Wouldn't a beginner natually be performing their intervals using much less intensity than someone who's been doing it for longer? I would think this would go without saying. They haven't developed the capacity to peform the intervals with such a high level of intensity because they are beginners.
So by virtue of the fact that they're beginners they wouldn't be using High Intensity Inteverals perse but rather low intensity. IT's about percieved level of exertion. They will likely feel they're intensity is much greater than it is because they aren't conditioned to know or do other wise.
Intensity is a relative term. Just because they are a beginner doesn't mean they don't have the capacity to get their heart rate up high when they are training, in fact it takes a much lower work rate to cause their heart rate to increase because of their poor level of fitness.
If you are talking strength training then yes a beginner doesn't have the capacity to recruit the same level of motor units or use stimulate the CNS to the same degree as an advanced trainee, but in cardiovascular work a beginner can run themselves into the ground just as easily as anyone else.
So while yes a beginner may not have the fitness to perform the same level of work rate as someone who is in shape, their systems are also not nearly as well adapated to the stress of training and the intensity level can be quite high relatively speaking even though what they are doing would be easy for someone on shape.
In cardiovascular work, intensity is defined primarily by their working heart rate whereas in strength work it's typically defined more by a percentage of 1RM being used.
It's also important to note that you want to do the lower intensity work first because you want to improve stroke volume first through an increase in the size of the cavity of the left ventrical, then you can further increase it through an increase of wall thickness and thus myocardium strength.
When you start doing the higher intensity work too soon you cause the walls to thicken and while yes you will see an increase in cardiac output do to the increased thickness you are much better off stretching the walls first because once you've made them thicker it's much more difficult to get them to stretch.
The differences here are known as concentric vs eccentric cardiac hypertrophy and how your heart is remodeled in response to training ultimately plays a large role in your performance.
Joel,
First I would like to say I agree with what you stated on another thread in regards to these types of dicussions being a potential benefit to those reading (I hope).
I believe spirited discussion and idea sharing can be valuable as it can educate, enlighten, and hopefully improve the level of respect between differing parties.
Now to get back to the discussion at hand.
I thought I was quite clear above when I said: "when following interval plans that are adjusted to the individuals current fitness level. All intervals are not H.I.I.T. based. As most of us here know, there can be both aerobic and anaerobic based interval protocols."
I will not waste time outlining how I go about structuring a "cardio" program suffice it to say that it is always adjusted (like all of my training) with the individual in mind.
There is a difference between types of as well as applications of interval training.
You seem to be some how equating the word interval with the word intensity. When in truth they have nothing to do with each other.
INTERVAL
n o u n
1 . a n i n t e r v e n i n g p e r i o d o f t i m e : a n i n t e r v a l o f 5 0 y e a r s .
2 . a p e r i o d o f t e m p o r a r y c e s s a t i o n ; p a u s e : i n t e r v a l s b e t w e e n t h e v o l l e y s o f g u n f i r e .
3 . a s p a c e b e t w e e n t h i n g s , p o i n t s , l i m i t s , e t c . ; i n t e r s p a c e : a n i n t e r v a l o f t e n f e e t b e t w e e n p o s t s .
INTENSITY
n o u n , p l u r a l - t i e s .
1 . t h e q u a l i t y o r c o n d i t i o n o f b e i n g i n t e n s e .
2 . g r e a t e n e r g y , s t r e n g t h , c o n c e n t r a t i o n , v e h e m e n c e , e t c . , a s o f a c t i v i t y , t h o u g h t , o r f e e l i n g : H e w e n t a t t h e j o b w i t h g r e a t i n t e n s i t y .
3 . a h i g h o r e x t r e m e d e g r e e , a s o f c o l d o r h e a t .
An interval may be represented in literally a near infinite number of variations. Someone could engage in an interval of 60 minutes of walking at a moderate pace (just as one example).
When I say building a base is a waste of time I mean that I have found consistently, that people do not need to engage in the classic model of spending several weeks performing constant, paced training at a fixed heart rate etc.
