3 ms·

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'v

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.
- DrOctagon 7y ago
  I think we're debating different sides of the same coin. I 100%, no-doubt, hand on heart agree that running something like 10 x 400 as a VO2 workout will get you fit as part of a balanced training program. The HIIT definition I'm familiar with is short intense bouts of near max intensity, followed by a short rest and then go again hard to failure. The first link above gets the details of Bannisters training correct and then recommends HIIT workouts that aren't remotely similar in duration. But even in the other links you've provided, and the ones I've looked up too, the definition of HIIT is different. I'm not going to argue that definition or we could be here forever. I just make the distinction between interval training and HIIT. Interval training can be manipulated to be anything from long and completely aerobic to high intensity max sprints. We're also cross purposes on the fact I'm talking about elite performance in an athletics race, and you are more interested in general hiking etc. I'm not saying one is better, or more valid, than the other, just that the approach to training one or the other is very different. VO2 is a whole different kettle of fish. Generally V02 can be improved significantly in short periods, particularly in untrained athletes. Quite possibly HIIT or interval training works better over this short period. You are right that V02 is generally trained by intervals, no argument. However: This is an interesting background on V02 max and why it might not be the most important marker of performance. https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html?v=6cc98ba2045f https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-a... V02 was given too much importance because it is easy to measure. Those with high V02, potentially have worse running efficiency. https://www.outsideonline.com/2407295/why-higher-vo2max-isnt-always-better https://www.outsideonline.com/2407295/why-higher-vo2max-isnt... Your anecdote about training rings 100% true. Here's another article which covers a few topics including why HIIT works and doing the same 5mi jog daily doesn't. https://www.highperformancewest.com/blog/2018/5/22/magness-speaks-why-crossfit-works-but-really-doesnt-the-randomness-of-adaptation-and-why-beginners-just-need-change https://www.highperformancewest.com/blog/2018/5/22/magness-s... I basically agree with you on most points except definitions and that if long term athletic development for a specific distance event was your goal (it isn't) HIIT in isolation is not optimal. All the best!
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago

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.

DrOctagon 7y ago
I think we're debating different sides of the same coin. I 100%, no-doubt, hand on heart agree that running something like 10 x 400 as a VO2 workout will get you fit as part of a balanced training program. The HIIT definition I'm familiar with is short intense bouts of near max intensity, followed by a short rest and then go again hard to failure. The first link above gets the details of Bannisters training correct and then recommends HIIT workouts that aren't remotely similar in duration. But even in the other links you've provided, and the ones I've looked up too, the definition of HIIT is different. I'm not going to argue that definition or we could be here forever. I just make the distinction between interval training and HIIT. Interval training can be manipulated to be anything from long and completely aerobic to high intensity max sprints. We're also cross purposes on the fact I'm talking about elite performance in an athletics race, and you are more interested in general hiking etc. I'm not saying one is better, or more valid, than the other, just that the approach to training one or the other is very different. VO2 is a whole different kettle of fish. Generally V02 can be improved significantly in short periods, particularly in untrained athletes. Quite possibly HIIT or interval training works better over this short period. You are right that V02 is generally trained by intervals, no argument. However: This is an interesting background on V02 max and why it might not be the most important marker of performance. https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html?v=6cc98ba2045f https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-a... V02 was given too much importance because it is easy to measure. Those with high V02, potentially have worse running efficiency. https://www.outsideonline.com/2407295/why-higher-vo2max-isnt-always-better https://www.outsideonline.com/2407295/why-higher-vo2max-isnt... Your anecdote about training rings 100% true. Here's another article which covers a few topics including why HIIT works and doing the same 5mi jog daily doesn't. https://www.highperformancewest.com/blog/2018/5/22/magness-speaks-why-crossfit-works-but-really-doesnt-the-randomness-of-adaptation-and-why-beginners-just-need-change https://www.highperformancewest.com/blog/2018/5/22/magness-s... I basically agree with you on most points except definitions and that if long term athletic development for a specific distance event was your goal (it isn't) HIIT in isolation is not optimal. All the best!
- crimsonalucard 7y ago