"It is the point at which lactate removal by the muscles cannot keep up with lactate production, so lactate levels in the blood rise. The resulting high lactate levels in the blood impede muscle action, so the ability to keep working at a significantly high level drops significantly. This can be seen at the end of a 400m race when an athlete ties up." Athletic development, by Vern Gambetta, pg 124.

This from a published book by a compaby called Human Kinetics, I'm guessing they'll have a good editing dept, and fact verification. This is the Vern Gambetta, that has been a trainer for many profession sport teams, and was one of the founders and the first director of the USA Track and field Coaching Education Program.

If you read the little bit from above, I guess you can figure I disagree with you.


I never said "oxygen debt" sescribes all exercise intensities, I made many comments that I was refering to the Tabata protocol. If you can show me a way to follow Tabata protocol and not create an oxygen debt, I would like to know.

I would also use max inensity when it applies, however as I have stated when I talk with my clients about XX% of your 1 rep max, or focusing on this type of fiber or energy system, their eyes glaze over, it's too technical, they want laymans terms, so I put it in terms they can understand. Had I realized this was a university level academic forum I would have used different terms...maybe.



Ouch you won't like this if 50s 400m and a 60s 400m are still considered 100% the an 11s 100 and a 48s 400 are 100% 11s X 4 = 44s a 4 s difference much less that the 10s difference of your example.


I never said it applies to ALL forms of exercise, If I did please quote me and I will stand corrected.



I don't recall stating that Lactate causes Gh release, The article I provided said that Lactate augments GH sectretion(the body secretes more) not that it causes it, The Body naturally has GH bursts, it just so happens Lactate creates conditions were the body seems to respond by releasing more.

Even one of your articles seems to agree with this(I have not found access to read it yet though)
Summary: Anaerobic exercise also tends to lead to the production of more GH compared to aerobic training and is related to the intensity of the exercise

I don't know how I contradict my view on EPOC. The comment quoted from you basically states there are so many variables in resistance training that to find the "best" protocols or criteria is too difficult to compare HIIT and ET conclusively...it doesn't say anything about negating results found so far.

How does that refute EPOC? In only 20 weeks HIIT group(creates more EPOC) lost almost 3 times as much fat, now that is in mm, and I couldn't find any conversions for mm to lbs. Sounds like HIIT and EPOC are supported.

And as Don Alessi points out in his article it does.

You seem to read into what I type and or read words that aren't there. Neither Don Alessi nor myself said lactate was the cause of GH release, just that for some reason more GH is released in the presense of Lactate.

My 2 cents on lactate threshold.   Like others have said, it has been disproven that lactate acid causes fatigue.  Even though there is tons of literature that refers to lactic acid being the cause of fatigue, it is not.  However, lactate threshold can  still be used as measure point for performance.  One way to think of it is like ventricle (sp?) threshold (the point in exercise when your breathing becomes faster).  If you get tired while breathing faster, does that mean that it is the breathing that makes you get tired? No.  Breathing faster is a side effect of increased intensity.  Likewise increase in lactate levels does not mean that lactic acid makes you tired, but it is a side effect of increased intensity.

Interestingly, LT has been found to be a more accurate predictor of performance in endurance events than VO2 max.  That is say for a group of people running a 10k, if you were to line them up in order of VO2 max, that order would have little correlation to there finishing order*.  However if you line them up in order to of their LT (measured by the pace at which their lactate level sharply increase) there would be a much stronger correlation to their finishing order.  It is because of this strong correlation that coaches and researchers for years have talked about lactic acid and its believed side effects.  But as has been pointed out, lactic acid is not  is not actually the cause of fatigue it is only the side effect of increased intensity.  However, I myself when speaking to people I know still talk in terms of lactic acid, because from a pragmatic point of view, it is just easier to talk about and understand even though in the back of my mind I not it is not quite true.

*This point about VO2 only holds true with people of somewhat similiar VO2 maxs.  Obviously if someone has a VO2 max that is twice that of someone else there is a very high probability that the first person will beat the other person.

Well Steve you are correct, it is vague and over simplifiedthough I wasn't describing multiple states as you suggest - this thread was about Tabata method and that's what I was commenting on, I was describing the state you want to achieve in Tabata's I wasn't trying to describe any other protocol. Again I didn't realize you wanted University level academic answers.

I am accused of poor reasoning, but I will ask for what I think is the 3rd time, Tell me how you can do Tabata's without creating an oxygen debt(we are both well aware that compound exercises at high intensities are need otherwise how do you create the oxygen debt in the first place)? yep I was wrong typing that the debt causes the adaptations part of it was an over simplification and part if it was thinking one thing and typing another.

