Real High Intensity Training?

Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Hugh Beyer said:

To go back to the original question, I did some research and it turns
out Tabata's second study was with one group of people doing the
20s/10s at 170% of VO2max and a second doing longer intervals with 200%
of VO2max, and the shorter intervals worked better to tax both aerobic
and anaerobic pathways... so since his people were using 170% of
something-I-don't-quite- understand instead of 200%, I guess it's not a
total bastardization to hold back from going completely all out.

Not at all -- keep in mind that *power output* is a better indicator of
intensity (in terms of % VO2max) than "effort" (if that efficiency does
not change, they should are directly proportional). In other words, if
you want to stay at a constant % VO2 max, you need to maintain the same
power output on later workbouts, which means holding back at the start.

Personally, I think this notion of going "all out" all through the
workout is driven by ego-driven training presented by muscle comics,
much the same mindset as Mentzer's HIT (the Shawn Phillips article is a
fine example of this). Real athletes don't train like this. Sure, they
go all-out, but not on every rep. Going all out is a means to an end,
not an end in itself.

Makes sense to me. Some of the gee-whiz-balls-to-the-wall HIIT stuff is
pretty silly.

Hugh

--
Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will attend no other.

Hugh Beyer said:

Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in

Quoted message said:

Personally, I think this notion of going "all out" all through the
workout is driven by ego-driven training presented by muscle comics,
much the same mindset as Mentzer's HIT (the Shawn Phillips article is a
fine example of this). Real athletes don't train like this. Sure, they
go all-out, but not on every rep. Going all out is a means to an end,
not an end in itself.

Who says no real athlet uses HIT?

Quoted message said:

Makes sense to me. Some of the gee-whiz-balls-to-the-wall HIIT stuff is
pretty silly.

HIT is not HIIT and confusing them is silly.

--Blair
"Try arguing semantics with a barbell."

Blair P Houghton said:

Hugh Beyer said:

Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in

Quoted message said:

Personally, I think this notion of going "all out" all through the
workout is driven by ego-driven training presented by muscle comics,
much the same mindset as Mentzer's HIT (the Shawn Phillips article is a
fine example of this). Real athletes don't train like this. Sure, they
go all-out, but not on every rep. Going all out is a means to an end,
not an end in itself.

Who says no real athlet uses HIT?

Name a few of them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Makes sense to me. Some of the gee-whiz-balls-to-the-wall HIIT stuff is
pretty silly.

HIT is not HIIT and confusing them is silly.

No-one's confusing them.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Hugh Beyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jason Earl <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Hugh Beyer said:

Jason Earl <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> Currently, when I can do eights sets of at least 8 with my current
> weight I graduate to higher weights, but that's primarily due to
> the fact that I tend to emphasize strength in whatever exercises I
> do (even my cardio workouts are slanted that direction).
>

I might up the weight, but I find that even with the 15's my arms
fatigue before my legs. The last reps of the last sets are pretty
wobbly as it is.

Hugh

My lower body is currently lagging my upper body, and I started
lighter than you. Not to mention the fact that I get as much
advantage from momentum as possible.

Eventually I plan on switching to front squats, for precisely that
reason.

Jason

To go back to the original question, I did some research and it turns out
Tabata's second study was with one group of people doing the 20s/10s at
170%
of VO2max and a second doing longer intervals with 200% of VO2max, and the
shorter intervals worked better to tax both aerobic and anaerobic
pathways... so since his people were using 170% of
something-I-don't-quite-
understand instead of 200%, I guess it's not a total bastardization to
hold
back from going completely all out.

VO2max power output is, roughly, what you can average doing a five minute
maximal test in your exercise of choice. If you're a runner, look at your
mile time, if you cycle, your 4k, if you row, your 2k; compare to a chart.
The number you get will depend on a lot of things besides basic fitness,
like which sport you do, how efficient you are, et cetera.

However, the idea is that the limiting factor is how much oxygen you can
use. So if you discover that you can average 100W when you lift heavy
weights for six minutes, then that doesn't tell you much about VO2max. Your
legs fatigued well before your CV system.

Given everyone here lifts weights, going all out for 20 seconds in most
exercises will be way over 170% of VO2max.

