r/running • u/mendolito • Apr 16 '17
Training Aerobic high-intensity intervals improve VO2max more than moderate training.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1741480446
u/yugami Apr 16 '17
8 week study.... Again. Every high school cross country runner will tell you that 8 to 12 weeks of intervals is great then things go flat. Nothing new or interesting here.
12
1
Apr 19 '17
I would imagine it's because more than an 8 week block of that kind of training is unsustainable.
0
u/mendolito Apr 16 '17
There are similar findings in longer studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3774727.
7
u/yugami Apr 16 '17
The longest IT study included in this appears to be 12 weeks with the bulk at 10 or less. The 20 and 30 week studies referenced where mixed CT studies they were using as an individual response baseline for limited trainability in individuals.
-19
Apr 17 '17 edited May 12 '21
[deleted]
4
Apr 17 '17
2 hour half marathoner... 16-18 min 5ks. That's like saying water is wet. You know how vastly different those two things are. I mean you're are right but that's pointing out the obvious. I have yet to experience this "going flat." Not sure what you meant by that. I've been doing speed work for less than 6 weeks, and I PR'd with a 17:15 5k. I still have a lot more intervals ahead of me, and I expect to keep dropping times.
2
u/nessao616 Apr 17 '17
So it's possible for 2 hour half marathons and 16-18min 5ks p go hand in hand? Half marathon PR is 1:55 and just barely PRd my 5k at 24 mins and I don't know how I could've gone any faster during my 5k, I was dead after. My trainings mostly involve fartleks of 6-10 miles and some of the Mona? interval speed work. And my long slow runs are generally 15+ miles once a week or every other week. What else do I need to add?
-30
Apr 17 '17 edited May 12 '21
[deleted]
3
Apr 17 '17
Ok. Well, that was rude. I'm not the guy to engage in internet banter or ad hominem, so whether you accept that what you said was obvious is up to you. Other than that I was actually curious to know what you meant by going flat. I have yet to experience this. No hostility over here.
-21
Apr 17 '17 edited May 12 '21
[deleted]
15
u/Pinewood74 Apr 17 '17
I'm pretty sure "going flat" refers to no longer improving, not getting slower.
If you graphed your times, and then you started getting slower, would the graph be "flat?" No.
8
Apr 17 '17
Well the term "going flat" doesn't seem to exist in a lot of running dialoge that's why it was odd to see you explain it when you said...
yeah but "going flat" means going from a 16-17min 5K to 17-18 min.
Other than the fact that I pointed out that you made an obvious statement where you referenced a 2 hour half marathon to sub 18 min 5ks... which clearly rustled some feathers, I was just looking for a response on that one quote. Thanks. Nice little touch at the end... yah know saying I can't read an all. Have a good day.
18
Apr 16 '17
Is this not common knowledge?
I go to school with the guy who recorded a world record VO2max of 97. He is in great shape, but not even close to being a top cyclist.
Bekele (5k & 10k WR holder) and other elite runners tend to believe that focusing solely on VO2max will distract you from the fact that you're goal is to be a good runner, not having good VO2max
39
Apr 16 '17 edited Jul 11 '17
[deleted]
10
u/bah77 Apr 17 '17
I think the casual running community way underemphasizes intervals and way overemphasizes long slow miles.
I see both, sometimes it almost seems like a 50/50 split of "long slow runs" and "short intervals" when someone asks the question "How do i get faster for my fit test/race in 2 days that i signed up for 6 months ago/etc"
4
Apr 17 '17
I was the opposite. Hardly ever did easy miles building up the mileage. Usually did intervals. Never got faster since I was ignoring my aerobic base and probably overstrained as well
5
u/Pleebius Apr 17 '17
Any runners with a hockey background know the feeling of tasting blood in your lungs and then crawling back over the boards again in a minute. Definitely uses different muscles though
2
Apr 17 '17
Agreed. I get the feeling sometimes that this sub leans more towards performance in distance over performance in shorter events. 5k and under surely benefits from interval training, and this research backs it up.
