I've been doing interval training 3 times a week for roughly a decade. This involves a full 400 meter sprint followed by 4 100 meter sprints at full speed spaced by walking the corners of the track. This has resulted in remarkable gains in my endurance. There are many instances where I'm walking up a hill and I don't even realize everyone else is out of breath and half dying just to keep up with me.
Additionally I jog 5 miles twice a week, but I think this had relatively little overall effect on my endurance.
From 70 bpm my heart rate has lowered to a point where at it's lowest I measure 39 bpm over the past decade.
This raised some concern in my primary care doctor who told me to cut down my exercise by 80%. I got a second opinion from a cardiologist who ran ultrasound and did a V02 max test on me and he told me I was fine and my heart was perfect and that I didn't need to cut down my exercise.
Now I'm not so sure, I'm thinking of getting a third opinion. If I keep up this level of exercise my heart rate could go down to below 30 bpm. Although the effects of HIIT are remarkable no one knows the long term outcomes.
Is there anybody else here who has been doing similar HIIT training for long periods of time (again a decade for me)... what's your experience?
Your results are fascinating. I wish I had the discipline to follow such a routine.
I think your age is an important factor to consider when it comes to resting heart rate. Will you be comfortable disclosing it?
I'm quite old. 35. Note that 39 bpm is sleeping, 49 bpm is when I'm sitting down.
Also note that my VO2 max is only superior when compared to normal people in their 20s. Among athletes it's not that great. There are tons of people who run a lot longer than me and are faster than me, but no one I know has stuck to HIIT for a decade.
What is of note is that the 3 day a week interval training pushed my heart rate down waaay lower than normal. Additionally for the past 2 years I've been cutting back on my daily routine and while my endurance has gotten slightly worse my heart rate has not went back up. It's kind of concerning that this exercise has led to permanent changes in my heart. I think people need to watch out about HIIT training, it may not be good for humans in the long term.
Hahaha. Quite old.. 35... As someone who will turn 40 this year I guess you will call me positively geriatric!
Interesting that cutting back has resulted in endurance loss but not the heart rate going back up. But it is reasonable to suppose that endurance is sort of a leading indicator with resting heart rate following it.
My wife has a low resting heart rate since her 20's (never really measured it before that.) She was never a big athlete or a good exerciser. Recently she has started an HIIT program, for general fitness and weight loss. I think we will need to track the heart rate carefully now.
Both of you are kids... I'm 59 and I do cardio mixed with weights. My RHR is 45 bpm, but has been as low as 35. Recently, I had to substitute cycling for running due to a diagnosis of osteoarthritis in my left hip. Sucks, as I love running and it's such a great cardio exercise. Low resting heart rates are nothing to worry about, as long as you're cleared by a doctor and the low rhr is from workouts.
Are you comparing this number to resting heart rate values in literature? Lowest recorded HR during sleep and the value people are talking about when they say "resting heart rate" are very different things.
(Just double-checking possible confusion, because that story about the primary care doctor suggesting to cut down exercise seems really odd. Did you perhaps give that "while sleeping" number to your doctor as a resting heart rate value? That would explain a lot)
The cardiologist said the same thing about that being a strange statement. I think my primary care doctor is trained in Asia and somehow got a license to practice here, so I guess they have a different philosophy? That's why I got a second opinion.
I think what happened is that the doctor finally looked at my recorded heart rate over the 10 years I've been visiting him and saw it lower dramatically.
>Are you comparing this number to resting heart rate values in literature? Lowest recorded HR during sleep and the value people are talking about when they say "resting heart rate" are very different things.
Yeah not sure about this. That's why I gave the 49 bpm when sitting, but I tend to visit my primary care doctor in the morning after I get up when my heart rate is probably mid 40s.
FWIW, I regularly notice that my heart rate's in the 40s when I'm fully alert. I do three- to six-mile runs at consistent pace, not HIIT. And I'm 15 years older than you. But I'm not going to conclude that you're wrong based on my own anecdote. That's what data is for.
>But I'm not going to conclude that you're just here to humblebrag based on my own anecdote.
