4 ms·

> HIT (High intensity training, what is discussed in the article) training achieves the same effects as much longer endurance training at much shorter times Ce

> HIT (High intensity training, what is discussed in the article) training achieves the same effects as much longer endurance training at much shorter times Certainly not the same effect. HIT training doesn’t improve respiratory or cardiovascular fitness as effectively as continuous training does, and it doesn’t condition the muscles for endurance as effectively as continuous training does either. I don’t know much about cycling, but I know a lot about endurance running, and the typical training regime will utilise continuous training (such as long runs, recovery runs…), as well as high intensity training and some training that’s a mixture of both, like fartleks. The reason being they all produce different results, and you want the benefit of all of them. Here’s a video made by Eliud Kipchoge‘s athletics team that talks about the benefit of long runs: https://youtu.be/CeN1FeJIygQ https://youtu.be/CeN1FeJIygQ They have other videos about the other training intensities they use as well. Their training facility is also at a rather high altitude, which is basically its own form of training as well, or a legal form of blood doping, depending on how you look at it.

code_runner 4y ago
Just to chime in for anyone wondering who Kipchoge is if you don’t follow marathoning. He is hands down the best of all time and is totally in a league of his own. He trains constantly. His entire life revolves around it.
- jeltz 4y ago
  And last year he got a new world record for marathon at 37. He is the best marathon runner in the world, currently and ever.
logifail 4y ago
> HIT training doesn’t improve respiratory or cardiovascular fitness as effectively as continuous training does, and it doesn’t condition the muscles for endurance as effectively as continuous training does either Assuming you're not looking to become an endurance athlete, is conditioning muscles for endurance something one should aim for? Why? "Improved cardiometabolic health" sounds like something everyone - including us sedentary workers with families and not much free time - might benefit from. Being able to achieve health improvements in short training sessions would appear to be a really important option.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  If you live an entirely sedentary life then any exercise is an improvement, and if high intensity training has these benefits, then great… but high intensity and continuous absolutely don’t produce the same training outcomes, as the parent comment claims.
- andmarios 4y ago
  Being able to walk for 3-5km, maybe with a little incline, play with your kids, do a few chores, is important. A 25-30 minute jog every now and then or 10-15 minutes of light cardio/HIIT mixup can help with this, no need to go full endurance. Furthermore a more proper fitness regime will fix your posture and improve your quality of life immensely. Things like a flight of stairs, getting in and out of the car, carrying a couple bags of groceries, or just getting up from the floor will become much easier. Again, not going into hours of training, but to 15-30 minutes a few times per week. Your kids can watch. :) I don't challenge the research results. Just saying that there are more upsides than just cardiometabolic health, as someone who has seen this first-hand, going from couch potato to a little more active lifestyle.
  - feet 4y ago
    Training specificity is a thing. Why would endurance training fix your posture?
    - jeltz 4y ago
      Long distance running certainly puts a load on your back and your shoulders. I have been sore there the day after some really long runs, so I can see how it improves posture. Also you need to focus on proper posture when doing long runs. Is it the most time efficient way to fix posture? For sue not, but it should work.
- epistemer 4y ago
  I do super intense conditioning once a week and walk 5 times a week. People that can't be bothered to even walk are not going to stick to intense workouts. It is completely delusional. Not to mention, we know these do not train the same energy systems or have the same benefits too. This whole discussion is dumb.
itsoktocry 4y ago
>Here’s a video made by Eliud Kipchoge‘s athletics team that talks about the benefit of long runs: Is there any science here, or just anecdata from elite athletes, who are often terrible judges of their talent? It's really hard to judge this stuff.
- this_user 4y ago
  You can read up on Dr. Stephen Seiler's research (or watch his lectures on YT). He is one of the leading academics in the field of endurance. His results clearly demonstrate that a "polarised" approach with at least 80% low intensity work yields superior results to more high intensity approaches even in athletes who only train for a limited amount of time each week (3-4h). That is not to say that HIT doesn't work, and doing something is certainly better than doing nothing in any case, but if you want to maximise the training effect w.r.t. endurance for a given time budget, doing mostly LIT is the better option.
  - logifail 4y ago
    > He is one of the leading academics in the field of endurance. His results clearly demonstrate that a "polarised" approach with at least 80% low intensity work yields superior results [..] (Sorry, I have to ask) but results in what? It sounds like there's a risk of focussing on (endurance) athletes, not on unfit sedentary desk workers. Talking about which of the former benefits most from which particular training methodology could be missing the point, which is that it's the latter who are the group who really need to get off our backsides to improve our general health. In other words, getting a few extra % of performance out of already fit people is of interest to a minority, but is irrelevant as far as public health policy is concerned.
kilgnad 4y ago
>Certainly not the same effect. HIT training doesn’t improve respiratory or cardiovascular fitness as effectively as continuous training does, and it doesn’t condition the muscles for endurance as effectively as continuous training does either. This is actually incorrect. It's not well known, but the science is actually very clear about this. HIIT is much more effective then long term continuous exercise for VO2 max. This has been shown across Several studies. Many coaches and training programs don't incorporate the science into their training regimes. So so called "experts" don't really know. You'll be surprised how ingrained the belief is and it's hard to turn it around if you've been under the belief for years that you need to do long continuous training routines to improve cardio. Roger Bannister the first person to clear the 4 minute mile used HIIT exclusively for his training and he's the first person to change the science around this. The myth, however, persists and you still see people plugging in miles and miles into their training routine when HIIT works better.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  You've misunderstood what VO2 max is. It measures your ability to metabolize oxygen into carbon dioxide, and it measures your pulmonary function, the performance of your heart, the efficiency of capillary delivery and the efficiency of your muscles. You can increase VO2 max by training any component of those systems, and high intensity training only targets certain components of it. HIIT doesn't "work better" than continuous training in this respect, it simply targets a different part of the system than continuous training does. For instance if you wanted to increase the stroke volume of your heart (a component of VO2 max), then the scientifically proven best way to do that is with extended aerobic exercise (continuous training). VO2 max is also not the only measure of fitness. For example, lactate threshold is an incredibly important factor for distance running, and it is improved by extended periods of training at your lactate threshold (continuous training). Incidentally, you wouldn't be excepted to reach your lactate threshold during a 1 mile run. For even more context, Eliud Kipchoge doesn't have an especially remarkable VO2 max, it's about what you'd expect from any elite athlete. But he does have an absolutely insane lactate threshold. Modern endurance training is incredibly science based. That's why if you go and look for a marathon training plan on the internet, even the most basic ones are going to include a mixture of different training intensities, distances and durations. It's also why the athletics team who made that video I posted also have other videos describing the high intensity components of their training regime, and why the members of this athletics team have succeeded in pushing the limits endurance performance much further than they ever have been pushed before. If you'd like to take up debunking training myths, I'd suggest you look a little bit further into what VO2 max actually is, and what other types of fitness metrics also exist.

