than-excellent aerobic system will fade at ~1:00-1:20 of an 800m event. A friend of mine who run 800m had the best 600m time in the national team while he was training there. But every time, after ~1:15 he couldn't run to save his life. After leaving the national team and going overseas for his masters in sports physiology he found out he is "half-thalassemic" (a very light form of anemia), which obviously messed with his aerobic transport system. I know this is anecdotal, but still interesting to add here.

In shorter events, obviously, no one is saying that the deciding factor in 100m times will purely be aerobic power, but that doesn't mean it won't play any role in performance at all. Why do you think world renowned sprint coaches like the late Charlie Francis, Dan Pfaff, Jon Smith, etc. have their sprint athletes perform a fairly significant amount of aerobic work? A great deal of very well respected coaches around the world now spend a significant % of time training aerobic power for sports of high power that are short duration.

You also said you'd have to expose mitochondria to very high levels of lactate to improve the rate of oxidation. I said this was completely wrong and the exact opposite would happen because you'd decrease mitochondria and thus rate of oxidation. You implied lactate production only occurated at high levels above threshold and I pointed out why this was incorrect. You never seemed to address my response to this.

I never said, implied or otherwise, that "lactate production only occurated at high levels above threshold". Furthermore, I directly addressed the your point about lactate production on the AT, conceded the point and clarified. You are welcome to call me out on avoiding to address points I already have, but this was from a previous post:

This maximum rate of oxidation is the stimulus for mitochondrial adaptation, not being exposed to massive levels higher than that. In fact, driving lactate levels extremely high and creating a very acidic/hypoxic cellular environment decreases mitochondrial density, not the other way around. If you're trying to increase the rate of oxidation, then obviously the best stimulus for this is training to that point, which is going to be right around where the threshold range is.

I concede this point. You are right, threshold training is indeed aerobic training and it does expose the mitochondria to maximum rate of lactate oxidization. My mistake was that when I initially mentioned "to train aerobically" in my first post, I didn't think specifically of threshold training (which I should).
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, I tried to reply to your posts point by point. You, on the other hand only addressed some of my points (sometimes altering them). Do you concede that “Increasing anaerobic threshold doesn't necessarily mean you'll get less lactate production at a given level of effort” is a false statement?

Which of these statements is correct obviously has very clear practical implications for training. If you believe driving up high levels of lactate will improve the rate of lactic oxidation, this will obviously lead to a different training strategy than if you believe doing so, as I said, will actually lower the rate of oxidation.

Your point is valid and I agree. Do you think the existing data is enough to decide which is the most effective strategy in each case?

"You can't say that in longer events "the answer is to develop very high levels of aerobic power" without adding in something about the anaerobic system depending on the event. Would you say that the answer for a 400m runner is aerobic power and no local muscular endurance training (which is of anaerobic nature) and explosive strength work?"

Again, obviously no one is saying you don't need anaerobic work in an event that requires at least half the energy from the anaerobic systems. Now you are the one putting words in my mouth. The point is simply that the traditional view has been that the lactic capacity was the primary limiting factor in such performances and the aerobic system had very little if any contribution in shorter high powered events, and my point is that this has been shown to be incorrect.

Ok, if you put it this way then you make a good point I can agree with.

Over the last several years, many of the best coaches in such events have begun working far more on aerobic power than in the past and performances have improved. Rather than just believing anaerobic capacity was the only limiting factor, they've realized the importance of aerobic power and the relationship it has with allowing anaerobic energy to be produced for longer without fatigue. This paradigm shift has taken place over the last several years in many sports traditionally thought to primarily rely on anaerobic energy production.

I'm trying to make practical points and address fundamental training strategies relevent to a sport like MMA. If your only point is that whether you call it lactate or lactic acid isn't important, that's fine, my only response was that it's an issue of accuracy.

Agreed.
Click to expand...

Red.
 
Last edited:
If you're trying to make the points, and it seems to me that you are, that % contribution of aerobic/anaerobic isn't going to correlate to performance, that driving up lactate levels very high will increase mitochondria and the rate of lactate oxidation, that you can effectively use strategies to increase aerobic power and anaerobic capacity at the same time, etc. then I completely disagree with you.

