What do you all think about High Intensity Interval Training as opposed to long duration jogging
View Full Version : What do you all think about High Intensity Interval Training as opposed to long duration jogging
I' trying to look for counter-points to this form of
training and what better place to look then a runner's ng.
I'm talking about training where you sprint your ass off for
20 seconds, walk or jog of 15 seconds and sprint again,
doing this for about 5 minutes. Of course including few
minutes of warm up and cool down.
I've read that in experiments where they compare both styles
of exercise that those who exercise in HIIT gain not only of
10% anaerobic endurance but also 14% of aerobic endurance,
meanwhile the medium intensity high duration people only
gained 10% in aerobic endurance and naught in anaerobic.
I have been running for a few months, and do notice an
overall increase in endurance when I play other sports, but
stairs still suck the life out of me as much as they did
even before I use to run.
I usually 2-4 times a week for about 80 minutes.
This is what I have read on HIIT so far... http://www.buildleanmuscle.com/interval-
training.html http://www.teenbodybuilding.com/justin6.htm
http://www.cs.unm.edu/~wneumann/files/guerilla_cardio.pdf
Thanks
On 2004-06-07, Xavier <anom@anom.com> wrote:
> I' trying to look for counter-points to this form of
> training and what better place to look then a runner's ng.
> I'm talking about training where you sprint your ass off
> for 20 seconds, walk or jog of 15 seconds and sprint
> again, doing this for about 5 minutes. Of course including
> few minutes of warm up and cool down.
Competitive distance runners do not view interval training
as being "opposed" to "long duration jogging". We do both
intervals and steady paced aerobic runs.
The adaptions that are caused by endurance training and
intervals are not the same (even if the tests used in some
studies can't tell the difference). For example, try running
a marathon on HIIT alone.
The fact that the adaptions one gets are different (and
useful for distance runners) is the reason why we do both.
As for the idea of doing a program consisting *entirely* of
intervals, there are many who belive such a program is
likely to produce injury (even the HIIT websites who place
some weasel-words in as if this is of peripheral importance
compared to the results they yell about). The HIIT weight
loss study (Tremblay et al) used the stationary bike. It
would be interesting to see what the injury rates would be
if they used running on the same subject pool (but they'd
have a hard time even getting permission to do such a study)
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
"Xavier" <anom@anom.com> wrote in message news:<2UZwc.109093$Nn4.23988015@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> I' trying to look for counter-points to this form of
> training and what better place to look then a runner's ng.
> I'm talking about training where you sprint your ass off
> for 20 seconds, walk or jog of 15 seconds and sprint
> again, doing this for about 5 minutes. Of course including
> few minutes of warm up and cool down.
>
> I've read that in experiments where they compare both
> styles of exercise that those who exercise in HIIT gain
> not only of 10% anaerobic endurance but also 14% of
> aerobic endurance, meanwhile the medium intensity high
> duration people only gained 10% in aerobic endurance and
> naught in anaerobic.
>
> I have been running for a few months, and do notice an
> overall increase in endurance when I play other sports,
> but stairs still suck the life out of me as much as they
> did even before I use to run.
>
> I usually 2-4 times a week for about 80 minutes.
>
> This is what I have read on HIIT so far... http://www.buildleanmuscle.com/interval-
> training.html http://www.teenbodybuilding.com/justin6.htm
> http://www.cs.unm.edu/~wneumann/files/guerilla_cardio.pdf
>
>
> Thanks
What is your goal? You can't have a plan and we can't give
our comments on your plan if you don't tell us what
results you want.
Gaining areobic endurance is great for sprints and short
events and useless for marathons and such. You refer to a
few body building sites so do you need aerobic endurance for
that? I can't say anything about that because I've never
been involved in bodybuilding. Sprinters are pretty well
sculpted but it has more to do with the weights they lift
than the running they do. I've run for many years and have
skinny legs, yet well defined.
Doing aerobic training is pretty useless in terms of getting
and keeping a base level of fittness. If you're trying to do
that stop now before you end up injuring yourself.
Unless you are a highly trained athlete any aerobic training
that doesn't cause injury is beneficial to you athletic
endevours.
my $0.02 Andy
do you train on stairs??? i am sure you have heard race on
hill?? trains on hill!! train fast - run fast train slow -
run slow i allternate days fo fast adn slow plodizlla
Xavier wrote:
>
> I' trying to look for counter-points to this form of
> training and what better place to look then a runner's ng.
> I'm talking about training where you sprint your ass off
> for 20 seconds, walk or jog of 15 seconds and sprint
> again, doing this for about 5 minutes. Of course including
> few minutes of warm up and cool down.
