Does anyone buy this argument?

[dsikes]

http://articles.pointshop.com/aerobics/50720.php

Author of article indicates short bursts of intense exercise are better for your health than long aerobic training sessions.

[MOKO]

Sure I buy it. Doesn't seem to be anything new. Basically that interval training is good. We've known this for years.

All sports that I have ever been involved with use just this, push 'til you can no longer push, get some water then back at it, just the same old interval training.

In the summary of the article the author points out several advantages to this 'variable cyclic training', pity that the reasons behind his opinion for the 'potential benefits' listed isn't explored, now that would have been interesting and informative...

Thanks for posting this.

[NavigationHazard]

http://articles.pointshop.com/aerobics/50720.php

Author of article indicates short bursts of intense exercise are better for your health than long aerobic training sessions.

IMO "better for your health" is highly subjective, with much riding on the definitions of "better" and "health."

Having said this, interval training has been around for ages. In no particular rank order, the main variables for rowers/ergers include: duration, intensity, and rating of work interval; duration and type (active/passive) of rest interval; number of repetitions. The possibilities are endless, particularly if you do things like distance pyramids (e.g. 250m/500/750/500/250 sequences) that involve variable intervals and/or rests.

There actually hasn't been all that much research on building endurance through interval work (presumably the point of replacing long aerobic sessions). Even less of it is rowing-specific. Still, you might want to take a look at http://sportsci.org/jour/0101/cf.htm. While concluding with a plaintive "more research is needed," the author does a nice job of summarizing much of what is known in the literature.

[dsikes]

Author's example is a follows:

Warm-up for 3-4 minutes at a fast walk or light jog;
Interval 1 - run at 8.0 mi/hr for 1 minute;
Interval 2 - walk at 4.0 mi/hr for 1.5 minutes;
Interval 3 - run at 10.0 mi/hr for 1 minute;
Interval 4 - walk at 4.0 mi/hr for 1.5 minutes;
Repeat those 4 intervals 4 times for a very intense 20-minute workout.

This doesn't seem like much exercise in the length of time sense to me.

2 min running x 4 and 3 min walking times 4?

Now I will read the article you linked NavigationHazard. Thanks.

[dsikes]

I read "Effects of High-Intensity Intermittent Training on Endurance Performance" linked by Navigation Hazard. Impressive. I may have to change my whole life!

[TomR]

Trying to decide whether shorter intervals are more valuable than longer endurance sessions seems entirely misguided. Our choice is not either/or.

Training programs for rowing (and running and cycling, I expect) combine longer endurance work w/ intervals of varying duration and intensity. Some programs recommend a progression thru the training season from, broadly speaking, longer, moderate work to shorter, faster intervals, (the periodization, recommended in the posted article). Other protocols combine all types of sessions throughout training (Wolverine Plan).

Within longer endurance workouts, it is common for the session to include variations in stroke rate and pace. As a result, longer sessions are often not truly "steady state." Coaches note that shifts in rate and pace make longer sessions more interesting for athletes and help them to stay focused. Variations also make the sessions more challenging.

It strikes me that this approach to "training" would be equally appropriate for those whose interest is simply "fitness," although the length and intensity of workouts would be less for the individual interested in fitness than for someone focused on competition.

Tom

[Neb154]

I remember something in Rowing News which talked about how intervals were effective, but only with proper rest, and for no more then 6 weeks. I think it was that after awhile, the gains became nonexistent.

[almostflipped]

They are effective after 6 weeks, however the majority of change occurs in the first 6 weeks. The volume of intervals is largely dependent on the volume of total training. If you are doing 6-8 hours of training a week, then you would probably hold off on intervals till the last 6 weeks. If you were doing 12+ hours of training, then you could use them more liberally, however they will still only account for around 5% (give or take a bit depending on the athlete) of total training time. Even the Wolverine Plan, which is reasonably intense, doesn't have you doing much more than that in volume.

You should also consider the target audience when reading an article. The interval session described could be a warm-up for a highly conditioned athlete or merely the first set of moderate level intervals for a moderately conditioned athlete. It can be safely assumed this is being targeted at people only interested in fitness and new to athletics in general.

And lastly, anytime an S&C coach or Ex. Sci guy acts like he's discovered something new, check previous research. Most of what is claimed to be new has been around for years. However grants aren't written for research that has already been proven many, many times. For instance, the 2nd article is not telling us anything new. In fact I have a copy of Rudern (the east german rowing textbook, copyright is 1977 I believe) that states all the same concepts (and if it was written in 77, you can assume it was known well before that). Congrats Ex. Sci's; you have discovered a 30+ year old concept and presented it as new.

PS: My god, I just looked the website of the author from the original link. That alone would make me think twice about anything he has to say.

Edit: added PS at 7:10PM

[dsikes]

Yes, I see what you mean.

[LJWagner]

My own experience over time of a strained heart valve from high intensity stuff, when doing less distance work makes me disagree. This is likely partly genetic, but not entirely.

I recovered my capacity to do anything at all doing long slow cardio. So there is definitely something right about slow distance work. Also, my doctor said there wasn't anything I could do for the strained valve, and difficulty breathing. I have since changed doctors after he later diagnosed my severe angina as stress, just before emergency cardiac bypass surgery. I'm fine now, and can walk 360 stairs in 5 minutes without a problem. I even take the elevator down and do it again, for a higher hr of of only 120 at the end of two trips.

High intensity intervals are more fun, and makes you stronger faster. But it does not give the right kind of workout for the heart. Long term heart health requires slow to moderate cardio work. Moderate depends on how fit you already are. More fit, more intense is ok because it is within developed capacity.

Intervals are good for you, but

1) you need a good cardiac warmup first. Prep your heart first, then the other muscles.
2) don't overdo it for your training level. Use an HR monitor.
3) put in a good cooldown. When you stop, blood is in skeletal muscles, and without a cooldown, your heart has to suck the blood back for your internal organs, causing further strain. The difference will show up 15-30 years down the road. You'll still be here.

[JohnBove]

I recall reading an article on interval training that, if I remember correctly, described the experience of the German crew team some time in the eighties switching from long steady-state workouts to intervals. The immediate results were positive and rather dramatic. However, over the long off-season, gains were minimal compared with other teams who were doing steady state.

The reason, according to the article, was that interval training was very effective at improving VO2 max, but less effective than long steady-state rowing for improving oxygen reception in the skeletal muscles. That VO2 max can be improved greatly over a fairly short period of time was why initial improvement was so dramatic. But the modification of skeletal muscle is effected over years and, for that, steady-state was crucial and interval training far less effective.

THis is from memory and there is, I hope, someone who can elaborate or correct anything that I'm misremembering.

[Jackie Dunn]

I buy it because when I was running a good bit, I did it in short bursts and I really felt better afterward and lost more weight than when I did longer training sessions...

IM AN SC gal myself!

[Jackie Dunn]

I buy it because when I was running a good bit, I did it in short bursts and I really felt better afterward and lost more weight than when I did longer training sessions...

IM AN SC gal myself!