code_runner 4y ago

Just to chime in for anyone wondering who Kipchoge is if you don’t follow marathoning. He is hands down the best of all time and is totally in a league of his own. He trains constantly. His entire life revolves around it.

jeltz 4y ago
And last year he got a new world record for marathon at 37. He is the best marathon runner in the world, currently and ever.

logifail 4y ago

> HIT training doesn’t improve respiratory or cardiovascular fitness as effectively as continuous training does, and it doesn’t condition the muscles for endurance as effectively as continuous training does either Assuming you're not looking to become an endurance athlete, is conditioning muscles for endurance something one should aim for? Why? "Improved cardiometabolic health" sounds like something everyone - including us sedentary workers with families and not much free time - might benefit from. Being able to achieve health improvements in short training sessions would appear to be a really important option.

AmericanChopper 4y ago
If you live an entirely sedentary life then any exercise is an improvement, and if high intensity training has these benefits, then great… but high intensity and continuous absolutely don’t produce the same training outcomes, as the parent comment claims.
andmarios 4y ago
Being able to walk for 3-5km, maybe with a little incline, play with your kids, do a few chores, is important. A 25-30 minute jog every now and then or 10-15 minutes of light cardio/HIIT mixup can help with this, no need to go full endurance. Furthermore a more proper fitness regime will fix your posture and improve your quality of life immensely. Things like a flight of stairs, getting in and out of the car, carrying a couple bags of groceries, or just getting up from the floor will become much easier. Again, not going into hours of training, but to 15-30 minutes a few times per week. Your kids can watch. :) I don't challenge the research results. Just saying that there are more upsides than just cardiometabolic health, as someone who has seen this first-hand, going from couch potato to a little more active lifestyle.
- feet 4y ago
  Training specificity is a thing. Why would endurance training fix your posture?
  - jeltz 4y ago
    Long distance running certainly puts a load on your back and your shoulders. I have been sore there the day after some really long runs, so I can see how it improves posture. Also you need to focus on proper posture when doing long runs. Is it the most time efficient way to fix posture? For sue not, but it should work.
epistemer 4y ago
I do super intense conditioning once a week and walk 5 times a week. People that can't be bothered to even walk are not going to stick to intense workouts. It is completely delusional. Not to mention, we know these do not train the same energy systems or have the same benefits too. This whole discussion is dumb.

