Today Fm 6.20pm - interval training the future of fitness

Transform

Doing a piece on matt coopers show today on interval training - was in the british papers today regarding its use and diabetes.

I will cover its benefits for fat loss, fitness etc and how inconsequencial doing long easy aerobic exercise is.

All of this has been covered in more detail right here and i hope to get that in also

Roper

Linkage to the newsaper article? I'll be on my way home from a gig then so I'll listen in.

Transform

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7852987.stm

dioltas

Must remember to tune in for that, even though I hate Matt Cooper's show! Bores the head off me.

alansweeney100

I'll have a listen on the way home in the car and maybe try it out in the gym tonight.
Sounds a bit ropey for unhealthy characters, goin hell for leather, even for short intervals. Could be injuries left, right and centre!

thirtyfoot

That might have been a good radio show back in Sweden and Finland back in the 1930's:D:D. We could get Michael J Fox out for Back to the Future of Fitness.

Procasinator

Tingle wrote: »

That might have been a good radio show back in Sweden and Finland back in the 1930's:D:D. We could get Michael J Fox out for Back to the Future of Fitness.

Just listened to the show, and Transform had mentioned that this is nothing new.

Good job! It gives a quick insight to people who may not of even considered/heard of HIIT.

Bicky

Hi transformer. Interesting interview.
I really enjoy listening to Matt Cooper but felt he overdid the "but if they are not already fit" bit.

Beau

Bicky wrote: »

felt he overdid the "but if they are not already fit" bit.

Yeh I agree, I just hope people don't take anything from that and use that as an excuse not to do anything about their lack of fitness!

Transform

cheers everyone - will be on spin fm this coming saturday at 1pm and normally get much longer on air. Any ideas on topics to cover? Have a few of my own but open to suggestions.

liz51

Hey Transform,

I try to do interval training everytime I go to the gym, on the treamill, but I'm sometimes unsure on things like incline (do I need it?), and speed, e.g. if i walk at level 6 for 2 mins and then run at 12 for one min, should I just keep doing that for 20 mins, or should I try to increase the speed?
If you spoke about that kind of thing, that would help, cos I sometimes wonder if I sould be going at a slower pace during me recovery time :-)
And is 20 mins enough or too much?
Thanks!

Racing Flat

Transform wrote: »

how inconsequencial doing long easy aerobic exercise is.

Didn't see the show, but I think you've got to be careful with this. Don't want someone who is not going to do hard exercise as in interval training to think 'easy training is inconsequential' so I'm better off staying on the couch than going for a walk or easy jog, cycle etc.

'Aerobic' training will form 70% of a competitive long distance runners training - when training twice a day, the body wouldn't take intervals every session. So long easy aerobic training plays a very important role as part of a complete training regime.

rovers_runner

Transform wrote: »

how inconsequencial doing long easy aerobic exercise is.

What's your point here ?

thirtyfoot

Racing Flat wrote: »

Didn't see the show, but I think you've got to be careful with this. Don't want someone who is not going to do hard exercise as in interval training to think 'easy training is inconsequential' so I'm better off staying on the couch than going for a walk or easy jog, cycle etc.

'Aerobic' training will form 70% of a competitive long distance runners training - when training twice a day, the body wouldn't take intervals every session. So long easy aerobic training plays a very important role as part of a complete training regime.

Yeah, didn't hear the show either but I'm assuming the non slow long run theory that Transform has is based on looking good and being generally healthy as opposed to being part of a complete program to get the best out of yourself from a running perspective. When you see the programs of guys like Viren who did intervals or fartlek at least once and sometimes twice a day, the relative intensity for him was low and his heartrate was mostly around the 100-120 mark so they weren't massively intense. Long slow runs make you skinny and ugly but as you know RF there ain't no substitute if you want to lower your times. I'd even say the 70% 'aerobic' could be higher for a beginner, what do you think? Guys like Tunney would say it should be 100% and while I initially disagreed with that before I think it could be right. Intervals can be fun through for a runner and break the monotony that may creep into long runs.

Racing Flat

Tingle wrote: »

I'd even say the 70% 'aerobic' could be higher for a beginner, what do you think? Guys like Tunney would say it should be 100% and while I initially disagreed with that before I think it could be right. Intervals can be fun through for a runner and break the monotony that may creep into long runs.

About 5-10% interval work, 10-15% tempo work and the rest would be 'aerobic' I suppose, but ya, for beginners I'd recommend 100% easy for the first 6 months and then once they have a base they can start doing some speed work. You've got to remember for someone who has not run before even an easy jog may well have them in their threshold zone. Fellows I've seem tear into speedwork too seen tend to get injured or demotivated for some reason. Get a good base, then work the speed. You know yourself. I'm kind of going back to the idea of lots of aerobic work being good - went through a phase of thinking of 'rubbish miles' but getting the miles under the belt is probably a bit of a prerequisite to have the strength to do speedwork to the tune of 8 x 1k @ 5k pace. And what's that about skinny and ugly?:eek::D

Also, for someone who hasn't exercised in years, doing anything is better than nothing and they may be more likley to start with and stick with something easy and then progress...

Racing Flat

liz51 wrote: »

Hey Transform,

I try to do interval training everytime I go to the gym, on the treamill, but I'm sometimes unsure on things like incline (do I need it?), and speed, e.g. if i walk at level 6 for 2 mins and then run at 12 for one min, should I just keep doing that for 20 mins, or should I try to increase the speed?
If you spoke about that kind of thing, that would help, cos I sometimes wonder if I sould be going at a slower pace during me recovery time :-)
And is 20 mins enough or too much?
Thanks!

