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

Breathing slower is the way to improve your CO2 removal. Normal way to breath is to inhale slowly and hold for a second and exhale passively. Well When you inhale you need to hold it because you are giving more time for diffusion of the O2 to the alveoli of the lungs and giving the blood flowing to carry more O2 and also dump the CO2. don't scream now I know it's hard to breath slow when you run. but try or eventually you will get there. Fast runners breath normal for a while and they breath faster and faster later as the race gets heated but some of us already breath fast after 400m. Force yourself to take deep breath and hold it for a little even a split of a second. and maybe a little PEEP WOULD HELP. Positive end expiratory pressure. your nose is one. So don't just exhale with mouth but also nose or just nose if you can get use to it. If your lungs inflate and collapse every time you breath in and out you will get tired. it's not suppose to deflate all the way or close to all the way because you will have RV anyways Residual volume. which is volume still in your lungs after even exhaling or pushing everything out of your lungs possible. and PEEP helps with oxygenation. it prevents the lungs from collapsing fast and all the way. try it breath in and out with your mouth see how fast you exhaled out. next try breathing in with your mouth big and only exhale with your nose. see the difference. slower exhaling more E-time you get rid of CO2 more. thanks guys. I could have made many mistakes but that's what I learned from a Dr.

some of that is true and might be a 'legal' way of increasing carbon dioxide removal. but easier said than done.

first off, things that improve oxygenation don't necessarily improve carbon dioxide removal, so don't confuse the two.

PEEP is good for keeping more of the alveoli open and recruiting new alveoli. more alveoli are better because that increases the surface area for carbon dioxide to diffuse. you can increase PEEP by pursing your lips when you breathe out or by breathing through your nose. but PEEP is mainly a way of improving oxygenation.

perhaps a pause at peak inspiration would help, but try doing that when you are breathing 45 times a minute. it is not necessarily breathing slower, but breathing differently, and that sort of thing seems hard to me.

still, ventilatory rate is king for carbon dioxide removal and so your advice in the first statement is a little misleading.

Aerobic: In the presence of oxygen. Requires oxygen

Anaerobic: Does not require oxygen.

Immediate energy sources (ATP) does not require oxygen. Conversion of ADP to ATP via Creatine Phosphate does not require oxygen.

Incomplete glycolysis does not require oxygen.

Fat oxidation requires oxygen.

Complte glycolysis via the Krebs cycle and Electron Transport Chain requires oxygen.

All are used at any and all running intensities.

Alan

That's why I said " it's hard to do it's not easy really but trying and doing it once in a while during the run will help a little. I know Peep mainly helps oxygenation buddy. I never said it helped removal of cO2. But yes to get rid of CO2 to be specific in the science world it's the ventilatory rate and the tidal volume that matters.

Vt and RR. SO yes you can breath fast and get rid of CO2. but as you get in shape you won't start breathing fast so early during your run.

D.S. wrote:

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.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????

You should know what? Robert Robergs has proved that it is a biochemical impossibility for our bodies to produce lactic acid.

So shaggy, now you have had a bit of time to think about it, can you see what I mean when I say that in a race, the reason why our breathing rate increases is because we are going into heat stress? Yes we are breathing out more CO2, but ask yourself why we are procucing more CO2?

Yes dogs pant to lose heat and sweat very little, but we also use panting to cool our core temperature.

wellnow wrote:

So shaggy, now you have had a bit of time to think about it, can you see what I mean when I say that in a race, the reason why our breathing rate increases is because we are going into heat stress? Yes we are breathing out more CO2, but ask yourself why we are procucing more CO2?

Yes dogs pant to lose heat and sweat very little, but we also use panting to cool our core temperature.

if you really need me to continue reply to your ventilation/heat theory, here we go:

when your metabolic rate goes up, as it does progressively in a race, carbon dioxide levels go up. in the beginning of the race, you are using as few metabolic activities as possible with the goal of remaining as efficient as possible, but as the race continues and you try to sustain a maximal level of effort you continue to recruit more cellular processes that produce more carbon dioxide. that is why on a long slow run, when you aren't exerting yourself maximally, you don't increase the ventilatory rate. so, yes, you are producing more carbon dioxide as a race goes on.