Peter

Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Blair P Houghton said:

Hugh Beyer said:

Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in
> Personally, I think this notion of going "all out" all through the
> workout is driven by ego-driven training presented by muscle comics,
> much the same mindset as Mentzer's HIT (the Shawn Phillips article is a
> fine example of this). Real athletes don't train like this. Sure, they
> go all-out, but not on every rep. Going all out is a means to an end,
> not an end in itself.

Who says no real athlet uses HIT?

Name a few of them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Makes sense to me. Some of the gee-whiz-balls-to-the-wall HIIT stuff is
pretty silly.

HIT is not HIIT and confusing them is silly.

No-one's confusing them.

Cheers,

Maybe Blair "no brains here" Houghton is confusing them.

Hugh

--
Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will attend no other.

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Hugh Beyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jason Earl <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Hugh Beyer <[email hidden]> writes:

> Jason Earl <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> Currently, when I can do eights sets of at least 8 with my current
>> weight I graduate to higher weights, but that's primarily due to
>> the fact that I tend to emphasize strength in whatever exercises I
>> do (even my cardio workouts are slanted that direction).
>>
>
> I might up the weight, but I find that even with the 15's my arms
> fatigue before my legs. The last reps of the last sets are pretty
> wobbly as it is.
>
> Hugh

My lower body is currently lagging my upper body, and I started
lighter than you. Not to mention the fact that I get as much
advantage from momentum as possible.

Eventually I plan on switching to front squats, for precisely that
reason.

Jason

To go back to the original question, I did some research and it turns
out Tabata's second study was with one group of people doing the
20s/10s at 170%
of VO2max and a second doing longer intervals with 200% of VO2max, and
the shorter intervals worked better to tax both aerobic and anaerobic
pathways... so since his people were using 170% of
something-I-don't-quite-
understand instead of 200%, I guess it's not a total bastardization to
hold
back from going completely all out.

VO2max power output is, roughly, what you can average doing a five
minute maximal test in your exercise of choice. If you're a runner, look
at your mile time, if you cycle, your 4k, if you row, your 2k; compare
to a chart. The number you get will depend on a lot of things besides
basic fitness, like which sport you do, how efficient you are, et
cetera.

However, the idea is that the limiting factor is how much oxygen you can
use. So if you discover that you can average 100W when you lift heavy
weights for six minutes, then that doesn't tell you much about VO2max.
Your legs fatigued well before your CV system.

Given everyone here lifts weights, going all out for 20 seconds in most
exercises will be way over 170% of VO2max.

OK, that sounds relevant. But OMG the thought of doing 5 minutes of
thrusters in order to determine my VO2max sounds... painful. I think I'll
just stumble along from where I am.

Hugh

--
Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will attend no other.

Hugh Beyer said:

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Hugh Beyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jason Earl <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

> Hugh Beyer <[email hidden]> writes:
>
>> Jason Earl <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently, when I can do eights sets of at least 8 with my current
>>> weight I graduate to higher weights, but that's primarily due to
>>> the fact that I tend to emphasize strength in whatever exercises I
>>> do (even my cardio workouts are slanted that direction).
>>>
>>
>> I might up the weight, but I find that even with the 15's my arms
>> fatigue before my legs. The last reps of the last sets are pretty
>> wobbly as it is.
>>
>> Hugh
>
> My lower body is currently lagging my upper body, and I started
> lighter than you. Not to mention the fact that I get as much
> advantage from momentum as possible.
>
> Eventually I plan on switching to front squats, for precisely that
> reason.
>
> Jason
>

To go back to the original question, I did some research and it turns
out Tabata's second study was with one group of people doing the
20s/10s at 170%
of VO2max and a second doing longer intervals with 200% of VO2max, and
the shorter intervals worked better to tax both aerobic and anaerobic
pathways... so since his people were using 170% of
something-I-don't-quite-
understand instead of 200%, I guess it's not a total bastardization to
hold
back from going completely all out.

VO2max power output is, roughly, what you can average doing a five
minute maximal test in your exercise of choice. If you're a runner, look
at your mile time, if you cycle, your 4k, if you row, your 2k; compare
to a chart. The number you get will depend on a lot of things besides
basic fitness, like which sport you do, how efficient you are, et
cetera.

However, the idea is that the limiting factor is how much oxygen you can
use. So if you discover that you can average 100W when you lift heavy
weights for six minutes, then that doesn't tell you much about VO2max.
Your legs fatigued well before your CV system.