You could increase the speed or reduce the interval - ie take less time rest, at the moment you've 2 mins easy, 1 hard, maybe knock 10 secs off the easy every so often and when you get down to somthing like 30secs easy, 1 min hard increase the speed. Typically for fitness, hard efforts would be between 2 and 6 minutes - if working for speed, you can go shorter than this.

You could also try a tempo session - if 6 is easy for you and 12 is hard, maybe 10 (or whatever is harder than easy but not quite as hard as your intervals effort) for a continuous 10-15mins - works a different type of fitness.

Transform

liz51 wrote: »

Hey Transform,

I try to do interval training everytime I go to the gym, on the treamill, but I'm sometimes unsure on things like incline (do I need it?), and speed, e.g. if i walk at level 6 for 2 mins and then run at 12 for one min, should I just keep doing that for 20 mins, or should I try to increase the speed?
If you spoke about that kind of thing, that would help, cos I sometimes wonder if I sould be going at a slower pace during me recovery time :-)
And is 20 mins enough or too much?
Thanks!

Jesus guys i covered all this in the interview just look it up on today FM if its there

1. Doing intervals is NOT for beginners or those who have never exercised - start with a month of 3 days a week light cardio then ease into it.

2. After that initial month, if your goal is to look great, then doing long aerobic exercise 3 days a week is a waste of time which most people do not have to burn. If you goal is running/cycling etc long distances e.g. 10km + then the rules are very different.

3. 2mins off at a light jog or brisk walk 7-9kph and on at 12-14kph and build up the number of times you do this. Once you can do 8 repeats up the speed. Use a 1-2 degree incline if your on a treadmill.

4. I use Heart rate monitors with almost all clients so i know when and how much to push during a session when doing intervals or just a light run. No point in talking heart rates as all i know are the ones i test/check with clients so its individual

5. Looking your best requires a) sort your bloody diet out b) do a proper weights program c) do intervals (after your have built a decent fitness foundation) d) do yoga/light walk/light run on any remaining days left in your week.

Racing Flat

Transform wrote: »

2. After that initial month, if your goal is to look great, then doing long aerobic exercise 3 days a week is a waste of time which most people do not have to burn.

Depends on their definition of looking great I suppose! 'waste of time' is a bit strong IMHO - if you are a few stone overweight, long aerobic exercise 3 days a week will undoubtedly lead to a loss of the excess weight and so the person will more than likely look better and be healthier. So there may be other ways, or better ways, but long aerobic is not a waste of time.

GymJohn

RF: "if you are a few stone overweight, long aerobic exercise 3 days a week will undoubtedly lead to a loss of the excess weight and so the person will more than likely look better and be healthier. So there may be other ways, or better ways, but long aerobic is not a waste of time."

If you are a few stone overweight your metabolism will undoubtedley be very slow. Doing long aerobic exercise is not the most efficient form of training for a person in this situation.

1st, as transform says, they need to sort out their diet, then they need to increase their metabolism so that they can burn the stored body fat. The most efficient way to do this is through weight training and interval training. In fact excessive aerobic exercise will actually slow down the metabolism.

If a person wants to increase their fitness and drop weight to look and feel great surely they want to do it asap. I have met many people who have become fed up with exercising in the gym because they get so little results doing hours of aerobic training a week.

One of the fundamental principles of exercise is that as we do more we get fitter and it becomes easier. Easier means less energy used to perform the exercise, less energy means less calories burned which leads to diminishing returns.

Interval training is much more effective at ensuring you keep burning more calories while keeping your sessions short. Aerobic training tends to demand an increase in distance just to burn the same amount of calories.

Next time you watch the dublin marathon see how many overweight people are doing it, you'll be surpised!

Racing Flat

GymJohn wrote: »

Doing long aerobic exercise is not the most efficient form of training for a person in this situation.

But it's not a waste of time, or inconsequential. Plus, you could do hours of long aerobic work every week, not nearly as much interval work.

GymJohn wrote: »

I have met many people who have become fed up with exercising in the gym because they get so little results doing hours of aerobic training a week.

It would be very hard to do hours of aerobic training in the gym every week without getting bored, but go out for a run, swim, sycle and you'll probbaly go harder and go for longer. I would imagine they are getting very little results because they are walking on the TM, spoending more time between machines than on them, ie not really doing much aerobic work.

GymJohn wrote: »

Interval training is much more effective at ensuring you keep burning more calories while keeping your sessions short. Aerobic training tends to demand an increase in distance just to burn the same amount of calories.

As I've said before, what's the total amount of interval you could do in a week and what's the total amount of aerobic work? Lots of aerobic work will compliment some quality interval work nicely.

GymJohn wrote: »

Next time you watch the dublin marathon see how many overweight people are doing it, you'll be surpised!

There's also an incredible amount of slim people doing it. Just because you do a marathon doesn't mean you did the training! I'd imagine there's a much greater proportion of overweight people in the gym than in the marathon tbh.



I'm not arguing interval training is not good, au contraire, I do it every week. Just that aerobic training is by no means a watse of time.

Transform

Totally agreed - not a waste of time just not the best use of your time is all.

Intervals should be done selectively anyway i.e. not every session. So if your looking to get fit and have a great body - sort diet out, do light aerobic work to build a base, do a proper weights program and then adapt once base is built.