it gets way more complicated than that..your body attempts to buffer lactate production with bicarbonate (both extracellularly and by the kidney)...the byproduct of that reaction is...yes, you guessed...carbon dioxide. so as your body produces more lactate as the race goes on, you use up more bicarbonate and you are producing more carbon dioxide from this buffering process.

i will not even add the contribution of pH to ventilatory drive, which relates all of these things (carbon dioxide, lactate, bicarbonate) and has a contribution to ventilatory rate albeit probably less than carbon dioxide levels.

we may to some degree 'pant' to lose heat, but this is not the primary (or probably even secondary) reason we increase ventilation during exercise. if you are referring the the article cited earlier, i have already replied that it doesn't quite prove that heat is more important carbon dioxide in determining ventilatory rate, but rather shows there is an association between body temperature and ventilatory rate.

i don't discount that there may be a contribution of body temperature regulation in increasing the ventilatory rate, but it is just not the most important thing driving ventilatory rate. perhaps there is more for us to discover in this area of physiology, but from what we know now, carbon dioxide elimination is the most important drive of ventilatory rate.

So you agree with me then?

As the race progresses, the effort required to maintain the same pace increases, and thus heat production increases along with all the factors you list above, plus the ones you didn't mention such as increase in catecholamines.

So I stand by my statement that rather than the expression "going anaerobic" which is a false notion to describe the increase in energy output, the term going into heat stress is applicable.

Shaggy, if you are going to lecture me on glycolysis, then you should at least get your facts right.

Firstly you should know that glycolysis is uses considerably less than glycogenolysis. If you want to be pedantic about it.

Also, the notion that "anaerobic glycolysis" is less efficient than "aerobic glycloysis" is false, and comes from a time when it was thought that "lactic acid" was a waste product.

Yep wrote:

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

Probably altitude training is the most effective way. Also intelligent interval training helps us to 'acclimatitize' to greater heat production.

Training in warmer weather or wearing more clothing will have a general effect on increasing fitness, but interval training is more specific to our pace requirements.

Would interval training in warmer or more humid weather be more effective? I don't know, it will certainly be harder, but doesn't that just make the session too hard, or the need to either slow down or increase the recovery or decrease the length of the repetitions?

wellnow wrote:

Shaggy, if you are going to lecture me on glycolysis, then you should at least get your facts right.

Firstly you should know that glycolysis is uses considerably less than glycogenolysis. If you want to be pedantic about it.

Also, the notion that "anaerobic glycolysis" is less efficient than "aerobic glycloysis" is false, and comes from a time when it was thought that "lactic acid" was a waste product.

the term "going anaerobic" is a stupid term. i guess i agree with you on that. one could be more precise in choosing terminology to describe the physiological processes that occur as we continue to race and the balance of aerobic and anaerobic respiration changes.

i think my facts are pretty much right and i invite anyone to point out exactly what i have gotten wrong. you have shown me no knowledge of basic physiology and your confusion of many of the terms makes me even more wary that you have no idea what you are talking about. i would be interested to know your background on this.

i never said that there was an "anaerobic glycolysis" or an "aerobic glycolysis", which indeed are inappropriate terms. (you put the quotes around those terms...i never even put those two words together...it reminds me of when you used the terms "aerobic energy" and "anaerobic energy", which are also not appropriate terms). glycolysis is glycolysis. i said that anaerobic cellular respiration is less efficient than aerobic cellular respiration, which is a fact of science and is indisputable.

glycogenolysis is the breakdown of glycogen (a polymer) into glucose monomers, for their use as energy substrates. glycolysis is the breakdown of glucose into pyruvate to produce ATP, which is the main substrate of energy. they are related, but incomparable. to say that "glycolysis is uses considerably less than glycogenolysis" is also vague...considerably less what? it is also an example of terrible grammar.

no, i will not agree with the statement: "The workload becomes harder because your body is overheating and this is the main reason why you are breathing harder." i have explained the main reason why you breathe harder as a race goes on pretty clearly. i have only conceded that heat exchange may be a factor in the increase of ventilation, but not the "main reason".

"i said that anaerobic cellular respiration is less efficient than aerobic cellular respiration, which is a fact of science and is indisputable. "

That statement is still wrong, it is based on the idea that lactic acid is a waste product.

wellnow wrote:

"i said that anaerobic cellular respiration is less efficient than aerobic cellular respiration, which is a fact of science and is indisputable. "

That statement is still wrong, it is based on the idea that lactic acid is a waste product.

how is it wrong? find me an evidence based source.

i am done with this. you have a fundamental misunderstanding of physiology and have failed to convince me that this is a worthwhile discussion anymore. have a nice new year.