itsoktocry 4y ago

>Here’s a video made by Eliud Kipchoge‘s athletics team that talks about the benefit of long runs: Is there any science here, or just anecdata from elite athletes, who are often terrible judges of their talent? It's really hard to judge this stuff.

this_user 4y ago
You can read up on Dr. Stephen Seiler's research (or watch his lectures on YT). He is one of the leading academics in the field of endurance. His results clearly demonstrate that a "polarised" approach with at least 80% low intensity work yields superior results to more high intensity approaches even in athletes who only train for a limited amount of time each week (3-4h). That is not to say that HIT doesn't work, and doing something is certainly better than doing nothing in any case, but if you want to maximise the training effect w.r.t. endurance for a given time budget, doing mostly LIT is the better option.
- logifail 4y ago
  > He is one of the leading academics in the field of endurance. His results clearly demonstrate that a "polarised" approach with at least 80% low intensity work yields superior results [..] (Sorry, I have to ask) but results in what? It sounds like there's a risk of focussing on (endurance) athletes, not on unfit sedentary desk workers. Talking about which of the former benefits most from which particular training methodology could be missing the point, which is that it's the latter who are the group who really need to get off our backsides to improve our general health. In other words, getting a few extra % of performance out of already fit people is of interest to a minority, but is irrelevant as far as public health policy is concerned.

kilgnad 4y ago

>Certainly not the same effect. HIT training doesn’t improve respiratory or cardiovascular fitness as effectively as continuous training does, and it doesn’t condition the muscles for endurance as effectively as continuous training does either. This is actually incorrect. It's not well known, but the science is actually very clear about this. HIIT is much more effective then long term continuous exercise for VO2 max. This has been shown across Several studies. Many coaches and training programs don't incorporate the science into their training regimes. So so called "experts" don't really know. You'll be surprised how ingrained the belief is and it's hard to turn it around if you've been under the belief for years that you need to do long continuous training routines to improve cardio. Roger Bannister the first person to clear the 4 minute mile used HIIT exclusively for his training and he's the first person to change the science around this. The myth, however, persists and you still see people plugging in miles and miles into their training routine when HIIT works better.

AmericanChopper 4y ago
You've misunderstood what VO2 max is. It measures your ability to metabolize oxygen into carbon dioxide, and it measures your pulmonary function, the performance of your heart, the efficiency of capillary delivery and the efficiency of your muscles. You can increase VO2 max by training any component of those systems, and high intensity training only targets certain components of it. HIIT doesn't "work better" than continuous training in this respect, it simply targets a different part of the system than continuous training does. For instance if you wanted to increase the stroke volume of your heart (a component of VO2 max), then the scientifically proven best way to do that is with extended aerobic exercise (continuous training). VO2 max is also not the only measure of fitness. For example, lactate threshold is an incredibly important factor for distance running, and it is improved by extended periods of training at your lactate threshold (continuous training). Incidentally, you wouldn't be excepted to reach your lactate threshold during a 1 mile run. For even more context, Eliud Kipchoge doesn't have an especially remarkable VO2 max, it's about what you'd expect from any elite athlete. But he does have an absolutely insane lactate threshold. Modern endurance training is incredibly science based. That's why if you go and look for a marathon training plan on the internet, even the most basic ones are going to include a mixture of different training intensities, distances and durations. It's also why the athletics team who made that video I posted also have other videos describing the high intensity components of their training regime, and why the members of this athletics team have succeeded in pushing the limits endurance performance much further than they ever have been pushed before. If you'd like to take up debunking training myths, I'd suggest you look a little bit further into what VO2 max actually is, and what other types of fitness metrics also exist.