Renato, tinman, cabral and others- Improving anaerobic capacity while maintaining aerobic capacity

Tinman wrote:

Note that "anaerobic" is not the best term to use, from a technical standpoint, but most people understand that it means generating ATP (adenosine triphosphate) to do work without using oxygen in the chemical processes.

Keep it simple!

Tinman

Keep it simple ?!

Note that from chemistry technical standpoint the oxygen is O2.

Keep it simple !

Avalon

Antonio, when I talk about neuromuscular coordination, I'm not talking about Central Governor, I'm talking about Central Nervous System.

If you can prove that neuromuscular coordination doesn't exist then YOU will win the Nobel prize.

rekrunner wrote:

I thought the offer was only for Antonio. Thanks anyway, but you can keep the money -- the dollar is worth just a little more than the lira these days.

I don't deserve full credit, since I just typed "anaerobic capacity definition" into a google search. But I did take the liberty to replace "lactic acid system" with "glycolytic" system -- I didn't want to torture you that much.

But I'm curious what you think is missing.

wellnow wrote:

That's nearly right rekrunner. I'll give you $100 for that.

What's missing is Gycogenolysis, which you may recall me informing y'all provides six times as much ATP anarobically as Glycolysis, and the Myokinase or Adenylate Kinase reaction, where ADP from spend ATP is recycled as 2 ADP -> 2 ATP + AMP, this reactio supplies a small amount of energy.

But you deserve your $100 prize.

Does the ability to generate ATP by Glycogenolysis/Glycolysis really change with training? I doubt that it does, since this is the fight or flight response and is essential for everyone's survival in all manner of stressful situations.

What definitely does improve with training is the ability to run very fast with more efficiency, and thus either get faster or hold fast paces for longer.

Hi Renato:

Great post.

The anaerobic resistance workout of 10 x 500 at 85% with a recovery of 1:30-2 min seems very difficult. Would you modify this workout for a fast-type 800 runner? Also, could you give aerobic power workout examples for the fast 800 runner and resistant 800 runner? Thank you.

wellnow:

You might like this book called The Science of Winning by Jan Olbrecht. It is mostly for swimmers but can be applied to runners. I got a friend in Belgium to buy it and send it to me. I could not get it in the US.

Olbrecht defines anaerobic capacity as the maximum amount of pyruvate that can be produced per second by glycolosis. Would you prefer that the word glycogenolysis be used instead of (or in addition to)glycolysis?

I have read the book. I think it's very pretentious.

wellnow wrote:

I have read the book. I think it's very pretentious.

Looked in the mirror lately.

You destroy hundreds of good threads - walk away, please!

Ridiculous. If people write dogma and bad science, then you can expect me to debunk it. Someone has to.

Get over it or keep your head buried in the sand, but don't expect me to go along with the nonsense, just because you do.

On the one hand, we know that wellnow will admit he is wrong. A very rare quality on Letsrun.

Wellnow wrote:

"RE: If Tim Noakes "Central Governor" Model is Correct AND there is NO Lactate Threshold, HOW should this effect my t 4/4/2008 9:18AM

So, in light of the above, I restate my point that I have changed my mind and no longer accept the Hill/Noakes central governor hypothesis, becasue I believe that the heart outperforms all other muscles by a huge margin, because it is constantly excercised and therefore has vastly superior contractility to the skeletal muscles. And thus, a healthy heart is never in danger of failure in athletic competition since the performance of the skeletal muscles are much more limiting.

Only in an extreme case such as life threatening dehydration, poisoning, or viral attack, does the heart's performance become compromised."

Sure, I will admit that I change my mind about things. I might not even agree with what I wrote above. Although, the point I'm making may be correct, it doesn't necessarily contradict central governor hypothesis.

But to answer the question:

SlowFatMaster wrote:

wellnow:

Olbrecht defines anaerobic capacity as the maximum amount of pyruvate that can be produced per second by glycolosis. Would you prefer that the word glycogenolysis be used instead of (or in addition to)glycolysis?

I don't like the term anaerobic capacity since it is indefinable. Because there are four sources of anaerobic ATP resynthesis, and the power output derived from anaerobic ATP resynthesis declines rapidly in the first few seconds of exercize.