I figured I qualified this comment when I stated the exercise chosen should be done "all out" read Max Intensity in my very first post.


You read into what I say, I never said lactate causes GH release but it coincides with an increased lactate level, so if you train in a way to increase Lactate...there's a very good chance there will be an increase in the release of GH.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/2198.abstract

A study published in Feb/ 08 not even published in an exercise and physio Journal,done on mice where the researchers push the mice into an overtrained state actually not just an overtrained state but an absolutely exhausted state twice daily 90 minute swimms and their once weekly treadmill test was to the point where they couldn't continue even with prodding) And then a minimal number of humans for three days for 3 hours at 70%. But they weren't really studying the conditions of exercising (definitely not under "normal" protocols) nor were they trying to disprove Lactate Threshold(never once mentioned that in the article)...they had to push them to this extreme state to study a drug they have found/created (which looks like it will work esp in heart attacks and Congestive Heart Failure and possibly COPD) to counteract such conditions.

Here are some of the researchers comments:

"Taken together, these data suggest a possible mechanism by which Ca2+ leak via calstabin1-depleted RyR1 channels leads to defective Ca2+ signaling, muscle damage, and impaired exercise capacity. "

"On the other hand, exhausting exercise, such as that performed by a marathon runner or a long-distance cyclist, results in significant muscle damage and can impair task performance for days or weeks (23–25), although the mechanisms underlying this impairment in exercise capacity are not understood.

"The role of PKA phosphorylation of RyR1 remains controversial, however, because other groups have found little or no effect on channel function (10)"

Here is a study from 07/08 that says "the molecular mechanism underlying its depressive effect on muscular performance remains unresolved." I guess these researchers aren't up to date yet either and it's from the American Journal of cellular physiology or something like that.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18480297?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Again I have not said Lactate was THE(only) cause and evidently the lactate threshold theory and the thought that lactate contributes to muscular acidosis hasn't been disproven enough since there was a study published in May /07 and recently posted on 8/15/08 that will be republished in The European Journal of Applied Physiology, if it was truly, conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt disproven I don't think they would publish it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18704482?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

Heres another beauty mentioning Lactate Threshold from your esteemed pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18762454?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum 8/30/08...wait that has yet to be printed.


Please don't as you can see I am not a scientist and don't really want to make this a priority.



You can provide many studies proving it wrong, the above studies say otherwise, they are recent and from pubmed;)

As I have said I can agree to disagree.



Usually research is stating HIIT is done in less time than ET too, I guess the idea is that this is a bonus and if you extrapolate the energy expenditure over the same time and figure in those weight loss differences the changes becomes bigger.

This study doesn't specifically mention EPOC but basically has the same results for weight loss.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028502?ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Here's another one THAT DOES MENTION EPOC
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18469249?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Published MAY /08 FROM YOUR CHERISHED PUBMED
very interesting
The Institute of Medicine proposed that 15% of energy expenditure (EE) as excess post-exercise oxygen consumption should be added to additional physical activity energy expenditure (DeltaPAEE) to estimate total EE.
Sure it says"These results suggest that EPEE has a small effect on 24-h EE" but is significant enough it is adding it to the 24 hr energy expediture.

If the Institute of medicine from a G8 nation says it's a significant, and a lot of others that read research(yeah some of it may be too old for your liking) say it's significant, I'm prone to believe it's significant, here's one of those guys
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/berardi29.htm (take a look at his credentials and he says it's huge - what is a nobody like me supposed to think with all these differing opinions flying around out there from people way more educated than I, you say one thing a PH.D Candidate says another thing - TeddyO shrugs)

I never said max and relative intensity weren't important, I was refering to Tabata method(never did I say multiple states), that's why I suggested compound movements, with a much lighter weight than a 100% max intensity(weight in relation to the 1 rep max) for the given exercise and do the reps with good form but "all out"(relative intensity)

If you would have asked a few questions to clarify my view BEFORE reading too far into what I wrote this probably could have been avoided.

As it is you say it's all 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt conclusive, yet there is research out there that comes across as less conclusive, and others that should be "in the know" don't seem to agree it's 100% conclusive.



Are those claims backed up enough?

I guess neither one of us is as up to date on the research as we thought, or perhaps we both are and still choose to believe the articles we want. I am big enough to admit I don't know everything, are you? Can we call a truce?

Zac is right...especially when people come on here spreading what they think is fact.  These need to be corrected.