You need to calm down and do some research on the subject before you start preaching at me.

Jens Bangsbo and many others have been researching this subject for many years. 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.

I stand by everything I have said in this thread and I appreciate your input but you have a short fuse and are way too pedantic.

Instead of assuming other people are fools, and you are a genius, you should allow a bit more time before making that judgement.

I posted this message to Kim Stevenson on the Lydiard or Daniels thread today:

Kim, Lydiard based his ideas of aerobic and anaerobic on the work of the great English physiologist A.V. Hill. The idea of "going anaerobic" when we start to produce "lactic acid" and breathe harder was published in 1923, the year in which Hill and his German colleague Otto Meyerhoff won the Nobel prize for science for their work on bioenergetics.

So yes. Arthur knew enough to be dangerous 25 years ago

However, in the last few decades, that bioenergetics model has been proven to be false. It is now known that lactic acid is not produced, rather lactate, which is an aerobic fuel, not an anaerobic waste product. Lactate doesn't increase acidity in muscle and blood, it's production actually does the opposite, reducing the acidity which is caused by anaerobic fuel utilization.

Eventually, when we can produce no more lactate, for whatever reason, we slow down. This not what was thought 20 years ago, it was thought back then that lactate accumulation slows us down, it doesn't, it's the lack of lactate production and uptake by the mitochondria, the aerobic powerhouse of the muscle cells that slows us down.

So yes. Arthur knew enough to be dangerous 25 years ago, but now his terminology clashes with what is now known about physiology.

We don't "go anaerobic" in a race, we actually start a race using mostly anerobically derived energy, and as that begins to be used up after a few seconds, aerobically derived energy increases.

There is always a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic fuel sources being utilized, since the breakdown of muscle glycogen for energy(glycogenolysis) and the breakdown of blood glucose for energy (glycolysis) also both supply glycolytic ATP constantly. Glycolytic ATP is considered to be an anaerobic energy fuel, since it does not require oxygen to provide energy.

However, if we have a healthy heart, we never actually run out of oxygen, no matter how hard we run.

Hard interval training is mostly aerobic. Short sprints are mostly anaerobic.

I hope that helps.

"wellnow",

Maybe you do know something about this subject, but so far you have yet to reveal anything significant. You try to convince everyone that there is a lot of confusion around, and there is a need to clear it up here, but then fail to follow it up with enough detail about what your problem really is, or what you believe the right viewpoint is. You tell others to research the subject before criticizing you, but then fail to point them in any direction.

I actually found it comical that you tried to define aerobic energy and anaerobic energy with an acronym that you failed to define or describe. How would that help my understanding? I kind of have an idea when I'm doing aerobic and anaerobic training -- I don't believe I'm confused, but what the heck is ATP, and what does it stand for?

I had to wait until "shaggy" posted his detailed, coherent discussion, to find out what ATP was.

"shaggy" pretty much provided the only real information so far in this thread -- you should thank him for taking the steps you couldn't to help solve your issue.

You assumed "shaggy" pretty much agreed with you, when it was crystal clear to me that he didn't.

If you really do know something, why is it taking you so long to say it? How much time has to pass before you say something? Or is just supposed to sink in by telepathy or osmosis. You occasionally drop some hints, and throw out some big words, so I do believe you might know a little something. I just can't figure out what your point really is, or why you even have a problem with how these terms are used.

Help me out here.

Quote "Eventually, when we can produce no more lactate, for whatever reason, we slow down. This not what was thought 20 years ago, it was thought back then that lactate accumulation slows us down, it doesn't, it's the lack of lactate production and uptake by the mitochondria, the aerobic powerhouse of the muscle cells that slows us down." Unquote

I love this. This person says "when we can produce no more lactate, "FOR WHATEVER REASON".....

All this meaningless discussion on why we slow down as if it matters comes down to the lastest and greatest findings about lactate not being produced for energy causing us to slow down and to conclude "FOR WHATEVER REASON"

Well why waste your friggin time? If you're so concerned about the buildup of lactate that either slows us down or is neccessary for energy then get back to us when you can answer "FOR WHATEVER REASON"

Just run and get over yourselves

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 . . .