Problem is most people never get beyond the basics due to lack of progress and consistency

Racing Flat

QFT

GymJohn

Racing Flat wrote: »

But it's not a waste of time, or inconsequential. Plus, you could do hours of long aerobic work every week, not nearly as much interval work.

That's the point, most don't have the time to do hours of aerobic work their time would be better spent by doing intervals. 25 mins intervals is far superior than 45 mins aerobic work for fat loss.

Racing Flat wrote: »

It would be very hard to do hours of aerobic training in the gym every week without getting bored, but go out for a run, swim, sycle and you'll probbaly go harder and go for longer. I would imagine they are getting very little results because they are walking on the TM, spoending more time between machines than on them, ie not really doing much aerobic work.

Granted a lot of people don't train hard enough in the gym but I get a lot of people who are pushing themselves doing 45 mins plus on bike, etc and not seeing results. They start interval training and results are noticeable within a very short time.

Racing Flat wrote: »

As I've said before, what's the total amount of interval you could do in a week and what's the total amount of aerobic work? Lots of aerobic work will compliment some quality interval work nicely.

A lot of people are stuck for time to train working long hours. As you only need to do 20-25 mins of intervals to get better results than 45 mins of aerobic work I would say that aerobic exercise would be a waste of their time. Also Anaerobic work will increase aerobic fitness, aerobic work won't increase anaerobic fitness.

Racing Flat wrote: »

There's also an incredible amount of slim people doing it. Just because you do a marathon doesn't mean you did the training! I'd imagine there's a much greater proportion of overweight people in the gym than in the marathon tbh.

I completely agree with you there but that's not my point. I see many people through my work as therapist who are putting in the miles and are still carrying excess body fat. They are doing hours of aerobic work and eating to maintain this volume of exercise - they get RSI's, they have trouble sleeping and suffer from fatigue. not my idea of fun!

Racing Flat wrote: »

I'm not arguing interval training is not good, au contraire, I do it every week. Just that aerobic training is by no means a watse of time.

For fat loss I do believe it is a waste of people's time if they can get better results with other forms of training.

thirtyfoot

GymJohn wrote: »

I completely agree with you there but that's not my point. I see many people through my work as therapist who are putting in the miles and are still carrying excess body fat. They are doing hours of aerobic work and eating to maintain this volume of exercise - they get RSI's, they have trouble sleeping and suffer from fatigue. not my idea of fun!

.

While this is probably a pointless discussion as you are talking about fatloss and RF is talking mainly about performance, I have done both aerobic and intervals of all intensities down through the years and if you talking about eating massively to meet fuelling needs, trouble sleeping and suffering from fatigue, intervals are by far the worst for that. They are so hard on the body. By the way, I do intervals 5 days a week so I have nothing against them.

So, as Transform said "Intervals should be done selectively anyway i.e. not every session. So if your looking to get fit and have a great body - sort diet out, do light aerobic work to build a base, do a proper weights program and then adapt once base is built" while I don't think anyone will similarly argue against that to maximise running performance at long distance you need miles and then maybe a few more miles. Very different goals.

GymJohn

Tingle wrote: »

While this is probably a pointless discussion as you are talking about fatloss and RF is talking mainly about performance, I have done both aerobic and intervals of all intensities down through the years and if you talking about eating massively to meet fuelling needs, trouble sleeping and suffering from fatigue, intervals are by far the worst for that. They are so hard on the body. By the way, I do intervals 5 days a week so I have nothing against them.

There's no such thing as a pointless discussion !!

Excessive Aerobic exercise can increase adrenal stress. This will lower the testosterone/cortisol ratio leading to a break down in muscle tissue and in ability to build lean muscle.

In the general population, who's goals are to improve their body composition, this suggests aerobic work would be counter productive for them. They are typically already stressed to begin with too. Why add more stress? Lower volume work is better suited to these individuals.

Anaerobic exercise does the opposite. It will increase IFG1 levels which will help build muscle. Growth Hormone also helps burn fat. One of the best methods for increasing this is lactic acid training. The more you produce the more GH produced.

Recovery from intervals is very easy - carbs and protein post workout will replenish all lost glycogen stores in the muscle instantly. Aerobic exercise recovery is more difficult as you burn fat during it and are not depleting glycogen.

There is a theory among the top coaches I have worked with that because you burn fat during aerobic exericse you are in fact signalling your body to store fat post workout to fuel your future sessions, you are actually giving it a reason to hold onto bodyfat. It makes perfect sense.

I also don't see any harm in beginners doing interval training. A Dr Tabata, from Japan, came up with a unique form of interval training for obese patients. As they could not sustain long periods of exercise he developed a routine of 20s of work followed by 10s of rest x 8 rounds twice a day.He got incredible results with just 8 minutes of exercise a day.

Depending on the person one can do 20 s of work with 2 mins active rest and then reduce the rest periods as they develop their anaerobic & aerobic base.

Like I said i don't believe in pointless discussions. I am obviously talking about the gen population and not competiitive long distance runners.

However excessive aerobic exercise has been shown to reduce power and therefore performance in atheletes. So aerobic work can be counter productive in any sport that requires explosive bursts, rugby, american football, basket ball, hockey etc

thirtyfoot

GymJohn wrote: »

However excessive aerobic exercise has been shown to reduce power and therefore performance in atheletes. So aerobic work can be counter productive in any sport that requires explosive bursts, rugby, american football, basket ball, hockey etc

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. In fact I think that long distance (and especially middle distance) should do weights as it will improve running efficiency but time is the big factor and getting miles in is more important. I see middle distance athletes who are really, really weak in the gym but thats probably a discussion for another day.

