Discussion: Aerobic vs Anaerobic Fatigue

Your place to post about exercise technique and research

Discussion: Aerobic vs Anaerobic Fatigue

Postby Alex on Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:08 am

A few points to kick things off with:

    Which form do you most suffer with consistently and how does it affect the way you train?
    Which do you think hinders progression with weight training the most?
    What methods of prevention would you use - practical or through nutrition/supplementation?
    Do you think the Supplement Industry is getting it wrong by seemingly only targeting Aerobic fatigue through Stim-based formulas?
    Do you think Anaerobic targeted supplements like CQ10, Ribose, etc, are better served for those with good Aerobic capacity and that Aerobic targeted supplements are wasted?
'Behave like you are the best...and you'll have the best chance of being the best you can be.'

'Be effective: do what works...and keep doing it.'

'Bask in the turbulence of my magnificence.'
User avatar
Ultimate Contributor
Posts: 10604
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:05 am

Re: Discussion: Aerobic vs Anaerobic Fatigue

Postby simon m on Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:28 pm

Aerobic Fatigue is more temporary than Anaerobic and certainly in rugby blowinh hard you can live with,. but muscle fatigue, cramping etc., ends your game. Sosups such as Taurine are very useful imo
Have YOU kissed your guns today?!
User avatar
simon m
Ultimate Contributor
Posts: 8720
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:08 pm
Location: London

Re: Discussion: Aerobic vs Anaerobic Fatigue

Postby Spit on Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:23 am

Good questions Alex. I suffer from both! Lactate build-up on race-length DH runs (legs in this country, arms when in the Alps), but also a lack of aerobic fitness which you really need to cope with a hard weekend's riding. I don't think my time in the gym particularly helps either, it's too focused around heavy-ish weights as that's what I enjoy.

I tried a run on Beta Alanine a couple of years ago when I went out to do the Megavalanche- can't say I noticed a difference, but then it's impossible to compare objectively in such an uncontrolled setting. It does seem to have died away as a supplement, it was much-vaunted at the time.

P.S. To echo what Simon said: you can catch your breath, but I know from downhilling that once my triceps and forearms are trashed then the rest of the day is going to be reduced to damage limitation.
User avatar
Dedicated Member
Posts: 1338
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:42 am

Re: Discussion: Aerobic vs Anaerobic Fatigue

Postby julesm on Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:24 am

my advice stop riding around on an iron horse and join the carbon revolution

surprised that you didnt find beta alanine useful- of all the ergogenics out there- it is the one which appears to have the studies to back its alleged efficacy
User avatar
Ultimate Contributor
Posts: 2219
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:31 pm

Re: Discussion: Aerobic vs Anaerobic Fatigue

Postby Dtlv74 on Sat Feb 04, 2012 1:04 pm

Nice topic!

Well my take is this - the energy spectrum goes:

immediate energy from ATP (Anaerobic)

second stage energy from phosphocreatine (Anaerobic)

third stage from lactate (Anaerobic)

fourth stage Aerobic from fat.

So to do anything that involves any significant power output (like resistance training) requires fitness in the first three stages.

In respect of training up the immediate ATP system, just about the only thing you can do to keep this working as optimal as possible (as far as I know) is avoid being in ketosis, as ketosis slows the rate of ATP conversion from ADP.

For the PC system, supplement with creatine. For the lactate system, beta alanine and bicarb loading both work effectively to delay fatigue. In respect of exercise, progressive training in the lactate threshold helps improve capacity of both, because to get to the lactate system you have to pass through the phosphocreatine system.

Aerobic performance is not limited by energy supply (as even a tiny bit of intramuscular fat goes a long way), but by cardiovascular fitness - an unconditioned heart muscle, and lack of mitochondria. Both of these two things are improved fairly quickly by progressive duration of low impact training imo.

For me my natural limitation is probably the ATP and phosphocreatine systems. I'm not at all naturally very powerful in short bursts at all and don't at all have impressive max all-out strength, but cope much better as exercise progresses into the lactate zone or into the aerobic system.

Classic example here for me is athletics at school. I have a decent sprint when at full speed but crap acceleration - at 100m (all ATP and PCr) I'd come nowhere; at 200m I'd place better but still nothing decent (still mostly PCr), but at 400m when everyone else was starting to suffer from lactic acid I'd usually burn past people at the end and finish well (would seem to be finally beaten by the lactate after withstanding it for longer than most)... and at 800 and 1500m I never finished a race worse than 3rd place in five years. Cross country was great at too.
User avatar
Ultimate Contributor
Posts: 3048
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:50 pm
Location: SW England

Return to Exercise Kinesiology and Research

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 27 guests