Definiton of Aerobic and Anaerobic, lets get up to date here.

Thank you for taking the time to share your frustrations with this thread. I agree with you on many points.

However, if I was to write a very long post, almost no-one would read it. I believe it is much better to keep the posts short and let the thread develop.

As I said earlier I appreciate Shaggy's input, he is obviously very knowlegeable, but just as he disagrees with some of my points, I disagree with some of his. No need for him to go into a sulk about that, I can provide evidence to back up the points I am making.

I have made some typo's, we all do, even you in your post. I apologize for mine.

What I am trying to do here is point out that the commonly held bioenergetics model, largely attributable to the work of the great physiologist A.V. Hill and dates from the early 1920's, is wrong.

This model which Tim Noakes M.D. refers to as the Cardiovascular/Anaerobic model is now recognized by physiologists to be incorrect. Noakes has proposed his own Central Governor model, partly based on Hill's original Central Governor proposal of 1924.

Noakes states that a healthy heart cannot become anaerobic, otherwise it will cause angina or worse symptoms.

I have assumed thus far that most of us know the meaning of the words Aerobic, meaning with air

and Anaerobic meaning without air.

In physiology terms, this means with or without oxygen.

You ask me what my problem is?

Trying to explain things and change old opinions is a difficult task, it takes time and patience. Yes you are right, it will hopefully sink in by telepathy and osmosis. I like those analogies very much.

Get over ourselves? Does that include you by any chance?

I will tell you the reasons why lactate production declines.

There are several reasons why lactate production declines, such as glycogen depletion and low blood glucose levels. This happens in long runs.

There are several reasons why lactate uptake declines such as an innability for the muslces to use available accumulated lactate, such as muscle fatigue causing a reduction in the ability to contract, such as at the end of a 400m race.

The reasons for the fatigue are still mostly a matter for conjecture. Accumulation of hydrogen ions may be a cause or a correlation (coincidence) it has not been proven either way.

Typo city? wrote:

wellnow wrote:

. . . They and others have hypothesized that anaerobically derived energy is more efficient than anaerobically derived energy due to increased heat production and their studies do show that muscle efficiency gradually reduces as heat production increases . . .

Well that certainly cleared everything up . . .

OOPS, thank you for pointing that one out. It was inevitable eventually that I would make that mistake, confusing aerobic with anaerobic. I ain't the first and I won't be the last to do that.

of course wot I shudda wroted is:

They and others have hypothesized that anaerobically derived energy is more efficient than aerobically derived energy due to increased heat production and their studies do show that muscle efficiency gradually reduces as heat production increases.

I even mis spelled definition in the thread title.

Low blood glucose, too much running.

H+ wrote:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/04/19_lactate.shtml

Thank you for this link. The process of learning by osmosis works better when provided with actual information. I presume the process described in this article is one of wellnow's bones of contention.

wellnow's other point, that the statement "when they get out of breath towards the end of a 5000m race that they are 'going into oxygen debt' or 'going anaerobic'" is incorrect, hasn't been justified in my mind. The study referenced by dsrunner (I've only read the abstract) shows a correlation between respiration rate and core temperature, but, as Shaggy argues, doesn't remotely "prove" the hypothesis that overheating is the principle cause of panting. To the contrary, that blood lactate concentrations increase steadily over the course of a short race seems a pretty clear indication that the (anaerobic) rate of lactate production is outstripping the athlete's (aerobic) use of this fuel. In a training sense, that seems to be the common working definition of "going anaerobic" even if at a sufficiently microscopic level there is always a combination of aerobic and anaerobic processes happening.

My problem is your one-liner responses are too short. They are just bald assertions without any support. We have to play "20 questions" just to figure out what you are on about.

You make a distinction between lactate and lactic acid, but don't define either, and don't explain why the terms are not interchangeable. My legs burn, and I just don't understand why it's mother's milk, and not acid build-up, which is causing the burn.

You criticized "shaggy" for preaching to you, while his facts are wrong, but failed to say which facts you meant.

You talk about typos, but just when it seems you are about to make a point, out comes a typo. For example, you said "Firstly you should know that glycolysis is uses considerably less than glycogenolysis". This is one example you did attempt to provide, but I just don't understand it because of the bad English construction. It looks like there is an extra word, and a missing word. Why don't you correct this? Don't you proofread your stuff?

You even mentioned that I made a typo, but you leave it to me to find it. (I didn't find it by the way).

Your responses are also off target. You respond to "shaggy" about some distinction between "glycolysis", and "glycogenolysis", (again without defining them) but when I look back, I just can't find what it is that "shaggy" said that you are rebutting.

It took nearly a week to mention Robert Robergs, but you only asserted he proved something, and failed to point is to his proof.

You throw out that "anaerobic glycolysis" is not inefficient is based on a myth, but fail to describe the modern thinking. Why isn't 36 ATP's per glucose more efficient than 2 ATP's? I know by experience, that anaerobic running is not sustainable. How can it not be inefficient?

You say that you disagree with some of "shaggy"'s points, justs like he disagrees with yours. I know what he disagrees with, because he said it. But you saying that you disagree is still just another unsupported naked assertion.

