Might be of interest..

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/scientists-finds-how-high-intensity-interval-training-affects-muscles0

Thanks for the link I will have a read.

“short” intensive interval based training is established as the most effective way for middle and long distance athletes to spend their limited time. Its not as popular as “just” running because

a: it hurts like hell if you do it correctly
b: Running “steady” is enjoyable and easier so we all spend more time in this zone kidding ourselves that we are getting more benefit than we are
c: its doesnt sell as many magazines or “stuff” as its quite simple

Zatopek ran intervals twice every day and seldom over 400m in distance yet still went on to win the 52 Olympic marathon (as well as the 5000m and 10000m, the only man to have done that triple)
When asked why he trained so fast all the time he said “I already know how to run slowly”

I suspect this article is focused on the health benefits as oppose to performance. For performance exercise needs to be mainly “specific”

Interesting article but as with everything, it’s never that simple is it. Don’t free radicals cause aging, cancer etc etc ? We are encouraged to eat foods full of antioxidants but seems this will now off set some of the beneficial effects of training. Ahhrgh. If HIIT creates more oxidants it might encourage better muscle stamina but could also reduce life expectancy. Eeeee dear. What to do?

Take the antioxidants for recovery, oxidation occurs during exercise but these byproducts need flushing afterwards.

Surfer: specificity means we need a range of running training. Is there any evidence that HIIT targets all systems at once and can, for instance, prepare a runner for a marathon? We’re not all E Zatopec, and the likelihood of the average runner destroying themself through injury on interval training alone is very high indeed.

a: it hurts like hell if you do it correctly
b: Running “steady” is enjoyable and easier so we all spend more time in this zone kidding ourselves that we are getting more benefit than we are
c: its doesnt sell as many magazines or “stuff” as its quite simple

(a) and (b) I can agree with, but (c)? While I still can’t work out quite how magazines about running survive, one thing is certain: they all include interval or fartlek workouts when they talk about training.

I didn’t think any of these HIT regimes were being touted as having benefit to any particular sports performance, just the health benefits similar to prolonged sports were available without putting in the hours.

“Our results also show that the calcium channels aren’t affected by the three minutes of high-intensity interval exercise in elite endurance athletes, who have built up more effective antioxidative systems.”

So HIIT only works if you’re unfit.
?

Surfer: specificity means we need a range of running training. Is there any evidence that HIIT targets all systems at once and can, for instance, prepare a runner for a marathon? We’re not all E Zatopec,

I’m not advocating HIIT but I am advocating interval training to the exclusion of most other types of running and it is specific, albeit over shorter distances typically. The number of intervals, intensity and short recoveries contribute stamina. When I was running mainly track intervals and fartlek sessions many years ago I went to watch a few mates run in a 15 mile road race near Manchester IIRC. I decided to run it and off 800/1500m training I ran 1:25 comfortably, despite not running much more than 6-8 miles in a single session. In practical terms however even elite athletes add other sessions such as longer runs. Of course Zatopek was an exception!

and the likelihood of the average runner destroying themself through injury on interval training alone is very high indeed.

That doesnt detract from its effectiveness. It may not be practical or enjoyable for many but it is the most efficient. The fact that 90+% of runners get injured doing it is just an unfortunate side effect. Hard training always has a high failure rate.

The problem with using HIIT exclusively is that it doesn’t give you the mental toughness that you get from a long run – it may well be more effective* but I still think getting the miles in has value. If the longest time you’ve ever run is an hour are you really prepared for a 4 hour marathon?

* At least up to marathon distance: I have serious doubts about how useful it is for ultra races

If you are looking to run a marathon in 4 hrs then you maybe right, steady running may be more appropriate.

IanMunro – Member

So HIIT only works if you’re unfit.

If you categorise everyone that’s not an elite endurance athlete as unfit, then that’s what it says.

Long distance running or cycling also needs experience. You want to know what you feel like at 10, 15 miles etc. Also gives you confidence. There’s more to endurance than training.

You run a 10k, then 10 miler, half marathon and so on building up to the big event. Also allows your body to adapt. Feeding, gear etc can all be tested on the way. This approach also lessens the chance of injury.

