Is aerobic base training dead???

So sorry, Wellnow. I just saw your reply!

Thanks very much!

I have been thinking alot along those lines too. My best training has been following a Van Aaken type program, which is playful running at various paces and various distances. The only problem is that it takes too much time to do!

Interesting thread i found

Filled with rantings of Jon Orange as wellnow.

Downhill mountain bike racing?

Macker, I agree with your comment regarding John Hollozy "John Hollozy long ago found a 100% increase in mitochondrial density in rats that were run 2 hours per day" True - Hollozy's 2hr-rats kept going for 111 mins compared to the lesser aerobically trained (duration) study groups. Dudley later contributed key information in relation to specific intensity of such aerobic workouts.

I believe the optimal endurance training program would include aspects of - Van Aaken, Gerschler and Lydiard. All three developed and implemented through training key ingredients for success. Its all about putting those three methods into one well structured training program.

Carroll 64 wrote:

Macker, I agree with your comment regarding John Hollozy "John Hollozy long ago found a 100% increase in mitochondrial density in rats that were run 2 hours per day" True - Hollozy's 2hr-rats kept going for 111 mins compared to the lesser aerobically trained (duration) study groups. Dudley later contributed key information in relation to specific intensity of such aerobic workouts.

I believe the optimal endurance training program would include aspects of - Van Aaken, Gerschler and Lydiard. All three developed and implemented through training key ingredients for success. Its all about putting those three methods into one well structured training program.

Oh please.. citing that old study.. it's complete nonsense.

It's completely unrealistic to expect any increase in mitochondrial density from training.

Optimal Mitochondrial density is essential in every cell of the body.

Whenever people talk about mitochondria in running or cycling, they are talking pure pseudoscience. For decades such ideas have been touted out of pure ignoracne of the fact that running is a skill and that skill can be greatly enhanced or lost according to how you train.

Jon Orange. wrote:

running is a skill and that skill can be greatly enhanced or lost according to how you train.

Are you saying we don't get fitter we just get better at running? If we have time off it's because we forgot how to run not because we got out of shape?

Jon Orange. wrote:

It's completely unrealistic to expect any increase in mitochondrial density from training.

I would hope by this point, there would be a reasonable expectation to include your sources for such conclusions. Without sources, and this goes for ALL posters... the credibility of your claims are significantly diminished (especially when they're directly challenging the conventional understanding of the subject).

I have a graduate degree in Exercise Physiology, and degree in Sports Psychology... and I'm an endurance coach, with competitive training and racing experience. The convergence of the various disciplines that make up my background would continuously tangle and knot up if I didn't maintain (or work very hard to do so) an objective and practical mindset. I don't always succeed, but it's not from lack of effort.

I've read this entire thread, and found it very interesting, informative, and at times frustratingly childish! Of course the union of intuition and peer review science is (at times) messy, but I also believe the two are not mutually exclusive when it comes to the advancement of knowledge, and the practical application of training for increased exercise performance.

RE: Mitochondrial Density and Exercise Training

I do not have full access to this article yet, so my river is limited... however I found this to be relevant to the discussion, at least in part with respect to (assumed) adaptations to consistent aerobic exercise training over prolonged periods of time (weeks, months, years).

Lundby, Anne-Kristine & Jacobs, Robert & Gehrig, Saskia & de Leur, Jeroen & Hauser, Moritz & Bonne, Thomas & Nowak-Flück, Daniela & Dandanell, Sune & Kirk, Niels & Kaech, Andreas & Ziegler, Urs & Larsen, Steen & Lundby, Carsten. (2017). Exercise training increases skeletal muscle mitochondrial volume density by enlargement of existing mitochondria and not de novo biogenesis. Acta physiologica (Oxford, England). 222. 10.1111/apha.12905.

Method:

Skeletal muscle samples were collected from twenty-one healthy males prior to and following 6 weeks of endurance training.

Result:

MitoVD increased with 55 ± 9% (P < 0.001), whereas the number of mitochondrial profiles per area of skeletal muscle remained unchanged following training. Citrate synthase activity (CS) increased (44 ± 12%, P < 0.001) however, there were no functional changes in oxidative phosphorylation capacity (OXPHOS, CI+IIP ) or cytochrome c oxidase (COX) activity.

Note: Increased volume density (hypertrophy of existing mitochondria), but NOT increased quantity of mitochondria... NO functional changes in oxidative phosphorylation or cytochrome c oxidase activity.

This is just one of many modern studies relating to endurance training and physiological adaptations that may challenge the conventional way of thinking... keep an open mind, keep learning, and respect the debate.

So what is volume density supposed to mean? And why is there a big increase in citrate synthase activity but no change in oxidative phoshporylation capacity?

I question everything that makes no sense, don't you? Isn't that an important part of keeping an open mind?

bageltoast wrote:

Jon Orange. wrote:

running is a skill and that skill can be greatly enhanced or lost according to how you train.

Are you saying we don't get fitter we just get better at running? If we have time off it's because we forgot how to run not because we got out of shape?

I see them as the same thing. You're only as good as your training and racing. Your running skill becomes more and more honed and then that somehow changes when the mental focus changes. This can happen to young runners as well as older ones.

The thing we are aiming for is the ability to hold optimal muscle tension for longer periods. Debating 'aerobic development' ad infinitum is not a true exercise physiological approach, because it ignores the skill aspect. But expecing good science to win over bad science is also unrealistic because in the real world, misinformation often becomes 'conventional wisdom' even if it's complete nonsense.

This thread is about Bob Schul's training, which was specific to the demands of the paces he was racing at, namely high intensiy aerobic, which also has a significant anerobic energy contriubution, because the two are mutually inclusive. This tends to get misinterpreted.

In terms of 'aerobic base training' any good training schedule is a gradual build up to a peak and then a sustaned peak and then gradual or sudden decline which I don't really need to explain, that's for another thread.

Jon Orange. wrote:

So what is volume density supposed to mean? And why is there a big increase in citrate synthase activity but no change in oxidative phoshporylation capacity?

I question everything that makes no sense, don't you? Isn't that an important part of keeping an open mind?

Personally, I'm comfortable questioning everything... regardless if it makes sense or not. I'm not going to dismiss information because I don't understand it, and I'm never going to fully commit to "conventional wisdom" either. Objectivity is the key.

Before digging into the "theories" of what that study shows (and leaves unanswered)... it's important to point out that the primary point of my post was to respond to your statement.

It's completely unrealistic to expect any increase in mitochondrial density from training.

There are enough validated studies (repeatable), spanning decades, and multiple exercise modalities, to confidently confirm that "endurance" training (one of many variations) will lead to an increase in skeletal muscle mitochondrial density. This has nothing to do with what it all means in relation to human performance... it has to do with weather it happens or not. It happens... there's really no valid argument to further deny this repeatedly observable result.

The other, finer details of the study will have to wait... like I said, I don't have access to the full article, and speculation drawn over conclusions outside the primary scope of the intended study is pointless. For instance, GM can increase the overall size of the factory, and increase activity inside the factory via any number of variables, but without proportionally increasing the supportive infrastructure, overall vehicle production capacity will remain the same, or even decrease when normalized to the new square footage. Now before you seize on this last comment, you should know that it is intentionally generalized to the point of absurdity... to make a broader point.