4 ms·

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.trif

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
  I'm pretty sure about the definition of HIIT. The interval lengths vary wildly in definitions but one thing everyone can agree on is that each interval is at near maximum possible intensity and bannister was hitting the zone of training equivalent to research studies on HIIT. I don't know if you ever did 400's but sub 60s is a maximum intensity sprint even if the interval is longer. Basically his training regime isn't recommended by the first article because 10x 400s is basically near impossible for even the top amateur athlete. I consider myself athletic and my interval only involves a single 400 (likely not even sub 60s). 400s are basically the most painful and intense track and field event ever. A sub 60s 400m dash is like 4 100m intervals without the resting period between them. Across the spectrum of HIIT definitions, Bannister is doing more intervals for longer so the intensity is even greater. Your average after work athlete can't even do a single 400m without vomiting. I suspect maybe you're just training at a different level. Perhaps a sub 60s 400m dash isn't a maximum intensity exercise for you? The other stuff you bring up is new. I'll agree with it for now as I don't know much about it. Do you have scientific studies that show dual training of combining HIIT with standard cardio is more effective than HIIT alone for something like a marathon? Is this factor well established in science or is it just a regime common with coaches? Also what would an example of such a training regime look like in your mind?

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
I'm pretty sure about the definition of HIIT. The interval lengths vary wildly in definitions but one thing everyone can agree on is that each interval is at near maximum possible intensity and bannister was hitting the zone of training equivalent to research studies on HIIT. I don't know if you ever did 400's but sub 60s is a maximum intensity sprint even if the interval is longer. Basically his training regime isn't recommended by the first article because 10x 400s is basically near impossible for even the top amateur athlete. I consider myself athletic and my interval only involves a single 400 (likely not even sub 60s). 400s are basically the most painful and intense track and field event ever. A sub 60s 400m dash is like 4 100m intervals without the resting period between them. Across the spectrum of HIIT definitions, Bannister is doing more intervals for longer so the intensity is even greater. Your average after work athlete can't even do a single 400m without vomiting. I suspect maybe you're just training at a different level. Perhaps a sub 60s 400m dash isn't a maximum intensity exercise for you? The other stuff you bring up is new. I'll agree with it for now as I don't know much about it. Do you have scientific studies that show dual training of combining HIIT with standard cardio is more effective than HIIT alone for something like a marathon? Is this factor well established in science or is it just a regime common with coaches? Also what would an example of such a training regime look like in your mind?