Original quote included the sentence above. Look, I'm not here to humble brag. I'm here to post my own anecdotal experience about my heart rate.
I've clearly stated my VO2 results are not that great when compared to athletes. The focus is my heart rate due to HIIT, aka athletic heart syndrome. This is on topic, not a humble brag. I find your original comment to be hostile in intent.
Why do you think the five miles twice a week is not responsible? Long runs are the classic recipe for building endurance as far as I know. I’ve found in my own running that the 4-5 mile range is where I start building real endurance, I’ve always assumed because that gives your heart a long enough work out for your body to take it seriously and make changes. I was surprised to learn that one long run a week built more endurance and gave me better race times than shorter runs every day.
Nah HIIT is not only more effective from my anecdotal experience but this is proven by science. Professional Athletes train with HIIT along with the long term workouts, but it's well known that HIIT is the greater causal factor that boosts ur endurance by a dramatic amount.
For the first 5 years when I was doing this, HIIT was actually more painful then running 5 miles. When you come out of it, you should feel as if you did more damage. The first couple weeks you should be borderline ready to vomit.
Additionally note some people don't genetically have the muscles to do this kind of training. For power you need the ACTN3 gene. If you never been a powerful sprinter in your life then stick with the slow runs.
If HIIT training is what boosts endurance, why don't any elite marathoners train in this way? Why do they run ~100 mi or more each week, mostly at a low intensity?
I agree that HIIT is not some magical training methodology, and that elite endurance athletes do not train by only doing HIIT.
My guess is that if you are only willing to train in the 3h/week range, maybe HIIT is your best bet.
Steven Seiler has studied how most elite endurance athletes train, and found that they generally follow a polarized training model which is ~80% of sessions at low intensity (long endurence runs/rides/etc...) and 20% at high intensity.
They do. Research has found that doing both types of training is most effective.
What I am saying is that if you had to pick one, HIIT is more effective and faster in then long distance jogging.
Also note that I'm not measuring marathon or ultra marathon performance here at the extreme level. That's a more specialized thing. I'm more talking about like your overall performance if you run a mile or run 7 miles or just hike up a hill. You will achieve faster and better results in this area if you do HIIT exclusively over Cardio exclusively. For marathons the results aren't as clear to me.
Note that Roger Bannister the first person to achieve a sub 4 minute mile almost exclusively did HIIT. At the time it was thought that to train for the mile you must run the mile and that the 4 min barrier was impossible, Right after bannister broke the barrier other runners followed learning from bannisters training methods.
There hasn't been much research, but Stephen Seiler has done some studies with polarized training down to 5-8 hour per week athletes which works well in those situations.
I think the reasoning is that there are 2 main signaling pathways for endurance adaptations, one from high intensity and one from low intensity and you want to stimulate both for maximal adaptation.
The other part is that if you have more time to train, you simply can't do more and more HIIT without burning out. There are pro cyclists who did very little intensity until race season and just do lots of low intensity.
From what I remember, even elite rowers generally follow an 80/20 polarized model and their events are in the 6-7 minute range.
A lot of training regimes are used because they are effective but not scientifically proven to be the best possible training method. I'm guessing that the examples you are talking about used training methods that were effective but not the scientifically verified to be optimal. It's possible these athletes may have hit their maximum potential but had to do way more training than necessary.
It is scientifically verified that HIIT counterintuitively effects the aerobic signaling pathway at a greater rate than aerobic exercise itself. My other comment in this thread cites tons of good sources:
Thanks for replying, my comment above was a bit flippant and I just want to say well done on sticking with a training regime for such a long period of time. I've heard coaches say that, at a high level, being consistent and believing in your training approach is just as important as the specifics of the training.
As you say blending high intensity and low intensity is important. Either or is a false dichotomy that it is easy to get caught in, and high/low intensity is better than always training at a moderate intensity.
While effective for you, your session, doesn't resemble an interval session a miler might do. Stampfl had Bannister running things like 10 X ~440 yards at ~60 seconds a pop. Definitely influential, it is still a staple today, but it isn't HIIT.
