Would you put the link to the full paper please?
I can’t post the link directly because it is against the rules of the forum, however you can find the full article at my website. The link is posted in my signature.
All the best.
Rather than posting a link, can you just post the article so we don’t have to click on your website?
Could you define a"state-level" athlete please? I am guessing this means that an athlete has more or less achieved all they can out of tempo or sweet-spot training and the studies assess the benefit of going out and drilling it!
“state-level” should now read “state/provincial-level”. This describes the competitive level of the athletes included in the respective study.
Very glad to see this. Despite many of the ST “experts” that are against Hi Intensity Training…I really believe this is a no-brainer in that AeHIIT gives much more benefit than it gets credit. Good news for the time crunched AGers.
Very glad to see this. Despite many of the ST “experts” that are against Hi Intensity Training…I really believe this is a no-brainer in that AeHIIT gives much more benefit than it gets credit. Good news for the time crunched AGers.
You can say that again…I live and die by “you have to go fast to be fast” Sogging along hour after hour will get you nowhere, maybe if you are gearing up for a grand tour…but there are “0” people on this board doing that. Teaching your brain to dig deep will trump a 6 hour training day. But I’m know the “typing know it alls” will provide me wrong.
Very glad to see this. Despite many of the ST “experts” that are against Hi Intensity Training…I really believe this is a no-brainer in that AeHIIT gives much more benefit than it gets credit. Good news for the time crunched AGers.
You can say that again…I live and die by “you have to go fast to be fast” Sogging along hour after hour will get you nowhere, maybe if you are gearing up for a grand tour…but there are “0” people on this board doing that. Teaching your brain to dig deep will trump a 6 hour training day. But I’m know the “typing know it alls” will provide me wrong.
improving oxygen capacity is key for improved performance… but also is improving ability to maintain a % of that capacity… it all goes together, even the part about going really slow so that you can recover and push hard again.
Very glad to see this. Despite many of the ST “experts” that are against Hi Intensity Training…I really believe this is a no-brainer in that AeHIIT gives much more benefit than it gets credit. Good news for the time crunched AGers.
You can say that again…I live and die by “you have to go fast to be fast” Sogging along hour after hour will get you nowhere, maybe if you are gearing up for a grand tour…but there are “0” people on this board doing that. Teaching your brain to dig deep will trump a 6 hour training day. But I’m know the “typing know it alls” will provide me wrong.
Both have their place…do the High Intensity stuff during the week and then go long on weekends. Why does everyone make it “one or the other”.
Very glad to see this. Despite many of the ST “experts” that are against Hi Intensity Training…I really believe this is a no-brainer in that AeHIIT gives much more benefit than it gets credit. Good news for the time crunched AGers.
You can say that again…I live and die by “you have to go fast to be fast” Sogging along hour after hour will get you nowhere, maybe if you are gearing up for a grand tour…but there are “0” people on this board doing that. Teaching your brain to dig deep will trump a 6 hour training day. But I’m know the “typing know it alls” will provide me wrong.
Both have their place…do the High Intensity stuff during the week and then go long on weekends. Why does everyone make it “one or the other”.
I am one of those “0” folks even though not gearing up for a tour. Just trying to get to all my races starting lines, and get their healthy which I see many no do.
As my current example, am not willing to go through the hassles to get to a heated pool. So have been swimming in my 55 degree lake freezing, with just slow constant 30 minute swims.
Actually feels great to just swim nice and solid. In some ways much more enjoyable than watching the black line with pool intervals.
I just do not get why so many as so into it is their way or no way. For 99% of the athletes the issue is not about speed work or this or that. It is about their lack for training ALL YEAR LONG.
They have no real consistency, frequency and duration. Without these first, fast, which can be done in training or racing, IMO, means very little other than for many, just getting hurt.
.
.
It isn’t i believe one is just more important…if not racing there nothing like six plus on the bike just rolling.
"Both have their place…do the High Intensity stuff during the week and then go long on weekends. Why does everyone make it “one or the other”. +1
There is no way an older 50+? 55+? age grouper could do all workouts at high intensity week after week without breaking down when one considers they also have multiple hours tied up into the real world and/or with family responsibilities. Those that point to such studies fail to recognize/state that other well known top flight competitors have reached the top with other methods. Ever hear of Mark Allen-Mike Pigg-Collen Cannon? We learn that every study that produces some conclusion can be “nit-picked” and lead to questions on whether the study would hold true with a different test group(s) and applications.
