1 long session vs 2 shorter sessions

[macroth]

A few points:

- HIIT (high intensity interval training) is not the same as HIT (high-intensity training, which usually refers to a specific weight-training protocol). On a related note, although HIIT usually means shorter, more intense intervals, there is no such thing as Low intensity interval training.

- CrossFit workouts only rarely constitute interval training (Barbara, FGB, Tabata-ish stuff). Interval training means there is a period of rest between bouts of intense exercise. CF workouts are meant to be short and intense, however. Whether or not CF is a bunk marketing scam is a separate issue.

- Regarding Tabata, his study isn't as clear-cut as most people think, and Tabata This or similar workouts certainly aren't a valid application of the protocol that was originally tested.


Nav, maybe you will agree that 2x5k is on the far end of the spectrum of interval training, since there are only 2 longish repetitions. It fits the general definition, but it's not typical of the concept. "Really stretching it" might be an exaggeration, though.

[NavigationHazard]

Cheers, no disagreement.

Without meaning to include you in the indictment... There are a lot of people out there who have overly rigid conceptions of what interval training is/isn't. IMO the possibilities are almost infinite: in erging you can manipulate:

* number of repetitions,
* duration (fixed/ variable; distance/ time/ number of strokes),
* pace (constant/ variable both within work reps and across them)
* rating (constant/ variable both within work reps and across them)
* drag factor (same constant/ variable possibilities)
* rest intervals (active/ passive; constant/ variable; time/ distance/ HR/ number of strokes)

For starters. Everything depends on how you set up the workout along with what you intend to get out of it. And granting that most people don't normally think of, say, repeat 5ks as intervals, IMO they're simply part of the big, vast, wonderful world of possibilities.

[detlefchef]

A few points:

- HIIT (high intensity interval training) is not the same as HIT (high-intensity training, which usually refers to a specific weight-training protocol). On a related note, although HIIT usually means shorter, more intense intervals, there is no such thing as Low intensity interval training.

- CrossFit workouts only rarely constitute interval training (Barbara, FGB, Tabata-ish stuff). Interval training means there is a period of rest between bouts of intense exercise. CF workouts are meant to be short and intense, however. Whether or not CF is a bunk marketing scam is a separate issue.

- Regarding Tabata, his study isn't as clear-cut as most people think, and Tabata This or similar workouts certainly aren't a valid application of the protocol that was originally tested.


Nav, maybe you will agree that 2x5k is on the far end of the spectrum of interval training, since there are only 2 longish repetitions. It fits the general definition, but it's not typical of the concept. "Really stretching it" might be an exaggeration, though.

I assume that your post is, at least in a decent part, directed at me.

Let me make myself clear. I am not implying that short, high intensity workouts are the only way to go. Rather, there were two people here who stated in no uncertain terms that going long and steady were unquestionably the best way to fly. One bothered to link to a study that merely pointed out that interval training may be over-prescribed. Well, unless dude who wrote that study thinks any amount at all is too much, that's not exactly an indictment of interval training.

So, on one hand you've got someone ready to dismiss an entire method of training as a gimmick based on one study and me who simply says, "well here's a guy that says the opposite, so maybe we shouldn't rush to judgment." That's really it.

Now, whether you want to get hung up on semantics or needlessly and baselessly talk chight about CF, that's a discussion for another day. I'll just continue to be suckered into getting into the best shape of my life while spending less time working out than I have in the past.

[walterchaos]

Nav made the point earlier that all training can be considered to be interval training. I agree with this and think the tautology is useful because it reveals that the distinction between continuous and interval training has covered up a lot of differences within what we call continuous training, on the one hand, and within what we call interval training, on the other. In other words, we are forced to differentiate the types of training otherwise.

2 x 5k with about 3 mins recovery at threshold pace is very similar in terms of prospective physiological adaptations to 10k at a little slower than threshold pace. On the other hand, 2 x 5k bears little similarity to 10 x 1 min at faster than current 2k pace with 2 mins recovery. So, in this case, intervals and continuous rowing are not the polar opposites they sometimes appear to be but they have more in common than the 2 different interval sessions do.

I believe in doing a lot of "easy" "continuous" rowing and, at this intensity, it is better to make it as "continuous" as possible (i.e. without discomfort or risk of injury). I do very easy continuous rowing for 30 mins - 2 hours.