Given everyone here lifts weights, going all out for 20 seconds in most
exercises will be way over 170% of VO2max.

OK, that sounds relevant. But OMG the thought of doing 5 minutes of
thrusters in order to determine my VO2max sounds... painful. I think I'll
just stumble along from where I am.

It appears to be your usual way Hugh, why change at this late stage in
life?!! ;o)

"Hugh Beyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Hugh Beyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jason Earl <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

> Hugh Beyer <[email hidden]> writes:
>
>> Jason Earl <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently, when I can do eights sets of at least 8 with my current
>>> weight I graduate to higher weights, but that's primarily due to
>>> the fact that I tend to emphasize strength in whatever exercises I
>>> do (even my cardio workouts are slanted that direction).
>>>
>>
>> I might up the weight, but I find that even with the 15's my arms
>> fatigue before my legs. The last reps of the last sets are pretty
>> wobbly as it is.
>>
>> Hugh
>
> My lower body is currently lagging my upper body, and I started
> lighter than you. Not to mention the fact that I get as much
> advantage from momentum as possible.
>
> Eventually I plan on switching to front squats, for precisely that
> reason.
>
> Jason
>

To go back to the original question, I did some research and it turns
out Tabata's second study was with one group of people doing the
20s/10s at 170%
of VO2max and a second doing longer intervals with 200% of VO2max, and
the shorter intervals worked better to tax both aerobic and anaerobic
pathways... so since his people were using 170% of
something-I-don't-quite-
understand instead of 200%, I guess it's not a total bastardization to
hold
back from going completely all out.

VO2max power output is, roughly, what you can average doing a five
minute maximal test in your exercise of choice. If you're a runner, look
at your mile time, if you cycle, your 4k, if you row, your 2k; compare
to a chart. The number you get will depend on a lot of things besides
basic fitness, like which sport you do, how efficient you are, et
cetera.

However, the idea is that the limiting factor is how much oxygen you can
use. So if you discover that you can average 100W when you lift heavy
weights for six minutes, then that doesn't tell you much about VO2max.
Your legs fatigued well before your CV system.

Given everyone here lifts weights, going all out for 20 seconds in most
exercises will be way over 170% of VO2max.

OK, that sounds relevant. But OMG the thought of doing 5 minutes of
thrusters in order to determine my VO2max sounds... painful. I think I'll
just stumble along from where I am.

Testing VO2max properly is always painful. You can probably make a decent
guess by doing 3 minutes fairly hard, though.

If however you mean you'd have trouble with your muscles fatiguing first,
then you're not really going to get quite what you want out of trying the
Tabata protocol with that exercise.

I'd observe that when you go looking for Tabata and weights work together,
you find www.crossfit.com fairly fast - and I don't think those people do
too well with VO2max tests. For example, they have top rowing scores:

500m 1:20
1k 2:57
2k 6:41
5k 17:59

Now, the 500m score is pretty decent. The 1k score isn't too shabby. The 2k
score is not brilliant, and the 5k is a joke.

For contrast, my scores would be:

1:27
3:04
6:29
17:57 (haven't tested 5k for years, that's my half hour pace at rate 20)

I'm a lightweight, currently at 74kg. Good heavyweight scores are quite a
bit faster than mine.

Peter

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Blair P Houghton said:

Hugh Beyer said:

Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in
> Personally, I think this notion of going "all out" all through the
> workout is driven by ego-driven training presented by muscle comics,
> much the same mindset as Mentzer's HIT (the Shawn Phillips article is a
> fine example of this). Real athletes don't train like this. Sure, they
> go all-out, but not on every rep. Going all out is a means to an end,
> not an end in itself.

Who says no real athlet uses HIT?

Name a few of them.

Every pro-football player who does wind sprints, every pro-hockey
player who does stops and starts, just for a start. And the intensity
they go at it is mind boggling (having played junior hockey, I guarantee
you that when the coach decides its time for the line drill, you bust
your ass ... I've never worked like that, not even in basic training).
Now HIIT you'd probably have to search around for to find anyone
in the sports world ...

