Interval Training

[Idle Mind]

Thoughts?

I was directed to this NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/fashion/03Fitness.html), and was intrigued by the results despite the small sample sizes.

Specifically this bit:

After interval training, the amount of fat burned in an hour of continuous moderate cycling increased by 36 percent, said Jason L. Talanian, the lead author of the study and an exercise scientist at the University of Guelph in Ontario. Cardiovascular fitness — the ability of the heart and lungs to supply oxygen to working muscles — improved by 13 percent.

It didn’t matter how fit the subjects were before. Borderline sedentary subjects and the college athletes had similar increases in fitness and fat burning. “Even when interval training was added on top of other exercise they were doing, they still saw a significant improvement,” Mr. Talanian said.

The numbers aren't necessarily vital, but the fact that the improvements were so significant in a relatively short amount of time seems kind of promising.

I'm going to give it a try and see how it goes.

[Norsefire]

It does work. And the real bonus is that it means you can cut your work out time, instead of a 40 minute straight jog you can have 25-30 m interval training

I've only begun doing this about two weeks ago and I've lost quite a bit, I can see my abdominals faintly.

[RubiksMaster]

Interval training has been shown to work time and again. I recently saw a different study with rats, that showed 6 intervals of a minute each promoted more physiological changes in the muscles than long periods of more moderate excercise. I'll try to find the link and post it.

I commute to work on a bicycle, and there are some big hills on the way. I suppose those could be considered intervals, but it's not strictly time-boxed like a more strict regiment would be. It's also controlled by factors such as traffic level.

I want to start training more seriously, also including dietary changes. The only thing stopping me is I don't want to overtrain. My commute is pretty difficult as it is, just because of the hills. My bike is my only transportation right now. I don't have an alternative if I need to recover for a few days.

If you do try it, you should definitely let us know how it goes for you.

Edit: Here is the study I was talking about: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/can-you-get-fit-in-six-minutes-a-week/?em

[Norsefire]

Just make sure you're watching what you eat too, because otherwise it's self defeating

Also train your abs! When you run, you'll have better stamina.

[Idle Mind]

I'm starting the interval training to replace the regular cardio I was doing. I've been on a decent diet (for the most part) and have been hitting the gym for some time now.

But you're both right. Diet is as important as the actual workout when trying to slim down or bulk up.

[superstring01]

Great article IdleMind!

I'm an avid runner (in the summer; but in the winter I do a solid mix of weights and cardio)** and I interval train several times a week. But your article has also caused me to want to alter how I do my running.

Currently, I run at my old high school's football track, approx. 400 meters (1/4 mile) @ 6 miles per hour (a brisk jog):
Run 16 laps [4 miles]
Walk 1 lap
Run 1 lap
Walk 1 lap
Run 2 laps
Walk 1 lap
Run 2 laps
Walk 1 lap
Run 2 laps
Walk 1 lap [total: 7 miles]

But I feel like I'm not getting the most out of my run. I love the distance, and like a lot of runners will attest, running is addicting. I think about it all day long (at work, before running, after running). I'm thinking about lowering my straight miles in the beginning (which I do to increase my endurance) and start alternating sprinting with walking.

Much to think about.

~String

______________________________________________
**Living in Cleveland, I feel morally obligated to be outside when the weather is good. Unlike most Midwesterners, I don't "enjoy" the weather for the first month and then huddle next to my AC for the rest of it. I'm outside as much as possible.

[Norsefire]

Sprinting is more effective than jogging. I do my running on a treadmill, and the way I divide is this

Warm up for 2 minutes at a brisk walk

Jog 2 minutes
Sprint 1 minite and a half
Jog 2 minutes
Walk 2 minutes
Jog 2 minutes
Sprint 2 minutes


And various alterations between jogging, sprinting, and walking lasting about 30 m.

Do your weights before your cardio. If you do cardio first weights, like pullups, will be impossible...it's just too hard.

[francois]

There's interval training that I do called Tabata Protocol. You can think of it as a more extreme version of interval training. Basically you warm up for like five minutes. Then you sprint at full intensity for 20 seconds and then walk for ten seconds. Then you immediately start over again. You do that eight times. It all lasts for four minutes. Then you cool off. Usually takes up like 20 minutes of time (warm up, stretching, actual workout, cooling down), but it is an incredible workout.

Like others say, it's nice because it takes up little time and gives you awesome results.

[Idle Mind]

I do have a question, however. In the NY Times article, it mentions that you shouldn't do interval training in consecutive days, citing that your body needs time to recover as the reason.

But what if you are training in two different disciplines: rowing and running, for example? Both use largely different muscle groups, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem to alternate between the two in consecutive days, should it?

[Nasor]

From the article:
Improved fat burning means endurance athletes can go further before tapping into carbohydrate stores.
Waaa? The body starts burning fat to replace carbohydrate stores when the carbs in the blood start to get depleted. Endurance athletes want to go as long as possible on their carbohydrate stores before they have to switch to burning fat.

[Idle Mind]

Hmm, you're right. I must have missed that line. It could have just been a misinterpretation or a mistake on the part of the reporter.

[Nasor]

Sadly, it seems to indicate that this reporter doesn't actually know jack about exercise/metabolism/etc., and they didn't bother having anyone who does know about it review the article before it was published. I'm sure any of the researchers they quote in the article would have been all over that line if the reporter had simply asked them to proof-read it. I would have thought that the likes of the NY Times would be better.

Of course it was published in the "fashion and style" section rather than the "health" or "science" section, which I guess is a clue to the sort of people who probably wrote and edited it.

Edit: Personally, I would much rather the newspapers just ask an expert in the field to write such articles. Heck, most of the researchers who they quote in the NY Times article would probably have been happy to write a newspaper article about interval training for free; and you know it would have been much more clear and accurate. What's the point of having a clueless reporter talk to someone who knows a subject and then try to write an article that passes the information along, even though they don't actually understand it? Why not just have the expert write it?