As regards recovery from intervals being very easy, on paper yes, in reality not so easy. Being able to rattle out a decent interval session the day after you have done a speed or special endurance interval session is very, very difficult no matter how much glycogen you have replenished in the golden hours after training and my training diary down through the years will testify to that with successive days of intervals session resulting in reduced training performance (but then thats a different discussion depening on whether you are general public gym keep fitter or the many competitive sportspeople who run road races/cycle etc). A proper special endurance interval session can take 5-7 days to fully recover from while lower intensity fartlek intervals could be done day on day probably.

liz51

Thanks for the advice Racing Flat and Transform

Yea Transform my diet's great and I'm not a beginner, I've been doing intervals for a while, and I have a weights programme, but there was just some things I wasnt sure about that I thought I'd put to ya since you asked, was gonna try and catch the show on Spin. I've done a good bit of research on the web and asked the trainer in the gym, but I've been given a lot of conflicting advice so I wasnt sure I've been doing it properly. I missed your show on today fm, checked their site but couldn't find anything...

Racing Flat

GymJohn, my last word on this as we're going around in circles, even though we are saying the same thing in terms of intervals - they are good.

Thinking of people who are trying to get fit for the first time, any exercise is better than no exercise at all. Telling them aerobic fitness is a waste of time or even that it is not as effective as intervals is to me completely missing the point. What you are trying to do at this stage is to try and implement a lifestyle change - get them into the habit of doing some form of regular exercise. To do this, bogging them down with the intricacies of the best way to exercise is not going to help IMHO. Better off get them doing whatever seems easiest and has the most compliance and once they establish a habit and a fitness base you can start improving things by tweaking their programme - as TF said.

I think you are probably overestimating the stressful nature of aerobic exercise - in any case, the beneficial effects will far outweigh any stressful effects.

Perhaps some of our confusion is due to different interpretations of interval training. For me it means working very hard (>95% max HR) for short burts (anything up to 6 minutes) with enough recovery so you can complete the sessions (but the less recovery the better as you get fitter). To do this via running, cycling or swimming, while you may be able to replenish energy stores quickly, the muscles will not recover very quickly - as Tingle said it could take days, but absolute minimum 48 hours. They'll be fatigued, possibly microdamaged and undergoing repair - all part of the strengthening process.

As for aerobic exercise recovery being more difficult as you burn fat rather than depleting glycogen, I'm not sure how accurate this is! Aerobic recovery will be quicker than anaerobic because it is easier. while the physiology is very important, I think you can read too much into the finer details and miss the bigger picture.

The only reason I got into this in the first place, was seeing that TF was going to speak on Today FM where I imagine the majority of listeners will be non-exercising. To let them know the benefits of interval training is great. But to say aerobic work is inconsequential or a waste of time or not as good as interval work, all true or not, is IMO advice that does not need to be given to that audience.

Tbh I'd be worried if people like yourself (you say you are a therapist) would be advising people not to do aerobic (or any form of) exercise because it is stressful, takes too long to recover from, destroys lean muscle etc. etc. That's catastrophising. If they don't do exercise the heart attack will kill them before the evil 30minute jog ever will!!!

And saying aerobic work can reduce power in sports...they are not mutually exclusive! You can work both...

Racing Flat

GymJohn wrote: »

That's the point, most don't have the time to do hours of aerobic work their time would be better spent by doing intervals. 25 mins intervals is far superior than 45 mins aerobic work for fat loss.

I'd say if they don't have time for 45mins exercise, as someone helping them to improve their health, you'd be better off getting them to create the time rather than squeezing the best possible exercise into the time they have. Gotta be a lifestyle change...

GymJohn wrote: »

Granted a lot of people don't train hard enough in the gym but I get a lot of people who are pushing themselves doing 45 mins plus on bike, etc and not seeing results.

That's impossible. They must not be doing aerobic training as in working at 70-80%max HR just to use one definition. They are not pushing themselves hard enough if they are not getting the results. Just because you use a bike, TM does not mean you are aerobic training. Don't blame aerobic training for this - blame the individual not working hard enough!

GymJohn wrote: »

A lot of people are stuck for time to train working long hours. As you only need to do 20-25 mins of intervals to get better results than 45 mins of aerobic work I would say that aerobic exercise would be a waste of their time. Also Anaerobic work will increase aerobic fitness, aerobic work won't increase anaerobic fitness.




I see many people through my work as therapist who are putting in the miles and are still carrying excess body fat. They are doing hours of aerobic work and eating to maintain this volume of exercise - they get RSI's, they have trouble sleeping and suffer from fatigue. not my idea of fun!

as above

Naos

Quick question about interval training and incorporating it into your training.

Currently I'm training six times a week and will continue this up until April as best I can. I've given up alcohol until then so I won't be making excuses about being hungover etc.

My training is as follows:

Mon: JiuJitsu
Tues: Judo
Wed: Weights
Thurs: Judo
Fri: Weights
Sat: Rest
Sun: Weights

The weight's I'm doing is centred around the Starting Strength program, full write up can be found on my fitness log here.

I also plan to swim mon, wed and fri mornings, think I'll do HIIT type here.

What I'd like to know is, where can I fit the interval training in? Would I do it at the end of a weights session and if so should I drop something like squats or just plough ahead with it?

