#61 - Volume versus intensity with Dr David Bishop
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 มิ.ย. 2024
- Dr Glenn McConell chats with Professor David Bishop from Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia. He has a broad background in exercise physiology research and has focused for many years on exercise and muscle mitochondria. He finds that low volume, prolonged exercise tends to increase mitochondrial volume more than mitochondrial function while sprint exercise training does the opposite, increasing mitochondrial function more than mitochondrial volume. He hypothesizes that polarized type training may be best to get increases in both mitochondrial function and mitochondrial volume. A very interesting chat. David’s Twitter: @BlueSpotScience
0:00. Introduction
2:45. Defining the different training zones
4:30. More to being an endurance athlete than the mitochondria
6:15. Intensity vs volume for mitochondrial responses
8:30. Dissociations between mito function and mito volume
10:35. Mechanisms involved?
Takeaway messages
12:05. Issues with normalizing mitochondrial findings?
15:20. Applying results at rest, in recovery to during exercise
18:00. Isolated mito results correlate with NMR?
18:50. Polarized training best to get both mito function and volume?
23:30. Can’t assume signaling etc changes affect performance
27:35. Determinants of exercise performance
28:50. Lactate threshold and mitochondrial function
32:15. Training volume most important for mito content
33:20. Overtraining vs energy deficit
36:05. Should tailor training based on VO2 max?
38:35. VO2 max vs lactate threshold
40:00. VO2 max and running economy not linked?
44:20. Resting vs maximum heart rate
45:45. Sodium bicarbonate, lactate, training and mitochondria
49:46. Is training specificity overrated?
55:15. Interval training work: rest ratios
58:20. High intensity interval training and mito damage
1:01:30. Need lab testing?
1:05:10. Important to be concerned about training zones?
1:07:55. Tends to be in polarized training camp
1:11:55. Considering the needs/physiology of the event/sport
1:15:30. Takeaway messages
1:17:10. Issues re mito function per mg of muscle
1:21:15. Outro (9 seconds)
Inside Exercise brings to you the who's who of research in exercise metabolism, exercise physiology and exercise’s effects on health. With scientific rigor, these researchers discuss popular exercise topics while providing practical strategies for all.
The interviewer, Emeritus Professor Glenn McConell, has an international research profile following 30 years of Exercise Metabolism research experience while at The University of Melbourne, Ball State University, Monash University, the University of Copenhagen and Victoria University.
He has published over 120 peer reviewed journal articles and recently edited an Exercise Metabolism eBook written by world experts on 17 different topics (link.springer.com/book/10.100....
Connect with Inside Exercise and Glenn McConell at:
Twitter: @Inside_exercise and @GlennMcConell1
Instagram: insideexercise
Facebook: Glenn McConell
LinkedIn: Glenn McConell / glenn-mcconell-83475460
ResearchGate: Glenn McConell
Email: glenn.mcconell@gmail.com
Subscribe to Inside exercise:
Spotify: shorturl.at/tyGHL
Apple Podcasts: shorturl.at/oFQRU
TH-cam: / @insideexercise
Anchor: anchor.fm/insideexercise
Google Podcasts: shorturl.at/bfhHI
Anchor: anchor.fm/insideexercise
Podcast Addict: podcastaddict.com/podcast/402...
Not medical advice - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Thanks to inside exercise for bringing subject experts and sharing their knowledge with the public 🎉❤
All the running programs have a mixture of slow and fast days so it's kind of common knowledge for endurance athletes.
Just listened to David’s suggestion at the end to train volume just above the first threshold. That’s what I have been doing for the past year (2-2.5 hours 3 times a week) and getting great results. My estimated FTP up to around 370W from around 345W. I do one high intensity session per week (usually a classic VO2 max) and one long ride (4-6 hours) at much lower than first threshold. I suspect most cyclists aren’t getting the improvements they could get by riding too low intensity for 1-2 hours trying to do Z2 on the Coggen scale. If they ride 4-6 hours then that intensity is probably right, but its likely too low for 1-2 hours at a time in my view.
As best I can tell, most of those advocating lots of Z2 training (Coggan scale), are generally saying to do it at the very top of Z2. That is, riding at LT1/VT1, or perhaps slightly below. So David's suggestion is really only to go slightly harder than that more typical prescription, and to instead ride at the very bottom of Coggan Z3.
