He is hands down the best of all time and is totally in a league of his own. He trains constantly. His entire life revolves around it.
Assuming you're not looking to become an endurance athlete, is conditioning muscles for endurance something one should aim for? Why?
"Improved cardiometabolic health" sounds like something everyone - including us sedentary workers with families and not much free time - might benefit from. Being able to achieve health improvements in short training sessions would appear to be a really important option.
Furthermore a more proper fitness regime will fix your posture and improve your quality of life immensely. Things like a flight of stairs, getting in and out of the car, carrying a couple bags of groceries, or just getting up from the floor will become much easier. Again, not going into hours of training, but to 15-30 minutes a few times per week. Your kids can watch. :)
I don't challenge the research results. Just saying that there are more upsides than just cardiometabolic health, as someone who has seen this first-hand, going from couch potato to a little more active lifestyle.
Is it the most time efficient way to fix posture? For sue not, but it should work.
People that can't be bothered to even walk are not going to stick to intense workouts. It is completely delusional.
Not to mention, we know these do not train the same energy systems or have the same benefits too.
This whole discussion is dumb.
Is there any science here, or just anecdata from elite athletes, who are often terrible judges of their talent? It's really hard to judge this stuff.
That is not to say that HIT doesn't work, and doing something is certainly better than doing nothing in any case, but if you want to maximise the training effect w.r.t. endurance for a given time budget, doing mostly LIT is the better option.
(Sorry, I have to ask) but results in what?
It sounds like there's a risk of focussing on (endurance) athletes, not on unfit sedentary desk workers. Talking about which of the former benefits most from which particular training methodology could be missing the point, which is that it's the latter who are the group who really need to get off our backsides to improve our general health.
In other words, getting a few extra % of performance out of already fit people is of interest to a minority, but is irrelevant as far as public health policy is concerned.
This is actually incorrect. It's not well known, but the science is actually very clear about this. HIIT is much more effective then long term continuous exercise for VO2 max. This has been shown across Several studies.
Many coaches and training programs don't incorporate the science into their training regimes. So so called "experts" don't really know. You'll be surprised how ingrained the belief is and it's hard to turn it around if you've been under the belief for years that you need to do long continuous training routines to improve cardio.
Roger Bannister the first person to clear the 4 minute mile used HIIT exclusively for his training and he's the first person to change the science around this. The myth, however, persists and you still see people plugging in miles and miles into their training routine when HIIT works better.
HIIT doesn't "work better" than continuous training in this respect, it simply targets a different part of the system than continuous training does. For instance if you wanted to increase the stroke volume of your heart (a component of VO2 max), then the scientifically proven best way to do that is with extended aerobic exercise (continuous training).
VO2 max is also not the only measure of fitness. For example, lactate threshold is an incredibly important factor for distance running, and it is improved by extended periods of training at your lactate threshold (continuous training). Incidentally, you wouldn't be excepted to reach your lactate threshold during a 1 mile run. For even more context, Eliud Kipchoge doesn't have an especially remarkable VO2 max, it's about what you'd expect from any elite athlete. But he does have an absolutely insane lactate threshold.
Modern endurance training is incredibly science based. That's why if you go and look for a marathon training plan on the internet, even the most basic ones are going to include a mixture of different training intensities, distances and durations. It's also why the athletics team who made that video I posted also have other videos describing the high intensity components of their training regime, and why the members of this athletics team have succeeded in pushing the limits endurance performance much further than they ever have been pushed before.
If you'd like to take up debunking training myths, I'd suggest you look a little bit further into what VO2 max actually is, and what other types of fitness metrics also exist.
It depends on the level you're looking at. Lower level components compose to form higher level components. For example heart efficiency is one component that composes with others to form VO2 max. Muscle lifting strength is not a a component that makes up for this. Of course I am looking at a higher level metric then you suggest. There's no point in arguing how granular things are. I could turn it around and talk about how the mitochondria and DNA is a component of stroke volume but that's just, again, pointless.
>HIIT doesn't "work better" than continuous training in this respect, it simply targets a different part of the system than continuous training does. For instance if you wanted to increase the stroke volume of your heart (a component of VO2 max), then the scientifically proven best way to do that is with extended aerobic exercise (continuous training).
You are incorrect about stroke volume. Recent studies show that cardiovascular and muscular adaptations to HIIT are comparable and sometimes even greater than those of steady-state training. In regards to cardiovascular adaptations, these studies show that HIIT increases stroke volume and VO2max to a greater degree than steady-state cardio (stroke volume: 10% greater improvement; VO2max: 6% greater improvement). These studies also suggest HIIT increases mitochondrial density, which allows us to create more energy, to a similar degree as steady-state but in less time and fewer days per week.
Sources: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308600869_High-Inte...
The above paper shows how VO2 max is increased by HIIT
https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/HIITvsCardio....
The above page shows how VO2 max compared with Continuous training is the same if not better.
https://runningmagazine.ca/the-scene/the-surprisingly-simple...
The above is a page on Roger Bannisters training routine. He exclusively did intervals and ran only 5 hours per week to achieve the first 4 minute mile, thereby proving that the most popular and almost exclusive training routine for the time (continuous training) was not as effective as HIIT.
Nowadays athlete runners regularly blow past the 4 minute limit because interval training is now common place. In fact people in the know... people who train the top athletes know that intervals are the primary training routine to improve VO2 max (and virtually all associated lower level components that influence it, if you want to be pedantic.) So this "myth" I'm "debunking" is mostly a myth among the more amateur athletes (aka people who don't break 4 minute miles). I believe you are likely part of this peer group which is a logical deduction given your incorrect reasoning.
If you'd like to debunk other people I suggest you cite resources because you are mistaken on this area and if you read the science you would know. Spitting out a lot of technical jargon while making you sound intelligent does not take the place of actual the science and cited sources that serve to prove a point. Thank you.
Certainly not the same effect. HIT training doesn’t improve respiratory or cardiovascular fitness as effectively as continuous training does, and it doesn’t condition the muscles for endurance as effectively as continuous training does either.
I don’t know much about cycling, but I know a lot about endurance running, and the typical training regime will utilise continuous training (such as long runs, recovery runs…), as well as high intensity training and some training that’s a mixture of both, like fartleks. The reason being they all produce different results, and you want the benefit of all of them.
Here’s a video made by Eliud Kipchoge‘s athletics team that talks about the benefit of long runs:
https://youtu.be/CeN1FeJIygQ
They have other videos about the other training intensities they use as well. Their training facility is also at a rather high altitude, which is basically its own form of training as well, or a legal form of blood doping, depending on how you look at it.