From my reading (admittedly from a distance background), HIIT is no substitute for long term aerobic development. Aerobic development comes from longer stints at easy paces, through to intervals at 10k pace or just below. HIIT will show results more quickly, but it is a dead end. A 5k race is >88% aerobic, there's no way HIIT is better in the long term or we'd see athletes training that way.
This one hits the nail in the head with cited sources. Quote: "Reviews of the research have come to similar conclusions: Interval routines lead to greater gains in VO2 max compared with other forms of training in a shorter period of time."
another one with cited sources and quotations. Quote: "We now have more than 10 years of data showing HIIT yields pretty much the exact same health and fitness benefits as long-term aerobic exercise, and in some groups or populations, it works better than traditional aerobic exercise."
The whole "dead end" thing is admittedly something I did not know about. If you have sources on that I would be interested in reading it. Admittedly science is about observing things from different angles, and many angles of observations tell different aspects of the truth that can be conflicting, so I won't discount any conflicting scientific experiments you send me.
Anecdotally I've tried long distance running alone (5 miles 5x a week) before I started the current regime I've been doing for a decade. The results were night and day. 6 months of long distance training from a sedentary lifestyle yielded minimal results when compared to people younger than me (I was 26 at the time and comparing myself to people that were 20). When I started interval training, in 3 months I was outpacing them.
The metric for comparison was an exercise completely unrelated to sprinting or jogging. It was alpine hiking. In 3 months I went from unable to beat my friend hiking up mount baldy in LA county to leaving him in the dust going up Mt. Whitney.
>there's no way HIIT is better in the long term or we'd see athletes training that way.
Both from what I read and from some professional athletes and coaches, I hear that HIIT is the primary form of effective development of VO2 max. Professional athletes do train this way. I'm definitely interested in your sources though.
I think we're debating different sides of the same coin. I 100%, no-doubt, hand on heart agree that running something like 10 x 400 as a VO2 workout will get you fit as part of a balanced training program.
The HIIT definition I'm familiar with is short intense bouts of near max intensity, followed by a short rest and then go again hard to failure. The first link above gets the details of Bannisters training correct and then recommends HIIT workouts that aren't remotely similar in duration. But even in the other links you've provided, and the ones I've looked up too, the definition of HIIT is different. I'm not going to argue that definition or we could be here forever.
I just make the distinction between interval training and HIIT. Interval training can be manipulated to be anything from long and completely aerobic to high intensity max sprints.
We're also cross purposes on the fact I'm talking about elite performance in an athletics race, and you are more interested in general hiking etc. I'm not saying one is better, or more valid, than the other, just that the approach to training one or the other is very different.
VO2 is a whole different kettle of fish. Generally V02 can be improved significantly in short periods, particularly in untrained athletes. Quite possibly HIIT or interval training works better over this short period. You are right that V02 is generally trained by intervals, no argument.
However:
This is an interesting background on V02 max and why it might not be the most important marker of performance.
Your anecdote about training rings 100% true. Here's another article which covers a few topics including why HIIT works and doing the same 5mi jog daily doesn't.
I basically agree with you on most points except definitions and that if long term athletic development for a specific distance event was your goal (it isn't) HIIT in isolation is not optimal.
I'm pretty sure about the definition of HIIT. The interval lengths vary wildly in definitions but one thing everyone can agree on is that each interval is at near maximum possible intensity and bannister was hitting the zone of training equivalent to research studies on HIIT.
I don't know if you ever did 400's but sub 60s is a maximum intensity sprint even if the interval is longer. Basically his training regime isn't recommended by the first article because 10x 400s is basically near impossible for even the top amateur athlete. I consider myself athletic and my interval only involves a single 400 (likely not even sub 60s). 400s are basically the most painful and intense track and field event ever. A sub 60s 400m dash is like 4 100m intervals without the resting period between them. Across the spectrum of HIIT definitions, Bannister is doing more intervals for longer so the intensity is even greater. Your average after work athlete can't even do a single 400m without vomiting.