**The effects of training-intensity distribution on endurance performance. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. **
Michael Rosenblat
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
There are a number of variables to consider when designing an endurance-training program in order to limit fatigue and optimize performance. Training-intensity is a key variable that can be manipulated in such a way that it can lead to either an improvement or a deterioration in performance.
There are three physiological training zones that can be used to determine training-intensity when designing an endurance-training program. Zone 1 (Z1) is below the lactate threshold (LT1) or aerobic threshold. Zone 2 (Z2) falls between LT1 and LT2 (anaerobic threshold), and zone 3 (Z3) is above LT2. An ideal training program will include an appropriate distribution across these training zones.
The two common training distribution models include a polarized training model (POL) and a threshold training model (THR). POL involves approximately 80%, 5%, and 15% of training in Z1, Z2, and Z3 respectively. THR involves 45%, 35%, and 20% of training in Z1, Z2, and Z3. The purpose of this review is to systematically review the available evidence on the effects of different training-intensity distribution models on markers of endurance performance.
There is moderate level evidence demonstrating that a POL model leads to greater improvements in 10 km running time performance than a THR model in recreational and sub-elite runners.
There is low level evidence demonstrating that a POL model leads to improvements in running economy in competitive endurance athletes (cross-country skiing, cycling, triathlon, middle- or long-distance runners).
There is low level evidence demonstrating that a POL model leads to greater improvements in VO2peak than a THR or HVT model in competitive endurance athletes (cross-country skiing, cycling, triathlon, middle- or long-distance runners).
More research is necessary to accurately assess the mechanisms for which altering training distribution improves performance. Studies of greater methodological design are required to provide more conclusive results on the effects of different training models on endurance performance.
After a quick peek at the subject ages in the studies referred to this thread, one realizes almost all of the studies used subjects with a mean age of 25 years. Case dismissed.
After a quick peek at the subject ages in the studies referred to this thread, one realizes almost all of the studies used subjects with a mean age of 25 years. Case dismissed.
All I have ever asked coaches that say do this or that is what AG they are putting their focus on.
With the mean age of 25, you can easily get away with just about anything, especially high intensity/volume/etc stuff.
I wonder what the average age of Triathletes are? I sure know at races I do, if I had to guess it would be in the upper 30’s, low 40’s.
So would love to see more focus with the average AG triathlete, not the 1% Type A this is their life person. The others just getting them off the coach is the first goal, let alone
keeping them off the coach.
.
"Both have their place…do the High Intensity stuff during the week and then go long on weekends. Why does everyone make it “one or the other”. +1
There is no way an older 50+? 55+? age grouper could do all workouts at high intensity week after week without breaking down when one considers they also have multiple hours tied up into the real world and/or with family responsibilities. Those that point to such studies fail to recognize/state that other well known top flight competitors have reached the top with other methods. Ever hear of Mark Allen-Mike Pigg-Collen Cannon? We learn that every study that produces some conclusion can be “nit-picked” and lead to questions on whether the study would hold true with a different test group(s) and applications.
Billy…I said “both have their place”. Why does everyone on ST have to be so polarized. It’s endurance sport…it’s never all other nothing.
If you recall when Mark Allen finally won Kona in 1989 on the Maffetone “plan” he also had a 20 race winning streak THAT year. This included the first ITU World’s in Avignon where he went something like 1:47.
So think about it for a second. Maffetone and Allen were preaching all the low intensity stuff, but of course people forget that he was basically racing two weeks out of every 3. So of course, he was going low intensity in between. Same with Pigg,. I won’t comment about Colleen Cannon because I was not closely tracking her racing. Every time someone says they were on the high volume low intensity plan and does 20 races, you need to take that with a grain of salt…those 20 races are tough training sessions that need a lot of recovery. Ask Paula Newby Fraser about some of her unreal streaks of racing back in the mid 90’s. She would just do a massive build of a ton of volume and ton of intensity too…then she would embard on string of racing and basically just race and take it easy in between, holding the fitness for up to 6 weeks at a time.