Work at or around threshold pace can be done just as well "continuously" or in "intervals". I do personally believe that doing some longer "continuous" threshold work is invaluable for psychological toughness but physiologically the same benefits can come with the right kind of "interval" work. For continuous threshold work, I hold threshold pace (the max pace one can hold for about an hour) for 20 minutes, or I hold a bit slower than threshold pace for up to an hour (I would go slower for 40 mins than for 20 and slower again for an hour etc). For vo2 max pace work and faster, intervals are the only way to go.

I classify types of training based on their function. There are various kinds of intervals with various functions. For this reason, I don't think about Intervals in general but I distinguish between three types of intervals based on the adaptations they stimulate:

Threshold intervals- these are done a bit faster than the pace you can hold for an hour. They last between 5-20 minutes with about a 5:1 work/recovery ratio. They help to raise anaerobic threshold.

Vo2 max intervals- these are done about midway between 2k pace and 6k pace. They last between 30 secs and 5 mins with less than or equal to a 1:1 ratio. They help to increase vo2 max.

Speed intervals- these are done at faster than 2k pace (usually between 1k and 2k pace but can also be faster depending on the distance/event you are training for). They can last up to about 2 mins with a 1:2+ ratio. They help to improve speed and efficiency at high speeds /fast ratings .

[sheehc]

Either that or we can actually read what he has to say and notice that he uses the phrase "over-prescribe".

Read what I wrote...."CAN be a bad idea".....not "is a bad idea".

And simply writing off the notion of interval training as some bunk marketing scam because you happened to read a some guys saying that it is important to involve long endurance sessions is a bit extreme.

Hmmmm, it was not my intention to write off interval training in general. I intended to write off the notion of people who only do interval work as hitting their maximum potential. Anyone with any actual athletic experience knows a fair mix of intensities is necessary for optimal performance. If you limit yourself to one item or another, you are kidding yourself.

Now, there are a ton of variables that could explain why this could have happened, but I should mention that we weren't lolly-gagging on the long training rides the first summer.

First off, one of the points I took home from Seiler's review was that athletes who favored easier SS did better than those who favored hard SS. I have seen this upheld with with the athletes I've worked with. The ones who go hard every time plateau. The ones who mix SS intensities but favor easier ones, keep getting better. So you saying you weren't "lolly-gagging" doesn't do much for me. Second, so you laid the so called "aerobic foundation" for one year then upped the intensity the following year. Just strikes me as multi-year progression, which I don't find particularly shocking. The questions you should ask yourself are, how would you have progressed if you appropriately mixed your training rather than sticking to just one approach? Will you progress further with a mix? What mix would provide the optimal adaptation?

Those are the real questions that need to be addressed. What mix of intensities over the long term will provide optimal adaptation for a given event and how should that mix change as ones training age progresses. Look at most Olympic four year cycles. Intensity and volume does change year over year, with intensity peaking in the Olympic year itself. But how much is enough and when should it happen? If you honestly believe sticking to an all HIT approach or an all SS approach is optimal you are fooling yourself.

As for the HIT studies....some are very well done and provide excellent food for thought but most are pure rubbish. Tell me what happens in 2-3 years compared against a pure SS group, an SS dominant mixed group, a HIT dominant mixed group, a progressively intensified mixed group, those same groups with various weight lifting protocols mixed in, etc..... That is what needs to be seen. What whole encompassing training protocol provides long term results. The difficulty in designing such a protocol is significant, if not insurmountable, but that is where real answers are.[/quote]

[sheehc]

I am not implying that short, high intensity workouts are the only way to go.

This is good to see.

Rather, there were two people here who stated in no uncertain terms that going long and steady were unquestionably the best way to fly.

You really need to slow down on your conclusions and do a bit more reading. Bloomp (I believe he is one of the people you are takling about) supported long SS while also supporting the Wolverine plan. If you knew anything about that plan you would recognize that it incorporates year round interval training. Moreover, from what I got out of his posts, he was just saying that given the choice between continuous SS and either discontinuous SS or so called AT work, he felt more could be gained from continuous SS. In regards to my post, I will grant that my wording could lead to someone drawing the conclusion that I was against all interval work. However you clearly didn't bother reading the study I posted or even it's conclusion as you would know Seiler promotes using interval work; but disputes the necessary proportions.

So, on one hand you've got someone ready to dismiss an entire method of training as a gimmick based on one study and me who simply says, "well here's a guy that says the opposite, so maybe we shouldn't rush to judgment." That's really it.

You are kidding right? You can't actually be foolish enough to believe that.