I suspect maybe you're just training at a different level. Perhaps a sub 60s 400m dash isn't a maximum intensity exercise for you?
The other stuff you bring up is new. I'll agree with it for now as I don't know much about it. Do you have scientific studies that show dual training of combining HIIT with standard cardio is more effective than HIIT alone for something like a marathon? Is this factor well established in science or is it just a regime common with coaches? Also what would an example of such a training regime look like in your mind?
Let’s set aside Roger specifically for the moment. But as a rough calculation lets call a mile 4 laps of a 400m oval. And to run four laps in 4 minutes you need to average 60 seconds/lap.
As you say a 400m is about as far as it is possible to sprint. I think physiologically it is shorter but, back of the envelope, 400m is close enough.
So if 400m is the maximum sprint distance every distance greater requires some measuring of effort? Even if to mere mortals people running a mile that fast look like they are sprinting, they are actually running sub maximally. If they weren’t they would slow dramatically before the end of the four laps because they have misjudged their effort.
A four minute miler can probably run one maximal 400m in the range of high 40s to low 50 seconds. So that would be their maximal intensity. Anyone trying to do that 10x would, like you say, be in a world of pain.
10 x 400m isn’t a maximal workout, it is what is needed to meet the demands of a four minute mile. A miler that fast could do 12, 15 or more if it was a ‘how many 400s can you do in 60 seconds’ competition. But it would have been a measured effort done to meet the demands of what he was trying to achieve, without injuring himself or getting sick etc.
Intervals are just a means to an end and a good coach know show to manipulate the length, intensity, rest between and any other variables to achieve the desired training effect on a runner.
For the record I can’t run one 60 second 400m :( I can run 10 at 75 seconds a pop because that’s what someone at my level of fitness needs to run to reach my goal 10k time.
Not to the marathon yet, but in the late 50s and 60s a guy from NZ, Arthur Lydiard, took inspiration from Bannisters training but proceeded it with a period of long slower running, a hill sprinting segment (HIIT like maybe), then the intervals, and a taper. His athletes won about 6 medals over two olympics including Peter Snell who won two golds and has a mile best of 3:54. Some consider this ‘linear periodisation’ through phases to reach a peak the start of modern training (that’s a discussion for another day).
Your question about the difference between what coaches do and science is an interesting one. A recent well regarded running book ‘The Science of Running’ spends the first half diving in to the science of biomechanics, metabolisation of oxygen, lactate clearance and all that good stuff. The second half focuses on the training of athletes to achieve success in specific races. The stereotype of ‘Coach’ as a barrel chested, loud mouthed, ‘run till you drop dead’ guy isn’t the reality these days. Most college and professional coaches have extensive exercise exercise physiology and/or biomechanics backgrounds etc.
The discovery of physiological thresholds like aerobic threshold, lactate threshold, VO2max etc has been invaluable to training but they are proxies for performance. And at the highest levels differences in performance can’t be explained away by slight differences in these markers.
Aren’t you pleased you’ve never sat next to me at a dinner party?
Lastly, HIIT and the marathon. HIIT is used in marathon training, but often not close to the actual event. One modern training philosophy is that to run a certain event you need a spectrum of qualities from pure speed at one end, the specific combination of speed and endurance you need in the middle, and pure endurance at the other end. When you start training you start at both ends and work towards the middle as you want to slowly close in on the specific blend of those ends of the spectrum. This would look like very fast high intensity hill sprints with long rest (10 x 10 seconds with 3 mins rest). The long rest is important as you need to be fully rested to produce max force. On the other end of the spectrum is easy jogging for maybe 2 - 2.5hrs. Slowly you drop the intensity but extend the distance of the fast stuff and speed up but drop the length of the slower stuff until you have the specific blend you n...
This sounds familiar. I was an international-level rower for about 8 years when I was younger, and my training regimen was a mix of extremely intense HIIT and long (45min+) steady state workouts.
Near the end of my career, I began suffering from very noticeable PVCs (premature ventricular contractions) whenever my heart rate would drop below 45bpm — that is, any time I was at rest, or trying to sleep.
