Rest periods for intervals of 1 min or less

[Gammmmo]

I have been experimenting of late with very HIT in an attempt to train for new 1 min and 500m PBs.

I started off with the common 10x100m(rest=60s*) session and then moved to 7x150m(rest=90s). I try to keep the average lower than my 1 min PB to get accustomed to producing more power. So far so good.

So today I tried 5x200m and the obvious rest period choice was 120s. I could only do 3 intervals and each one was getting slower. At this point I cut the session short as didn't want to do "low quality" intervals. [I then rested 5 mins or so cranked out 3x150m@1:23.3! ,1:24.6 and 1:24.5 each one with >3mins rest.]

I looked into WHY I couldn't complete the session and there is indeed a possible scientific explanation. Beyond 10s the creatine phosphate system gives way to anaerobic glycolysis which spans 10s-30s. 150m intervals for me last about 25s and 200m ones about 34s so my question is...is this why the rest period needs to be increased? For those of you who have experimented with intervals of 1 min or less, care to share your experience of sessions you've done with particular regard to interval length, rest length, the average c/w say your 1 min PB, number of intervals, effectiveness etc?


* in the past when 10x100 has been suggested to me, the "default" rest has been 60s but it's always seemed to me that it may well be beneficial to allow for longer to allow the creatine phosphate system to re-boot. Of course a shorter period may provide a different adaption e.g. lactate tolerance training, but for the best average surely longer is better, and that in itself might be a different adpation which is useful

[hjs]

Paul, at track sprinters, don,t do intervals, that is on short rest, its low volume on long rest, not seldom 10/15 min rest between work. Its all about quality and being 100% fresh while doing the work.

The short rest sprints, are ment to increese the creatine phosphate pool, but that is not very trainable. You might experiment with low volume, high rest sprints, and make sure you don,t go very anaerobic. So really go for fast strong meters only.

[Gammmmo]

Paul, at track sprinters, don,t do intervals, that is on short rest, its low volume on long rest, not seldom 10/15 min rest between work. Its all about quality and being 100% fresh while doing the work.

The short rest sprints, are ment to increese the creatine phosphate pool, but that is not very trainable. You might experiment with low volume, high rest sprints, and make sure you don,t go very anaerobic. So really go for fast strong meters only.

OK, so what kind of sessions?...give me some suggested numbers.

[max_ratcliffe]

No expert, but if you're doing very HIT as you describe it, then the usual recommendation is to have the rest periods at least 2 mins. This trains the ATP-PC system, but I don't know how trainable that is.

There is also CNS fatigue to factor into the equation, and if you were in the weight room, you'd expect to have much longer rests for say 5 sets of 4 rather than 2 sets of 10. Rambling a bit, but there must be some analogy there somewhere!

Interesting training programme. You've done your most intense 100m sessions and have moved to 150m and now 200m, with a commensurate (and inevitable) reduction in intensity. Any chance this is backwards?

[Gammmmo]

No expert, but if you're doing very HIT as you describe it, then the usual recommendation is to have the rest periods at least 2 mins. This trains the ATP-PC system, but I don't know how trainable that is.

3mins minimum to re-boot ATP-PC. No I don't either.

There is also CNS fatigue to factor into the equation, and if you were in the weight room, you'd expect to have much longer rests for say 5 sets of 4 rather than 2 sets of 10. Rambling a bit, but there must be some analogy there somewhere!

Good point.

Interesting training programme. You've done your most intense 100m sessions and have moved to 150m and now 200m, with a commensurate (and inevitable) reduction in intensity. Any chance this is backwards?

The average for the 150m intervals was much the same as 100m ones. I think some of that is because the first 3/4 strokes, which are slower, have less overall impact on the average for 150m if that makes sense. I thought I'd see if I could push this effect to 200m, which is did, but fatigue set in early as said with the rest period at 2mins.

So, are you saying better off to do intervals less than 200m but presumably aiming for a better average each time?

[hjs]

Paul, at track sprinters, don,t do intervals, that is on short rest, its low volume on long rest, not seldom 10/15 min rest between work. Its all about quality and being 100% fresh while doing the work.

The short rest sprints, are ment to increese the creatine phosphate pool, but that is not very trainable. You might experiment with low volume, high rest sprints, and make sure you don,t go very anaerobic. So really go for fast strong meters only.

OK, so what kind of sessions?...give me some suggested numbers.

Set 300 or 1 min on the pm, and take a basepace/rate. Keep going at that combi until you start to fade, at that point stop right away. Take a full rest, walking around, easy paddling whatever you want. And start again. Aim for 4/5 sets.

[uk gearmuncher]

Paul, at track sprinters, don,t do intervals, that is on short rest, its low volume on long rest, not seldom 10/15 min rest between work. Its all about quality and being 100% fresh while doing the work.

The short rest sprints, are ment to increese the creatine phosphate pool, but that is not very trainable. You might experiment with low volume, high rest sprints, and make sure you don,t go very anaerobic. So really go for fast strong meters only.

