'Why you may need to exercise less...' Chris Kresser

[Odevans]

Quote

And to be fair to you running a mile and a half almost as fast as 40 year old man, is pretty damn good going too ;-)

Oh, and when I crush your deadlift I will bottle your tears :-D

I throw you a compliment, and you stab me in the chest!

You've cut me deep, Elvis

When we eventually go diving together, keep a close eye on those tanks of yours

[Elvis]

You started it! :-p

[Odevans]

Quote

You started it! :-p

I will find you, and i will kill you - YouTube

[Elvis]

Quote

I only ask because books aimed at people looking for instruction on training technique often overlook or misinterpret the basic science that underlies how human bodies and metabolisms actually operate.

Is this true of say Starting Strength or Wendler 5/3/1?

I've always believed a good/consistent body of positive results for a program or training technique can make such discussions interesting "academic" diversions, whilst theory might useful for guiding further development of practice, it remains theory until it starts making such contributions.

Anyway, perhaps more pertinent

Quote

Jack Tupper Daniels (born April 26, 1933) is a former professor of physical education and cross-country running coach at Brevard College, in North Carolina. He received his doctoral degree in exercise physiology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Named "The World's Best Coach" by Runner's World magazine,[1] he led Cortland runners to eight NCAA Division III National Championships, 31 individual national titles, and more than 130 All-America awards.[2] Daniels outlined his training philosophies in the 1998 book, Daniels' Running Formula. He resides in Flagstaff, Arizona where he mentors and coaches some of America's top distance runners.

Jack Daniels (coach) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I still can't believe we've got to debating whether a moderate amount of moderate intensity exercise is useful.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Quote

Is this true of say Starting Strength or Wendler 5/3/1?

Possibly! I'd have to read what is advocated - and how and why it is thought to work - to know for sure.

Quote

I still can't believe we've got to debating whether a moderate amount of moderate intensity exercise is useful.

I don't think the debate is about that (certainly not from my point of view - would 30 minutes of brisk walking be considered a moderate amount of moderate intensity exercise?).

I don't doubt these coaches get results. I don't doubt that many of them have built up their methodologies based on the available scientific data. What I am questioning (not saying they are definitely right or wrong) is the assumption that the results achieved are a direct result of the methods working exactly as the science they cite in support of their particular method say they should.

For example, most authorities and textbooks say that a static wing creates lift this way:

Quote

How does air flow across a wing to generate lift? Since a wing's top surface is curved, it covers a greater distance compared to the flatter bottom edge. A common explanation is that air moves faster over the top so that it reaches the end of the wing at the same time as the bottom flow, lowering the pressure on the top surface.

But...

Quote

...this pressure explanation is just a myth, explains Holger Babinsky, professor of aerodynamics at the University of Cambridge. In an attempt to debunk the misconception, he filmed pulses of smoke flowing around an aerofoil. He pauses the motion in the video to show that the transit times over the top and bottom are not equal. The lines of smoke from the top have already surpassed the bottom ones once they reach the wing's tip.

Babinsky explains that, although lift is caused by a pressure change between the top and bottom surfaces, it's due to the change in the shape of the air flow, rather than its speed.

New Scientist TV: One-Minute Physics: How wings really create lift

So it is possible to believe science explains your observed results and still be in error.

Bringing it back to the topic at hand, many people believe VO2 max specifically - and lung capacity in general - are important factors in aerobic fitness because 'aerobic' is popularly translated as meaning 'with oxygen' - but without proper context.

If we are talking about the whole organism (in this case a human being) we are always existing 'aerobically' because we are always breathing (until we are dead, that is). So even when we are said to be engaged in 'anaerobic' activity ('without oxygen'), we are still breathing.

However, if we are talking about much smaller, simpler organisms (microbes), they can be said to be either aerobic or anaerobic. The same is true of cells within larger, more complex organisms - like humans. We have cells that can respire both aerobically and anaerobically (the vast majority) and a minority of cells that can only respire anaerobically - but whatever they are doing, as a whole organism, we are always utilising oxygen.

So, ultimately, it is the aerobic capacity of the cells that is most important. VO2 max is largely genetically determined. We have the ability to improve on that genetic potential by around 10%. Unfortunately, most methods used to determine VO2 max have a margin of error up to 10%. So someone may believe that they have improved their VO2 max score but the degree of improvement measured may be partly or wholly due to inherent measurement error.

So the question becomes: is the apparent change in lung and cardiovascular capacity as measured using VO2 max and heart rate, etc. the cause of improvement in aerobic fitness or merely the result of improvements in cellular aerobic capacity?

A further question would then be: is the improvement in cellular aerobic function due directly to the training modality used (working in the exact way proposed) or is it due to some other incidental factor operating in a way that is not fully explained by the science on which the modality was based?

As an observation: if you do a five mile run (endurance style) or a few sets of heavy squats with minimal rest between sets, are you breathing any harder/less hard with one or the other? Even though the former would be considered aerobic conditioning and the latter anaerobic conditioning, if the demands on your heart and lungs is just as great, why shouldn't you also achieve some cardiovascular/pulmonary conditioning with the latter as well as with the former?

EDIT: One last point I forgot to mention...
In my - albeit brief - research I found a reference to the limits of oxygen uptake by the alveoli in the lungs. Apparently, even though you may be able to increase lung capacity in terms of volume of air inhaled and the speed (or force) at which you can suck that air into your lungs, there is no further improvement in the amount of oxygen the alveoli can extract from that air.