>
> I've read that in experiments where they compare both
> styles of exercise that those who exercise in HIIT gain
> not only of 10% anaerobic endurance but also 14% of
> aerobic endurance, meanwhile the medium intensity high
> duration people only gained 10% in aerobic endurance and
> naught in anaerobic.
>
> I have been running for a few months, and do notice an
> overall increase in endurance when I play other sports,
> but stairs still suck the life out of me as much as they
> did even before I use to run.
>
> I usually 2-4 times a week for about 80 minutes.
>
> This is what I have read on HIIT so far... http://www.buildleanmuscle.com/interval-
> training.html http://www.teenbodybuilding.com/justin6.htm
> http://www.cs.unm.edu/~wneumann/files/guerilla_cardio.pdf
>
> Thanks
"Xavier" <anom@anom.com> wrote in message news:<2UZwc.109093$Nn4.23988015@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> > I usually 2-4 times a week for about 80 minutes.
LOLOLOL You punkass *****! You aren't even a real runner. I
do a minimum of 90 minutes A DAY!
>I' trying to look for counter-points to this form of
>training and what better place to look then a runner's ng.
>I'm talking about training where you sprint your ass off
>for 20 seconds, walk or jog of 15 seconds and sprint again,
>doing this for about 5 minutes. Of course including few
>minutes of warm up and cool down.
>
You might have figured out by now that distance runners are
not particularly well versed on this subject. I think this
is because the running publications are dominated by
marathon types. People run marathons because they're slow
(compared to, say, milers), so they don't like all-out
speed, so the running mags don't write about this, thus the
average runner doesn't hear about this. There is a lot of
physiology research published on high intensity training in
the past few years, and if you want the straight facts, you
have to read it for yourself. The real basis is the research
that you've already heard about done by Izumi Tabata (1996)
and originally published in MSSE. Some more stuff that is
more on the technical side:
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0101/cf.pdf
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/84/6/2138 http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content-
nw/full/90/6/2019/T2
The key point that everyone (except maybe Sam) doesn't seem
to get is that intermittent training is high intensity
anerobic training for AEROBIC IMPROVEMENT. The key, here,
seems to be training that improves the power of the
glycolytic system. This involves maximum intensity training
that lasts for 6-30 seconds. Sprint training lasting less
than 6 seconds has had no effect on citric synthase, and
running longer than 30 seconds stresses the maximum capacity
of the glycolytic system (anerobic capacity), thus not
allowing the ability to recover quickly. The HIIT training
that seems to work best is running repeats of 6-20 second
all-out with short rest (10-60 seconds) or repeats of 20-30
seconds with rest of 2-5 minutes (or more). Comparing High
Intensity Training (HIT) and Low Intensity Training (LIT),
the actual improvement in physiological measurements in the
papers that I've seen is about like this:
Training VO2max citric synthase Glut4 ---------- ----------
------------------ ------ LIT +17-22% +40-45% +90% HIT +7-
14% +36-40% +85%
The actual training volume of HIT or HIIT is at least an
order of magnitude lower, so the training is far more
efficient, with the exception of VO2max improvements (this
may be a volume effect). So it seems that one will get a
better overall effect by doing some more conventional
aerobic training (for instance 30-60 minutes at 80-85% heart
rate a few times a week) before the high intensity stuff.
So you need some slower aerobic training for maximum benefit
(to raise VO2max) at some time in your training. However,
VO2max plateaus very early in one's running career, so for
someone that has done VO2max training in the past, it is not
clear that doing this in conjuction with the high intensity
training actually carries a benefit. Noakes gives a rather
small potential VO2max gain for people that have been doing
running training, regardless of the mileage increase.
Lyndon
"Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!" --US
Olympic Track Coach Brooks Johnson
High intensity training can be very beneficial, as long as
you do very slowly.
"Xavier" <anom@anom.com> wrote in message
news:<2UZwc.109093$Nn4.23988015@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> I' trying to look for counter-points to this form of
> training and what better place to look then a runner's ng.
> I'm talking about training where you sprint your ass off
> for 20 seconds, walk or jog of 15 seconds and sprint
> again, doing this for about 5 minutes. Of course including
> few minutes of warm up and cool down.
>
> I've read that in experiments where they compare both
> styles of exercise that those who exercise in HIIT gain
> not only of 10% anaerobic endurance but also 14% of
> aerobic endurance, meanwhile the medium intensity high
> duration people only gained 10% in aerobic endurance and
> naught in anaerobic.
>
> I have been running for a few months, and do notice an
> overall increase in endurance when I play other sports,
> but stairs still suck the life out of me as much as they
> did even before I use to run.
>
> I usually 2-4 times a week for about 80 minutes.