There is no doubt the athlete who is better both in aerobic as well as anaerobic power will have better performance. But since aerobic and anaerobic power cannot be both increased maximally, the amount of emphasis on each one needs to be a conscious training planning strategy and is a tradeoff, as you very well noted. For a specific event, depending on it's nature, the athlete who has put more focus on his aerobic power training might have worse performance than the athlete who has put a lesser amount of emphasis on it. So, between athletes of the same level, aerobic power may correlate well with 800m performance but not with 200m. Where the line is drawn cannot be deducted simply from the % of contribution. I don't know how else to better explain this.

Also, in the study you quoted, % contribution of aerobic/anaerobic didn't correlate to performance for men's 400m; but you are welcome to "completely disagree" with me. The rest I have already addressed.

If you're not making any of these points then please clarify exactly what points you are making and aren't making so that we're debating the same issues. My interest in this is whole thing is simply to make my points clear as they are of a great deal of practical importance when it comes to training. I don't care about winning an online argument, I care that people have an accurate view of how energy systems work and appropriate training strategies accordingly.
Click to expand...

EZA, I appreciate the discussion. I don't like your "debating strategy" but I can see and agree with most of your points. I think our disagreement made you further elaborate on your thoughts and both the forum and myself stand to gain from it.



EDIT: Joel, I propose we drop the "you said this, but then you said that, and now you say this", and continue with an actual discussion. This is very interesting and doesn't need to be a pissing contest.
 
Last edited:
I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with anyone and have no problem dropping our current back and forth debate in favor of perhaps a more productive discussion. After all, this is an MMA discussion board and endless discussion on the energetics of 400m sprinting is perhaps not the most practical discussion in the world for the readers. I originally started the thread to discuss explosive power to begin with, not to get into a debate of semantics or otherwise on sprinting.

It seems to me at this point you are agreeing with me on more points than disagree so we can leave it at that. As far as your question on where the line is drawn between increasing aerobic power or anaerobic capacity and the % contribution and such or whether or not I believe there is enough evidence to support either approach, I believe there is plenty of evidence, in the research and otherwise, that any time you have a large % of the energy coming from a particular system, whether it's 20 or 30 or 40 or whatever percentage, it will have an effect on performance.

How you decide whether or not it's a limiting factor and whether you decide to train anaerobic capacity or aerobic power, again really comes down to the individual and the demands of the sport. Everyone is different and will have different limiting factors. If an event requires 40% aerobic energy production, then most certainly some individuals will benefit and improve performance by improving aerobic power over anaerobic capacity.

Since this should be a discussion that's practical to MMA, I believe the answer is that more often than not, if you're talking about 5 minute rounds, fighters will benefit from taking the approach to improve aerobic power as opposed to anaerobic capacity. Certainly not in every case, but generally speaking.

From all the numbers I've looked at over the years, average heart rates over the course of fights typically are a bit above threshold, but lactate levels tend to be fairly moderate in well conditioned fighters. I also use Differential ECG to look at a host of things such as V02, threshold, power at threshold, etc. and it's very consistent that the better conditioned fighters have good levels of aerobic power and only very moderate glycolytic development.

Those who have very high glycolytic development in relation to aerobic power, on the other hand, may be very powerful but they also tend to have conditioning problems. This is why the balance between aerobic and anaerobic development is so important and the tradeoff must be realized.

The only reason the 400m research is of interest at all, is that it shows that even in very short events lasting only roughly 40s, almost half the energy is produced aerobically. This means that in a sport like MMA, which can be up to 25 minutes of fighting in a championship fight, the importance of the aerobic system and aerobic power becomes obvious.

People still tend to believe that MMA is mostly an anaerobic sport, this belief is discussed all over the place, but it's very wrong. Aerobic fitness and power absolutely correlates to performance in MMA and is extremely important. Obviously fighters need anaerobic power as well, but a greater aerobic engine will allow for them to use their anaerobic systems longer without fatigue.

There is plenty of research out there showing increased performance and a direct correlation between VO2 max and repeated sprint ability. Repetitive sprints are not an exact model of MMA, of course, but the patten is very similar as there are short explosive bursts of anaerobic power followed by periods of lower intensity repeated throughout a fight.