Also - Is there much difference between doing HIIT on a Threadmill and outside?

r3nu4l

For anyone who missed the program on Today FM, you an listen again here.

EDIT: This is the exact link and it starts about 201 mins 50 secs into the piece.

GymJohn

RF - I get paid for delivering results to my clients. These range from professional athletes to business owners to complete beginners.

I spend thousands each year on seminars, internships, courses etc. I have tried the aerobic exercise route - it does not work for improving body composition to the point at which the client is happy with their goals. This is not just me saying this there are numerous studies on this, my mentors have demonstrated this with me during internships and as I said I have seen it with hundreds of clients.

When I say my clients are pushed for time to train that means they may have 3-4 days a week where they can put in 45mins of training. I must help them achieve their goals within that time frame. Doing just aerobic exercise in that 45 mins is a waste of theirs and my time. You can't argue with me on this because I get better results faster than most trainers I know - those who still prescribe hours of aerobic training.

Also working at 60% of max is still aerobic training, working at 40% max is aerobic training. Just like Intervals can be done in many formats, they are not exclusive to >95% max, so too can aerobic training. The conventional wisdom for beginners is to do an hour a day of aerobic training to most this translates to walking for an hour a day.

Educating people on how to get better results is in my opinion a good thing. You may be concerned with the people who aren't exercising but even a good fast walk for 1 min followed by a slow walk to recover can be interval training for these people.

What about the people listening to the show who are training and not getting results.

"Just because you use a bike, TM does not mean you are aerobic training"

Yes it does!!! while it may not mean they are training in a specific heart rate zone, which is meaningless anyway unless they are properly tested, they are still doing aerobic exercise.

Obviously the more you push yourself the better results you will get. But I have had VO2 max tested myself and have worked with many clients who after testing were told that they should train at x intensity to burn the most fat.

This is slow, inefficient and downright wrong. I calculated from my test I would have to do 17 hrs of exercise to burn 1 kilo of fat!!!!!!!

"Tbh I'd be worried if people like yourself (you say you are a therapist) would be advising people not to do aerobic (or any form of) exercise because it is stressful, takes too long to recover from, destroys lean muscle etc. etc. That's catastrophising. If they don't do exercise the heart attack will kill them before the evil 30minute jog ever will"

Did I ever say I advise people not to exercise?? please don't assume that!

My clients pay me for results, I charge more because I deliver the results faster, if any form of exercise/nutrition hampers these results I will advise my clients to avoid them and to do other more efficient forms. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Like i said most people think that doing an hour of aerobic exercise 3 times plus a week is the best thing to change their shape. It is not!

Do you honestly think that telling someone that 25 mins of intervals is far superior, for body comp, than 45 mins of steady state work will deter them from training?

No. in fact it will encourage more people to train as they know they can fit that time in to thier lifestyle.

"I'd say if they don't have time for 45mins exercise, as someone helping them to improve their health, you'd be better off getting them to create the time rather than squeezing the best possible exercise into the time they have. Gotta be a lifestyle change..."

You've obviously never helped anyone try to make a massive shift by dropping a ton of weight because if you did then you would know how much of a lifestyle change it is. Nutritional changes are hard enough let alone telling a working mother of 3 that she needs to make even more time to train. I have to work with the individual client. If someone has 10 hrs to train a week then sure train twice a day, do yoga, aerobic, weights, intervals etc If they only have 3 then that's what i gotta work with more would be better but sometimes that's not feasible.

Hierarchy of fat loss

1. Nutrition
2. Nutrition
3. Metabolic Resistance Training
4. Intervals
5. Aerobic exercise

GymJohn

Naos wrote: »

Quick question about interval training and incorporating it into your training.

Currently I'm training six times a week and will continue this up until April as best I can. I've given up alcohol until then so I won't be making excuses about being hungover etc.

My training is as follows:

Mon: JiuJitsu
Tues: Judo
Wed: Weights
Thurs: Judo
Fri: Weights
Sat: Rest
Sun: Weights

The weight's I'm doing is centred around the Starting Strength program, full write up can be found on my fitness log here.

I also plan to swim mon, wed and fri mornings, think I'll do HIIT type here.

What I'd like to know is, where can I fit the interval training in? Would I do it at the end of a weights session and if so should I drop something like squats or just plough ahead with it?

Also - Is there much difference between doing HIIT on a Threadmill and outside?

Incorporating it in after your weights or later in the day will work. I wouldn't drop squats but I would start with a low volume interval session 3-4 rounds first and then increase your rounds & intensity as you get used to this.

There are many types of interval training you can even do bodyweight intervals. Running outside on a track is far superior than a treadmill

thirtyfoot

GymJohn wrote: »

RF - I get paid for delivering results to my clients. These range from professional athletes to business owners to complete beginners.

Are any of your professional athlete clients middle distance or endurance athletes? If so, do they follow a similar relatively low mileage approach to training? I'd be interested to know if they do and how they get on. Seb Coe was one who advocated not doing lots of miles but he still did up to 60 miles a week.

GymJohn

Tingle wrote: »

Are any of your professional athlete clients middle distance or endurance athletes? If so, do they follow a similar relatively low mileage approach to training? I'd be interested to know if they do and how they get on. Seb Coe was one who advocated not doing lots of miles but he still did up to 60 miles a week.

Yeah i have been involved in cycling from an early age used to race myself as a junior many moons ago. I used to incorporate a lot of hill work by pure instinct, and the fact that I loved it, but it def gave me an advantage.

