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

The reason why I think that this subject is worthy of debate is that the confusion about this issue is a result of the relative lack of good information.

There is so much bad science out there that needs to be confronted. The physiology that we read in textbooks is very outdated and the general concepts of oxygen debt and lactic acidosis which are constantly bandied about come fromt the 1920's.

So, let's get up to date here.

No matter how much you debate this it won´t change the way runners train.

Indeed, but that is not the issue I am concerned with. I am anti bullshit pseudoscience, whic confuses people and makes it harder to understand how they should be training.

Knowledge is power, so you can train better is you are not confused.

I am sure that this will end all confusion.

Can you now tackle the Middle East situation...

This babble will not help anyone train or coach. "wellnow" is neither an accomplished coach nor athlete but someone who has decided since he is a failure at running, maybe he can gain some respect by going anal on nomenclature. A good coach can call tempo runs "super duper anaerobic" if he wants to and his athletes will still win.

wellnow wrote:

ANAEROBIC energy is ATP generated form non-mitochondrial ATP

ATP from ATP? WTF?

wellnow wrote:

There is no Lactic acid produced at any time, rather Lactate, which is an AEROBIC FUEL.

And where, pray tell, does the lactate come from?

The Root wrote:

This babble will not help anyone train or coach. "wellnow" is neither an accomplished coach nor athlete but someone who has decided since he is a failure at running, maybe he can gain some respect by going anal on nomenclature. A good coach can call tempo runs "super duper anaerobic" if he wants to and his athletes will still win.

I suspect you may be projecting your own failures onto me.

I am an accomplished runner. As for my coaching abilities, I will let others (not you) judge that.

Confused in Seattle wrote:

wellnow wrote:

ANAEROBIC energy is ATP generated form non-mitochondrial ATP

ATP from ATP? WTF?

wellnow wrote:

There is no Lactic acid produced at any time, rather Lactate, which is an AEROBIC FUEL.

And where, pray tell, does the lactate come from?

Sorry, I should have written:

Anaerobic energy is generated from non-mitochondrial ATP

The lactate comes from the breakdown of blood glucose and muscle glycogen. There is no lactic acid produced at any time in our bodies.

Read-

Lore of Running- Noakes

Exercise Physiology- McArdle

and journals like Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

if you want to get some up-to-date information

everyone else is going to stay ignorant

Intersting post.

This doesn't matter for 99.9% of runners everywhere. Going anaerobic is when your f***ing legs start burning. If you feel okay, you're probably still aerobic. No one is going to stop and take a muscle sample mid-race or mid-training session to see if their energy is being produced by non-mitochondrial atp. Who gives a shit.

And as a side note, if you throw lactate ions into an aqueous solution (e.g. your blood), this will produce lactic acid, no?

Of course the truth matters.

And most runners handle it just fine.

Even some of the coaches.

As for training methods, well training has been evolving, and will continue to evolve.

Happy New Year every one.

lactic acid no lactic acid does it really matter? what we call it and how we think it happens doesn't really matter does it?

bottom line: at a certain time at a certain intensity the muscles begin to fatigue and fail. we train in those ranges to both create a better capcity to deal with those situations and to create a better tolerance while in those situations.

so lactic acid isn't the culprit and hydorogen ions are. it doesn't change the way you train, just the label you give it.

wellnow wrote:

The lactate comes from the breakdown of blood glucose and muscle glycogen. There is no lactic acid produced at any time in our bodies.

I don't think so, and I should know.

Lactic acid is a by product of anaerobic ex?

That's all I got to say 'bout that.

interesting post, and i have seen it before in other forms. but you are confusing a couple of points that need clarifying. unfortunately, some of the clarification gets technical, but if you are interested, read on.

there is no such thing as aerobic and anaerobic energy. there is aerobic and anaerobic respiration. you are partially right in that aerobic respiration takes place in the mitochondria, while anaerobic respiration can take place outside of the mitochondria.

ATP is the unit of energy that is used by the tissues. ATP produced by aerobic respiration is the same as ATP produced by anaerobic respiration. it is just that less ATP is produced by anaerobic than by aerobic, so the latter is preferred in terms of efficiency.

aerobic respiration is when ATP is generated by tranforming glucose through glycolysis into pyruvate, which then enters oxidative phosphorylation. this second step, which happens in the mitochondria, requires oxygen. in the end you are (essentially) left with carbon dioxide, water, and ATP (for fuel).

anearobic respiration is when ATP is generated by transforming glucose (again through glycolysis) into pyruvate. the next step doesn't require oxygen and pyruvate is converted to lactate by the enzyme lactate dehydrogenase. i was very careful about the last statement. it does not necessarily take this path because there is low oxygen...it more has to do with the overall availability of substrates for oxidative phosphorylation.

anaerobic respiration produces only 2-4 ATP (don't sweat the details on why i report a range) and aerobic respiration produces 36-38 ATP per glucose. thus the latter is more efficient, though the former is faster. they are usually both happening at the same time, in a steady state, but when the appropriate substrates are not there for aerobic respiration, or you need a quick energy boost of ATP, anaerobic respiration dominates.

if you want an explanation for why people get out of breath when they exercise, that will take another physiology lecture. but it IS related to aerobic and anaerobic respiration, and is mostly a function of the elimination of carbon dioxide (rather than delivery of oxygen). and, as i said earlier, carbon dioxide is a main byproduct of aerobic and anaerobic respiration and so your statement on breathing isn't really correct. in fact, the reason you are breathing harder IS NOT because you are overheating. unlike dogs, we sweat, and thus don't depend on panting for heat elimination. we breath harder to eliminate carbon dioxide.

If it doesn't change the way you train, or at least think about training, then you aren't getting it.

Shaggy,

Appl Physiol. 2006 Feb;100(2):414-20. 2005 Oct 20.

Relationship between ventilatory response and body temperature during prolonged submaximal exercise.

So Shaggy, What's the most effective legal way to increase our bodies ability to eliminate carbon dioxide?

dsrunner wrote:

Shaggy,

Appl Physiol. 2006 Feb;100(2):414-20. 2005 Oct 20.

Relationship between ventilatory response and body temperature during prolonged submaximal exercise.

an interesting study and i will read it closer. it brings up more questions than answers. without measuring more carbon dioxide values (arterial, venous, as well as expired) we don't know what the relationship of carbon dioxide and temperature is...they could both be covariates but carbon dioxide could be a stronger factor. how do we know that carbon dioxide and Tes aren't related? this wasn't tested in the regression, as far as i can tell.

this study just answers the question that ventilation in exercise varies with body temperature. it does not say that ventilation is mainly a function of controlling body temperature (rather than carbon dioxide elimination).

doesn't quite slam the door on my argument that ventilation is mainly a function of carbon dioxide elimination, which is nearly dogma in exercise physiology as well as intensive care medicine.