Forum menu
I can see that its a good way to boost fitness in the run-up to an event but I doubt whether doing it all year round will be better than periodised training.
Molgrips or others claiming the benefits of any training regime...care to share your weekly training hours and performance figures?
Sod off with your requests for proof. Anecdotal evidence is more than enough.
I'd give it if I had it! Nothing to hide here. Just experiences offered. I wish I had the resources to conduct a complete study but sadly I don't.
Jesus Christ this day and age and we are debating this bs. 3 things work consistent exercise, sufficient (minimum) food and peds.
if you exercise, you are not fat because of what you eat. your natural growth hormone and insulin production decide how much fat you hold. your performance depends on having ENOUGH calories and natural testosterone production to have muscular hypertrophy after the training stimulus.
you can be -10% body fat and muscular if your genetics allow you to be. bodybuilders have known this for years.
Molgrips, from the sound of it, you're actually doing much harder 45min sessions as opposed to lower level much longer sessions, not what I understand as HIT with all this train better in 5 mins a week type thing?
Jesus Christ this day and age and we are debating this bs
No, we're waffling without being properly informed 🙂
The reason the rides were 45 mins is that's how far away work was 🙂 I mixed it up with 45 min flat out intervals (non HIIT) and a gentle ride with 4 or 5 110% efforts on the short hills. Not HIIT either really but seems to have a similar effect. It certainly seems to be good for neurological adaptation.
Now you're getting silly. 110% efforts that changed the wiring of your brain?
Ok so 100% efforts would be more accurate. But yes, changing the wiring of your muscles and nerves and possibly your brain. Read up on neurologicalaspectsadaptation of training, also muscle memory.
OK, but I doubt many of us here know much about 100% effort. 'Trying very hard' maybe. If you're going for the science angle you can't really mix it with the football coach angle.
I'd define 100% effort as matching or exceeding your HR max, if you've not topped out or bettered it, then it wasn't 100%.
The football coach angle is valid. Do you know what your max effort is for 1 minute? You can't work at max HR for long, so if you go flat out for 23 mins in a time trial is that not 100%?
The point about the neurological training is that what feels like 100% now isn't really 100% of what your muscles are actually capable of. By going balls out/max effort/110%/whatever subjective language you choose, you are training your brain and muscles to give more of the strength they have AS WELL as making them stronger.
It was on that Horizon programme about HIIT actually too.
Ah ok, that's what I class as interval training and its how I train mostly.
And I think we know what someone means by 110%. Yes it can be slightly irritating but unless you never say anything ever that is grammatically incorrect, better to let it pass no?
Edit: cross post with molgrips there
You'd rarely achieve that on a commute in my view. And I doubt you'd be doing reps of that intensity...
Ok, forgive the pedantry but we're in danger of having a grown up discussion, so it's worth trying to be accurate?
Do you know what your max effort is for 1 minute?
If you train with a power meter, you have all this data on tap after every training session. Used to be about 500 Watts for 1 min, but could only maintain 320ish for a 10k TT (I only ever did one, hence the ish bit).
On the Max intensity thing, I only ever managed that when competing in a local Chain Gang, as I used to regularly top my max HR week on week trying to stay with the faster boys (e.g. ac282). I remember one summer, my max HR went up by about 1 bpm each week to about 207. Still never managed to hang on over the hills mind....
You'd rarely achieve that on a commute in my view.
Well it's a commute and training session combined. And I don't see any reason why I could not achieve max effort on some hills or open sections. That's kind of the point - training myself to actually work that hard on demand.
Is there anyone that's just doing this High Intensity stuff
And actual HIIT rather than speed/interval work
I bet you're still only an 7 or 8 on an RPE perceived effort scale moley. No disrespect. I know I'd be under a bus if I tried for a 9 or 10. I don't train anything like as hard as the people I know that are better than me (I wonder if there's a connection there?!) but when I nail it, I'm good for nothing after.
Have you seen Lord Hoy falling off his trainer? That's getting towards a 10 🙂
Have you seen Lord Hoy falling off his trainer? That's getting towards a 10
+1, pushing myself to what I perceive to be 9+ effort I can't do anything afterwards let alone carry on riding.
I can't imagine pushing at 100% for a whole TT would be even possible. IIRC Chris Boardman used to barely push the pedals when starting a TT. I'd only want to approach a 100% PPE in sight of the line.
I bet you're still only an 7 or 8 on an RPE perceived effort scale moley.
Well no, cos RPE is [i]perceived[/i] exertion innit.