[bloomp]

For the record, by following the WP I do hard interval training. 8x500m is demanding, as is 4x1000m. I don't do them often, because I know I am nowhere near my peak that I should sharpen at. I'm waiting till closer to summer when the OTW races happen.

And I have done up to 14x500m 2' rest, which was the most miserable experience of my life. I averaged out at 1:46.2, never going more than a second in either direction from that. You try that and you won't get far and you won't be able to do it often. In fact I look back and use that as part of the reason I got very very ill for two weeks.

However, the average joe out there will get the most health benefits from a training plan that focuses on SS work. And especially if you only get a few pieces in per week, the long and demanding work will be the most rewarding. HIIT can be fun but honestly only serves a purpose to 'sharpen'.

[detlefchef]

Either that or we can actually read what he has to say and notice that he uses the phrase "over-prescribe".

Read what I wrote...."CAN be a bad idea".....not "is a bad idea".

And simply writing off the notion of interval training as some bunk marketing scam because you happened to read a some guys saying that it is important to involve long endurance sessions is a bit extreme.

Hmmmm, it was not my intention to write off interval training in general. I intended to write off the notion of people who only do interval work as hitting their maximum potential. Anyone with any actual athletic experience knows a fair mix of intensities is necessary for optimal performance. If you limit yourself to one item or another, you are kidding yourself.

Now, there are a ton of variables that could explain why this could have happened, but I should mention that we weren't lolly-gagging on the long training rides the first summer.

First off, one of the points I took home from Seiler's review was that athletes who favored easier SS did better than those who favored hard SS. I have seen this upheld with with the athletes I've worked with. The ones who go hard every time plateau. The ones who mix SS intensities but favor easier ones, keep getting better. So you saying you weren't "lolly-gagging" doesn't do much for me. Second, so you laid the so called "aerobic foundation" for one year then upped the intensity the following year. Just strikes me as multi-year progression, which I don't find particularly shocking. The questions you should ask yourself are, how would you have progressed if you appropriately mixed your training rather than sticking to just one approach? Will you progress further with a mix? What mix would provide the optimal adaptation?

Those are the real questions that need to be addressed. What mix of intensities over the long term will provide optimal adaptation for a given event and how should that mix change as ones training age progresses. Look at most Olympic four year cycles. Intensity and volume does change year over year, with intensity peaking in the Olympic year itself. But how much is enough and when should it happen? If you honestly believe sticking to an all HIT approach or an all SS approach is optimal you are fooling yourself.

As for the HIT studies....some are very well done and provide excellent food for thought but most are pure rubbish. Tell me what happens in 2-3 years compared against a pure SS group, an SS dominant mixed group, a HIT dominant mixed group, a progressively intensified mixed group, those same groups with various weight lifting protocols mixed in, etc..... That is what needs to be seen. What whole encompassing training protocol provides long term results. The difficulty in designing such a protocol is significant, if not insurmountable, but that is where real answers are.

[/quote]So, when you responded to someone saying "Why do so many people use interval training" with, in so many words, "because we prefer hype over science", I was supposed to infer that you were only actually talking about people who use intervals entirely, to the complete exclusion of long slow days? Despite the fact that the person you were responding to didn't seem to be implying that intervals are the only way to go? Gotcha.

Meanwhile, the sage young man from UConn doesn't seem to be backing much off from his assertion that interval training may be a nice way to sharpen but is certainly no way to get better.

So, explain to me again how I was so far off the mark with my assertion that you guys were writing off intervals? At least based on what you said initially and before you clarified your stance? After all, when you say something like:

Because, by and large, Americans prefer marketing to science. I don't blame us, it's hurts to think.

I don't believe the onus is on me to then read the study which allegedly backs that statement up, it's up to you not to say something as inane and absolute as that to begin with.

As for my personal story. Among the variables involved in why I improved, I'm not sure how safe it is to say that I had built up much of an aerobic base. The ride was in early September and, between years 1 and 2, I repeated my unfortunate habit of not doing jack all winter. I don't recall feeling any stronger the second spring than I did the first and, considering that I lost about 20 lbs and 3 inches off my waist that second season, I think it's safe to say that I wasn't in significantly better shape. Perhaps a little, but certainly not much.

However, considering how much less time I spent training, I would have been impressed if I were even able to duplicate the previous season's effort, let alone surpass it. Also, you theory wouldn't explain the fact that I was stronger year 2 than the same people who I'd trained with year 1 and spent year 2 doing the same thing they had before. Also and I think it's rather safe to say that 6 mos is a long time to taper. Especially when you're in rather average shape to begin with.