My program (the one so often referenced here at mma.tv) was written years ago as a generic example of types of training that could be employed to achieve increased levels of perfromance in an efficient manner; as compared to many of the examples that were prevelant at the time. It has been used by thousands of people around the world (in its totally generic form) and worked quite well.
I have never stated anywhere that there is one best way to attain any goal in fitness. Nor have I stated anywhere that there is only one way to improve aerobic performance etc. That being said I have found much of the traditional approaches wanting.
So...Remember, Interval and Intensity are not the same thing. You can have either one without the other.
Don't confuse generic programs with specific applications.
PAU for NOW
TAKU T.N.T.
Taku,
Yes you are correct I associate intervals with variations in intensity and I don't believe you can separate the two as they are inherently connected by the vary definition of an interval. An interval can only be defined in relation to a change, otherwise there is no period of time to define it by in the first place.
When it comes to conditioning we assign a specific intensity and specific time frame (volume) to each interval, that is how we define the change and thus the interval itself. If there are no variations in intensity between intervals of time then this is essentially steady state training.
In other words, if one interval of time does not require more or less intensity relative to the interval before or after it then generally we would not consider that interval training because there is only one interval of time (voume).
I think most people understand this definition of intervals as having a variation between higher and lower intensities as opposed to strictly steady state work.
While I will agree that much of the traditional approach to conditioning is wanting, I do not agree that steady state training does not serve a valuable purpose or that you can achieve the same adaptations with methods of higher intensity or interval training of any kind.
I've spent about 7 years now working with heart rate variability technology on a daily basis to measure the changes in cardiac physiology that results from various training methods. I've looked at changes in cardiac output, autonomic regulation, ECG spectral analysis, VO2, lactate threshold, etc. that result in response to various training methods on literally a daily basis over great periods of time with many athletes. It's become very clear over this period of time how different types of training affect the morphology of the myocardium and what is most effective and what isn't.
I use intervals all the time of varying kinds and they all serve different and distinct purposes, but in my experience there are direct benefits that come from developing a base of cardiac output using lower intensity steady state methods for at least the first 4-6 weeks of training. There is also a good amount of solid research that showed better improvements from interval training in those who had done steady state work first. See Viru's book for a list of these references.
In the beginning a person or athlete will see improvements from doing just about anything. Certainly they will see better aerobic fitness from doing either steady state work or intervals, but if you do not take the time to develop the eccentric cardiac hypertrophy that results from steady state work you will not have the same foundation or potential for long term development.
Joel,
I'll have to end this conversation here I am afraid.
You said: "I don't believe you can separate the two as they are inherently connected by the vary definition of an interval."
I posted the definition of an interval in my last response (as well as that of intensity).
Clearly the two can and do exist without each other. If one were to go from a period of walking one mile an hour to a period of sitting and then again to walking for one mile an hour...Then by deffinition (regardless of the length of time or intensity of each) an interval has passed.
Now of course any effort above sitting or lying down could be considered an increase in intensity in an exercise related setting, but it is clear you have in your mind certain thresholds and units of time in which "intensity" and "Intervals" exist.
You seem incapeable of conceding a point even when the clear and concise definition of the term being discussed is set before you.
Notice below that nowhere is the term intensity in exercise or anything remotely related to that, ever mentioned. If you do not trust my references, then look it up in your own dictionary. An interval (as noted by the first point (and alluded to in my prior post) may exist in infinite possible combinations of time from nano-seconds to decades.
Interval
–noun
—Idiom
| 1. | an intervening period of time: an interval of 50 years. |
| 2. | a period of temporary cessation; pause: intervals between the volleys of gunfire. |
| 3. | a space between things, points, limits, etc.; interspace: an interval of ten feet between posts. |
| 4. | Mathematics.
|
| 5. | the space between soldiers or units in military formation. |
| 6. | Music. the difference in pitch between two tones, as between two tones sounded simultaneously (harmonic interval) or between two tones sounded successively (melodic interval). |
| 7. | Chiefly New England. |
| 8. | Cards. a period in a game for placing bets. |
| 9. | British. an intermission, as between the acts of a play. |
| 10. | at intervals,
|
Origin:
1250–1300; ME intervall(e) < L intervallum interval, lit., space between two palisades.