None of this is rocket science…you need volume, you need intensity and the mix will depend on target racing, time of year and athlete progression. You’re right, read the studies with a grain of salt. It is almost never “all of one, none of the other”.
Talk to Chris Boardman about his prep for the World Hour record…a lot different than what Bobridge used for his attempt coming in off the Tour Down Under. Boardman had a bunch of 8 hour week and aside from warmup and cooldown it was all at or above world hour record pace. But look at the final times…quite similar.
In the end, anything that lasts more than minute starts to veer over to aerobic. Even the 4000 m pursuit, the mile and the 400m freestyle are half of each system (approximately)…which is why Wiggins could be a 4000m champ and Tour de France champ. Amazing how the same guy who can win over 4 minutes can also win over 5 hours…not really though.
I am agreeing with your statement about a mixture and not the one or other emphasis. That is what the +1 stands for.
**The effects of training-intensity distribution on endurance performance. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. **
Michael Rosenblat
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
There are a number of variables to consider when designing an endurance-training program in order to limit fatigue and optimize performance. Training-intensity is a key variable that can be manipulated in such a way that it can lead to either an improvement or a deterioration in performance.
There are three physiological training zones that can be used to determine training-intensity when designing an endurance-training program. Zone 1 (Z1) is below the lactate threshold (LT1) or aerobic threshold. Zone 2 (Z2) falls between LT1 and LT2 (anaerobic threshold), and zone 3 (Z3) is above LT2. An ideal training program will include an appropriate distribution across these training zones.
The two common training distribution models include a polarized training model (POL) and a threshold training model (THR). POL involves approximately 80%, 5%, and 15% of training in Z1, Z2, and Z3 respectively. THR involves 45%, 35%, and 20% of training in Z1, Z2, and Z3. The purpose of this review is to systematically review the available evidence on the effects of different training-intensity distribution models on markers of endurance performance.
There is moderate level evidence demonstrating that a POL model leads to greater improvements in 10 km running time performance than a THR model in recreational and sub-elite runners.
There is low level evidence demonstrating that a POL model leads to improvements in running economy in competitive endurance athletes (cross-country skiing, cycling, triathlon, middle- or long-distance runners).
There is low level evidence demonstrating that a POL model leads to greater improvements in VO2peak than a THR or HVT model in competitive endurance athletes (cross-country skiing, cycling, triathlon, middle- or long-distance runners).
More research is necessary to accurately assess the mechanisms for which altering training distribution improves performance. Studies of greater methodological design are required to provide more conclusive results on the effects of different training models on endurance performance.
I think if you want to see the impact of the type of training, then you should take running out of the study unless the goal of the study is running (sorry did not read the study). If the focus is what type of training impacts endurance performance, seems like cycling that has almost zero technique dependency would be the one where you can make the best conclusions. Technique for cycling does not change at any percent of FTP. Whereas running, XC sking, swimming the technique and application of forces changes somewhat so you’d expect in those sports that going about Anaerobic threshold would have more impactful gains than in cycling where there is no technique dependency.
OK, sorry, did not notice the +1, I just read the second line in isolation. Definitely agree that even younger athletes should not do all workout hard…although I will admit, that I can’t go to the pool without going hard every time…luckily I only swim a few times per week at best.
You have made a number of very good points. I believe the case you are referring to included subjects of a variety of endurance sport backgrounds, however completed an experimental training program that involved cycling. A strength to this method is that the training mode is kept constant between athletes, making it easier to compare data. A flaw in this study design could relate to the specificity of the athletes themselves. For example, a highly-trained cyclist may not see the same type of improvements in a study involving cycling. Whereas a runner’s baseline cycling values may change significantly at follow-up simply due to adapting to the exercise mode. Clearly, this is all speculation, but is quite possible.
I really have not looked too much into changes in efficiency at different exercise intensity during cycling. I could see that an adaptive response to a change in exercise intensity may include shifting from a more muscle balanced pedal stroke to a more quadriceps dominant pedal stroke. However, I have not looked into the literature to see if this is a common response.
I think the most important thing to take away is that it is very important to look at the study methodology to see how we can generalize the results.