6 ms·

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 intensi

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.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    I have to disagree with part of this: 10x 440 at 60 seconds is definitely HIIT. source: https://www.trifitwellness.com/2017/09/23/what-is-hiit/ https://www.trifitwellness.com/2017/09/23/what-is-hiit/ From my reading I've come to the opposite conclusion. HIIT is counterintuitively MORE effective at aerobic development than aerobic exercise itself. - https://www.wikiwand.com/en/High-intensity_interval_training#/Health_effects https://www.wikiwand.com/en/High-intensity_interval_training... wikipedia saying that HIIT increases VO2 max over effectively over long term moderate level training. - https://research.tees.ac.uk/en/publications/effectiveness-of-high-intensity-interval-training-hit-and-continu-3 https://research.tees.ac.uk/en/publications/effectiveness-of... the associated source to the wiki section. - https://greatist.com/fitness/whats-best-way-build-endurance#1 https://greatist.com/fitness/whats-best-way-build-endurance#... An article about the "best" way to improve VO2 max. - https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/10/18148463/high-intensity-interval-training-hiit-orangetheory https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/10/18148463/hi... This one hits the nail in the head with cited sources. Quote: "Reviews of the research have come to similar conclusions: Interval routines lead to greater gains in VO2 max compared with other forms of training in a shorter period of time." - https://time.com/4893161/hiit-high-intensity-interval-training-exercise/ https://time.com/4893161/hiit-high-intensity-interval-traini... another one with cited sources and quotations. Quote: "We now have more than 10 years of data showing HIIT yields pretty much the exact same health and fitness benefits as long-term aerobic exercise, and in some groups or populations, it works better than traditional aerobic exercise." The whole "dead end" thing is admittedly something I did not know about. If you have sources on that I would be interested in reading it. Admittedly science is about observing things from different angles, and many angles of observations tell different aspects of the truth that can be conflicting, so I won't discount any conflicting scientific experiments you send me. Anecdotally I've tried long distance running alone (5 miles 5x a week) before I started the current regime I've been doing for a decade. The results were night and day. 6 months of long distance training from a sedentary lifestyle yielded minimal results when compared to people younger than me (I was 26 at the time and comparing myself to people that were 20). When I started interval training, in 3 months I was outpacing them. The metric for comparison was an exercise completely unrelated to sprinting or jogging. It was alpine hiking. In 3 months I went from unable to beat my friend hiking up mount baldy in LA county to leaving him in the dust going up Mt. Whitney. >there's no way HIIT is better in the long term or we'd see athletes training that way. Both from what I read and from some professional athletes and coaches, I hear that HIIT is the primary form of effective development of VO2 max. Professional athletes do train this way. I'm definitely interested in your sources though.

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.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  I have to disagree with part of this: 10x 440 at 60 seconds is definitely HIIT. source: https://www.trifitwellness.com/2017/09/23/what-is-hiit/ https://www.trifitwellness.com/2017/09/23/what-is-hiit/ From my reading I've come to the opposite conclusion. HIIT is counterintuitively MORE effective at aerobic development than aerobic exercise itself. - https://www.wikiwand.com/en/High-intensity_interval_training#/Health_effects https://www.wikiwand.com/en/High-intensity_interval_training... wikipedia saying that HIIT increases VO2 max over effectively over long term moderate level training. - https://research.tees.ac.uk/en/publications/effectiveness-of-high-intensity-interval-training-hit-and-continu-3 https://research.tees.ac.uk/en/publications/effectiveness-of... the associated source to the wiki section. - https://greatist.com/fitness/whats-best-way-build-endurance#1 https://greatist.com/fitness/whats-best-way-build-endurance#... An article about the "best" way to improve VO2 max. - https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/10/18148463/high-intensity-interval-training-hiit-orangetheory https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/10/18148463/hi... This one hits the nail in the head with cited sources. Quote: "Reviews of the research have come to similar conclusions: Interval routines lead to greater gains in VO2 max compared with other forms of training in a shorter period of time." - https://time.com/4893161/hiit-high-intensity-interval-training-exercise/ https://time.com/4893161/hiit-high-intensity-interval-traini... another one with cited sources and quotations. Quote: "We now have more than 10 years of data showing HIIT yields pretty much the exact same health and fitness benefits as long-term aerobic exercise, and in some groups or populations, it works better than traditional aerobic exercise." The whole "dead end" thing is admittedly something I did not know about. If you have sources on that I would be interested in reading it. Admittedly science is about observing things from different angles, and many angles of observations tell different aspects of the truth that can be conflicting, so I won't discount any conflicting scientific experiments you send me. Anecdotally I've tried long distance running alone (5 miles 5x a week) before I started the current regime I've been doing for a decade. The results were night and day. 6 months of long distance training from a sedentary lifestyle yielded minimal results when compared to people younger than me (I was 26 at the time and comparing myself to people that were 20). When I started interval training, in 3 months I was outpacing them. The metric for comparison was an exercise completely unrelated to sprinting or jogging. It was alpine hiking. In 3 months I went from unable to beat my friend hiking up mount baldy in LA county to leaving him in the dust going up Mt. Whitney. >there's no way HIIT is better in the long term or we'd see athletes training that way. Both from what I read and from some professional athletes and coaches, I hear that HIIT is the primary form of effective development of VO2 max. Professional athletes do train this way. I'm definitely interested in your sources though.