Also, if most Exercize Physiologists PhD'sare unaware of the fact that gycogenolysis provides six time as much ATP anaerobically as glycolysis, then, how can I take them seriously?

I think that the subject is fun to learn, but it isn't really relevant to training. Coaches shouldn't use big words they don't understand to try and impress athletes.

There are no, not one, exercise physiologist phd who doesn't know that, "gycogenolysis provides six time as much ATP anaerobically as glycolysis" and you know it.

The point is exercise physiologists are trying to design fundable, intentionally simplified, studies that incrementally increase knowledge about molecules not about training. Then journalists, BS, MS exercise physiologists and runners pay them them to IMAGINE what would happen if they extrapolated the new knowledge. Who knows why they ask as exercise physiologist phds have very little experience with athletes and imagining is not a proven way to solve anything. But it does sell magazines. Since very few of the people asking for the extrapolation know "gycogenolysis provides six time as much ATP anaerobically as glycolysis" things deteriorate quickly as you keep telling us.

wellnow wrote:

Also, if most Exercize Physiologists PhD'sare unaware of the fact that gycogenolysis provides six time as much ATP anaerobically as glycolysis, then, how can I take them seriously?

Wellnow, I was hoping you could explain this a little more clearly to me. I'm not an Ex Phys PhD, its been some time since I got my BS in Ex Phys, so I may be confused and would appreciate some clarification.

Glycogenolysis is the process of breaking glucose molecules off of a strand of glycogen. Is more ATP produced because there isn't the need to use ATP to break down the molecule like with the normal chain of Glycolysis starting with a normal glucose molecule? Otherwise glycolysis is glycolysis it doesn't matter where the glucose molecule used in it comes from.

Yes, with glycogenolysis, one less ATP is used up, and also one less proton is produced, compared to glycolysis, which involves the hexokinase reaction. Glycogenolysis doesn't involve the hexokinase reaction.

UYVOP 978-4135 wrote:

There are no, not one, exercise physiologist phd who doesn't know that, "gycogenolysis provides six time as much ATP anaerobically as glycolysis" and you know it.

The point is exercise physiologists are trying to design fundable, intentionally simplified, studies that incrementally increase knowledge about molecules not about training. Then journalists, BS, MS exercise physiologists and runners pay them them to IMAGINE what would happen if they extrapolated the new knowledge. Who knows why they ask as exercise physiologist phds have very little experience with athletes and imagining is not a proven way to solve anything. But it does sell magazines. Since very few of the people asking for the extrapolation know "gycogenolysis provides six time as much ATP anaerobically as glycolysis" things deteriorate quickly as you keep telling us.

Agree with your second paragraph, good points. But your first statement is completely untrue. Only ex phys PhD's with thorough biochmistry knowledge would know this. And how many is that? A very small percentage surely, since there are so many fields of study, so vast is the subject.

wellnow wrote:

Yes, with glycogenolysis, one less ATP is used up, and also one less proton is produced, compared to glycolysis, which involves the hexokinase reaction. Glycogenolysis doesn't involve the hexokinase reaction.

How long into the onset of exercise does Glycogenolysis net usable substrate for ATP production?

I just read all the stuff that I've posted and feel sick.

Look More Closelerly wrote:

wellnow wrote:

Yes, with glycogenolysis, one less ATP is used up, and also one less proton is produced, compared to glycolysis, which involves the hexokinase reaction. Glycogenolysis doesn't involve the hexokinase reaction.

How long into the onset of exercise does Glycogenolysis net usable substrate for ATP production?

****************************

Glycogenolysis is always providing ATP, not just for muscle contraction during exercize but also for cell regeration during recovery.

The highest rates of this supply will be as soon as creatine phosphate supply diminishes which would begin after only one or two seconds and peak after a few more seconds in a short sprint and slightly later in longer races. Glycogenolysis continues to supply ATP anaerobically throughout all races, but the supply is diminishing as muscle glycogen slowly runs out.

However it is important to bear in mind that whenever a muscle fiber is recruited this process starts all over again, and since there is continual recruitment of fibers in a race this process is repeated, but the total amount of glycogen available is diminishing.