1250–1300; ME intervall(e) < L intervallum interval, lit., space between two palisades.
TAKU T.N.T.
Taku,
This is largely a semantics debate at this point so I agree we should end it here. I'm not sure why you are so intent on defining something by the dictionary rather than by the context for which it is being used in.
Yes an interval is a fixed length of time, I think everyone clearly understands that, but in the context of exercise we typically prescribe intervals in terms of their intensity.
We say train at heart rate A or speed A for period of time y and then train at heart rate B or speed B for period of time z and so on.
When it comes to conditioning the interval is volume and the intensity is the speed or heart rate you're training at and it's very clear there's always a relationship between volume and intensity. Your own example of a workout you mentioned in the beginning of this discussion uses varying intensities in each interval.
So while yes it's possible to define an interval of time by something other than intensity, for the purposes of exercise and conditioniong we describe the interval in relation to its intensity.
You're insisting on a a precise dictionary definition of the individual terms rather than simply discussing them in the common language used for training purposes. If you insist on using the dictionary you should at least define the terms we're actually talking about in the first place in the context of training, we're not doing physics here.
"Main Entry: interval training
Part of Speech: n
Definition: athletic training which alternates between two different activities, such as walking and jogging, or between two different rates of speed"
Notice that there is a different level of intensity between walking and jogging and obviously in changes of speed. This is what most people clearly understand interval traning to be.
When I talk to people about working out and write programs I don't quote the dictionary or speak in terms of definitions I'd use for doing integral calculus, I use language they will understand and most everyone understands intervals to be alternating periods of time of different activities of higher and lower intensity, plain and simple.
At this point people have heard your viewpoints on a beginner's training and intervals having nothing to do with intensity and they have heard my viewpoint so we can leave it at that.
Joel,
I chose to use the dictionary definition because I feel that your personal writing style comes across in such a way as to make you appear quite rigid and set in your ways.
I know that for people who do not know me personally, I can seem this way as well. When in truth, I am quite open to differing view points (if they are well supported and well presented).
In our current discussion (as usual) I feel that you seem to misinterpret my words and or take them out of context. It could well be that I am not choosing my words carefully enough or that I am just not being as clear as I feel I am (Clearly I think I know what I am trying to say).
I did not say that intervals have nothing to do with intensity except in the context that an interval exists with or without intensity. Which is true.
Questions:
During exercise, at what level does one decide that one is participating in interval training or not?
Is there a certain level of intensity that denotes interval Vs. non-interval training; or is this not totally dependant on the individual involved in the training as well as the parameters of said training? (One mans intensity is another’s rest.)
Do you have some set guideline by which you denote one is participating in interval training or not?
Is it based only on the length of time involved?
Is it true, that one may participate in an L.S.D. style workout and when finished completely, say that they have just completed an interval of training?
Is it true that one may participate in an L.S.D. style workout and during said workout, vary the intensity up and or down and have that workout still qualify as an L.S.D. workout?
I am asking these questions to more clearly understand our positions.
TAKU T.N.T.
Taku,
While I agree a lot of training terminology can come down to a matter of perspective an interpretation, I think in the case of interval training vs. steady state training it's not that hard to discern the two in a way that most people would understand and agree with.
If you are doing a constant activity with vary little change in physical exertion or the activity itself over a reasonable duration of time then most people would consider this steady state work.
Obviously there is a time component involved and people would typically associate at least 10-20 minutes or more of this type of constant state activity being performed at one time before people would dissociate it from interval training. Also, in steady state work there are not numberous repetitions or many different intervals of separate work and this is another defining characteristic.