With the cyclists I have met and worked with their idea of training would be going out for a 'spin' while this is ok to a point they needed to increase their strength & power (in the gym & on the bike) so creating conjugated linear programmes worked well. I.e Day 1 4 hours light, Day 2 hills, Day 3 2 hours moderate, Day 4 1km sprints, etc. Also doing strength & power work in the gym. Heavy sets rather than light high rep stuff which is a common mistake people make with endurance training.

While I have seen the benefits of high mileage training for endurance sports I think it can only get you to a point and also if you can get better results with less training and more recovery then surely that makes more sense.

Racing Flat

GymJohn wrote: »

so creating conjugated linear programmes worked well. I.e Day 1 4 hours light, Day 2 hills, Day 3 2 hours moderate, Day 4 1km sprints, etc.

So what % of this is aerobic would you say? The vast majority? e.g. when doing 1k sprints I'd doubt you have them get on the bike, sprint for a km and then break suddenly at the end of the km and not move until they do the next 1km sprint. I imagine they probably warm up on the bike for 20mins or so, do a 1 k sprint, cycle easy while recovering for a set time, do another 1 k sprint and so on? So while they are doing so many minutes of high intensity work, the vast majority is aerobic work. So perhaps 70% or more is aerobic? And so it's an important part of the complete training programme?

GymJohn wrote: »

While I have seen the benefits of high mileage training for endurance sports I think it can only get you to a point and also if you can get better results with less training and more recovery then surely that makes more sense.

It's not as black and white as do all aerobic or all interval though is it? Why not keep your training volume the same, but increase the intensity rather than training less for best results?

The literature typically states that there will be increases in running performance up to anywhere between 60 and 100miles a week - doing any more than that does not necessarily lead to any further improvement. Nobody has ever said do 100miles a week of aerobic work, typically the vast majority will be aerobic a small % anaerobic and a small % at lactate threshold. So in terms of training less and more recovery for better results - well that is not true, until you get above 60-100miles a week for distance running anyhow.

GymJohn

Racing Flat wrote: »

So what % of this is aerobic would you say? The vast majority? e.g. when doing 1k sprints I'd doubt you have them get on the bike, sprint for a km and then break suddenly at the end of the km and not move until they do the next 1km sprint. I imagine they probably warm up on the bike for 20mins or so, do a 1 k sprint, cycle easy while recovering for a set time, do another 1 k sprint and so on? So while they are doing so many minutes of high intensity work, the vast majority is aerobic work. So perhaps 70% or more is aerobic? And so it's an important part of the complete training programme?

You really do like an argument don't you

This is training for an endurance event not a body comp programme. Also don't just assume that the sprint is the anaerobic part and when they slow down they are straight into aerobic. The whole point is to get the HR up, which is relatively easy, then to bring it down into a recovery zone is the hard part. So if you actually read the average heart rate it is higher than what one would assume.

Racing Flat wrote: »

It's not as black and white as do all aerobic or all interval though is it? Why not keep your training volume the same, but increase the intensity rather than training less for best results?

Absolutely not but I see too much emphasis on aerobic. Again when we are taking about endurance you cannot avoid aerobic exercise and I never said that. For body comp it is much different. I have also seen & tested a lot of fat cyclists!!

The dangers of keeping high volume and high intensity is that it can lead to over training it needs to be periodised so that as intensity rises volume drops or as volume rises intensity drops.

Racing Flat wrote: »

The literature typically states that there will be increases in running performance up to anywhere between 60 and 100miles a week - doing any more than that does not necessarily lead to any further improvement. Nobody has ever said do 100miles a week of aerobic work, typically the vast majority will be aerobic a small % anaerobic and a small % at lactate threshold. So in terms of training less and more recovery for better results - well that is not true, until you get above 60-100miles a week for distance running anyhow.

If a novice wants to build their mileage to say 60 their limiting factor is not neccesarily their aerobic base it's their ability to stay in it. Once they start producing lactic acid they fatigue. If they never do anaerobic training their muscles will be inefficient at dealing with lactic acid.

However if they repeatedly expose themselves to anaerobic levels in their training ie intervals, as well as doing aerobic work, then their muscles will learn how to eliminate lactic acid better and more efficiently thus allowing them to increase their total mileage quicker. So training less not neccessarily the mileage but the time it takes to hit 60 miles a week is very possible.

Once again I must stress that I agree that training for endurance sports is totally different to training for body comp or sports that requires short bursts of intense effort.

Racing Flat

Of total training volume, what % aerobic and what % anaerobic do you advise your professional athletes to do?

Of total training volume, what % aerobic and what % anaerobic do you advise your out of shape beginners to do?



I don't necessarily like an argument - I was drawn into one on this occasion. I stated something along the lines that interval training is an excellent component of a complete exercise programme (which will typically include aerobic training) and therefore that aerobic training is not a waste of time. You seem to have read into that that I advocate aerobic over anaerobic, which is not the case. Re-read my earlier posts and you'll see .



And finally I don't think training for endurance sports is totally different to training for body comp or sports that requires short bursts of intense effort - there are more similarities than differences:).

GymJohn

Racing Flat wrote: »

Of total training volume, what % aerobic and what % anaerobic do you advise your professional athletes to do?

Of total training volume, what % aerobic and what % anaerobic do you advise your out of shape beginners to do?