Of course, in fairness, how were you to know this from my initial post. However, considering it was only my intention to respond to two people who, prior to, at least your clarification, were both dismissing HIT as a viable manner to improve, I thought it a rather worthwhile defense of the practice.

[sheehc]

I was supposed to infer that you were only actually talking about people who use intervals entirely, to the complete exclusion of long slow days?

Mea culpa, you are correct. Both our biases are showing on this thread. Mine in that I saw the crossfit mentioned in one line and interval training in the next, then just responded with an overly broad statement that needed a more refined syntax.

I don't believe the onus is on me to then read the study which allegedly backs that statement up, it's up to you not to say something as inane and absolute as that to begin with.

Actually the onus is entirely on you to read the study. It was part of my statement, it was the evidence for most of the rest of my statements. Had I never posted evidence, then it is on me to provide some. If someone provides evidence, it is on you to evaluate it and determine whether it should be considered worthwhile. Generally speaking to appropriately evaluate a statement you must see the evidence behind it, otherwise all you are doing is shooting from the hip with no actual thought to what is being said. So yes, you have to think, you have to read, you have to look beyond your own bubble.

However, considering how much less time I spent training, I would have been impressed if I were even able to duplicate the previous season's effort, let alone surpass it. Also, you theory wouldn't explain the fact that I was stronger year 2 than the same people who I'd trained with year 1 and spent year 2 doing the same thing they had before. Also and I think it's rather safe to say that 6 mos is a long time to taper. Especially when you're in rather average shape to begin with.

So I retract my initial evaluation and apologize for making the assumption that you had a continuous level of training (again, this is my bias from working with year round athletes). With regard to the 6 month taper, yes that would essentially detrain you; however it has been my experience that once you get to a certain level, it is easier to get back there. So on the one hand, you were completely detrained. On the other hand, a second round of effort could still produce better results. I have no papers to back that up, just experience. Regarding your progressing beyond what your partners did.....did they up their intensity or maintain the same basic training? How did they control their intensity to begin with? Were their workouts appropriate for their physical age (to counter decrease in VO2max, power, etc...)? How close did you get to your physical max vs how close they are to theirs? As you say, many variables come into play here.

To be clear, I am not knocking Crossfit or wholesale interval training as a means of getting generally fit. It works, I've experimented with similar methods to get a feel for them and got very good results from it (even better results with a touch of SS thrown in). However, it is not a complete training program. Optimal results will not come from a complete focus on any one specific style of training and that is what I'm getting at. That said, choose what fits best for your lifestyle and goals, just don't kid yourself on what will produce the optimal physical results in general.

Meanwhile, the sage young man from UConn doesn't seem to be backing much off from his assertion that interval training may be a nice way to sharpen but is certainly no way to get better.

Yeah.....prior to this it looked like he was just talking about different forms of SS for rowing. Now it's a more general statement. Before agreeing or disagreeing I'd have to see the actual details of a schedule and the goals of the individual.[/quote]

[detlefchef]

sheehc

I appreciate your last response but still don't agree that it was up to me to read the study you quoted. Especially considering that it didn't actually back up what appeared to be (but turns out, is not) your stance, that intervals are a joke. Rather that they're overused, which is different.

I can assure you, had the snippet you quoted from the study stated something to the effect that intervals are all hype and should be avoided at all cost, then I would have certainly dug further.

My particular case study was interesting and driven for the most part by the fact that I simply didn't have the time to train in the manner I'd done the previous season. However, at a point, it dawned on me how disparate the approaches were and I eschewed the few opportunities I had to go on long training rides just for the sake of trying to make the study as "pure" as possible. I have no doubt that I would have done better had I taken those chances to log some long days in there, but I wanted to be a good little guinea pig.

As for the Crossfit v intervals deal. I understand that they're not the same thing. However, if I had to compare the effects of going through a crossfit style work out to either cruising through a long slow effort or several shorter and intense bursts, I would certainly be inclined to choose the latter.

None the less, I'd say we can just agree to disagree but it appears that we likely don't have all that much to disagree about. Both of us, it seems, feel there's a place for both of these approaches.

[jliddil]

If we go back to the original question pf 10K vs 2 X 5K, I think it depends on what the goal is. What are you "training" for? Are we talking speed gains or fitness gains? Are you trying to operate at as close to your VO2 MAX as possible for 2K or 21K

It's like deciding which training is best for a person who runs the half mile or some shorter distance vs a 10K or marathon runner. Vs someone who wants to control their weight and maintain general fitness.