If your method of training involves either large or frequent changes in either the speed of exercise or heart rate and intensity, then it should likely be classified as interval work. Obviously not all of these changes require going from very low intensity to very high intensity, but if there is a marked and definable change from one level of exertion to the next and there are many of these separate intervals then this is not steady state because the state and nature of the exercise is not relatively constant.
Nowhere did I say that intensity was the single defining characteristic of interval training, I said it was the noticeable and defineable CHANGE in intensity from one moment to the next that separates the two.
You can get caught up in the semantics of the words all you want, if asked the difference between steady state work and interval training I'm sure most people would answer in the terms I have just described.
Nobody would do 30 minutes of steady state cardio and finish and then say they did an interval of training or refer to what they did as interval training, while it may be correct in the strict sense of the word "interval", it's simply not how the terminology is used in the world of fitness.
I'm not quite sure why you're so interested in debating terminolgoy that seems pretty clearly defined and obvious to most people. Certainly there are many different types of intervals and not all involve high intensity, but I'm sure most people who train know the difference between steady state work and interval work without getting caught up in the strict definitions of the words. Most people simply rely on how these types of training are typically used, defined, and communicated in the exercise and fitness realms.
If you have your clients do 20-30 minutes of activity at the same constant relative work level and tell them they've just done an interval of training and it works for them then more power to you.
"I'm not quite sure why you're so interested in debating terminolgoy that seems pretty clearly defined and obvious to most people."
I am not interested in this at all. That is why I stopped and asked the questions I did. Not to debate, but as I said to help me understand more clearly where you are coming from.
"If you have your clients do 20-30 minutes of activity at the same constant relative work level and tell them they've just done an interval of training and it works for them then more power to you."
I do not do that.
So...It seems from some of your posts that you feel that there is a lot of value to be gained from the L.S.D. style of training. It also appears (correct me if I am wrong here) that you value longer rather then shorter sessions for this goal. By longer I mean over the standard 15-20 minute mark.
How would you determine what is an optimal time goal for such a session? Is it based on the individual and their response (feed back) gained from the Omega Wave? Or is it based on other phyisical data obtained from pre-testing?
TAKU T.N.T.
Joel,
This is a sincere question.
Do you feel that one may combine interval and L.S.D. style training in the same training block and still reap the maximum benefit that each has to offer? In other words could one particpate in an inteval session on one day and in an L.S.D. session on another training day within the same block, and expect to achieve optimal results from either style of training?
Or do you feel one must train the systems in a more linear fashion (at least at first? to attain maximum benefit?
TAKU T.N.T.
Taku,
I am happy to give you, and anyone else reading, a better understanding of where I'm coming from exactly.
When it comes to LSD yes I do believe there is a value in it in an athlete's training program and it does serve a purpose that many people have been too quick to write off and dismiss. Now that certainly doesn't mean I am saying athletes need to be running 20-30 miles a week or doing some huge volume of LSD training or that there is no need or use for interval style training, but I do believe people should realize that BOTH styles of training are beneficial in their own right and a moderate volume of LSD is not going to destroy your strength, cause you to lose all your muscle, etc.
It's also worth noting that athletes have used LSD in their training programs for literally hundreds of years and ouside the US where we've seen to have gone interval crazy, it's still widely used in many parts of the world in the overall development process of athletes. Boxers have done road work for years and years as part of their training, are we to assume it was all a complete a waste of time and their conditioning would have been vastly superior if they had only done intervals instead?
Yes typically I would recommend more than 15-20 minutes of this type of training for someone who is in ned of it. What this type of training is most effective for is two things: stimulating eccentric cardiac hypertrophy and 2) increasing proliferation of the vascular network, i.e. peripheral vascular blood flow to the working muscles themselves.
If you understand the physiology behind these adaptations it makes perfect sense that volume is an important part of the stimulus.