Mix your training is my reading. Intervals, steady state, fartlek etc etc. Feed and hydrate as you would on the race

I’m not so sure. I used to think that base training then building in strength and speed work was the way to go, but I can see the merits in redlining yourself to get yourself fit for longer stuff. Like everything I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I’m training for an ultra – I’m doing some long runs and some short fast runs. The short fast runs are far more difficult than the long runs. I doubt the long runs do anything other than get my head used ot being on my feet for hours on end.

I think the whole long slow distance thing is misunderstood. Speed in training is a relative concept but it is pointless running long distances if those miles are significantly slower than the speed you expect to race at. If you are running too slow you should stay in bed as the training effect is very little however you are risking injury or at least wasting energy that could be used more effectively.
Thats not to say running at a slow pace isnt enjoyable and I do it myself but their is little real training benefit.

Not as simple as “take antioxidants”. If anything current scientific thinking is coming round to the idea of avoiding antioxidants due to the fact that they interfere with respiration and mitochondrial control at a genetic level.

Interesting – thanks for sharing. For me, the value of HIIT depends on what systems you’re training.

I tried a HIIT approach and did ok – on 25 intense miles per week I did 10ks in 35mins. The problems for me were always feeling on the edge of injury and a lack of aerobic endurance – the dropoff in longer races is big – only 1:21 half and over 3 marathon. My 5k and 10k times indicate much quicker ability. I’m marathon training now and focusing on building a much bigger base and injury-proofing myself by running steadily before I start more intense stuff.

As an aside, the thing often forgotten about Zatopek was that the chap was a soldier. His training may have been high intensity, but his job was long slow endurance. So he didn’t need specific long endurance training, he did it all the time.

The other ‘fact’is that we are all very different people and respond diferently to training intensity. Some how we have to find what works for us and develop that. I’m also personally strongly against anything other than a balanced diet. You should also train with the same stuff you eat during the event.

Not sure what you mean by his “job” other than training twice a day what else do you think he did?

Long runs develop mitochondrial density, bone and ligament strength and resilience, aerobic capacity and mental callousing.

I’m not clear on how HIIT running develops these things. Especially slow twitch muscle fibre and carb sparing.

Presumably Zatopec’s soldiering background gave him a massive endurance base. And presumably after a while, if you’re doing like 100 x 400m every day, even intervals become about endurance, no?

Flaperon, have you got any references for these antioxidant studies?

There is quite a bit of work that seems to support the case for a polarised approach being superior to high intensity stuff alone.
They started by looking at the training diaries of gold medal xc skiers did, then tested it. It seemed to work well with recreational athletes too.
The difficulty with most studies in isolation is that they are small and short term.
I don’t really think there is a magic approach. Just progression and rest. The sad truth is most of us who train consistently and properly hit a ceiling after a few years that just can not be breached.

Presumably Zatopec’s soldiering background gave him a massive endurance base.

Why would it? what do soldiers do in their routine that prepares them for life as a world class distance runner? Hi intensive interval training over many years gave him the massive endurance base.

The difficulty with most studies in isolation is that they are small and short term.

There is an opportunity cost to any training. Doing the training Zatopek did meant he couldnt be doing something else. Would he have been just as good running 2 interval sessions a week with steady running in between? I strongly suspect not.

Anecdotes of “I did HIIT and rn 10k in x mins” are basically pointless as we have a huge range of natural abilities, something that is way out of my league may still be poor relative to someone else’s ability. I certainly think that interval training has a useful role to play in getting people to their potential. However I very much doubt anyone could run a good marathon off it alone – you simply have to develop different energy pathways for that.

Anecdotes of “I did HIIT and rn 10k in x mins” are basically pointless as we have a huge range of natural abilities,

Which means any analysis of training methods is pointless as given “different abilities” who knows what is effective?

However I very much doubt anyone could run a good marathon off it alone – you simply have to develop different energy pathways for that.

Interval training does develop different energy pathways. The intervals I am talking about can range from 200m to 2-3k. If I was training for a Marathon I wouldnt advocate just interval training but Zatopek proved it was possible to run a pretty good one off almost purely interval training. I looked to see if Zatopek included other forms of training such as longer runs but I am pretty sure he never did. We should overcome our tendency to think to run long sustained distances we have to train over long sustained distances. It seems intuitive and the press recommends it but is it the case?