I don't do percentages I train someone, test the results and adapt. But for out of shape beginners looking to drop fat I concentrate on diet, weights, recovery, intervals - 0 aerobic training unless they want to go for a walk etc on their off days, i don't call this training more of active recovery.

Racing Flat wrote: »

And finally I don't think training for endurance sports is totally different to training for body comp or sports that requires short bursts of intense effort - there are more similarities than differences:).

Rugby vs marathon how are they similar?

Track cycling vs lose 3 stone how are they similar?

Racing Flat

GymJohn wrote: »

Rugby vs marathon how are they similar?

Track cycling vs lose 3 stone how are they similar?

Rugby players do interval training, so do marathon runners.

Track cyclists, I presume do interval training, so do your 3 stone overweight clients.

Roper

We can agree on one thing. Anyone in the know has been using intervals for performance and fat loss for years now as a part of a large and balanced programme.

What will inevitably happen now due to reports like the one in the paper is that gyms will be full of classes advertising the benefits of "intervals". They'll probably call it intense intervals, or bodyvals, or slambodychargervals or something. People will flock in to do it just like they did with aerobics in the 80s, Tae Bo in the 90s and spinning in the 00s. It'll be in Men's Health and Cosmo and then people will wear out the floor trying to get in shape using it, and like all the other fads which have their uses, it will fizz fast, be totally misunderstood by poorly trained instructors and then be replaced by Futureball (Swiss Balls that tell you what to do with famous inspirational actors voicing the instructions, patent pending), or Robobics (that's aerobics done with robot dancing moves, patent pending) or SwingFit (Like wife swapping except you race to try to finish before the guy who got your wife, patent pending)

In internet speak- baby, bathwater etc. etc.

Mikel

Actually, Robobics sounds really good.

Racing Flat

Naos wrote: »

Quick question about interval training and incorporating it into your training.

Currently I'm training six times a week and will continue this up until April as best I can. I've given up alcohol until then so I won't be making excuses about being hungover etc.

My training is as follows:

Mon: JiuJitsu
Tues: Judo
Wed: Weights
Thurs: Judo
Fri: Weights
Sat: Rest
Sun: Weights

The weight's I'm doing is centred around the Starting Strength program, full write up can be found on my fitness log here.

I also plan to swim mon, wed and fri mornings, think I'll do HIIT type here.

What I'd like to know is, where can I fit the interval training in? Would I do it at the end of a weights session and if so should I drop something like squats or just plough ahead with it?

Also - Is there much difference between doing HIIT on a Threadmill and outside?

I don't know much about martial arts, but I presume you're already doing interval training every time you do judo or jiu jitsu, ie every time you do a spar or a pattern or essentially any exercise at high intensity with breaks every so often.

I used to do tae kwon do and that was effectively one long interval session. Walk up and down the gym doing punches, rest a bit, do the same with kicks, rest a bit, do a pattern, rest a bit, do sparring and so on. During each of the exercise bits we'd be working hard, getting out of breath and sweating. We were interval training not that I knew it and there was no registered trademark to it either! I could say the same for when I was playing soccer...

GymJohn

Racing Flat wrote: »

Rugby players do interval training, so do marathon runners.

Track cyclists, I presume do interval training, so do your 3 stone overweight clients.

You said more similarities than differences in their training you've mentioned 1 keep going... In all honesty if you think a rugby player's training is anywhere near as similar to a marathon runner's then you've been very misinformed.

Interval training is brilliant. I love it and have known about it (thankfully) since I started training @ 21. Wish I knew the importance of squats/deadlifts/clean and press etc but then again I didn't have the facilities to do it properly! My (relatively) new found love is compound lifts. Absolutely adore them.

GymJohn

Racing Flat wrote: »

Who's that who likes an argument???

You said they are completely different. They are not. I am not misinformed.

Rugby pre Season:

Gym:
2 weight sessions a day focusing on power development, functional hypertrophy and relative strength & strength endurance.

Field:
Ball Skills
Tackling Drills
Speed & Agility Work (short intervals - 20-30s)

Speciality work:
Scrummaging, Line Outs, Kicking, Defensive drills, Attacking drills.

Marathon
Gym:
Relative strength (most don't do this but they should)
Strength endurance as above
Typical gym training I see from marthon runners is light weight high reps which doesn't help them.

Road:
Long mileage, Hills, Long Intervals 1k plus.

Wow they are really similar I mean if I still played rugby I'd get great benefits out of training like a marathon runner.

thirtyfoot

GymJohn wrote: »

Yeah i have been involved in cycling from an early age used to race myself as a junior many moons ago. I used to incorporate a lot of hill work by pure instinct, and the fact that I loved it, but it def gave me an advantage.

With the cyclists I have met and worked with their idea of training would be going out for a 'spin' while this is ok to a point they needed to increase their strength & power (in the gym & on the bike) so creating conjugated linear programmes worked well. I.e Day 1 4 hours light, Day 2 hills, Day 3 2 hours moderate, Day 4 1km sprints, etc. Also doing strength & power work in the gym. Heavy sets rather than light high rep stuff which is a common mistake people make with endurance training.

While I have seen the benefits of high mileage training for endurance sports I think it can only get you to a point and also if you can get better results with less training and more recovery then surely that makes more sense.