With regards to eccentric cardiac hypertrophy, this simply means that the muscle fibers in the left ventrical are placed under and eccentric load because the cavity is filled with as much blood as possible, i.e. stroke volume is at it's highest.
This comes at relatively moderast heart rates for most people, typically 120-150 or so because once the heart rate gets higher there is not enough time for the cavity to completely fill with blood and thus the same eccentric load and stimulus is not there. This process is much like if you were to fill a baloon completely full of water, the more you fill it full of water the more it stretches.
In cardiovascular training if there is only this load on the cardiac fibers for a few minutes it doesn't place much of a demand on these fibers and thus there is little to no resulting remodeling.
Higher intensity exercise increased cardiac output output through a different physiological adaptation. The primary change, in this case, is instead a strengthening of the fibers and a thickening of the cardiac walls and this makes sense because the higher intensity causes them to adapt by growing stronger and thus bigger.
Typically you see this type of adaptation, known as concentric hypertrophy, with higher pressure and higher intensity stimulus such as heavy strength training and high intensity cardio.
So in essence both types of cardio can increase cardiac output, but the difference comes from where that increase comes from. The eccentric adaptations come from a larger ventrical cavity where as the concentric come more from increased strength and conraction. Each serve a valuable purpose and benefit, but the question is which one the athlete needs more and this depends on the sport and their own unique development.
Eccentric hypertrophy is more well suited towards aerobic endurance, while concentric is better suited towards power aerobic power. Sports like distance running, cycling, triathlons, etc. have a great need for very high level eccentric development while MMA is more on the aerobic power side but still requires a reasonable amount of endurance as well.
During my assessment I look at the athlete's omegawave results as well as field tests that monitor their heart rate and heart rate recovery and then devleop my program accordingly.
I use intervals of different types all the time, but I've found a lot of fighters who come from wrestling backgrounds or who have done a ton of strenth work, typically benefit a great deal from improving their cardiac output through eccentric means.
Fighters who have more of an endurance background and haven't done much strength work will typically benefit more from improving their aerobic power and thus higher intensity/pressure concentric means are more appropriate.
As far as optimal time per session, it depends on the person and the situation but I'll start with 30-40 minutes of various activities and increase from there. I like to include a range of work including med balls, sled dragging, shadow boxing, bag work, rope jumping, jogging, etc. as this breaks up the time and uses a variety of muscle groups which helps to stimulate the vascular adaptations I spoke of early.
So all debates of semantics aside, there is a general idea of where I'm coming from with regards to LSD vs. interval work.
To answer your question, I would say that it depends on the person and the situation. Generally, when it comes to programming the more advanced the athlete is then the more focused each block of training needs to be to cause an improvement.
A beginner doesn't need very much stimulus to trigger an adaptation so for them they can incorporate a variety of targets within each training block and see an improvement in each of the qualities. A more advanced athlete, however, needs a much higher stimulus for an improvement so their training needs to be much more focused in each single training block, the europeans would refer to this as concentrated loading.
The only thing to take into consideration here as far as LSD training is concerned is that it's much easier to get the eccentric cardiac hypertropy I mentioned earlier if the wall are not already thick so it makes more sense to start out with these low intensity methods before moving on to the higher intensity ones in my opinion.
I typically like to see a resting heart rate in the mid to low 60s for most people, depending on age of course, before I'll start focusing more on higher intensity training. That's not to say I don't do any higher intensity work with a beginner, but it's a question of where you want to focus your training time and most people only have a limited amount of time to train.
I'll generally start with the more moderate heart rate LSD type work then progress to low intensity intervals up to ANT, and then up into the higher intensity power type intervals from there.
Hopefully you guys still have the time and energy to answer others questions on the matter.
If someone is regularly doing what I'll call 'rounds' which are nothing more than repeated circuits without rest done at a high intensity (in this case defined by high heart rate), where each round is 3-5 minutes in length (depending upon how far they are into this program) and I perform a series of 3-5 of these 'rounds' with breaks of 1-2 minutes in between each round (again depending on how far they are into the program), is there stil the need to do LSD at this point?
