6 ms·

Nah HIIT is not only more effective from my anecdotal experience but this is proven by science. Professional Athletes train with HIIT along with the long term w

Nah HIIT is not only more effective from my anecdotal experience but this is proven by science. Professional Athletes train with HIIT along with the long term workouts, but it's well known that HIIT is the greater causal factor that boosts ur endurance by a dramatic amount. For the first 5 years when I was doing this, HIIT was actually more painful then running 5 miles. When you come out of it, you should feel as if you did more damage. The first couple weeks you should be borderline ready to vomit. Additionally note some people don't genetically have the muscles to do this kind of training. For power you need the ACTN3 gene. If you never been a powerful sprinter in your life then stick with the slow runs.

DrOctagon 7y ago
If HIIT training is what boosts endurance, why don't any elite marathoners train in this way? Why do they run ~100 mi or more each week, mostly at a low intensity?
- angrysaki 7y ago
  I agree that HIIT is not some magical training methodology, and that elite endurance athletes do not train by only doing HIIT. My guess is that if you are only willing to train in the 3h/week range, maybe HIIT is your best bet. Steven Seiler has studied how most elite endurance athletes train, and found that they generally follow a polarized training model which is ~80% of sessions at low intensity (long endurence runs/rides/etc...) and 20% at high intensity. http://bikepartsreview.com/Polarized-training-for-cyclists.html http://bikepartsreview.com/Polarized-training-for-cyclists.h...
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  They do. Research has found that doing both types of training is most effective. What I am saying is that if you had to pick one, HIIT is more effective and faster in then long distance jogging. Also note that I'm not measuring marathon or ultra marathon performance here at the extreme level. That's a more specialized thing. I'm more talking about like your overall performance if you run a mile or run 7 miles or just hike up a hill. You will achieve faster and better results in this area if you do HIIT exclusively over Cardio exclusively. For marathons the results aren't as clear to me. Note that Roger Bannister the first person to achieve a sub 4 minute mile almost exclusively did HIIT. At the time it was thought that to train for the mile you must run the mile and that the 4 min barrier was impossible, Right after bannister broke the barrier other runners followed learning from bannisters training methods.
  - angrysaki 7y ago
    There hasn't been much research, but Stephen Seiler has done some studies with polarized training down to 5-8 hour per week athletes which works well in those situations. https://scientifictriathlon.com/tts177/#tab-con-16 https://scientifictriathlon.com/tts177/#tab-con-16 I think the reasoning is that there are 2 main signaling pathways for endurance adaptations, one from high intensity and one from low intensity and you want to stimulate both for maximal adaptation. The other part is that if you have more time to train, you simply can't do more and more HIIT without burning out. There are pro cyclists who did very little intensity until race season and just do lots of low intensity. From what I remember, even elite rowers generally follow an 80/20 polarized model and their events are in the 6-7 minute range.
    - crimsonalucard 7y ago
      A lot of training regimes are used because they are effective but not scientifically proven to be the best possible training method. I'm guessing that the examples you are talking about used training methods that were effective but not the scientifically verified to be optimal. It's possible these athletes may have hit their maximum potential but had to do way more training than necessary. It is scientifically verified that HIIT counterintuitively effects the aerobic signaling pathway at a greater rate than aerobic exercise itself. My other comment in this thread cites tons of good sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22157311 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22157311
  - DrOctagon 7y ago
    Thanks for replying, my comment above was a bit flippant and I just want to say well done on sticking with a training regime for such a long period of time. I've heard coaches say that, at a high level, being consistent and believing in your training approach is just as important as the specifics of the training. As you say blending high intensity and low intensity is important. Either or is a false dichotomy that it is easy to get caught in, and high/low intensity is better than always training at a moderate intensity. While effective for you, your session, doesn't resemble an interval session a miler might do. Stampfl had Bannister running things like 10 X ~440 yards at ~60 seconds a pop. Definitely influential, it is still a staple today, but it isn't HIIT. From my reading (admittedly from a distance background), HIIT is no substitute for long term aerobic development. Aerobic development comes from longer stints at easy paces, through to intervals at 10k pace or just below. HIIT will show results more quickly, but it is a dead end. A 5k race is >88% aerobic, there's no way HIIT is better in the long term or we'd see athletes training that way.