>
> This is what I have read on HIIT so far... http://www.buildleanmuscle.com/interval-
> training.html http://www.teenbodybuilding.com/justin6.htm
> http://www.cs.unm.edu/~wneumann/files/guerilla_cardio.pdf
>
>
> Thanks
> As for the idea of doing a program consisting *entirely*
> of intervals, there are many who belive such a program is
> likely to produce injury (even the HIIT websites who place
> some weasel-words in as if this is of peripheral
> importance compared to the results they yell about). The
> HIIT weight loss study (Tremblay et al) used the
> stationary bike. It would be interesting to see what the
> injury rates would be if they used running on the same
> subject pool (but they'd have a hard time even getting
> permission to do such a study)
>
> Cheers,
Uphill running has some similarities to cycling, as the
knees come up higher. By doing bursts on an uphill, of which
there are a few around here, you can pump as much as your
lungs allow without skeletal injury. You then take your time
getting back down, whether that was the plan or not. You
find yourself running more from the forefoot, it adds spring
to your step and it builds leg muscle of the sort that helps
you run. Even mesomorphs can push their limits.
In article <2b961d1f.0406071241.17b4393@posting.google.com>,
amh <ishky@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Gaining areobic endurance is great for sprints and short
>events and useless for marathons and such. You refer to a
>few body building sites so do you need aerobic endurance
>for that?
There's a Covert Bailey book or two that recommends some
intervals with intensity just for general fitness (usual
disclaimer: medical check from your doctor first if you're a
blob/couch potato/etc.). Apparently something to do with the
anaerobic exercise helping to prevent the loss of muscle
mass with age. I don't recall if there was a science-backed
bibliography in these books or not.
But even the marathon training books I've perused at the
library recommend some small percentage of interval reps (or
fartlek[sp?]), for working on running form (finishing kick?)
if nothing else.
IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com
http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ #include
<canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
On 2004-06-08, Lyndon <airlyndon@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>>I' trying to look for counter-points to this form of
>>training and what better place to look then a runner's ng.
>>I'm talking about training where you sprint your ass off
>>for 20 seconds, walk or jog of 15 seconds and sprint
>>again, doing this for about 5 minutes. Of course including
>>few minutes of warm up and cool down.
>>
>
> You might have figured out by now that distance runners
> are not particularly well versed on this subject.
Some of us might know about it (indeed, since you've posted
this and similar dozens of times, anyone who doesn't should
be bashed about with the clue stick)
However, it may have limited relevance. For me, as a
competitive runner, I don't really care if one training
modality is "more efficient" than another, as long as I've
got time to train. I think these claims of efficiency are
misleading anyway, unless one wishes to argue that one
can/should sprint without a decent warmup.
I also am not very interested in whether one training
modality is "better" than another. I am more interested in
setting up a *training program*. Since I can include
multiple training modalities in the overall program, I'm
more interested in how the different types of training
collaborate to produce the greatest possible overall effect.
I'm also interested in big-picture issues like avoiding
injury, periodisation, and of course, how the program
translates into real-world track performances. In light of
this, I'm interested in using a program that I'm convinced
can produce good race performances, while minimising stress
on the body. All-out sprinting maximises stress (especially
if you don't warm up!), it doesn't minimise it. In other
words, these results are no doubt interesting to academics
(and hucksters in the mickey-mouse body-building/fad-diet
world), but I don't see this stuff helping me on the roads.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
nonstabbem@hotmail.com (Not Stabbem, someone else.) wrote in message news:<bef236f2.0406072034.18d4e9e9@posting.google.com>...
> "Xavier" <anom@anom.com> wrote in message
> news:<2UZwc.109093$Nn4.23988015@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> > > I usually 2-4 times a week for about 80 minutes.
>
> LOLOLOL You punkass *****! You aren't even a real runner.
> I do a minimum of 90 minutes A DAY!
Ok, that's your masturbation routine nailed down. How about
telling us how much running you do.
Edward
nonstabbem@hotmail.com (Not Stabbem, someone else.) wrote in message news:<bef236f2.0406081428.47982052@posting.google.com>...
> High intensity training can be very beneficial, as long as
> you do very slowly.
>
Would that be Special High Intesity Training
or S#IT for short?
On 2004-06-07, Bill <utthitaxpam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As for the idea of doing a program consisting *entirely*
>> of intervals, there are many who belive such a program is
>> likely to produce injury (even the HIIT websites who
>> place some weasel-words in as if this is of peripheral
>> importance compared to the results they yell about). The
>> HIIT weight loss study (Tremblay et al) used the
>> stationary bike. It would be interesting to see what the
>> injury rates would be if they used running on the same
>> subject pool (but they'd have a hard time even getting
>> permission to do such a study)
>>
>> Cheers,
>
> Uphill running has some similarities to cycling, as the
> knees come up higher. By doing bursts on an uphill, of
> which there are a few around here, you can pump as much as
> your lungs allow without skeletal injury. You then
You're trading skeletal injury risk for soft-tissue injury
risk (achilles tendonitis, shinsplints). Choose your poison.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
A pragmatic reason to do intensity is that most people
have days where time is short so they should run "harder"
to expend the same amount of energy or for a specific
training stimulus.
