Back on the track for the first time since Tues. 3 days with not much training due to the tooth infection and end of school. A little weak perhaps, have not slept the entire night through in 3 days. Tooth infection seems to be slowly improving. My friend Dr. Scott seemed incredulous that I'm not on antibiotics. It only seems bad at night, jaw hurts, can't open mouth fully (maybe a good thing?)
Sunny, N breeze, 48º, not bad training weather. But the workout sucked. No speed. I need to get back to short speed training, form, strength. Just generally lame today.
Hoka trainers on
stretches, drills, bands, 100m
100m stride - 16.7
Hoka rocket x2s on
2x300, 200, 100m w/ 3 min rest - 51.79, 54.56, 38.11, 14.44
If I had gutted out the final 300, it probably would have been 56+. Here's the HR data:
300m - HR peak 176, recovered to 133
300m - HR peak 185, recovered to 145
200m - HR peak 170, recovered to 147
100m - HR peak 164, recovered to 142 in 1:30
138.4 lbs after workout. Lightest this season. Didn't help me run fast though.
Planning on being back out on Monday, late afternoon, maybe just do some 50s and 100s.
Made some cookies this evening out of oat bran and protein powder with walnuts and chocolate chips. So far that's all I've eaten today as of 8pm (not good). I need to eat more and better. Thinking about eating more varied whole grains for carbs instead of just oat bran, like barley and quinoa.
UPDATE:
I put a call into Dr Scott, I'll be on Augmentin antibiotic tomorrow, I'm afraid this infection isn't done yet.
The best barley I’ve found. Quinoa is good but high in oxalate have dairy with it https://a.co/d/e7pa5Ab
ReplyDeleteI wonder what Atria would say about this study. Summary: 1) Excessive exercise training induces substantial mitochondrial respiratory impairment
ReplyDelete2) Mitochondrial impairment is associated with impaired glucose tolerance. I’m 8 skis into the season..it is so hard.. noticing worse glucose control on my CGM. https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(21)00102-9
the study has some misnomers. they talk about 'sprint interval training' ... which is total BS under their methods. 5x4min and 5x8min are not 'sprint intervals' ... more like what an endurance athlete like a miler would do. No one can 'sprint' for 4 min repeatedly.
DeleteProbably because they are researchers and not track sprinters. I don’t get concerned about those type of definitions as they don’t define (pun intended) the study quality. I’m not expert in their methodology so can’t comment on any pitfalls there but their study design seems good and results track. What does give me pause though was the supporting data of the world class cohort for glucose disregulation - they had equal average blood sugar than the controls but slightly higher during afternoon and lower over night. I don’t think that qualifies as disregulation - and leads me to question their judgment in including it. Minor differences there. But the glucose and glycogen and lactate responses over the training cycles looks significant and I trust they know what they are doing for mitochondria evaluation.
DeleteMy comment about Attia was in that 15 minute video you shared his interviewer rambled on towards the end about a study that showed U shape curve for exercise volume and CAC (which didn’t correlate to mortality so meaning is still being debated) and Attia pointed out all the other exercise benefits including glucose control. He has had researcher guests discussing mitochondria health and the hypothesis (mentioned in the report as hotly or strongly debated) as causative for T2D. Yet here is mechanistic evidence suggesting potential harm to mitochondria and glucose disregulation may lead to inflammation and endothelial dysfunction potentially causing plaque deposits. Researchers are supposed to connect the dots from disparate information sources so I’d like to hear his take (as I said he has a full time employee digging into these studies). Maybe follow on studies contradicted this one.
ReplyDelete11 athletes for 4 weeks proves nothing. 4-8min intervals are typically used by more serious recreational athletes, who may be training 4-5 times per week, long runs of 60 mins + and doing so for many years. So unpicking the criticality of intensity versus volume versus training age or all combined is a whole separate exercise. Short term degrading of cells may be counter balanced by longer term positive developments etc etc.
ReplyDeleteU shaped curve samples often lack sufficient subjects at the extreme volume end of the curve.
The overall postulation may well be valid but most studies dont cut the required stats.
You must SPRINT Page. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11332-018-0498-2
DeleteI think you are misinterpreting the U shaped curve references. Every study has some basis for being conducted, or a hypothesis. Their hypothesis was if the U shaped curve is true, then, mitochondrial damage may be the cause. So the question is does this study provide new insights into mitochondrial impact from intense exercise, specifically mitochondrial dysfunction? I run a lot of studies and have had a lot of statistic courses. Laymen disparage studies they don’t understand by bashing sample size. Studies with the least power are actually uncontrolled epidemiological studies. They sound impressive as they have thousands of samples. For example the study from the early 60’s that correlated fats to heart disease even though there were outlier countries that broke the correlation. Trans fats were introduced to lower saturated fats which actually killed more people. Those types of studies are quite useful for the next studies that are prospective designed to evaluate hypotheses from the epidemiological study. The icing on the cake and highest level of evidence is when you can combine it with cellular mechanisms like they attempted in this study. So from a design standpoint this study is really good. About sample size, in this case we are talking sigma and power. To have high power in uncontrolled studies you need a large sample. A controlled study the sample size can be much smaller. Just eyeballing the data there is a clear statistical difference. The method of generating the response (interval length) is not really that important, it was continuously increasing the intensity over the training cycles to study glucose response and mitochondrial damage. It would be a interesting experiment to see if they did shorter harder intervals, increasing intensity over time, if they saw the same result. (What would be the hypotheses to test in that case?)The thing that you said which makes a lot of sense is whether or not it is short term and have other positive benefits. I wondered the same and I’m sure the authors do as well maybe it is in the study somewhere. It absolutely could be meaningless or even might develop positive mitochondrial results with recovery or maybe it does cause long term cellular damage, adding evidence for the U shaped hypotheses. So they teach you in model based problem solving to state the hypothesis and have evidence for and evidence against, I think this study has enough quality to he in the evidence for column. And it provides ideas to refine or build additional hypothesis to build a study around. Eventually the truth will come out.
DeleteTo I must sprint: I admit to sometimes thinking about it but I wouldn’t be very good and would get hurt. Besides that I love this sport too much
Deletehttps://youtu.be/sFtX2FzIuWQ?si=jFKplV92mxopFOI8
https://youtu.be/MI6YMQksC0s?si=r01cCNZ1MEYudhJK
Skied 10 times so far this season