I guess ultimately it will depend on a combination of the person, the distance, and the available time. I’ve a neighbour who wins 100+ mile races, and does pretty much no speed work, but he does a large volume, if you transposed the percentage of easy to hard that he does to someone who only runs 2 hours a week, you’d probably find it an ineffective way of using those 2 hours. If you just copied the actual amount of minutes of hard effort, then it would probably be a much more effective use of 2 hours.
That doesn’t mean that hard efforts are thus better training for a 100mile race though, it just means if you’ve got limited time, hard is better.
Also by definition Zapotek is an outlier, if everyone could do what he did, no one would have heard of him.

No, surfer, I wasn’t saying that – a careful analysis with a significant population of runners can certainly be useful. But a random person saying how fast they are is not meaningful. I do an interval session most weeks and ran a marathon in just under 3h. So what? Does that mean intervals are good or bad? I dunno.

Also, from what I’ve read, Zatopek’s intervals were not what most people would call high intensity (taking account of his ability). Sure, it was higher intensity than a steady run. But he also ran big volume by the standards of the day. 50x400m *is* a long run, especially when that’s only one of the day’s workouts. FWIW, I don’t think any modern marathon plan simply says to run at a steady pace for long distances. eg Jack Daniels has two structured sessions a week with several “threshold” intervals of usually 4-10 mins at higher intensity within blocks of steady pace. This morning I did 4×6 mins (with 1 min off) and then 20 min at threshold in a 2h20 run. I think the evidence for this sort of workout is quite strong, but it’s definitely not HIIT. The classic HIIT workout is tabata, eg 8 reps of (20secs on, 10 secs off) which is brutal and quick and IMO useful, but definitely not enough for a marathon.

teaboy said: I tried a HIIT approach and did ok – on 25 intense miles per week I did 10ks in 35mins.

I wouldn’t call that regime particularly HIIT based TBH.

@alaslas – not on me but will look them up tonight. If you’ve got a copy of Nick Lane’s newest book he talks about it quite a lot there. (title “The Vital Question”).

Why would it? what do soldiers do in their routine that prepares them for life as a world class distance runner? Hi intensive interval training over many years gave him the massive endurance base.

Post-war soldiering in Eastern Europe would have been a highly physical job.

Post-war soldiering in Eastern Europe would have been a highly physical job.

I’m sure it was but I think even those crazy Chech’s realised the kudos of having the greatest distance runner of his day in their ranks. I dont think he undertook the same “duties” as the rest of his comrades.

The classic HIIT workout is tabata, eg 8 reps of (20secs on, 10 secs off) which is brutal and quick and IMO useful, but definitely not enough for a marathon.

I wouldnt know. I dont recognise that type of training and it is certainly nothing I have ever done. I certainly wouldnt recommend it unless you were training for very short distances. I had to look up the term HIIT.

This morning I did 4×6 mins (with 1 min off) and then 20 min at threshold in a 2h20 run. I think the evidence for this sort of workout is quite strong, but it’s definitely not HIIT.

So whats your point? These are interval runs which i am saying are extrmely effective and time well spent. Good work 🙂 You seem to be saying that I am advocating something else.

Does that mean intervals are good or bad? I dunno.

But we know that they are good dont we? Why do you say you dont know? I am confident that intervals or “reps” are extremely effective when done correctly and my point is that these are the most effective and time efficient methods of training. Physiologically we know they work. They may be more effective or have more significant results for some runners than others and some people will respond better to almost any type of training but we all benefit from them. They dont just “work” for some and not others.

Just read Joe Friels Fast after 50 and he reckons intense interval training is a must for keeping fit as you get older – the loss of the important numbers is way less than if you start to focus on LSD type training, which older people tend to do.

There is mention of needing some distance so your body is used to getting its energy in that scenario.

surfer, this whole thread was based on an article about HIIT. If you don’t know what it is and have no knowledge of it then I’m not sure what you were posting for…you say my run was effective and time well spent but it was 2h20 which is hardly a quick run, sure I varied my effort but it certainly wasn’t intervals in the sense of the OP’s article.

surfer – Member
Presumably Zatopec’s soldiering background gave him a massive endurance base.

Why would it? what do soldiers do in their routine that prepares them for life as a world class distance runner? Hi intensive interval training over many years gave him the massive endurance base.

Dude, are you serious? Soldiers march, they are physically fit, they train, they are tested in the field. Their marching and drilling gives soldiers, like postmen, a huge aerobic base. And, as a later poster says re Zatopec’s regimen, his reps become aerobic.