What kind of success have you seen with these protocols from cyclists or runners for that matter? Specific examples and standards even at amateur level or do you know of any pro cyclists who will follow such a low mileage regime? I know little of cycling training but something stuck with me which I saw years ago when the Kelloggs city centre races used to be on. I was travelling down to Cork for the race there and we passed Kelly and a few other guys on the Dublin-Cork road. They were cycling from Dublin-Cork on their rest day between the races. I've also read where on rest days on the Tour the guys will still go out for a spin. How do you reconcile such a low mileage program with what appears to be what the pro cyclists do? Are they wasting their time? I read that a pro cyclist can put in almost 20,000 miles a year. Are they wasting their time. I think a pro doing 20,000 miles a year blows your cycling endurance argument out of the water.

I think most people agree that intervals/fartlek/tabata/hiit/liit/shiit/tempo or whatever you want to call it is great for losing fat and looking good. But to stretch it and say its the best way to train for endurance sports is pushing it a bit too much in my opinion and kind of what you might hear on Crossfit. The comment from most here seems that intervals are great as part of an intergrated program. You seem to advocate it as some means of being able to train less and train better (I used to think that at one stage too). Even the Scandinaveans who 'invented' intervals would do huge miles and their intervals were at a fairly low intensity.

This will continue to go around in circles so I propose we say that Gym John is 'right' and that Lance wasted his time doing 20,000 miles a year:D:D

GymJohn

Tingle wrote: »

What kind of success have you seen with these protocols from cyclists or runners for that matter? Specific examples and standards even at amateur level or do you know of any pro cyclists who will follow such a low mileage regime? I know little of cycling training but something stuck with me which I saw years ago when the Kelloggs city centre races used to be on. I was travelling down to Cork for the race there and we passed Kelly and a few other guys on the Dublin-Cork road. They were cycling from Dublin-Cork on their rest day between the races. I've also read where on rest days on the Tour the guys will still go out for a spin. How do you reconcile such a low mileage program with what appears to be what the pro cyclists do? Are they wasting their time? I read that a pro cyclist can put in almost 20,000 miles a year. Are they wasting their time. I think a pro doing 20,000 miles a year blows your cycling endurance argument out of the water.

I think most people agree that intervals/fartlek/tabata/hiit/liit/shiit/tempo or whatever you want to call it is great for losing fat and looking good. But to stretch it and say its the best way to train for endurance sports is pushing it a bit too much in my opinion and kind of what you might hear on Crossfit. The comment from most here seems that intervals are great as part of an intergrated program. You seem to advocate it as some means of being able to train less and train better (I used to think that at one stage too). Even the Scandinaveans who 'invented' intervals would do huge miles and their intervals were at a fairly low intensity.

This will continue to go around in circles so I propose we say that Gym John is 'right' and that Lance wasted his time doing 20,000 miles a year:D:D

Right, I NEVER said anything about low mileage cycling. I have no 'cycling endurance argument' all I said was I incorporated more intervals and strength sessions into their programme.

I NEVER said intervals were the best way to train for endurance sport in fact I said training for endurance is completely different to sports like rugby & training for body comp (read above posts)

Cyclists are some of the hardiest people on the planet a recovery spin for these guys would be 100k but a a low intensity. I've witnessed some downright crazy stuff such as one Irish cyclist using only the big ring to climb one of the tour's toughest climbs, Mont Ventoux.

The guys on the tour go for a spin on the days off cuz they would seize up if they didn't. It's not training, they've done all that!

I feel people are putting words in my mouth on this discussion so to clarify my stance:

Intervals are far superior to steady state aerobic training for body comp

Intervals will enhance an endurance athletes performance, aerobic training will only get them to a certain point at which doing more either has no relevance or can start to bring about diminishing returns. This all depends on what type of endurance sport we are talking about. Pro Tour cyclists cannot be compared to 10k runners.

Nuff said!

Racing Flat

GymJohn wrote: »

Intervals are far superior to steady state aerobic training for body comp

Fair enough. Everyone on here has agreed with this from the start. Hopefully you'll also agree that aerobic training is better than no training for 'body comp'.

GymJohn wrote: »

Intervals will enhance an endurance athletes performance, aerobic training will only get them to a certain point at which doing more either has no relevance or can start to bring about diminishing returns.

All endurance athletes who have any idea about what they are doing would be doing speed work if they want to improve. You seem to think that endurance athletes do only aerobic work. They must be some peculiar professional athletes you've worked with!

You seem very negative on aerobic training - 'it will only get you to a certain point'. It will get you to a very important point, add in the other vital components and you will get where you want to go. You could also say interval training will only get you to a certain point, you can only do so much of it (and much less than aerobic training!). Now we really are going round and round.

I think agreeing that aerobic training and interval training are both important should draw a line under it. Agreed?

Roper

Hey GymJohn,

Which professional athletes do you deal with? I'm not calling you out or anything, but I think it's only fair that if you make a claim like that on a public forum that disclosure might add weight to your argument re: interval training. I'm sure you'll appreciate that it's very easy to make claims such as that on the internet to add substance to arguments when, for all anyone here knows, said substance may not exist.

Racing Flat

Just thinking of athletes like Bekele and Gebresailasse...They probably train over 100miles a week, doing lots and lots of aerobic running, a fair amount of moderate intensity running and a small but very high quality amount of very high intensity work. These fellows can run 10k in 26minutes, well above their lactate threshold pace, yet they can still put in a last lap of 53s. So I imagine they would get close enough to 50-51 (maybe quicker, anyone know?) in a straight 400. Point is they are extremely strong anaerobically. Yet the majority of their training would be aerobic. Aerobic and anaerobic training and performance are not mutually exclusive.