My EKG showed mild bundle branch block and echo showed moderate left ventricular hypertrophy. General consensus amongst the cardiologists was that, as long as the remodeling could be explained by exercise, they had no concerns.
That was about 10 years ago now. I am far less fit today, and the symptoms described above have largely resolved. My echo shows a mostly-normal LV wall, and I haven’t had a skipped beat in years.
That said, this recovery happened during my mid-to-late 20s. Not sure how this would have gone 20 years later.
It is highly unlikely that continued training would drop your resting heart rate below 30 bpm. You are probably already close to your minimum. The world record is 27, and only a tiny fraction of genetic outliers can get close to that regardless of what they do.
In general most exercise scientists consider polarized training to be the best approach for maximizing performance in endurance sports. Do something like 20% hard intervals and 80% at an easy steady pace (ideal percentages will vary a little by individual and sport).
Thanks that's reassuring. The thing I'm curious about is long term outcomes of hard intervals. There's no real research on that yet as far as I can tell, and I don't know anyone who has done HIIT for 3x week for a decade.
Right there are just too many variables and confounding factors to get high quality results from studying long term interval training. If you're concerned about it then realistically the only thing you can do is get annual heart scans and blood tests to catch any problems before they get too serious.
I do not do HIIT training but I have athlete's heart. I run almost everyday 2 miles (more on the weekends). I am not a fast runner by any stretch of the imagination (I average around 10k/h while running). My heart rate varies from 40 to 32 depending on what I am doing and how relaxed I am (34/32 when I am going to bed and 40 while I am at the keyboard).
With the above info taken into account, I have had several tests done to ensure my heart is okay. I had 24 hour heart monitor test, a ultrasound taken of my heart for several minutes and several ECGs. The cardiologist wasn't scared by them and gave me the okay.
I, personally, haven't had any negative effects due to my heart rate being low.
I would recommend reading "The Haywire Heart: How too much exercise can kill you, and what you can do to protect your heart." The author has some athletes story on similar lines.
31 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 85.4 ms ] threadhttps://youtu.be/hT8GZlBBv5k
Additionally I jog 5 miles twice a week, but I think this had relatively little overall effect on my endurance.
From 70 bpm my heart rate has lowered to a point where at it's lowest I measure 39 bpm over the past decade.
This raised some concern in my primary care doctor who told me to cut down my exercise by 80%. I got a second opinion from a cardiologist who ran ultrasound and did a V02 max test on me and he told me I was fine and my heart was perfect and that I didn't need to cut down my exercise.
Now I'm not so sure, I'm thinking of getting a third opinion. If I keep up this level of exercise my heart rate could go down to below 30 bpm. Although the effects of HIIT are remarkable no one knows the long term outcomes.
Is there anybody else here who has been doing similar HIIT training for long periods of time (again a decade for me)... what's your experience?
Also note that my VO2 max is only superior when compared to normal people in their 20s. Among athletes it's not that great. There are tons of people who run a lot longer than me and are faster than me, but no one I know has stuck to HIIT for a decade.
What is of note is that the 3 day a week interval training pushed my heart rate down waaay lower than normal. Additionally for the past 2 years I've been cutting back on my daily routine and while my endurance has gotten slightly worse my heart rate has not went back up. It's kind of concerning that this exercise has led to permanent changes in my heart. I think people need to watch out about HIIT training, it may not be good for humans in the long term.
Oh jeez. I’ll just be over here covering myself up with dirt I guess.
Are you comparing this number to resting heart rate values in literature? Lowest recorded HR during sleep and the value people are talking about when they say "resting heart rate" are very different things.
(Just double-checking possible confusion, because that story about the primary care doctor suggesting to cut down exercise seems really odd. Did you perhaps give that "while sleeping" number to your doctor as a resting heart rate value? That would explain a lot)
I think what happened is that the doctor finally looked at my recorded heart rate over the 10 years I've been visiting him and saw it lower dramatically.
>Are you comparing this number to resting heart rate values in literature? Lowest recorded HR during sleep and the value people are talking about when they say "resting heart rate" are very different things.