How hard you end up going is a combination of factors, as above. If your nerves aren't capable of activating your muscle fibres fully, then your brain will ask for everything and you'll get less than your muscles are capable of. In that case you'll probably recover fairly quickly, especially if your endurance is good generally.
This is why I am training like this, because I've realised that over the years I have got used to not really pushing properly hard.
I can't imagine pushing at 100% for a whole TT would be even possible
Obviously. Utterly max flat out power is only possible for a few seconds. 100% for a time trial is far less than 100% for a 10 second effort. Again that's why it's called perceived exertion.
As for Hoy falling off his trainer - he's obvioulsy all about the sprint, so he's very good at summoning all the strength his muscles are capable of, with the resulting large amount of lactic acid and general pain. I've been trying to get to that point, and I've improved a lot. I doubt Wiggins or Froome do that very often, because doing it in a tour would be a bad idea. You'd need to keep plenty in reserve.
Last time I did hill reps on foot I felt like puking and had to have a sit down in between reps. This is good for me - learning to punish myself properly.
I still think you're playing fast and loose with the terminology and conflating different things. But if you've found something that works, great.
I still think you're playing fast and loose with the terminology and conflating different things
In what sense? I know I'm not doing HIIT as planned by the coaches, but the focus is still on high intensity.
looking into this too much eat sleep train boom.
What's the point of arguing about the benefits of HIIT? There are people who know a lot more than me about sports science who have already proved its benefits.
I don't have a lot of time to train so it suits me.
If you're interested in competing in endurance events, then you'd better put the miles in. But there are some people who think that incorporating some HIIT sessions into your training would be of benefit.
I've posted a detailed description of my training, I'll let you know how I get on 3 months in.
OK, so not exactly HIT but when I joined Strava in the summer and tried to get decent placings and KOM's on my local trails, I (and others) noticed my weight drop, fitness increase and speed go up.
If you're interested in competing in endurance events, then you'd better put the miles in
Well, more miles is not necessarily better. You need far fewer long rides than most people think, it seems.
Well, more miles is not necessarily better. You need far fewer long rides than most people think, it seems.
I have a feeling that most people actually need more longer rides than they think. The difficulty I think happens with a lot of this research is when transposed onto punters like me, is that we vastly underestimate the actual volume of training proper athletes do, so assuming (and it's a disputable assumption) someone has worked out that an elite level runner or rider needs a lot less base mileage than previously thought, that reduced number is still many times bigger than what an average punter does. But yes if say you've only got time for 2 hours exercise a week it stands to reason it's more effective to do it at a higher intensity than a low one.
is that we vastly underestimate the actual volume of training proper athletes do
Well I don't think so - we know pro athletes do loads of miles, but the question is when you don't have that much time which bits do you cut?
I know a bloke who, in training for his 90 mile annual sportive, did tens of thousands a miles a year. He was slow as hell, slower than me (over a 3 hour ride) coming off the back of about three months of inactivity.
A certain coach who shall not be named but used to post on here said (on here) that he gave TdF riders one long ride a week.
once a good base level of fitness has reached all that's required is one long endurance session per week. The rest of the time is far better off spent doing speed and interval work. There's just no need to keep piling endless miles in. The body remembers endurance for far longer than it remembers speed. Doing intervals will build speed, fast recovery and will also help maintain that speed for longer.
I know a bloke who, in training for his 90 mile annual sportive, did tens of thousands a miles a year. He was slow as hell, slower than me (over a 3 hour ride)
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you. Tens of thousands > 20,000 miles a year. No one does >385 miles a week to train for a 90 mile sportif.
I used to aim for 250 miles a week when base training over winter. 1/3 of which would be on a turbo in the evenings during the week. I'd try and do two 80-100 mile rides on Sat and Sun. I couldn't fit any more in, 16 hours training a week plus full time job.
For the '100% effort' conversation earlier - look up "Monod and Scherrer's critical power models" as a starting point.
Training 'volume' and training 'specificity' are both important to enhance 'performance'. The latter is more important than the former, in my experience.
Tens of thousands > 20,000 miles a year. No one does >385 miles a week to train for a 90 mile sportif
When I was there in June he'd done 7,000 miles that year, despite living somewhere covered in snow til March. He'd done a 6 hour turbo trainer ride.
Weasel - Member
OK, so not exactly HIT but when I joined Strava in the summer and tried to get decent placings and KOM's on my local trails, I (and others) noticed my weight drop, fitness increase and speed go up.
Me too, I've probably never been faster on my punchy local climbs, even pre-knee-knack
I think HIT can be effective with a few tune up long rides, likewise I think that base miles can be effective with a few tune up interval sessions.