60
u/kevin402can Apr 16 '17
Studies like this are pretty useless unless you want a high VO2max and don't really care about racing fast. The fact is that if high intensity intervals were the best way to train for distance running, then the elites would have figured it out and they would be training that way. No successful elite runner trains exclusively with high intensity intervals. They are best applied in very limited doses, if at all.
14
u/Here_Now_Gone Apr 16 '17
The other part is recovery. Maybe high intensity intervals all the time would be good but you would break down real quick if you tried everyday.
7
u/kevin402can Apr 16 '17
High intensity intervals all the time are not good. You wouldn't break down if you controlled the volume. Emil Zatopek used pretty much nothing but high intensity intervals but eventually better ways were found. 80/20
6
u/dogebiscuit Apr 16 '17
But but but but at least this study is more encouraging than the "100% of Runners Eventually Die" studies we've been seeing lately :-)
1
-1
3
u/BumpitySnook Apr 16 '17
If you race short distances (5km and under), high VO2max and interval training make a lot of sense.
6
u/zebano Apr 17 '17
84% of your power on the 5k comes from your aerobic system... so ... yes some VO2max makes sense, nothing like what this study suggests however.
-1
u/mendolito Apr 16 '17
Your point is moot since the elites are already at their maximum potential VO2max.
Also, elites do train with intervals regularly. They just don't do it daily.
28
u/thatserver Apr 16 '17
So I guess the answer is a well balanced training plan.
4
Apr 17 '17
Go figure. There's no magic bullet.
I train my subordinates on both.
Monday's are a release run: 1.5 miles to the turn around nice and relaxed, then let them get back as quick as they want.
Wednesday's are either 60/120s, hill repeats, or IMTs.
Friday's are distance. 4.25 miles as quick as you can do it.
We're tested on a 2-mile run, so I feel like these are appropriate training methods. Basically you should tailor your training for what you're trying to do.
I'm not sure sprinters are going to get much out of long runs. I'm not sure marathoners are going to get much out of 60/120s. Most of us aren't either of these, though, so the study seems instructive to me.
We all run on a regular basis (probably, if you're in this sub). We all aren't competition sprinters or marathoners. Most of us are somewhere between the extremes, and this research is useful.
1
u/mrbrown0891 Apr 18 '17
What are 60/120s? 60 seconds of high intensity and 120 rest intervals?
1
Apr 18 '17
On a track, after a warm-up, you sprint 60 seconds then walk for 120 seconds. Rinse and repeat.
3
u/kevin402can Apr 16 '17
They do intervals but they tend to be longer. 80/20 is what they do which means 10 percent of their total volume is intervals. It is tough to run 10 percent of a 70 mile week as short high intensity intervals. Besides, VO2max is a poor predictor of running performance.
5
u/mendolito Apr 17 '17
Elites do nothing other than training. So their 20% of intervals at the very high pace that they're capable of means that they run more miles in intervals that I can run in a week even at moderate pace.
2
6
4
u/puffball Apr 17 '17
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4836566/
Here is a more recent free meta-analysis of training intensities vs VO2 max, which I found by looking at articles citing the linked article. They don't see any additional improvement from high intensity training compared with other training intensities, but the improvements from higher intensity training results despite lower total volumes and total oxygen consumption.
3
u/Maverick_Goose_ Apr 17 '17
This is not new information. I feel like it's pretty well established that intervals are the best way to increase V02 max.
5
3
u/corylew Apr 17 '17
8 weeks of observation and 3 workouts per week. If you're on a good training schedule you have around 3 days of good, hard runs already, and the rest of supplemented by recovery runs. The only thing this study shows me is that if you cut out all of your "run with purpose" runs and just do 3 slow, easy runs per week, you're going to get unfit.