Yeah not sure about this. That's why I gave the 49 bpm when sitting, but I tend to visit my primary care doctor in the morning after I get up when my heart rate is probably mid 40s.
>But I'm not going to conclude that you're just here to humblebrag based on my own anecdote.
Original quote included the sentence above. Look, I'm not here to humble brag. I'm here to post my own anecdotal experience about my heart rate.
I've clearly stated my VO2 results are not that great when compared to athletes. The focus is my heart rate due to HIIT, aka athletic heart syndrome. This is on topic, not a humble brag. I find your original comment to be hostile in intent.
For the first 5 years when I was doing this, HIIT was actually more painful then running 5 miles. When you come out of it, you should feel as if you did more damage. The first couple weeks you should be borderline ready to vomit.
Additionally note some people don't genetically have the muscles to do this kind of training. For power you need the ACTN3 gene. If you never been a powerful sprinter in your life then stick with the slow runs.
My guess is that if you are only willing to train in the 3h/week range, maybe HIIT is your best bet.
Steven Seiler has studied how most elite endurance athletes train, and found that they generally follow a polarized training model which is ~80% of sessions at low intensity (long endurence runs/rides/etc...) and 20% at high intensity.
http://bikepartsreview.com/Polarized-training-for-cyclists.h...
What I am saying is that if you had to pick one, HIIT is more effective and faster in then long distance jogging.
Also note that I'm not measuring marathon or ultra marathon performance here at the extreme level. That's a more specialized thing. I'm more talking about like your overall performance if you run a mile or run 7 miles or just hike up a hill. You will achieve faster and better results in this area if you do HIIT exclusively over Cardio exclusively. For marathons the results aren't as clear to me.
Note that Roger Bannister the first person to achieve a sub 4 minute mile almost exclusively did HIIT. At the time it was thought that to train for the mile you must run the mile and that the 4 min barrier was impossible, Right after bannister broke the barrier other runners followed learning from bannisters training methods.
https://scientifictriathlon.com/tts177/#tab-con-16
I think the reasoning is that there are 2 main signaling pathways for endurance adaptations, one from high intensity and one from low intensity and you want to stimulate both for maximal adaptation.
The other part is that if you have more time to train, you simply can't do more and more HIIT without burning out. There are pro cyclists who did very little intensity until race season and just do lots of low intensity.
From what I remember, even elite rowers generally follow an 80/20 polarized model and their events are in the 6-7 minute range.
It is scientifically verified that HIIT counterintuitively effects the aerobic signaling pathway at a greater rate than aerobic exercise itself. My other comment in this thread cites tons of good sources:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22157311
As you say blending high intensity and low intensity is important. Either or is a false dichotomy that it is easy to get caught in, and high/low intensity is better than always training at a moderate intensity.
While effective for you, your session, doesn't resemble an interval session a miler might do. Stampfl had Bannister running things like 10 X ~440 yards at ~60 seconds a pop. Definitely influential, it is still a staple today, but it isn't HIIT.
From my reading (admittedly from a distance background), HIIT is no substitute for long term aerobic development. Aerobic development comes from longer stints at easy paces, through to intervals at 10k pace or just below. HIIT will show results more quickly, but it is a dead end. A 5k race is >88% aerobic, there's no way HIIT is better in the long term or we'd see athletes training that way.
From my reading I've come to the opposite conclusion. HIIT is counterintuitively MORE effective at aerobic development than aerobic exercise itself.
- https://www.wikiwand.com/en/High-intensity_interval_training...
wikipedia saying that HIIT increases VO2 max over effectively over long term moderate level training.
- https://research.tees.ac.uk/en/publications/effectiveness-of...
the associated source to the wiki section.
- https://greatist.com/fitness/whats-best-way-build-endurance#...
An article about the "best" way to improve VO2 max.
- https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/10/18148463/hi...
This one hits the nail in the head with cited sources. Quote: "Reviews of the research have come to similar conclusions: Interval routines lead to greater gains in VO2 max compared with other forms of training in a shorter period of time."