This brings me to my next point, Teddy.  You originally claimed that oxygen debt is the cause of body recomp...shall i remind you?



This is not true, and several facts have been presented that represent this very well.  Yet the argument continues and has grown into something quite silly now....below are explanations of the silliness.


OK great, we go into oxygen debt when we do tabatas.  Tabatas cause body recomposition.  But guess what, so does high intensity (meaning high weight compared with your 1RM with moderate volume) exercise that does not put you into an oxygen debt.

Saying oxygen debt is the cause is just plan, flat out WRONG.

The cause is the hormonal response that accompanies the oxygen debt, but is not caused by it.  If you are running in a race and win, did you win because someone else was running, or did you win while the other person was running?  IN this case, you just happened to win WHILE the other person was running.

Analogously, "winning the race" is the body recomp.  While oxygen debt was occurring, the hormonal response that is caused by OTHER factors (NOT the debt) is what causes the body recomp.

This is the third or fourth time we have said this.  Why is it so hard to grasp?


Again, 5th time at least.  You create the debt during tabatas but that is not the cause, sorry.


Yes, this is how you do tabatas.  Going "all out" will cause an oxygen debt due to intensity.  It will also create the stress required to stimulate body recomposition.  6th time.  Oxygen debt does NOT cause the body recomp.


The upsetting part here is that you ARE saying that Lactate causes GH releast and you don't even realize it.  Now, and ONLY now do you actually say that increased lactate accompanies GH release -- before you were saying it is the cause. You are not being careful with your words and confusing everyone, yourself included.


You know nothing of the publishing process, apparently.  I do, so maybe I should explain.

The reviewers and researchers do not always know what the hell they are talking about.  One of my customers had an ECG signal published as if it was an EMG signal.  No review board caught this and the researched honest to god thinks its an EMG signal.  If you look at the signal and know anything about physiology, this is clearly wrong and laughable.

Many studies are done by people with a poor grasp of science.  Its sad, but true.  This is why you need to read more than the Abstracts -- the methods must be clearly examined.  Hell, half of nutritional studies are done for less than 2 weeks in duration.  A human needs at least 3-5 weeks to adjust to a new diet.  These studies flood journals.

Hell, brother, I am published in 3 medical journals.  Honest to god, I don't even know the stuff that my name is on.  Being published, imho, means shit.  Read my article in this forum about "Common Mistakes" and I go into more detail on this.

Many of these publications lack PIs (Primary investigators) who have done an ample amount of literature review that can relate to other fields, many times.

PLUS, in addition to this, it doesn't make sense chemically as Steve pointed out.  Lactate production does not yield a free hydrogen ion which is what would dictate changes in pH levels.  Muscle acidosis is the factor that you are referencing and this is NOT caused by lactate -- it is simply not the chemical reaction that occurs in the body..


Yes.  While it correlates, it is not the cause.  Are we catching on here?  You need to understand correlation and causation.


Still no mention that LT is the cause.  No one is saying LT doesn't exist.  We are saying that increased LT is not a cause of fatigue.  Correlation vs. Causation.


I think you are in too deep now to avoid citations, esp if you are going to provide them....i just dont think steve wants to waste his time right now since digging up studies is time consuming...


You are being silly.  None of those studies say that LAC is the CAUSE of the fatigue.  They are saying it is present DURING fatigue.


God this is borderline annoying.

No one said EPOC doesn't exist.  We are simply saying that its contribution is negligible.  Sure, if you want to be complete, factor it into the caloric expenditure.  What you posted up here is consistent with what Steve said....the only thing you can't grasp is that in a 600 calorie bout, 15% is only 90 calories.  That's not even a whole banana, for christ's sake. 

Over the course of 5 months at 3 times per week, you burn something like 700 calories extra.  So in that whole time, you can attribute pretty much 1 meal to be burned off by EPOC.  In 5 months, you can eat well over 450 meals.  I hope you enjoy the 451st...


Significant is a relative term.  Sure 15% is significant on a metabolic scope -- but look at the big picture of practical diet, exercise and nutrition....as stated above...its stupid.

BTW, just because someone is a Ph. D candidate (or Ph. D holder) does NOT make them smart....sorry.


You don't understand the studies you are posting.  None of them have contradicted what Steve said at all.  And these people who you think are "in-the-know" are likely not as knowledgeable as you think.


No.  You don't understand what you are claiming enough to back them up, apparently.  No offense intended.


I think you need to read my post again if you still think this statement is true.  You are "believing" things you don't understand.