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Hugh Beyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Hugh Beyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Jason Earl <[email hidden]> wrote in
> news:[email hidden]:
>
>> Hugh Beyer <[email hidden]> writes:
>>
>>> Jason Earl <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Currently, when I can do eights sets of at least 8 with my current
>>>> weight I graduate to higher weights, but that's primarily due to
>>>> the fact that I tend to emphasize strength in whatever exercises I
>>>> do (even my cardio workouts are slanted that direction).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I might up the weight, but I find that even with the 15's my arms
>>> fatigue before my legs. The last reps of the last sets are pretty
>>> wobbly as it is.
>>>
>>> Hugh
>>
>> My lower body is currently lagging my upper body, and I started
>> lighter than you. Not to mention the fact that I get as much
>> advantage from momentum as possible.
>>
>> Eventually I plan on switching to front squats, for precisely that
>> reason.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
> To go back to the original question, I did some research and it turns
> out Tabata's second study was with one group of people doing the
> 20s/10s at 170%
> of VO2max and a second doing longer intervals with 200% of VO2max,
> and the shorter intervals worked better to tax both aerobic and
> anaerobic pathways... so since his people were using 170% of
> something-I-don't-quite- understand instead of 200%, I guess it's not
> a total bastardization to hold back from going completely all out.

VO2max power output is, roughly, what you can average doing a five
minute maximal test in your exercise of choice. If you're a runner,
look at your mile time, if you cycle, your 4k, if you row, your 2k;
compare to a chart. The number you get will depend on a lot of things
besides basic fitness, like which sport you do, how efficient you are,
et cetera.

However, the idea is that the limiting factor is how much oxygen you
can use. So if you discover that you can average 100W when you lift
heavy weights for six minutes, then that doesn't tell you much about
VO2max. Your legs fatigued well before your CV system.

Given everyone here lifts weights, going all out for 20 seconds in
most exercises will be way over 170% of VO2max.

OK, that sounds relevant. But OMG the thought of doing 5 minutes of
thrusters in order to determine my VO2max sounds... painful. I think
I'll just stumble along from where I am.

Testing VO2max properly is always painful. You can probably make a
decent guess by doing 3 minutes fairly hard, though.

Well... if I understand all the above, if I assume I'm at 170% of VO2max
now and I'm doing 12 reps/20 sec, then cutting that down to 100% would be
about 7 reps/20 sec or so. So in theory I should be able to do 21 reps/min
for 5 minutes straight. Which doesn't sound impossible, it just sounds
boring as hell and will give me a number I then don't know what to do
with.

Hugh

Quoted message said:

If however you mean you'd have trouble with your muscles fatiguing
first, then you're not really going to get quite what you want out of
trying the Tabata protocol with that exercise.

I'd observe that when you go looking for Tabata and weights work
together, you find www.crossfit.com fairly fast - and I don't think
those people do too well with VO2max tests. For example, they have top
rowing scores:

500m 1:20
1k 2:57
2k 6:41
5k 17:59

Now, the 500m score is pretty decent. The 1k score isn't too shabby. The
2k score is not brilliant, and the 5k is a joke.

For contrast, my scores would be:

1:27
3:04
6:29
17:57 (haven't tested 5k for years, that's my half hour pace at rate 20)

I'm a lightweight, currently at 74kg. Good heavyweight scores are quite
a bit faster than mine.

Peter

--
Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will attend no other.

John Smith said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Blair P Houghton said:

Hugh Beyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in
>> Personally, I think this notion of going "all out" all through the
>> workout is driven by ego-driven training presented by muscle comics,
>> much the same mindset as Mentzer's HIT (the Shawn Phillips article is a
>> fine example of this). Real athletes don't train like this. Sure, they
>> go all-out, but not on every rep. Going all out is a means to an end,
>> not an end in itself.

Who says no real athlet uses HIT?

Name a few of them.

Every pro-football player who does wind sprints, every pro-hockey
player who does stops and starts, just for a start. And the intensity

I meant HIT as in Mentzer/Jones/Darden training (which involves training
to failure). So your example is a non-example.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Hugh Beyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Hugh Beyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