Z2 is a zone with a range. Shorter efforts top of zone, Longer efforts lower in the zone. Not so difficult I think. The confusion only comes from some journalists and youtubers saying polarized easy is really easy. No its not. 4-5 hours low Z2 is not a walk in the park, t least not in the last hour, neither is 90min at the top of the zone.
@@gerrysecure5874 agree. Surprising how often the word ‘easy’ is used to describe Z2. If you’re just starting out with an hour at a time it may feel easy as if you’re aerobically unfit you’ll hit your target HR without much effort. Your legs will feel like they haven’t had a workout but your heart and other parts of your aerobic system will have been stressed to a higher degree. It will take a lot of repetition over time for the heart stress to align with the leg stress.
I have exercised daily for over a decade 👍, the best drug out there.
I add Sauna and Steambath. Better than a drink at rhe bar. 🙏🏻👹🏊♀️🏋🏻
Thank you for these podcasts. They are informative and helpful. I am a rower and coach, so I listen as a practitioner. I have listened to and read research from Dr Bishop and others, e.g. Inigo San-Millan, Stephen Seiler, Peter Attia, and many others. Their work seems to generally come to the same endurance sport training recommendation…. 1. Do a lot of ‘lower intensity’ (approximately LT1,
Great you are enjoying the podcast and finding it helpful. What you summarize generally makes sense to me although there are many ways to increase fat oxidation. Have you seen Andrew Coggan‘s podcast comments about intensity and fat oxidation? Podcast number 41. Also Lars Nybo’s number 52. Lars said he saw the highest fat oxidation during a long hard session after participants had done a whole bunch of high intensity exercise and drank CHO etc.
This gave a lot to think about! Thanks
Congratulations on the interview, which was really interesting, both from the interviewer and the interviewed. I would like to ask if you could give further references of the studies around the use of sodium bicarbonate related to endurance adaptations; it really shook up my curiosity, especially as I overheard some vague comments about bicarbonate use in Jumbo-Visma cycling team during their incredible performance this season. Thank you very much, keep up the great work
Thanks! I’ve asked David and will post once I get a reply.
There is a specific lactate threshold for each running distance.
My suggestion to test mitochondrial function and volume is establish two groups that are selected by muscle biopsy: one group 50% slow twitch and 50% fast twitch. And then a second group that is 80% slow twitch and 20% fast twitch. Next, divide the groups into smaller groups of three and then for 6 to 12 weeks compare one third of 50/50 and 80/20 doing slow runs and high volume, one third of 50/50 and 80/20 doing moderate volume training in the lactate training zone and one third of 50/50 and 80/20 doing even less volume but doing VO2 max/sprint training. My guess is that there will be similar improvement in mitochondrial function and volume in all three training zones but that the 50/50 group will respond better to the higher intensity and the 80/20 group to the lower intensity training.
Great interview and discussion, thanks. I’d be interested in your view on whether HR based Vo2 max estimates (eg like Garmin’s using a heart rate strap and doing exercises over 70% max HR) are really estimates of Vo2 max or are also capturing other things such as mitochondrial function? I can’t help think its doing both, but then Garmin says their measure is highly correlated with directly measured VO2 max.
When he says zone 2 he's talking about a 3 zone system so the bottom of zone 2 is the top of zone 2 in a 5 zone system (?) . . . The take away is just get out there and train.
Hi! I was listening to the suggestion to perform volume training just above VT1 for greater adaptation. He mentioned “Javier’s study.” I think I’ve found Javier on research gate, but can some guide me to the particular study referenced? I’m trying to find it be “reading a book by its cover.” But, this hasn’t been fruitful. Please help!
I think that people are in great difficulties to understand Dr Coogan... his zones are not related with physiological zones...he said: these are not zones...they are "levels" of work... I am a humble coach and also an old rider...I am 55 now still racing... Dr Coogan has a practical aproach. I used a lot of lactates tests in myself and in my riders...in practice they were of no use... in a lab to describe a physiological function they are usefull of course but for performance ifself...you will have a mmol number that can change drastically on the next day...I think tha this is what Dr Coogan was trying to explain. I use in my work some ideas of Dr Seiler about recovering. I use some ideas about lsd also, San Milan etc... a synthesis of all studies of these big names. We must respect all of them and try to find what they have in common and use it.
