Why do accomplished Runners do so poorly at MMA cardio?

[Ian Coe]

Tough one but I think prowler can absolutely obliterate your legs like none other. I try avoid both these days!!

Back in the day I used to meet up with a friend who taught me a lot about sparring, stand up fighting etc.
We used to do uphill car pushes. Nothing too steep but that used to be a killer.

Used to do it before pad work as well.

I used to have it logged on my training log until they weeded all threads that were over 3 years regardless of active use.
That was a sad day.

 

[Noodles03]

We used to do uphill car pushes

Do you still implement uphill car push as part of your training or have you replaced it with something else?

 

[Ian Coe]

Do you still implement uphill car push as part of your training or have you replaced it with something else?

I used to use the prowler until moving with work.

Now, no replacement.

 

[RabbitPunch36]

So I read this article on using sub maximal aerobic exercises for recovery saying that these type of exercise could hurt performance adaption by hindering recovery. It specificially mentions how different body types like bigger/taller athletes and more muscles athletes are more likely to suffer from oxygen depravation in muscles tissues during low intensity exercises which it shouldn't. @Sano I thought you might find this interesting.
https://justinmoore.home.blog/2019/12/12/why-your-low-intensity-work-may-actually-be-hurting-you/

 

[Sano]

So I read this article on using sub maximal aerobic exercises for recovery saying that these type of exercise could hurt performance adaption by hindering recovery. It specificially mentions how different body types like bigger/taller athletes and more muscles athletes are more likely to suffer from oxygen depravation in muscles tissues during low intensity exercises which it shouldn't. @Sano I thought you might find this interesting.
https://justinmoore.home.blog/2019/12/12/why-your-low-intensity-work-may-actually-be-hurting-you/

That was a very long winded article, and a mixed bag really. I don't think he's necessarily wrong, but there's a lot of holes there. I'll list a few:

- Sample size of one, himself.
- Never explicitly shows the data for his HR, although mentions it was "most of the time" below 155bpm
- Using a device with questionable validity/reliability (the SMO2 device).
- Questionable leaps from micro to macro level of physiology. Meaning, are we certain that varying degrees of lower O2 and higher CO2, as long as it's within a certain threshold, doesn't lead to adaptions in increased cardiac output?
- Very questionable science/anatomy/physiology in regards to hip flexors being tight inherently leading to lower oxygen saturation and breathing compensation. I'd call it pseudoscience at this point, as there isn't necessarily a one-size-fits all when it comes to posture, but I'm open to being proven wrong.
- And more.

With that said, his basic point seems to be this:

"One individual’s physiological reaction may be completely different than another’s to the same stimulus. By making black and white statements like “low intensity aerobic work between 120 and 150 BPM improves recovery and cardiac output” we fail to realize the range of responses and adaptations that could occur based on a myriad of individual characteristics, environment, and task-related variables at play here. What may be active recovery work for one individual could bury another individual for days. "

That's a pretty reasonable statement. He recommends a range of 110-140pbm for improving cardiac output earlier in the article, which is only 10bpm lower than what he's arguing against and does make it seem a tad nitpicky. I agree that for recovery you could/should go even lower, and also that the choice of exercise matters. Running tends to require more oxygen to maintain the same levels of HR compared to a stationary bike, simply because of the nature of the movement.

I don't think there's anything there other than to say that recovery work should be very relaxing and at a low HR, and that LISS work for some people, depending on the exercise, should be at the lower end of the 110-150 range. And obviously volume matters too, you can definitely do too much LISS work.

Seems pretty common sense to me.

 

[RabbitPunch36]

That was a very long winded article, and a mixed bag really. I don't think he's necessarily wrong, but there's a lot of holes there. I'll list a few:

- Sample size of one, himself.
- Never explicitly shows the data for his HR, although mentions it was "most of the time" below 155bpm
- Using a device with questionable validity/reliability (the SMO2 device).
- Questionable leaps from micro to macro level of physiology. Meaning, can be definitively prove that varying degrees of lower O2 and higher CO2, as long as it's within a certain threshold, doesn't lead to adaptions in increased cardiac output?
- Very questionable science/anatomy/physiology in regards to hip flexors being tight inherently leading to lower oxygen saturation and breathing compensation. There's not necessarily a single "best way" for any body to be.
- And more.