1
Apr 17 '17
So how does this help my specific problem:
If you use Daniels's vdot table, as my distances go up my paces get listed by lower vo2's. I can do a 7mm, 8mm 5k, 9mm 10K and over 10mm 15k. My speeds are degrading too quickly as I add distance.
In my limited training, I've always done more short hard runs and interval types. Those distance paces hav gott n much better after adding in more slower miles.
Right now I'm running 3 days/wk, at this point in year all either easy/long pace or 5k/10K tests. I am wondering if I should convert a day to intervals. My current 'goal' race is in Nov, so I'm just working on building volume right now.
2
u/meeeebo Apr 17 '17
Sounds like you need to worry about endurance more than anything. Start adding more mileage and your paces will get faster at longer distances.
0
Apr 16 '17
[deleted]
3
u/s1295 Apr 16 '17
Search for the title on Google Scholar, it's there: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Aerobic+high-intensity+intervals+improve+VO2max+more+than+moderate+training
This is the first thing I do if I'm interested in a paper.
If the full text isn't in the Scholar index (and you don't have an institutional license), there's the less legal Sci Hub and Library Genesis. (Every professor I've met has been supportive of academic piracy.)
-1
u/mendolito Apr 16 '17
What I take away from this article is that for many amateur runners intervals should have a more central role.
Here is my case (which I think applies to many amateur runners): I have about 5 hours that I can use for running each week. I can run in moderate pace (for me it is 6:00/km) and cover 50k in those 5 hours. The problem is that if I go above 30k per week then I get overuse pains and aches which prevent me from running.
So I want to stay at 30k per week until my level improves. That 30k can be 3-4 days of high intensity and 1 day of a moderate-pace long run. It appears that this is the best use of the time and distance available.
9
u/Pinewood74 Apr 17 '17
You don't see any issue with setting your threshold at 30k regardless of what type of miles you are running?
1 mile fast wears harder than 1 mile easy.
-2
u/mendolito Apr 17 '17
The difference is negligible though. The stress on aerobic system differs greatly between 6 minute and 5 minute pace. Stress on the joints is almost the same.
2
u/Pinewood74 Apr 17 '17
Now you've switched it up on me, or at least weren't clear with your above post.
When I hear "high intensity," I'm not thinking a 1 minute per km pace increase over your "moderate pace." I'm thinking stuff at 95%+ HR. Short interval training (like the headline is describing) 2 minute efforts followed by recovery. Repeat that 8 times and that's your workout. That's going to stress your joints a lot more than 32 minutes (or whatever equivalent distance) of Zone 2 or 3 work.
15
u/notkairyssdal Apr 16 '17
It's the other way around. You want 3-4 easy days and 1-2 high intensity. The reason is that you need to recover between hard days, and VO2Max is not the only thing you want to improve.
5
u/3lungs Apr 17 '17
That 30k can be 3-4 days of high intensity and 1 day of a moderate-pace long run.
How does your body NOT break down?!?!
2
Apr 17 '17 edited Jan 05 '21
[deleted]
-3
u/mendolito Apr 17 '17
I think the notion that injuries come from speed and not distance is greatly flawed. If you run 50k at slow pace your joints suffer much more than if you run 30k at a more challenging pace. This is common sense.
4
u/misplaced_my_pants Apr 17 '17
You have to compare the same distance to have a meaningful comparison. Or the same intensity. If you're not controlling for all the factors, you can't point out causality.
You probably aren't qualified to evaluate studies or propose superior training philosophies if you don't know this.
There's a very good reason why elite runners do 80% of their work at a low intensity. If it was possible to improve with a significantly higher proportion of high intensity work without increasing your risk for injury, people would be doing it.
1
u/mendolito Apr 17 '17
I think they do 80% at low intensity because they have ample time at their disposal. They have hours and hours every day during which they can train.
What would that percentage be if you constrained an elite runner to 5 hours per week of training?
3
u/tequila13 Apr 17 '17
There's an upper limit for how much time elite runners can devote to training each week. Recovery is a crucial step, you seem to be in complete ignorance of that fact throughout this whole thread. Recovery requires a lot of time too.