> "Hugh Beyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> Jason Earl <[email hidden]> wrote in
>> news:[email hidden]:
>>
>>> Hugh Beyer <[email hidden]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Jason Earl <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, when I can do eights sets of at least 8 with my current
>>>>> weight I graduate to higher weights, but that's primarily due to
>>>>> the fact that I tend to emphasize strength in whatever exercises I
>>>>> do (even my cardio workouts are slanted that direction).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I might up the weight, but I find that even with the 15's my arms
>>>> fatigue before my legs. The last reps of the last sets are pretty
>>>> wobbly as it is.
>>>>
>>>> Hugh
>>>
>>> My lower body is currently lagging my upper body, and I started
>>> lighter than you. Not to mention the fact that I get as much
>>> advantage from momentum as possible.
>>>
>>> Eventually I plan on switching to front squats, for precisely that
>>> reason.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>
>> To go back to the original question, I did some research and it turns
>> out Tabata's second study was with one group of people doing the
>> 20s/10s at 170%
>> of VO2max and a second doing longer intervals with 200% of VO2max,
>> and the shorter intervals worked better to tax both aerobic and
>> anaerobic pathways... so since his people were using 170% of
>> something-I-don't-quite- understand instead of 200%, I guess it's not
>> a total bastardization to hold back from going completely all out.
>
> VO2max power output is, roughly, what you can average doing a five
> minute maximal test in your exercise of choice. If you're a runner,
> look at your mile time, if you cycle, your 4k, if you row, your 2k;
> compare to a chart. The number you get will depend on a lot of things
> besides basic fitness, like which sport you do, how efficient you are,
> et cetera.
>
> However, the idea is that the limiting factor is how much oxygen you
> can use. So if you discover that you can average 100W when you lift
> heavy weights for six minutes, then that doesn't tell you much about
> VO2max. Your legs fatigued well before your CV system.
>
> Given everyone here lifts weights, going all out for 20 seconds in
> most exercises will be way over 170% of VO2max.

OK, that sounds relevant. But OMG the thought of doing 5 minutes of
thrusters in order to determine my VO2max sounds... painful. I think
I'll just stumble along from where I am.

Testing VO2max properly is always painful. You can probably make a
decent guess by doing 3 minutes fairly hard, though.

Well... if I understand all the above, if I assume I'm at 170% of VO2max
now and I'm doing 12 reps/20 sec, then cutting that down to 100% would be
about 7 reps/20 sec or so. So in theory I should be able to do 21 reps/min
for 5 minutes straight. Which doesn't sound impossible, it just sounds
boring as hell and will give me a number I then don't know what to do
with.

Inclined to call you for working that the wrong way round, but I guess you
know what you mean.

Probably would be boring, yeah.

You could, if you felt like it, measure how much work you were doing (which
would involve a fair bit of guesswork as to how much energy you save
bouncing off the bottom, how much your body is moving, etc...) and get a
power number. Then you could fiddle it through more guesstimates to get
absolute VO2max to within maybe 40% accuracy, if you're lucky. Then you'd
have a number which sounds like it ought to tell you everything about your
aerobic performance, but actually it doesn't. VO2max correlates fairly well
to performance around five minutes; shorter stuff anaerobic contributions
become more important, longer stuff you really want to know power at AT; it
turns out this has a surprisingly poor correlation to power at VO2max.

What I really meant, though, is that if you found that you were able to do
any more reps in the 5 minutes, then you ought to push yourself harder in
the Tabata stuff, and if you found that you were limited by muscle strength
before CV fitness then you'd know that you simply aren't strong enough to
get proper benfits out of the work.

Peter

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Smith said:

Quoted message said:

> Who says no real athlet uses HIT?

Name a few of them.

Every pro-football player who does wind sprints, every pro-hockey
player who does stops and starts, just for a start. And the intensity

I meant HIT as in Mentzer/Jones/Darden training (which involves training
to failure). So your example is a non-example.

Ah, sorry, I'm just a dumb hockey player/judoka/wrestler who
lifts weights to keep in shape. Thought HIT was just an acronym,
didn't realize it was a specific training technique. Maybe I'll just
slink off and go back to lurking.

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Smith said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Smith said:

>> Who says no real athlet uses HIT?
>
> Name a few of them.

Every pro-football player who does wind sprints, every pro-hockey
player who does stops and starts, just for a start. And the intensity

I meant HIT as in Mentzer/Jones/Darden training (which involves training
to failure). So your example is a non-example.

Ah, sorry, I'm just a dumb hockey player/judoka/wrestler who
lifts weights to keep in shape. Thought HIT was just an acronym,
didn't realize it was a specific training technique. Maybe I'll just
slink off and go back to lurking.

John's example could be characterised as HIIT tho...

