Training & Nutrition - Lactic acid is fuel? NY Times story...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/nutrition/16run.html?ex=1147924800&en=ddc294b032596872&ei=5087%0A

Any thougths on this one? The story didn't go into specifics enough for me to understand their reasoning. I doubt cyclists will be altering their training significantly in the near future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/nutrition/16run.html?ex=1147924800&en=ddc294b032596872&ei=5087%0A

Any thougths on this one? The story didn't go into specifics enough for me to understand their reasoning. I doubt cyclists will be altering their training significantly in the near future.

Didn't go into specifics... heck it talked about how incomplete studies in the past lead to the issue of "lactic acid is bad," and how later studies have shown that the mitochondria both take up lactic acid and have a special protein for dealing with it.

Of course what you are looking for is how can I use this information to increase my abilities...

Well, right in the article it states:



Through trial and error, coaches learned that athletic performance improved when athletes worked on endurance, running longer and longer distances, for example.

That, it turns out, increased the mass of their muscle mitochondria, letting them burn more lactic acid and allowing the muscles to work harder and longer.

Just before a race, coaches often tell athletes to train very hard in brief spurts.

That extra stress increases the mitochondria mass even more, Dr. Brooks said, and is the reason for improved performance.

Seems like reps are the key... train hard to your peak in short bursts.

Good luck.

The author was out in left field and doesn't understand what he's writing about. The whole article is not very informative nor all that coherent. Maybe it's made-up like so many past NY Times articles that were later exposed.

Al

Lactic acid is the end product of glycolysis which is an anaerobic way of getting energy. Glycolysis, not being energy limited, can produce large amounts of energy in short spurts and it is the primary source of energy for sprints. Of course, waste products build up and that is the end of the sprint.

Now, there is absolutely no controversy that lactic acid in the end product of glycolysis.

Remember though that glycolysis liberates only a small amount of energy available in the intial molucule of the sequence, glucose. Lactic acid can be converted and burnt yielding far more energy.

I think the point of controversy here is whether lactic acid makes muscles stiff and sore or not. Since lactic acid is washed out of the muscles quickly, it may not be the cause of muscle soreness but that is not really the big point anyway. Scientists studying biochemical pathways have bigger fish to fry than the cause of muscle soreness.

Weird, eh?

NYTimes article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/nutrition/16run.html?ei=5087%0A&en=ddc294b032596872&ex=1147924800&pagewanted=print).


"Ride lots!" = )





Who was it up in NYC who'd do a ****load of laps, each on slightly faster?

A main principle of athletic science was based on this?!

"Its origins lie in a study by a Nobel laureate, Otto Meyerhof, who in the early years of the 20th century cut a frog in half and put its bottom half in a jar. The frog's muscles had no circulation — no source of oxygen or energy.

Dr. Myerhoff gave the frog's leg electric shocks to make the muscles contract, but after a few twitches, the muscles stopped moving. Then, when Dr. Myerhoff examined the muscles, he discovered that they were bathed in lactic acid.


A theory was born. Lack of oxygen to muscles leads to lactic acid, leads to fatigue."

A theory was born. Lack of oxygen to muscles leads to lactic acid, leads to fatigue."

good to hear that frog was just tired ;)

A main principle of athletic science was based on this?!
You'd be surprised how much antiquated scientific "facts" are based on simple and flawed experiments like this.

You'd be surprised how much antiquated scientific "facts" are based on simple and flawed experiments like this.

+1

look up the history of the 'placebo effect' sometime

Weird, eh?

NYTimes article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/nutrition/16run.html?ei=5087%0A&en=ddc294b032596872&ex=1147924800&pagewanted=print).


"Ride lots!" = )





Who was it up in NYC who'd do a ****load of laps, each on slightly faster?

Yeah, I ain't buying it.

good to hear that frog was just tired ;)

OMG you just made me snarf orange soda...

http://i4.tinypic.com/zvezb5.jpg

awesome?? :p

Well, the placebo effect exists. But to investigate it means getting into some really ****ing crazy neuroscience/biochemical stuff.

"Its origins lie in a study by a Nobel laureate, Otto Meyerhof, who in the early years of the 20th century cut a frog in half and put its bottom half in a jar. The frog's muscles had no circulation — no source of oxygen or energy.

Dr. Myerhoff gave the frog's leg electric shocks to make the muscles contract, but after a few twitches, the muscles stopped moving. Then, when Dr. Myerhoff examined the muscles, he discovered that they were bathed in lactic acid.


A theory was born. Lack of oxygen to muscles leads to lactic acid, leads to fatigue."


that f***** cut a frog in half! :mad:

that f***** cut a frog in half! :mad:


lol'd at this...

Well, the placebo effect exists. But to investigate it means getting into some really ****ing crazy neuroscience/biochemical stuff.

it may exist, but it's based on ONE paper that was written in (i think) 1955 or something...

that f***** cut a frog in half! :mad:

And all the frog did was use some gold on a Nagasawa...

Looks like yr right, consulting the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect)....

The phenomenon, if it exists at all, is not fully understood by science.


MYSTERIOUS

Thanks, great article.

While the article is interesting, it kind of overstates its case. Practically, as far as athletes and coaches are concerned, nothing has changed but the correct names for what's going on in your body. You will still get tired faster if you work harder. Dammit.

Lactic acid is the end product of glycolysis which is an anaerobic way of getting energy. Glycolysis, not being energy limited, can produce large amounts of energy in short spurts and it is the primary source of energy for sprints. Of course, waste products build up and that is the end of the sprint.

Now, there is absolutely no controversy that lactic acid in the end product of glycolysis.

Remember though that glycolysis liberates only a small amount of energy available in the intial molucule of the sequence, glucose. Lactic acid can be converted and burnt yielding far more energy.
This is absolutely wrong. Lactic acid is not the end product of glycolysis. Instead, Lactic acid is the end product of lactic acid fermentation. Lactic acid fermentation consists of glycolysis PLUS reactions that regenerate NAD+ by transferring electrons from NADH to pyruvate or derivatives of pyruvate. The end product of glycolysis is two pyruvate molecules and that's it. Anything further than that is not simply glycolysis anymore. When Oxygen is not present during glycolysis, the two pyruvate molecules enter fermentation - either lactic acid fermentation or alcohol fermentation. This process is anaerobic (without Oxygen). However, if Oxygen is present, the two pyruvate molecules enter the Citric Acid Cycle. Also, Glycolysis is in fact energy limited. Glycolysis requires two ATP to transform Glucose into Fructose-1, 6-bisphosphate. This is the energy investment phase of Glycolysis. This is all basic biology.

Figures. I'm overweight because I've been burning lactic acid, not fat.

Liposuck me.