DrOctagon 7y ago

If HIIT training is what boosts endurance, why don't any elite marathoners train in this way? Why do they run ~100 mi or more each week, mostly at a low intensity?

angrysaki 7y ago
I agree that HIIT is not some magical training methodology, and that elite endurance athletes do not train by only doing HIIT. My guess is that if you are only willing to train in the 3h/week range, maybe HIIT is your best bet. Steven Seiler has studied how most elite endurance athletes train, and found that they generally follow a polarized training model which is ~80% of sessions at low intensity (long endurence runs/rides/etc...) and 20% at high intensity. http://bikepartsreview.com/Polarized-training-for-cyclists.html http://bikepartsreview.com/Polarized-training-for-cyclists.h...
crimsonalucard 7y ago
They do. Research has found that doing both types of training is most effective. What I am saying is that if you had to pick one, HIIT is more effective and faster in then long distance jogging. Also note that I'm not measuring marathon or ultra marathon performance here at the extreme level. That's a more specialized thing. I'm more talking about like your overall performance if you run a mile or run 7 miles or just hike up a hill. You will achieve faster and better results in this area if you do HIIT exclusively over Cardio exclusively. For marathons the results aren't as clear to me. Note that Roger Bannister the first person to achieve a sub 4 minute mile almost exclusively did HIIT. At the time it was thought that to train for the mile you must run the mile and that the 4 min barrier was impossible, Right after bannister broke the barrier other runners followed learning from bannisters training methods.
- angrysaki 7y ago
  There hasn't been much research, but Stephen Seiler has done some studies with polarized training down to 5-8 hour per week athletes which works well in those situations. https://scientifictriathlon.com/tts177/#tab-con-16 https://scientifictriathlon.com/tts177/#tab-con-16 I think the reasoning is that there are 2 main signaling pathways for endurance adaptations, one from high intensity and one from low intensity and you want to stimulate both for maximal adaptation. The other part is that if you have more time to train, you simply can't do more and more HIIT without burning out. There are pro cyclists who did very little intensity until race season and just do lots of low intensity. From what I remember, even elite rowers generally follow an 80/20 polarized model and their events are in the 6-7 minute range.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    A lot of training regimes are used because they are effective but not scientifically proven to be the best possible training method. I'm guessing that the examples you are talking about used training methods that were effective but not the scientifically verified to be optimal. It's possible these athletes may have hit their maximum potential but had to do way more training than necessary. It is scientifically verified that HIIT counterintuitively effects the aerobic signaling pathway at a greater rate than aerobic exercise itself. My other comment in this thread cites tons of good sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22157311 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22157311
- DrOctagon 7y ago
  Thanks for replying, my comment above was a bit flippant and I just want to say well done on sticking with a training regime for such a long period of time. I've heard coaches say that, at a high level, being consistent and believing in your training approach is just as important as the specifics of the training. As you say blending high intensity and low intensity is important. Either or is a false dichotomy that it is easy to get caught in, and high/low intensity is better than always training at a moderate intensity. While effective for you, your session, doesn't resemble an interval session a miler might do. Stampfl had Bannister running things like 10 X ~440 yards at ~60 seconds a pop. Definitely influential, it is still a staple today, but it isn't HIIT. From my reading (admittedly from a distance background), HIIT is no substitute for long term aerobic development. Aerobic development comes from longer stints at easy paces, through to intervals at 10k pace or just below. HIIT will show results more quickly, but it is a dead end. A 5k race is >88% aerobic, there's no way HIIT is better in the long term or we'd see athletes training that way.