High Intensity Interval Training

But it is not done to failure as per the HIT model. A sprint done to
failure would be running as hard as you can until you couldn't run
anymore. Ditto for the skate.

--
Keith

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Hugh Beyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Hugh Beyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in
> news:[email hidden]:
>
>> "Hugh Beyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>>> Jason Earl <[email hidden]> wrote in
>>> news:[email hidden]:
>>>
>>>> Hugh Beyer <[email hidden]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Jason Earl <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently, when I can do eights sets of at least 8 with my
>>>>>> current weight I graduate to higher weights, but that's
>>>>>> primarily due to the fact that I tend to emphasize strength in
>>>>>> whatever exercises I do (even my cardio workouts are slanted
>>>>>> that direction).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I might up the weight, but I find that even with the 15's my arms
>>>>> fatigue before my legs. The last reps of the last sets are pretty
>>>>> wobbly as it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hugh
>>>>
>>>> My lower body is currently lagging my upper body, and I started
>>>> lighter than you. Not to mention the fact that I get as much
>>>> advantage from momentum as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Eventually I plan on switching to front squats, for precisely that
>>>> reason.
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>
>>> To go back to the original question, I did some research and it
>>> turns out Tabata's second study was with one group of people doing
>>> the 20s/10s at 170%
>>> of VO2max and a second doing longer intervals with 200% of VO2max,
>>> and the shorter intervals worked better to tax both aerobic and
>>> anaerobic pathways... so since his people were using 170% of
>>> something-I-don't-quite- understand instead of 200%, I guess it's
>>> not a total bastardization to hold back from going completely all
>>> out.
>>
>> VO2max power output is, roughly, what you can average doing a five
>> minute maximal test in your exercise of choice. If you're a runner,
>> look at your mile time, if you cycle, your 4k, if you row, your 2k;
>> compare to a chart. The number you get will depend on a lot of
>> things besides basic fitness, like which sport you do, how efficient
>> you are, et cetera.
>>
>> However, the idea is that the limiting factor is how much oxygen you
>> can use. So if you discover that you can average 100W when you lift
>> heavy weights for six minutes, then that doesn't tell you much about
>> VO2max. Your legs fatigued well before your CV system.
>>
>> Given everyone here lifts weights, going all out for 20 seconds in
>> most exercises will be way over 170% of VO2max.
>
> OK, that sounds relevant. But OMG the thought of doing 5 minutes of
> thrusters in order to determine my VO2max sounds... painful. I think
> I'll just stumble along from where I am.

Testing VO2max properly is always painful. You can probably make a
decent guess by doing 3 minutes fairly hard, though.

Well... if I understand all the above, if I assume I'm at 170% of
VO2max now and I'm doing 12 reps/20 sec, then cutting that down to 100%
would be about 7 reps/20 sec or so. So in theory I should be able to do
21 reps/min for 5 minutes straight. Which doesn't sound impossible, it
just sounds boring as hell and will give me a number I then don't know
what to do with.

Inclined to call you for working that the wrong way round, but I guess
you know what you mean.

If you mean I should test my VO2max and determine 170% from there, yeah, I
know. I was just interested in figuring out whether the equivalent 5
minutes at 100% even sounded doable.

Quoted message said:

Probably would be boring, yeah.

You could, if you felt like it, measure how much work you were doing
(which would involve a fair bit of guesswork as to how much energy you
save bouncing off the bottom, how much your body is moving, etc...) and
get a power number. Then you could fiddle it through more guesstimates
to get absolute VO2max to within maybe 40% accuracy, if you're lucky.
Then you'd have a number which sounds like it ought to tell you
everything about your aerobic performance, but actually it doesn't.
VO2max correlates fairly well to performance around five minutes;
shorter stuff anaerobic contributions become more important, longer
stuff you really want to know power at AT; it turns out this has a
surprisingly poor correlation to power at VO2max.

What I really meant, though, is that if you found that you were able to
do any more reps in the 5 minutes, then you ought to push yourself
harder in the Tabata stuff, and if you found that you were limited by
muscle strength before CV fitness then you'd know that you simply aren't
strong enough to get proper benfits out of the work.

In the end the only reason why I care is if it means I should be pushing
myself harder. Tabata had his people cycle at 90rpm and cut the bout short
if they couldn't maintain at least 85, so he was keeping power output
steady. So I think if I can do essentially the same number of reps in each
interval, I'm doing the equivalent and I really don't have to worry about
VO2max. I'll just up the reps as I can.