- https://time.com/4893161/hiit-high-intensity-interval-traini...
another one with cited sources and quotations. Quote: "We now have more than 10 years of data showing HIIT yields pretty much the exact same health and fitness benefits as long-term aerobic exercise, and in some groups or populations, it works better than traditional aerobic exercise."
The whole "dead end" thing is admittedly something I did not know about. If you have sources on that I would be interested in reading it. Admittedly science is about observing things from different angles, and many angles of observations tell different aspects of the truth that can be conflicting, so I won't discount any conflicting scientific experiments you send me.
Anecdotally I've tried long distance running alone (5 miles 5x a week) before I started the current regime I've been doing for a decade. The results were night and day. 6 months of long distance training from a sedentary lifestyle yielded minimal results when compared to people younger than me (I was 26 at the time and comparing myself to people that were 20). When I started interval training, in 3 months I was outpacing them.
The metric for comparison was an exercise completely unrelated to sprinting or jogging. It was alpine hiking. In 3 months I went from unable to beat my friend hiking up mount baldy in LA county to leaving him in the dust going up Mt. Whitney.
>there's no way HIIT is better in the long term or we'd see athletes training that way.
Both from what I read and from some professional athletes and coaches, I hear that HIIT is the primary form of effective development of VO2 max. Professional athletes do train this way. I'm definitely interested in your sources though.
The HIIT definition I'm familiar with is short intense bouts of near max intensity, followed by a short rest and then go again hard to failure. The first link above gets the details of Bannisters training correct and then recommends HIIT workouts that aren't remotely similar in duration. But even in the other links you've provided, and the ones I've looked up too, the definition of HIIT is different. I'm not going to argue that definition or we could be here forever.
I just make the distinction between interval training and HIIT. Interval training can be manipulated to be anything from long and completely aerobic to high intensity max sprints.
We're also cross purposes on the fact I'm talking about elite performance in an athletics race, and you are more interested in general hiking etc. I'm not saying one is better, or more valid, than the other, just that the approach to training one or the other is very different.
VO2 is a whole different kettle of fish. Generally V02 can be improved significantly in short periods, particularly in untrained athletes. Quite possibly HIIT or interval training works better over this short period. You are right that V02 is generally trained by intervals, no argument.
However: This is an interesting background on V02 max and why it might not be the most important marker of performance.
https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-a...
V02 was given too much importance because it is easy to measure. Those with high V02, potentially have worse running efficiency.
https://www.outsideonline.com/2407295/why-higher-vo2max-isnt...
Your anecdote about training rings 100% true. Here's another article which covers a few topics including why HIIT works and doing the same 5mi jog daily doesn't.
https://www.highperformancewest.com/blog/2018/5/22/magness-s...
I basically agree with you on most points except definitions and that if long term athletic development for a specific distance event was your goal (it isn't) HIIT in isolation is not optimal.
All the best!
I don't know if you ever did 400's but sub 60s is a maximum intensity sprint even if the interval is longer. Basically his training regime isn't recommended by the first article because 10x 400s is basically near impossible for even the top amateur athlete. I consider myself athletic and my interval only involves a single 400 (likely not even sub 60s). 400s are basically the most painful and intense track and field event ever. A sub 60s 400m dash is like 4 100m intervals without the resting period between them. Across the spectrum of HIIT definitions, Bannister is doing more intervals for longer so the intensity is even greater. Your average after work athlete can't even do a single 400m without vomiting.
I suspect maybe you're just training at a different level. Perhaps a sub 60s 400m dash isn't a maximum intensity exercise for you?
The other stuff you bring up is new. I'll agree with it for now as I don't know much about it. Do you have scientific studies that show dual training of combining HIIT with standard cardio is more effective than HIIT alone for something like a marathon? Is this factor well established in science or is it just a regime common with coaches? Also what would an example of such a training regime look like in your mind?
As you say a 400m is about as far as it is possible to sprint. I think physiologically it is shorter but, back of the envelope, 400m is close enough.