"Ronald H. Nicholson Jr." <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote in
message news:ca2ood$7pm$1@blue.rahul.net...
> In article
> <2b961d1f.0406071241.17b4393@posting.google.com>, amh
> <ishky@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >Gaining areobic endurance is great for sprints and short
> >events and useless for marathons and such. You refer to a
> >few body building sites so do you need aerobic endurance
> >for that?
>
> There's a Covert Bailey book or two that recommends some
> intervals with intensity just for general fitness (usual
> disclaimer: medical check from your doctor first if you're
> a blob/couch potato/etc.). Apparently something to do with
> the anaerobic exercise helping to prevent the loss of
> muscle mass with age. I don't recall if there was a science-
> backed bibliography in these books or not.
>
> But even the marathon training books I've perused at the
> library recommend some small percentage of interval reps
> (or fartlek[sp?]), for working on running form (finishing
> kick?) if nothing else.
>
>
> IMHO. YMMV.
> --
> Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com
> http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ #include
> <canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
rhn@mauve.rahul.net (Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.) wrote in message news:<ca2ood$7pm$1@blue.rahul.net>...
> In article
> <2b961d1f.0406071241.17b4393@posting.google.com>, amh
> <ishky@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >Gaining areobic endurance is great for sprints and short
> >events and useless for marathons and such. You refer to a
> >few body building sites so do you need aerobic endurance
> >for that?
>
> There's a Covert Bailey book or two that recommends some
> intervals with intensity just for general fitness (usual
> disclaimer: medical check from your doctor first if you're
> a blob/couch potato/etc.). Apparently something to do with
> the anaerobic exercise helping to prevent the loss of
> muscle mass with age. I don't recall if there was a science-
> backed bibliography in these books or not.
You're in an area that is out of my sphere of knowledge. I
subscribe to the use it or lose it idea. I have all the
muscle mass I need to get me through my usual 5 to 13 mile
runs and as long as I can still keep running that should be
all I need. Above and beyond that is news to me.
>
> But even the marathon training books I've perused at the
> library recommend some small percentage of interval reps
> (or fartlek[sp?]), for working on running form (finishing
> kick?) if nothing else.
Yes marathoners of all abilities can benefit from some form
of speedworkout. But it should be evaluated in terms of
does the work outweigh the benefit. Everybody has their own
motivations but there are many non-competitive mathoners
who really don't need to have a finishing kick in a
marathon. But the improvement in running form could be a
positive though.
my $0.02 Andy
>
>
> IMHO. YMMV.
In article <slrnccc3v4.ogi.abuse@panix2.panix.com>,
Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>However, it may have limited relevance. For me, as a
>competitive runner, I don't really care if one training
>modality is "more efficient" than another, as long as I've
>got time to train.
No opinion on whether HIIT is actually more efficient or
not. But, if one is more than a one-dimensional runner, a
more efficient mode of training for a given goal could be
quite valuable in allowing a person more time for the other
activities they find valuable in their lives (music,
gardening, dancing, time with family, hours at work,
whatever), or at least in slightly increasing the recovery
time available between workouts.
IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com
http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ #include
<canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
teddysnips@hotmail.com (Edward) wrote in message news:<25080b60.0406090523.29c3d3ca@posting.google.com>...
>Ok, that's your masturbation routine nailed down. How about
>telling us how much running you do.
>
> Edward
That's your wet dream you homo. You wish you could still
get your tiny
used to. Now try running you punk, one hour a day minimum.
Frickin' punkass jogger idiots...
On 2004-06-09, Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnccc3v4.ogi.abuse@panix2.panix.com>,
> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>>However, it may have limited relevance. For me, as a
>>competitive runner, I don't really care if one training
>>modality is "more efficient" than another, as long as I've
>>got time to train.
>
> No opinion on whether HIIT is actually more efficient or
> not. But, if one is more than a one-dimensional runner, a
> more efficient mode of training for a given goal could be
> quite valuable in allowing a person more time for the
> other activities they find valuable in their lives (music,
> gardening, dancing, time with family, hours at work,
> whatever),
Not necessarily. If someone enjoys running, they might
actually be interested in spending some time running. A
reasonable training load doesn't require a heavy time
commitment. I only train a little over 1hr a day, and if
you're even *thinking* of training as much as I do, you're
probably serious enough to put in that much time without a
second thought.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