Hugh

--
Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will attend no other.

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Blair P Houghton said:

Hugh Beyer said:

Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in
> Personally, I think this notion of going "all out" all through the
> workout is driven by ego-driven training presented by muscle comics,
> much the same mindset as Mentzer's HIT (the Shawn Phillips article is a
> fine example of this). Real athletes don't train like this. Sure, they
> go all-out, but not on every rep. Going all out is a means to an end,
> not an end in itself.

Who says no real athlet uses HIT?

Name a few of them.

I'm not the one making the assertion that none do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Makes sense to me. Some of the gee-whiz-balls-to-the-wall HIIT stuff is
pretty silly.

HIT is not HIIT and confusing them is silly.

No-one's confusing them.

Name a few of them.

--Blair
"Makes more sense when I say it."

Hugh Beyer said:

Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Blair P Houghton said:

Hugh Beyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in
>> Personally, I think this notion of going "all out" all through the
>> workout is driven by ego-driven training presented by muscle comics,
>> much the same mindset as Mentzer's HIT (the Shawn Phillips article is a
>> fine example of this). Real athletes don't train like this. Sure, they
>> go all-out, but not on every rep. Going all out is a means to an end,
>> not an end in itself.

Who says no real athlet uses HIT?

Name a few of them.

Quoted message said:

>Makes sense to me. Some of the gee-whiz-balls-to-the-wall HIIT stuff is
>pretty silly.

HIT is not HIIT and confusing them is silly.

No-one's confusing them.

Cheers,

Maybe Blair "no brains here" Houghton is confusing them.

No.

--Blair
"Reread this thread."

Blair P Houghton said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Blair P Houghton said:

Hugh Beyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in
>> Personally, I think this notion of going "all out" all through the
>> workout is driven by ego-driven training presented by muscle comics,
>> much the same mindset as Mentzer's HIT (the Shawn Phillips article is a
>> fine example of this). Real athletes don't train like this. Sure, they
>> go all-out, but not on every rep. Going all out is a means to an end,
>> not an end in itself.

Who says no real athlet uses HIT?

Name a few of them.

I'm not the one making the assertion that none do.

You're asking me to prove a negative, which is an absurd request.

Those who have a vested interest in offering examples of people who use HIT
tend to be very thin on unambiguous, verifiable claims. This is either because
HIT advocates are unable to or not interested in finding good examples. I
submit that the latter is not plausible.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Makes sense to me. Some of the gee-whiz-balls-to-the-wall HIIT stuff is
>pretty silly.

HIT is not HIIT and confusing them is silly.

No-one's confusing them.

Name a few of them.

?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Blair P Houghton said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-03-31, Blair P Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Hugh Beyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in
>>> Personally, I think this notion of going "all out" all through the
>>> workout is driven by ego-driven training presented by muscle comics,
>>> much the same mindset as Mentzer's HIT (the Shawn Phillips article is a
>>> fine example of this). Real athletes don't train like this. Sure, they
>>> go all-out, but not on every rep. Going all out is a means to an end,
>>> not an end in itself.
>
> Who says no real athlet uses HIT?

Name a few of them.

I'm not the one making the assertion that none do.

You're asking me to prove a negative, which is an absurd request.

YOU MADE THE CLAIM!

If you can't prove it, how did you prove it to yourself?

--Blair
"Utter end of argument."

Blair P Houghton said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Blair P Houghton said:

Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote:
>On 2005-03-31, Blair P Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Hugh Beyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in
>>>> Personally, I think this notion of going "all out" all through the
>>>> workout is driven by ego-driven training presented by muscle comics,
>>>> much the same mindset as Mentzer's HIT (the Shawn Phillips article is a
>>>> fine example of this). Real athletes don't train like this. Sure, they
>>>> go all-out, but not on every rep. Going all out is a means to an end,
>>>> not an end in itself.
>>
>> Who says no real athlet uses HIT?
>
>Name a few of them.

I'm not the one making the assertion that none do.

You're asking me to prove a negative, which is an absurd request.

YOU MADE THE CLAIM!

If you can't prove it, how did you prove it to yourself?

I provided an argument to support my claim (which you conveniently snipped,
and which you haven't rebutted).

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/