If I understand each of your perspectives clearly then from Taku's point of view they don't need the LSD, from Joels they do. Given that these workouts would be at most 30 minutes in length I'm assuming that from Taku's point of view they are likely training too long, and from Joels likely too short.
Overtraining? Too short? Too long? If they're able to sustain thier max HR or close to it for the duration of the entire session, would they still benefit from doing LSD? If so how?
Thanks again gents.
If my resting heart rate is already under 60 can I skip right to the intervals?
1AS,
I do not have a certain length of time that is perfect for every person and every sport. So...what you are doing is not too long automatically. It depends on you, your goals etc.
614,
You are the man...so yes, you can skip right to the intervals.
TAKU T.N.T.
1armedscissor,
My answer is that there is no way to know what you need to be doing just from what you currently are doing. You have to know where your areas of weakness are, and just looking at the workouts you are doing now is not going to tell you enough judge that.
Post back with your resting heart rate in the morning then do a 1.5 mile run as fast as you can and record your time, average heart rate, max heart rate, and what your heart rate recovers to in 1 minute afterwards. Obviously you will need a heart rate monitor and know how to use it.
Post these figures and I can give you my recommendations as an example of how I would approach your training.
614
Yes you should be using primarily intervals but that doesn't mean there would never be a reason or time and place to also do LSD as part of your overall program. Typically I've found resting heart rate of 50-55 to be optimal for MMA athletes.
I went out and did the Sprint 8 my first day of trying to "get back in shape" and I immediately pulled my hamstring and was unable to run for 3 weeks. Great stuff!
8weeksout - 1armedscissor,
My answer is that there is no way to know what you need to be doing just from what you currently are doing. You have to know where your areas of weakness are, and just looking at the workouts you are doing now is not going to tell you enough judge that.
Post back with your resting heart rate in the morning then do a 1.5 mile run as fast as you can and record your time, average heart rate, max heart rate, and what your heart rate recovers to in 1 minute afterwards. Obviously you will need a heart rate monitor and know how to use it.
Post these figures and I can give you my recommendations as an example of how I would approach your training.
614
Yes you should be using primarily intervals but that doesn't mean there would never be a reason or time and place to also do LSD as part of your overall program. Typically I've found resting heart rate of 50-55 to be optimal for MMA athletes.
Thanks for taking the time to answer this stuff. I've actually posted a few threads here about HR related topics and even had mine tested by professionals as I had some concerns. I still do have concerns and am not 100% trusting of the data that was given to me by 'medical professionals'.
My resting HR (measured first thing in the morning over a week and averaged is about 60-70 BPM.
I can't run due to medical history related to knee problems and I assume that you aren't being literal and are referring to how fast I can get my HR up to my max, and how long I can maintain it, and how long it takes to recover....
Using the karvonen formula my max HR is about 188. I can get to this state in about a minute. I can sustain it for at least 3-5 minutes. My problem has always been my recovery. Even when I am in top condition I can only rest for a minute or two and then again perform the same test, my resting HR never goes below 120, during these rest periods. This has NO effect however (seemingly) on my overall performance. My recovery worries me...
This was why I went to a professional to get tested. They only seemed to care about my 'max HR and how long I could sustain it' they never cared about my recovery. (which makes me question the quality of their testing, but as I'm not qualified to judge that I really can't have an opinion.)
I'm at a loss right now and would appreciate some expert advice.
1AS,
Your HR is dropping by 68 beats or (approx) 64% of your max within a minute or two. This is not a bad level of recovery to attain. By your own words you are able to repeat these types of efforts and your performance is not negatively impacted.
It seems to me that things are working pretty well for you. Heart Rate and Heart Rate response are expressed across a broad continuum. This is true for so many factor in the human condition. You can not try to force your bodies resonse into some theoretical model.
More on this later.
TAKU T.N.T.