I agree with this 100%. I had the rare chance to watch Team GB's sprinters train in a closed session about 10 years ago and they took literally 2 hours to do a session that you could just as easily complete in 10 minutes. The rest periods were enormous. Mind you the work production was impressive - it was a routine session and Sir Chris Hoy in particular was completely comfortable striding over to the bin to throw up between efforts. It takes a rare elite's mentality to be able to train that hard.

[max_ratcliffe]

<>
The average for the 150m intervals was much the same as 100m ones. I think some of that is because the first 3/4 strokes, which are slower, have less overall impact on the average for 150m if that makes sense. I thought I'd see if I could push this effect to 200m, which is did, but fatigue set in early as said with the rest period at 2mins.

So, are you saying better off to do intervals less than 200m but presumably aiming for a better average each time?

As always, I'd defer to Henry's advice.

I was just thinking about how training becomes shorter and more intense as you get closer to an event. The HIT looks like the cherry on the cake, but I'll admit I'm completely ignorant of whether the ATP-PC adaptations atrophy faster or slower than the other anaerobic adaptations.

[Gammmmo]

Bumped up the rest period from 120s to 210s and by interval 4 even that wasn't really enough...will increase this some more next time. First interval was so fresh I was every so slightly pacing it and with highest spm whereas by the last interval clearly running on fumes. This session absolutely fries the hamstrings and forearms. Lots of residual lactic acid for 3-5mins after the last interval has been done. Given that 7x150 felt easier with rest intervals less than half the duration of 5x200, and the fact I got a better average score with the latter I can only conclude either there has been a rapid HIT effect OR the first 2/3 slow strokes "count" less to the 200m average OR I was sandbagging with the 7x150 session. .

I guess my 2K would be somewhere around 6:55-6:59 atm going from recent 5K efforts, so if you fancy a go then 2K-19 would be a rough target to aim for initially I guess, unless you're fast or slow twitch heavily skewed.

[uk gearmuncher]

Hi Paul.

I'd strongly recommend you read any of the recent work or papers by Paul Laursen. His stuff is the leading edge on HIIT theory and session prescription/manipulation (I just got his book for my birthday and its an inch thick !). The problem with some traditional session prescription is that its using knowledge or methods woefully out of touch with current thinking. The lifestyle fitness magazines deserve some blame on this !

(Impressive figures from you by the way. Your 500 would be decent now I suspect !).

[Gammmmo]

Hi Paul.

I'd strongly recommend you read any of the recent work or papers by Paul Laursen. His stuff is the leading edge on HIIT theory and session prescription/manipulation (I just got his book for my birthday and its an inch thick !). The problem with some traditional session prescription is that its using knowledge or methods woefully out of touch with current thinking. The lifestyle fitness magazines deserve some blame on this !

Sounds interesting...got a link for the book?

(Impressive figures from you by the way. Your 500 would be decent now I suspect !).

Cheers...the HIT is coming on lately. Not bad for a "whippet"

[max_ratcliffe]

Hi Paul.

I'd strongly recommend you read any of the recent work or papers by Paul Laursen. His stuff is the leading edge on HIIT theory and session prescription/manipulation (I just got his book for my birthday and its an inch thick !). The problem with some traditional session prescription is that its using knowledge or methods woefully out of touch with current thinking. The lifestyle fitness magazines deserve some blame on this !

Sounds interesting...got a link for the book?

This'll be it. It's a bit steep for a casual read, though.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Science-Appli ... 1492552127

<>

[Gammmmo]

Hi Paul.

I'd strongly recommend you read any of the recent work or papers by Paul Laursen. His stuff is the leading edge on HIIT theory and session prescription/manipulation (I just got his book for my birthday and its an inch thick !). The problem with some traditional session prescription is that its using knowledge or methods woefully out of touch with current thinking. The lifestyle fitness magazines deserve some blame on this !

Sounds interesting...got a link for the book?

This'll be it. It's a bit steep for a casual read, though.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Science-Appli ... 1492552127

<>

See what you mean. Bryce is a bike-racer I often bumped into. He's also an academic so suspect he came across the papers initially at work? Thanks.

[hobbit]

Hi Paul.

I'd strongly recommend you read any of the recent work or papers by Paul Laursen. His stuff is the leading edge on HIIT theory and session prescription/manipulation (I just got his book for my birthday and its an inch thick !). The problem with some traditional session prescription is that its using knowledge or methods woefully out of touch with current thinking. The lifestyle fitness magazines deserve some blame on this !

Sounds interesting...got a link for the book?

This'll be it. It's a bit steep for a casual read, though.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Science-Appli ... 1492552127

Also $142. Wow, but I got a copy for a good price from a dark corner of the Internet. . Looks really interesting and well structured. Also 673 pages, as you warned us.

[uk gearmuncher]

Sounds interesting...got a link for the book?

This'll be it. It's a bit steep for a casual read, though.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Science-Appli ... 1492552127

<>

See what you mean. Bryce is a bike-racer I often bumped into. He's also an academic so suspect he came across the papers initially at work? Thanks.

One of Laursens hiit review papers is available for free when you do a google scholar search. Granted, it’s a dry read ! Here it is:

https://martin-buchheit.net/wp-content/ ... art-ii.pdf