Let’s do some research:

“He took the rigorous training schedules practised by the Nordic runners to new extremes, training in heavy soldiers’ boots in pouring rain.”

In 1948 he joined the Czech army, enjoyed the training and trained every day as a military cadet.

In his inventive training he tried combinations of intervals, running in deep snow, riding an exercise bike with ankle weights, running with his wife on his back.

Anyway, it’s not all that important, just a bit of fun. But I’m not sold on the notion of replacing varied training with HIIT.

Not come across Nick Lane, will check it out

“He took the rigorous training schedules practised by the Nordic runners to new extremes, training in heavy soldiers’ boots in pouring rain.”

In 1948 he joined the Czech army, enjoyed the training and trained every day as a military cadet.

In his inventive training he tried combinations of intervals, running in deep snow, riding an exercise bike with ankle weights, running with his wife on his back.

Yes but the “cadet training” would have added little other than “general fitness” as most trainees receive. Your quote makes my point. He wasnt training as a soldier he just happened to be in the army! The army likely enabled him to focus on wholly on intensive “running” training. Any basic Army training would have added little to his “huge” anaerobic base. As I said above as with most top athletes in the forces they are given a huge amount of time off duties and multiple world record holders more so!
The interval training and the famous sessions he undertook were nothing to do with the army he was a student of the sport and of training methods. You are trying to shoehorn in some fictitious “base” training that was a result of his time in the army. Why dont you accept that his dominance was due to the intensive interval training he did? (as well as his ability to withstand and flourish as a result of it) Do you really think he spent much time marching?

it certainly wasn’t intervals in the sense of the OP’s article.

Thread in deviating from OP shocker 🙄 We are talking about intervals however the term “HIIT” is new. I think I know what they are and I was relating the concept of “intervals” to my experience in running.

I thought the article was saying that very short amounts of anaerobic training 3-4 minutes at a time “can be as good” as aerobic endurance training, but the difference isn’t pronounced if your’e an experienced endurance athlete already

have I read it wrong?

no thats how i read it too nickc .

basically if your a fat lazy slob you will make big gains or is it losses – quickly….

but if your actually fit then it makes sod all difference and you still need to do a balance.

its no surprise that most of my riding being done in 1 hour blasts over the last 3/4 years has made me pretty darned good at the 1 hour blast – stretching to 2 hours but im not as good as i was at 24 hour racing…..

nickc – Member
I thought the article was saying that very short amounts of anaerobic training 3-4 minutes at a time “can be as good” as aerobic endurance training, but the difference isn’t pronounced if your’e an experienced endurance athlete already

Not quite. We already know that HIIT (as in really high intensity, for no more than a few minutes) can be beneficial for increasing endurance; the main contribution of this paper is explaining why it’s beneficial. Having read the paper, they make no claims that it is “as good as” other forms of training, just why it is good. A lesser finding is that taking antioxidants (in this case, a really high dose) can limit some of these beneficial effects of HIIT.

trail_rat – Member
no thats how i read it too nickc .

basically if your a fat lazy slob you will make big gains or is it losses – quickly….

but if your actually fit then it makes sod all difference and you still need to do a balance.

You’re underestimating what “actually fit” means. The study participants were 36 people who were already active (including marathon runners) and 14 ‘elite endurance athletes’; the paper qualifies ‘elite’ as being competitive of a national level. It’s not necessarily the case that it made “sod all difference”; rather, the elite athletes may not have shown as pronounced benefits as the recreational athletes because they were already exceptionally fit.

If you’re a highly trained individual then working to your absolute max effort tends to have a poor payoff when it comes to recovery time.

Eg, doing a set of 10 x 100% effort sprints will take an awful lot more recovery (and potential training time missed) than a set of 10 x 90-95% effort sprints with only a marginal loss in training adaption effect. You could maybe do 1 or 2 extra sessions in the lost time.

However, for the more sedentary there is something different going on. This effort can have all sorts of other hormonal mechanisms in the body that do actually change what’s going on leading to effects outside of the training window.

HIIT is a great tool for certain circumstances. Not to be confused with standard Interval Training which is also a great tool for certain circumstances.

the main contribution of this paper is explaining why it’s beneficial.

righto, thanks 😀