I don't agree with lactate tests being useless. For instance, I think that INSCYD and Sebastian Weber have in a very smart and effective way integrated extensive field lactate testing into metabolic profiling and individualization. It's not the whole picture, but I think they have nailed a very important part of relating the external load with the inner strain and individual prescription. They work with Alpecin, Jumbo Visma, Bora - Hansgrohe with great success. I would strongly recommend checking out on them and even inviting Sebastian to the podcast.
I'd be curious what he says about training for mitochondria in fast twitch v slow twitch fibers. I'm not sure if he ever talks about fiber type responses to training. Same with Gibala.
Good point. I’ll have to remember to ask someone that at some stage.
At 49.11 it is said that sodiumbicarbonate is lowering the pH value. I'm sure he meant 'elevates'. 😘
Yes indeed. I didn’t notice that. Good pick up. Thanks.
Maffetone advicates 2-2 years of low intensity only in order to build an aerobic base, then add in speed work.
is it a myth that 'lactic tolerance' sessions (not a technically accurate term but it conveys the meaning) i.e. 400m sprint training for tolerating the burn (hydrogen ions) harms mitochondria?
Exercise can affect mitochondria function and volume, but, and I may have missed it... what about number of mitochondria per muscle cell, is that just genetically fixed??
How does bicarbonate get into the blood if it has to get past stomach acid first? I read a couple of days ago that it has to be injected and if I knew I was going to watch this video I would have saved a link. Serum bicarbonate travels throughout the body as carbon dioxide. Healthy kidneys remove excess acid but I have only one kidney (lost one to cancer) and I hardy ever suffer from DOMS but I do suffer from cramps after a hard day hiking. Exercise is suppose to improve kidney function. Dont know if a keto diet as any impact but I read it helps. I dont do keto for performance but for high A1C if I dont. I only eat carbs the day of and the day before a big workout (7-8 thousand kcal hike)
Ingesting sodium bicarbonate from the supermarket (cheap) definitely increases blood bicarbonate levels. I’ve done studies on it and for the whole study it cost me $1 for the bicarbonate. Definitely don’t need to inject if.
So did Igloi have it right?
If I can suggest two persons of interest, it would be great to have Sebastian Weber and Iñigo San Millán in your program
Thanks for these great interviews! Apart from the many interesting things about mitochondrial function,… this is a super good example on how misleading and unclear the term „Zone 2“ is. Bishop puts it just above LT1, whereas Seiler put it just below in your interview with him. For professional athletes I think Seiler‘s interpretation is far more realistic as the absolute carb usage even in this lower Zone 3 (Coggan) in a pro-athlete is too high to maintain a long ride every day, even with carb uptake. If you train more than 10hours/week, I think the classical LIT training, with at least 80% (90% time) of your training below LT1, is the way to go if you want a sustainable training routine. Even if there might me initially faster adaptations with higher intensity methods.
