36 ms·

>Certainly not the same effect. HIT training doesn’t improve respiratory or cardiovascular fitness as effectively as continuous training does, and it doesn’t co

>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.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  >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. It depends on the level you're looking at. Lower level components compose to form higher level components. For example heart efficiency is one component that composes with others to form VO2 max. Muscle lifting strength is not a a component that makes up for this. Of course I am looking at a higher level metric then you suggest. There's no point in arguing how granular things are. I could turn it around and talk about how the mitochondria and DNA is a component of stroke volume but that's just, again, pointless. >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). You are incorrect about stroke volume. Recent studies show that cardiovascular and muscular adaptations to HIIT are comparable and sometimes even greater than those of steady-state training. In regards to cardiovascular adaptations, these studies show that HIIT increases stroke volume and VO2max to a greater degree than steady-state cardio (stroke volume: 10% greater improvement; VO2max: 6% greater improvement). These studies also suggest HIIT increases mitochondrial density, which allows us to create more energy, to a similar degree as steady-state but in less time and fewer days per week. Sources: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308600869_High-Intensity_Interval_Training_Increases_Cardiac_Output_and_VO2max https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308600869_High-Inte... The above paper shows how VO2 max is increased by HIIT https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/HIITvsCardio.html https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/HIITvsCardio.... The above page shows how VO2 max compared with Continuous training is the same if not better. https://runningmagazine.ca/the-scene/the-surprisingly-simple-training-of-the-worlds-first-sub-4-minute-miler/ https://runningmagazine.ca/the-scene/the-surprisingly-simple... The above is a page on Roger Bannisters training routine. He exclusively did intervals and ran only 5 hours per week to achieve the first 4 minute mile, thereby proving that the most popular and almost exclusive training routine for the time (continuous training) was not as effective as HIIT. Nowadays athlete runners regularly blow past the 4 minute limit because interval training is now common place. In fact people in the know... people who train the top athletes know that intervals are the primary training routine to improve VO2 max (and virtually all associated lower level components that influence it, if you want to be pedantic.) So this "myth" I'm "debunking" is mostly a myth among the more amateur athletes (aka people who don't break 4 minute miles). I believe you are likely part of this peer group which is a logical deduction given your incorrect reasoning. If you'd like to debunk other people I suggest you cite resources because you are mistaken on this area and if you read the science you would know. Spitting out a lot of technical jargon while making you sound intelligent does not take the place of actual the science and cited sources that serve to prove a point. Thank you.

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.

kilgnad 4y ago
>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. It depends on the level you're looking at. Lower level components compose to form higher level components. For example heart efficiency is one component that composes with others to form VO2 max. Muscle lifting strength is not a a component that makes up for this. Of course I am looking at a higher level metric then you suggest. There's no point in arguing how granular things are. I could turn it around and talk about how the mitochondria and DNA is a component of stroke volume but that's just, again, pointless. >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). You are incorrect about stroke volume. Recent studies show that cardiovascular and muscular adaptations to HIIT are comparable and sometimes even greater than those of steady-state training. In regards to cardiovascular adaptations, these studies show that HIIT increases stroke volume and VO2max to a greater degree than steady-state cardio (stroke volume: 10% greater improvement; VO2max: 6% greater improvement). These studies also suggest HIIT increases mitochondrial density, which allows us to create more energy, to a similar degree as steady-state but in less time and fewer days per week. Sources: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308600869_High-Intensity_Interval_Training_Increases_Cardiac_Output_and_VO2max https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308600869_High-Inte... The above paper shows how VO2 max is increased by HIIT https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/HIITvsCardio.html https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/HIITvsCardio.... The above page shows how VO2 max compared with Continuous training is the same if not better. https://runningmagazine.ca/the-scene/the-surprisingly-simple-training-of-the-worlds-first-sub-4-minute-miler/ https://runningmagazine.ca/the-scene/the-surprisingly-simple... The above is a page on Roger Bannisters training routine. He exclusively did intervals and ran only 5 hours per week to achieve the first 4 minute mile, thereby proving that the most popular and almost exclusive training routine for the time (continuous training) was not as effective as HIIT. Nowadays athlete runners regularly blow past the 4 minute limit because interval training is now common place. In fact people in the know... people who train the top athletes know that intervals are the primary training routine to improve VO2 max (and virtually all associated lower level components that influence it, if you want to be pedantic.) So this "myth" I'm "debunking" is mostly a myth among the more amateur athletes (aka people who don't break 4 minute miles). I believe you are likely part of this peer group which is a logical deduction given your incorrect reasoning. If you'd like to debunk other people I suggest you cite resources because you are mistaken on this area and if you read the science you would know. Spitting out a lot of technical jargon while making you sound intelligent does not take the place of actual the science and cited sources that serve to prove a point. Thank you.