So if 400m is the maximum sprint distance every distance greater requires some measuring of effort? Even if to mere mortals people running a mile that fast look like they are sprinting, they are actually running sub maximally. If they weren’t they would slow dramatically before the end of the four laps because they have misjudged their effort.
A four minute miler can probably run one maximal 400m in the range of high 40s to low 50 seconds. So that would be their maximal intensity. Anyone trying to do that 10x would, like you say, be in a world of pain.
10 x 400m isn’t a maximal workout, it is what is needed to meet the demands of a four minute mile. A miler that fast could do 12, 15 or more if it was a ‘how many 400s can you do in 60 seconds’ competition. But it would have been a measured effort done to meet the demands of what he was trying to achieve, without injuring himself or getting sick etc.
Intervals are just a means to an end and a good coach know show to manipulate the length, intensity, rest between and any other variables to achieve the desired training effect on a runner.
For the record I can’t run one 60 second 400m :( I can run 10 at 75 seconds a pop because that’s what someone at my level of fitness needs to run to reach my goal 10k time.
Not to the marathon yet, but in the late 50s and 60s a guy from NZ, Arthur Lydiard, took inspiration from Bannisters training but proceeded it with a period of long slower running, a hill sprinting segment (HIIT like maybe), then the intervals, and a taper. His athletes won about 6 medals over two olympics including Peter Snell who won two golds and has a mile best of 3:54. Some consider this ‘linear periodisation’ through phases to reach a peak the start of modern training (that’s a discussion for another day).
Your question about the difference between what coaches do and science is an interesting one. A recent well regarded running book ‘The Science of Running’ spends the first half diving in to the science of biomechanics, metabolisation of oxygen, lactate clearance and all that good stuff. The second half focuses on the training of athletes to achieve success in specific races. The stereotype of ‘Coach’ as a barrel chested, loud mouthed, ‘run till you drop dead’ guy isn’t the reality these days. Most college and professional coaches have extensive exercise exercise physiology and/or biomechanics backgrounds etc.
The discovery of physiological thresholds like aerobic threshold, lactate threshold, VO2max etc has been invaluable to training but they are proxies for performance. And at the highest levels differences in performance can’t be explained away by slight differences in these markers.
Aren’t you pleased you’ve never sat next to me at a dinner party?
Lastly, HIIT and the marathon. HIIT is used in marathon training, but often not close to the actual event. One modern training philosophy is that to run a certain event you need a spectrum of qualities from pure speed at one end, the specific combination of speed and endurance you need in the middle, and pure endurance at the other end. When you start training you start at both ends and work towards the middle as you want to slowly close in on the specific blend of those ends of the spectrum. This would look like very fast high intensity hill sprints with long rest (10 x 10 seconds with 3 mins rest). The long rest is important as you need to be fully rested to produce max force. On the other end of the spectrum is easy jogging for maybe 2 - 2.5hrs. Slowly you drop the intensity but extend the distance of the fast stuff and speed up but drop the length of the slower stuff until you have the specific blend you n...
Near the end of my career, I began suffering from very noticeable PVCs (premature ventricular contractions) whenever my heart rate would drop below 45bpm — that is, any time I was at rest, or trying to sleep.
My EKG showed mild bundle branch block and echo showed moderate left ventricular hypertrophy. General consensus amongst the cardiologists was that, as long as the remodeling could be explained by exercise, they had no concerns.
That was about 10 years ago now. I am far less fit today, and the symptoms described above have largely resolved. My echo shows a mostly-normal LV wall, and I haven’t had a skipped beat in years.
That said, this recovery happened during my mid-to-late 20s. Not sure how this would have gone 20 years later.
In general most exercise scientists consider polarized training to be the best approach for maximizing performance in endurance sports. Do something like 20% hard intervals and 80% at an easy steady pace (ideal percentages will vary a little by individual and sport).
With the above info taken into account, I have had several tests done to ensure my heart is okay. I had 24 hour heart monitor test, a ultrasound taken of my heart for several minutes and several ECGs. The cardiologist wasn't scared by them and gave me the okay.
I, personally, haven't had any negative effects due to my heart rate being low.