In my humble opinion, training zones are mental models to describe inner processes, substrate utilization, etc. They are not misleading per se; every model has a context and a certain utility, and you need to be sure that you're on the same page with the specific subject being addressed. For instance, dr. Seiler's 3 zone representation is absolutely valid and useful, and it's not contradictory for instance with other models; it's just a terminology coincidence problem, but when looked at close there's nothing really contradictory between them. For example, here's a recent clarification of Dr. Iñigo San Millan: what he names 'zone 2' would fall into Seiler's zone 1, but apart from that terminology issue they're not contradicting each other
th-cam.com/video/VcYyHXHTeuk/w-d-xo.html
@@farukmouhrat6513 thanks for your response! Of course training zones are super useful and important in my opinion. The problem is that you really have to precisely define the training zones according to external or internal parameters. With the term „Zone 2“ of San Millan that’s not the case. I really watched hours of videos about his definition of it. But he likes to link the zones (he promotes a 6 Zone model) to different muscle fibre types as well as substrate utilisation. The latter of course can be „easily“ measured via spiroergometry, the fibre types not directly. If you want to combine the 3 zone model of Seiler with the 6 Zones of San Millan, it’s not as easy as you might think at first. Seilerˋs zones are oftentimes based on HR and the lactate thresholds. Zone 2 of San Millan is also described as „fatmax“. This intensity level is interindividually very different, also the relative percentage of FTP, VO2max and relation to LT1. So for example some people/coaches think Zone 2 is right on the LT1/VT1, just between Seilerˋs Zone 2 and Zone 3. Maybe that’s only tiny nuances, but I am a fan of precisely defined physiological parameters 😅
@@BeboHermann You're absolutely right that devil is in the details! Exactly, we sometimes forget that the specific physiological adaptation being pursued, or energy system targeted is not a precise spot nor an isolated 'fact', but more of a dynamic range (proxied by HR, power, ventilatory amplitude, etc) that will overlap with other systems, and even vary for instance from day to day depending on recovery, or even during a single long enough workout... where you can begin in zone X but drift up and end into zone Y without changing the load because of the 'inner strain' as dr. Seiler puts it. I really like how one author's view nuances the others'... it's fascinating. I recently stumbled on Sebastian Weber's (INSCYD) talks and work and he's really systematic, all about details and specificity of adaptation, really recommend checking him out as a bridging link. He also uses VLa max as a metabolic profiling parameter. Cheers from Spain!
@@farukmouhrat6513 thanks for the tip! I’ll check him for sure! 🙏
well not everyone is burning carbs at that point in the same rate. I have asthma since 34 years and discovered that a low carb diet helps greatly with being symptom free without meds when running. After a while i realized even when i do higher intensities my body is not looking or craving any sugar. So fat burning has greatly increased to higher intensities. Of course this is a longer adaptation process but i feel really motivated to train a bit higher knowing my fat burning is improved anywas. This is a very indirect measure as well but i was always after higher intensities craving sugar at some point with tennis as well. It is just gone now and a very precise indicator that our bodies can do lots of things, even stuff advanced researchers are not even considering or talking about at all.
To me it’s insanity to try to definitively say to be slightly above LT1 for optimum adaptations vs slightly below. I just don’t think we have the resolution in the testing to be that definitive. It’s similar to people on the running side being real hard core about doing certain reps at “91-93% of VO2 max instead of 88%-90%. Give me a friggin break. Physiology is so complicated, and the variability from person to person means we can probably hit a bullseye from 100 yards out, but we aren’t dotting an “I” with a bullet. Also, the zones are like faders….not switches…..so these perfectly drawn lines some people claim simply aren’t there.
Anecdotally, an interesting story to hear is the story of Mark Allen, the triathlete champ from the late 80s and early 90s. Dude was always at the top every year but couldn’t win the big one. He dedicated himself to MAF….and his fastest pace below LT1 was around 8:15-8:30. Dude got it down to 6:00/mile in about 6 months, won the first of his 6 World titles, and had the fastest marathon leg at Kona for about 20-25 years before super shoes took it over.
Explain then how Renato Canova has most olympic champions and world record holders from 800m to marathon than any other coach? And he gives famously (his lecture is on youtube) 50% of intensity and 50% of easy stuff for his athletes which is totally against 80-20 principle. But he says it's only for elite athletes but still, you simply cannot say that specific stuff doesn't work when WR holders train 50% specifically.
8km/hr is not slow walking . . . LOL
Yes I think he misspoke
Looks like another theoretical explanation on the cellular level why polarized training is superior.
could be confirmation bias
@@KernoeWhat you want to say ? Coggans completely rediculously made up 'Effect Curve' using arbitrary units showing that high L6 has same "Training Effect" as Z1, with Z3 at the top is more convincing than tons of practical experience, cellular explanation and actual comparison studies ?I think the idea that a single training type is "better" than others is faulty. Then throwing in multiple just leaves the question how much of each. Finding that the middle has the least bang for the buck long term is easy and you end up polarized. This does not exclude the middle intensity entirely but certainly doesn't put it at the center.
@@gerrysecure5874 just said could be. Get it no news to me what you are saying.
Interesting and good INFO on what the body is doing .. Bottom line again, just do some consistent work over time. No need to run yourself into the ground by over doing it UNLESS you are just trying to improve ~greatly over time.