With that said, his basic point is what the boils it down to near the end:

"One individual’s physiological reaction may be completely different than another’s to the same stimulus. By making black and white statements like “low intensity aerobic work between 120 and 150 BPM improves recovery and cardiac output” we fail to realize the range of responses and adaptations that could occur based on a myriad of individual characteristics, environment, and task-related variables at play here. What may be active recovery work for one individual could bury another individual for days. "

That's a somewhat reasonable statement. Funny enough, he recommends a range of 110-140pbm for improving cardiac output earlier in the article. That's only 10bpm lower than what he's arguing against using as a metric, and we have to remember it is a range. I agree that for recovery you could go even lower, and also the choice of exercise matters. Running tends to require more oxygen to maintain the same levels of HR compared to a stationary bike, simply because of the nature of the movement.

I don't think there's anything there other than to say that recovery work should be very relaxing and at a very low end, and that LISS work for some people should be at the lower end of the range. And obviously volume matters too, you can definitely do too much LISS work too.

Seems pretty common sense to me.

I appreciate the response from someone who is well read on these topics. Slightly off topic but how do you feel about Joel Jamieson as conditioning expert is he considered one of the more reliable experts? Do you follow anyone in particular (or methodology) when it comes to devising conditioning routines for yourself or others.

 

[Sano]

I appreciate the response from someone who is well read on these topics. Slightly off topic but how do you feel about Joel Jamieson as conditioning expert is he considered one of the more reliable experts? Do you follow anyone in particular (or methodology) when it comes to devising conditioning routines for yourself or others.

I edited the post to make the writing cleaner btw.

I generally like Joel and think he's a pretty good source for aerobic work. I especially like how he clarified and somewhat countered the HIT frenzy. I haven't really looked at his stuff for years though and I think that HRV training is still somewhat unreliable.

I tend to not overthink it too much when devising aerobic/LISS conditioning routines and go by a few basic metrics, like:
- Keeping range within 110-150 (I generally like lower end better, but it depends on the person).
- Not overdoing volume.
- Monitoring resting HR.
- Monitoring HR drop after exercise cessation.
- Periodically track performance.
- And most importantly listening to how the person feels.

You could add: Tracking/monitoring sleep, tracking/monitoring HRV, Tracking/monitoring Rate Of Percieved Exertion (RPE) if you wanted to quantify it more. Also there's other performance tests to see if someone is generally overworked. I think those can be especially useful if you have an athlete prepping for a competition, although used sparringly because paradoxically enough they can sometimes become stressors.

Numbers will show you a lot, but talking to someone and getting to know them will too. Alot of it is somewhat of an art, which is the same with physical therapy. Everyone is a little different and they will fatigue differently, adapt slightly differently and have different comfort levels.

Basics are fine for most people. Also I usually include supine breathing and relaxation as recovery after workouts.

 

[Whitebeltatlife]

It's already been said but running cardio is completely different to MMA cardio. Even wrestling compared to BJJ cardio is completely different and that's still under the umbrella of grappling.

Not only this, but in my experience most good runners are kind of weak, at least in their upper body. I'm not on about MMA guys who do running, but pure runners. These guys often have strong legs but small upper bodies. I think swimmers would translate much easier to MMA cardio as their bodies are more similar and their training also works the upper body harder.

 

[monkeyrhythm]

I edited the post to make the writing cleaner btw.

I generally like Joel and think he's a pretty good source for aerobic work. I especially like how he clarified and somewhat countered the HIT frenzy. I haven't really looked at his stuff for years though and I think that HRV training is still somewhat unreliable.

I tend to not overthink it too much when devising aerobic/LISS conditioning routines and go by a few basic metrics, like:
- Keeping range within 110-150 (I generally like lower end better, but it depends on the person).
- Not overdoing volume.
- Monitoring resting HR.
- Monitoring HR drop after exercise cessation.
- Periodically track performance.
- And most importantly listening to how the person feels.

You could add: Tracking/monitoring sleep, tracking/monitoring HRV, Tracking/monitoring Rate Of Percieved Exertion (RPE) if you wanted to quantify it more. Also there's other performance tests to see if someone is generally overworked. I think those can be especially useful if you have an athlete prepping for a competition, although used sparringly because paradoxically enough they can sometimes become stressors.

Numbers will show you a lot, but talking to someone and getting to know them will too. Alot of it is somewhat of an art, which is the same with physical therapy. Everyone is a little different and they will fatigue differently, adapt slightly differently and have different comfort levels.

Basics are fine for most people. Also I usually include supine breathing and relaxation as recovery after workouts.

One of my favourite quotes is from the French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time".
It's takes a lot of skill and expertise to express succinctly something which is frequently overcomplicated.
This is a great summary.