It took you nearly two weeks to mention Jens Bagbo, and now Tim Noakes and the Governor model.

You aspire to clear up the confusion with the term "Anaerobic", but you are on about body temperature and panting like a dog. You word dropped "catecholamines". Just what is that and how does that fit into the story? I'm making an effort to understand, but I'm more confused then ever. Keep in mind, I believe your intended audience are not physiological experts.

You said you thought this was an important debate. Hold yourself to a higher standard and direct your debate. I'm not asking you to make a long post, but at least add a couple of sentences to explain and support your out of context, one-liner assertions.

I just can't tell if you really know anything, or you are just really not very good at expressing yourself.

The link that H+ posted concerns George Brooks' Lactate Shuttly hypothesis, specifically relating to his Intracellular lactate shuttle hypothesis, in which he suggests that lactate is directly oxidized by the mitochondria.

I mostly agree with this hypothesis, but some of his colleagues have stated that it is thermogenically infeasible for this to occur. However, it may be probable that larger mitochondria in more oxidative fibers can directly oxidize lactate, and smaller mitochondria in less oxidative fibers can't, and possibly that their is a large degree of trainability in this regard.

Regarding the increase in respiration in a 5000m race, lacate is possibly the prefered fuel, but the way in which it is produced and oxidized, and accumulates is a bit complicated.

Our core temperature does constantly increase during the race and this makes it harder to hold the pace. That's why, on a warm day, you run well and as hard as you can, but your pace might be the same as your 10000m pace on a cool day.

Please be patient, I can't answer every question right away, it will take many days, there are many other things I need to do so just bear with me if you can.

Here is the paper by Robergs,

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/287/3/R502

I can't post any more right now, but I do appreciate your questions, they are all worth answering, and I will try to get round to it during the week.

Come on guys. Don't sit here and tell me that lactic acid doesn't exist or you don't produce it. Just go run some hard 400s and lactic acid will say HI to you. Shaggy I have observed alot of the things you have said. You are correct on every issue. Surprised at how much you know. You must be in some health field. For some of you. heat might effect the way you breath. BUT CO2 IS THE VARIABLE THAT EFFECTS VENTILATION. SO YEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeha a it has become a meaningless discussion because if lactic acid doesn't exist I feel lost and no confidence in what schools are teaching. Shaggy i am a respiratory care student and everything you say is pretty much what my 30yrs of teaching doctor says. and he has done many marathons and triathlongs and still does. . So shaggy just shag off these guys. Peace.

Science moves on doesn't it? What was taught 30 years ago may be disproved. This is the case with lactic acid. Robert Robergs has proved that it is not produced in our bodies, but that lactate is produced.

Books and magazine articles use the names lactic acid and lactate together as though they are the same thing, but they are not.

Read the paper cited in my previous post if you want to know more.

Yes, increased aerobic respiration causes increased CO2 production and removal which causes increase ventilation.

The question is; what is the main cause of an increase in aerobic respiration during a distance race?

The answer is heat production.

Thanks for the link. Sorry if I over-reacted, but still think a reaction was necessary.

A quick glance of the paper reveals that his point is that when strenuous exercising produces acidosis, it is a mistake to call it "lactic acidosis", but we should call it "metabolic acidosis". Lactate is produce, and Hydrogen Ions are produced, but it's a little more complex than text books usually indicate, and they come from two different sources.

I guess I agree with the spirit of academic correctness (and I certainly didn't check his math). Rest assured, I did not ever write any posts, texts, articles, or research papers talking about lactic acid accumulation (well except just now), and will endeavor not to do so in the future.

Does this mean that it is still a mistake to use the term "going anaerobic"? I mean, if I understand correctly lactate production, and extra proton production does coincide with anaerobically produced ATP. "Going anaerobic" might not be specific enough for Physiology PhD's in their research, but it doesn't seem "wrong" for a coach to use this term, given there is still a correlation, and we are not saying "lactic acidosis", so we don't propogate that little misconception.

Tell me if I'm wrong, because I'm just guessing here.

Why are we talking about respiration and ventilation and heat production? How is it linked to a discussion about the proper definition of aerobic and anaerobic? Are either of these linked with "oxygen debt"? Which of these are part of the discussion, and which are out?

I guess all this talk about breathing during a race is supposed to show how the second phrase "going into oxygen debt" is innappropriate.

However, what is oxygen debt, and how is it measured?

Oxygen debt is not about the breathing you do during exercise, but about the breathing you do after you've stopped. If you consume more oxygen than normal after the exercise, then you went into oxygen debt during the exercise.

So I agree that getting out of breath towards the end of a 5K doesn't directly constitute "going into oxygen debt". But nevertheless, when people are running out of breath at the end of a 5K, they are coincidentally "going into oxygen debt" too, I suppose as a direct result of "going anaerobic".

I don't see anything wrong yet with the current definitions of aerobic, anaerobic, and using the terms "going anaerobic", and "going into oxygen debt".

You seem to have grasped the idea of where the protons come from and you sum it up well.