This means my primary point is that most people do not realize the importance of aerobic power or that it plays a huge role in their ability to maintain anaerobic power throughout a fight. The reason is simply that the aerobic system plays the role of preventing whatever the exact mechanisms of fatigue are that anaerobic energy production causes.

The reality is also that takes an intelligent training strategy based on the indivual to find the right balance between aerobic and anaerobic power. You can't just train them both together or think they can both be developed to high levels because they can't. How to find this balance and the appropriate training methods is the topic of my entire book.

Feel free to discuss, debate, disagree or whatever else...
 
Justice 4 All said:
The internet is a giant market place, and I understand that. In economics we have a saying, "there is no such thing as a free lunch", one way or another you or someone else is paying for whatever commodity you have. The only thing that hasn't been made into a trade-able commodity is air, although I have heard stories about oxygen booths in Mexico City :p.
Click to expand...

I've seen oxygen cans at service stations on the M6 in the UK. I was gob smacked but I bet some idiots bought them.
 
VoodooPlata said:
Another way of reducing your gas bills (at the expenditure of your electrical bill, of course) is to just leave your refrigerator open all the time. That'll heat your house as well. But failing squats is more fun!
Click to expand...

At one place I worked they would leave the movable AirCon in a room and vent it into the same room. I moved the vent to sit outside a window but every time I came back it was back in and I was told that the window was to be closed to let the air con work. I was met with blank stairs when I tried to explain the operation of the air con.

Other than a lorry tire soaked in diesel and set on fire, it was the best heater I'd seen in ages.
 
VoodooPlata said:
Since all those moving filaments do inside the muscle is generate heat, I believe my statement was entirely correct. They might move, but they don't gain any potential energy past the first few seconds of the lift, right?

For example: if I push on a shoulder press and it's not moving, two things will happen. 1. The muscle will store elastic energy. This happens immediately.
2. Further chemical energy will be expended in order to push the bar upwards. Now, if the muscle has stored all the elastic energy that it can, and the bar isn't taking any energy, where does this chemical energy go? Am i getting hotter whilst I'm pushing? Yes. It becomes heat.
Click to expand...

Or, you could imagine millions of small oars being pulled randomly in order to maintain that tension. The external macro force produced is zero if we're measuring the mass x it's acceleration but those oars are moving with force.

The macro appearance is no force but internally that's a different matter.
 
miaou said:
Also, in the study you quoted, % contribution of aerobic/anaerobic didn't correlate to performance for men's 400m; but you are welcome to "completely disagree" with me. The rest I have already addressed.
Click to expand...

I was unable to get access to the full article but the synopsis does not say that the study found no correlation between the mens 400 performance and aerobic capacity.

There may have been a correlation but it wasn't large enough to mention in their study. Their threshold for a significant correlation may have been +-0.7 and the mens may have come in at -0.68.

Regardless, the study on the 800m womens was done with a sample size of two so I'd be loathe to base anything on the results in that trial. You could get almost any result and attribute it to random events.

The rest of the trials where done with what I would consider small samples so the apparent negative correlation for the womans 400m and performance, sample size of 5, may be more to do with the small sample. Perhaps the men having more than twice the sample size showed much less correlation. To be honest with sample sizes this small I think it's dangerous to make concrete claims.

I had a look at the 100m to 200m and they didn't list the sample sizes on the summary so I won't comment on that.
 
The only way to accurately award the winner is a bench press contest.
 
I was thinking maybe we could just use the Lubaolong way of determining a bench press. Just grab a scale and do a pushup on it pushing as hard as you can down. Whatever the scale reads, that's your bench press.
 
So, do I train for anaerobic stuff or do I train for aerobic stuff?

I want to train both maximally. How can I be awesome like that? You know, a marathoner with a sprinter's body.

There has to be a way to do this.
 
MASShole said:
So, do I train for anaerobic stuff or do I train for aerobic stuff?

I want to train both maximally. How can I be awesome like that? You know, a marathoner with a sprinter's body.

There has to be a way to do this.
Click to expand...

Oranges_and_juice.jpg


Namsayin?
 
I've just posted the 2nd video in the series, it's about 25 minutes long and full of information. I think people are going to really find this one interesting as I discuss the primary physiological factors that determine explosive power and the 3 common mistakes almost everyone is making. Let me know what you think...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,685
Messages
55,434,568
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top