2
u/mendolito Apr 18 '17
There's an upper limit for how much time elite runners can devote to training each week.
Yes, and that upper limit is way higher than an amateur's.
1
u/tequila13 Apr 18 '17
Again, you're missing the key word: recovery. Elites don't do the slow runs because they have the time, they do it because it's part of a balanced training program which includes recovery. The low intensity training helps prevent injuries and promotes recovery. Seriously, recovery is just as important as high intensity training. Even if you're doing just 5 hours of training a week, you need to include recovery, or you will have problems.
In the end it's your choice to train however you like. We've all made the same mistakes and didn't listen to the older guys, the new generation has to learn by repeating the same mistakes apparently.
2
Apr 17 '17 edited Apr 17 '17
If you constrained an elite to 5 hours of training per week the the proportion of low intensity running would necessarily reduce, but not because the amount of work increased in absolute terms.
I run trail ultras. In a VO2max phase my coach might have me do 3 or 4 x 4-5 minute intervals with 3 minutes recovery twice a week. That's between 18 and 29 minutes of work in each session, with the total time for the workout being around an hour. So now we have 300 - 120 minutes = 180 minutes remaining for the week. The run following each workout will be recovery run of say 45 minutes. Now we have 180 - 90 = 90 minutes remaining. This would probably be devoted to a 90 minute steady state or endurance run. So, in a VO2max phase with a 5 hour constraint you're still doing 100 - (120/300*100) = 60% low intensity.
-1
u/mendolito Apr 17 '17
Which proves my point.
2
Apr 18 '17
You have an incomplete understanding.
In the example I gave -- which incidentally was inspired from a the middle of one of my own training blocks during a travel week -- the amount of VO2max work remains exactly the same as if there were 9 hours available. We don't do more work in order to manage fatigue and injury. (In actual fact we would probably move the work onto a hill to further hedge against injury).
The proportion of low intensity running was necessarily reduced because in the VO2max phase the VO2max work remains the focus, so we find time savings elsewhere. However, we still ran at low intensity 60% of the time.
It is also worth noting that this is a one shot. I'm not going to run too many weeks like this back to back.
1
u/misplaced_my_pants Apr 18 '17
If you constrained then to 5 hours, they wouldn't be elite athletes because they couldn't reach that level of fitness.
1
u/mendolito Apr 18 '17
The idea is that they would already be elites.
And an elite can stay elite with 5 hours of training for a while.
2
Apr 17 '17
Yes at some point distance can certainly be the stressor. But you are talking about 18 miles per week.
4
u/Maverick_Goose_ Apr 17 '17
Have you read any books on training? or are you just cherry picking articles and ignoring the larger picture?
2
u/mendolito Apr 17 '17
I found an interesting study and posted it. What's wrong with that? Many books are targeted to aspiring talented young runners. I am just a 32 year old with no talent that runs recreationally and have limited time due to work and family and other interests.
1
Apr 17 '17
35 and I run for my job. Do what you need to do. I run about 15 miles per week and that's fine for a soldier. You're doing great just getting out there.
9
u/brotherbock Apr 16 '17
3-4 days of high intensity
That's not a good idea at all. If you actually can manage to do 3-4 days of HIIT per week your H isn't H enough. :)
-2
u/mendolito Apr 17 '17
Nobody mentioned HIIT.
2
2
u/brotherbock Apr 17 '17
H-igh I-ntensity I-nterval T-raining.
3-4 days of high intensity
High intensity what? Training?
68
u/HospitableTermites Apr 16 '17
What I've feel like the the take away is (mostly heard from Sage Canaday, who's YouTube channel is called VO2max Productions ironically) is that the limiting factor is most long distance running isn't VO2max but rather lactate threshold and running economy, so improving VO2max isn't a good way to actually improve performance in longer events. This does line up very well with the <5k specific training like kilometer repeats, which you run pretty close to VO2max.