3 ms·

> Everybody knows that high intensity exercise does more than low intensity ones per hour invested. At least in running world. No. This is actually wrong. You

> Everybody knows that high intensity exercise does more than low intensity ones per hour invested. At least in running world. No. This is actually wrong. You should read Scott Johnston's "Training for the Uphill Athlete" to understand why.

dkarl 4y ago
I read that book, and as with most other sources of information about endurance training, I found it to be very focused on the situation where people are limited by their recovery budget. I couldn't tease out what the guidance would be for someone who only works out 3-4 hours per week. There would be physiological explanations of the unique value of low-intensity training, and I would think, "Sounds like this applies to everyone," but then there would be an implicit reference to overtraining. Eventually I came to the conclusion that everything in the book assumes that you're training so many hours per week that even if 70% of it is low-intensity, you're still stretching the limit of your ability to recover. I haven't made an exhaustive search or anything, but I've repeatedly been frustrated by this pervasive assumption when looking for information about endurance training. I guess this makes sense, because even the amateurs I know who love endurance sports work out 10+ hours per week. I just don't love it that much. I've found one single piece of advice (and again, I haven't made an exhaustive search or anything) in a podcast interview[0] with an expert on and advocate of polarized training for cyclists. In response to a listener question, the expert said that if he only had four hours per week to train, he would "just hammer... and hope for the best," meaning train as intensely as he was able. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju3McjlSoAg&t=702s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju3McjlSoAg&t=702s (11:42)
- galacticaactual 4y ago
  Perhaps your next read should be Mark Twight’s essay aptly titled TNSTAAFL.

dkarl 4y ago

I read that book, and as with most other sources of information about endurance training, I found it to be very focused on the situation where people are limited by their recovery budget. I couldn't tease out what the guidance would be for someone who only works out 3-4 hours per week. There would be physiological explanations of the unique value of low-intensity training, and I would think, "Sounds like this applies to everyone," but then there would be an implicit reference to overtraining. Eventually I came to the conclusion that everything in the book assumes that you're training so many hours per week that even if 70% of it is low-intensity, you're still stretching the limit of your ability to recover. I haven't made an exhaustive search or anything, but I've repeatedly been frustrated by this pervasive assumption when looking for information about endurance training. I guess this makes sense, because even the amateurs I know who love endurance sports work out 10+ hours per week. I just don't love it that much. I've found one single piece of advice (and again, I haven't made an exhaustive search or anything) in a podcast interview[0] with an expert on and advocate of polarized training for cyclists. In response to a listener question, the expert said that if he only had four hours per week to train, he would "just hammer... and hope for the best," meaning train as intensely as he was able. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju3McjlSoAg&t=702s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju3McjlSoAg&t=702s (11:42)

galacticaactual 4y ago
Perhaps your next read should be Mark Twight’s essay aptly titled TNSTAAFL.