The reason why the term going anaerobic is wrong is because, it is actually the other way round. We start anaerobic in a race and then go aerobic. Or, as our freind Shaggy would put it, Anaerobic respiration predominates at the onset of excercise, with a gradual move towards aerobic respiration as excercise continues.

The term Oxygen debt and the concept of "going anaerobic" are both ideas put forward by our freind A.V. Hill in the early 1920's.

The two ideas are linked with his concept of "lactic acid" being a product that could only be oxidized (used as fuel) after the excercise was over, e.g. after a race.

Hill actually did refer to lactate oxidation in his early work, and even then, and before, more that 100 years ago, scientists were refering to lactic acid and lactate as being the same thing, which Robergs proves is false.

So you can see how important Robergs' research is, and how it upsets an awful lot of people who have been taught differently, and who are passing on what they have been taught.

Gotta go now, thanks for your insightful questions.

But aren't you throwing out babies with the bath water?

As far as I could tell, Robergs is just complaining that people talk about lactic acid, which is academically incorrect.

But, as I understand it, none of this is happening with aerobic running. Accumulation of lactate, and metabolic acidosis still happens, and only happens when you "go anaerobic".

And "oxygen debt" is not an imaginary construct, is it? I didn't see Robergs saying "oxygen debt" doesn't exist.

Just because Hill got "lactic acid" wrong doesn't mean that he got everything wrong. These expressions still make complete sense to me. Do we have two more candidates for re-definition?

wellnow wrote:

Yes, increased aerobic respiration causes increased CO2 production and removal which causes increase ventilation.

The question is; what is the main cause of an increase in aerobic respiration during a distance race?

The answer is heat production.

I don't see how that conclusion has been established. We've established that both mechanisms increase respiration during a distance race but you haven't quantified that the "main cause" is heat production.

The Light wrote:

But aren't you throwing out babies with the bath water?

As far as I could tell, Robergs is just complaining that people talk about lactic acid, which is academically incorrect.

But, as I understand it, none of this is happening with aerobic running. Accumulation of lactate, and metabolic acidosis still happens, and only happens when you "go anaerobic".

And "oxygen debt" is not an imaginary construct, is it? I didn't see Robergs saying "oxygen debt" doesn't exist.

Just because Hill got "lactic acid" wrong doesn't mean that he got everything wrong. These expressions still make complete sense to me. Do we have two more candidates for re-definition?

Hill thought that above a certain speed, we switched from aerobic to anaerobic, when we produced lactic acid.

This belief is still held by most people.

When we run fast over short distances, the glycolytic rate increases rapidly and we produce a lot of glycolytic ATP and a lot of lactate. The glycolytic ATP is used for muscle contraction and this considered to be anaerobic respiration, since it does not require oxygen. Some ot the lactate is used for aerobic respiration, starting a few seconds after the onset of excercise and some of the lactate accumulates in muscle, in blood and some of it is stored in resting muscle.

After a sprint, we can use accumulated lactate for energy, either as energy for recovery or for another effort.

In longer races such as a 5000m race, lactate is produced, lactate accumulates and lactate is oxidized for energy in constant cycles along with glycolytic ATP, so aerobic and anaerobic energy sources are both used throughout the race.

So we don't "go anaerobic". Neither do we accumulate oxygen debt.

Oxygen consumption in a 5000m race rises to VO2max or very close to it, and stays there, whilst the rate of breathing (ventilation rate) increases because of the increase in expired CO2.

Citizen Runner wrote:

wellnow wrote:

Yes, increased aerobic respiration causes increased CO2 production and removal which causes increase ventilation.

The question is; what is the main cause of an increase in aerobic respiration during a distance race?

The answer is heat production.

I don't see how that conclusion has been established. We've established that both mechanisms increase respiration during a distance race but you haven't quantified that the "main cause" is heat production.

I will address this issue when I have more time, citing research by Jens Bangsbo and others.

Academia aside...We know that running at "x" effort produces a certain fatigue. The body does not like that and so makes improvements to deal with that specific fatigue better. If you continue to run at "x" effort you will make more and more improvements. Now, let's say you run at "y" effort, which is faster than "x". "y" produces even more fatigue...the body hates this even more and makes improvements to deal with this increased effort better. The consequences of improvements to address the fatigue caused by "y" is that these improvements will also help you deal with the fatigue caused by "x". Hence, if you're training for a 5k race it makes sense to train at speeds from 3k-10k pace as the improvements made will help you deal with the fatigue caused by the 5k race.

You see, a nice explanation of what the hell is going on without even mentioning the physiological terms...:) I have a BS in Exercise Science. If I tell you what is going on physiologically I would have to teach you an entire class just to catch you up. That serves no purpose. The only people who understand Exercise Physiologists (or others with that type of background) are other Exercise Physiologists.

I don't give a horse piss about what causes the fatigue at the end of a 5k race or whether or not we produce lactate. That shouldn't change how you train for a 5k race. You can either train at 5k pace, faster than 5k pace, or slower than 5k pace. Let common sense lead you the way. Think in terms of both specific training for the race and whole body training for conditioning. The body is a mechanical machine, a system of levers.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:... I have a BS in Exercise Science. ...

That explains so much. What a fitting title for your degree.

Doh!