It seems like the obvious is demonstrated here:
- It is the hard aerobic workouts - aerobic intervals and tempo efforts- that make one faster.
- That moderate efforts are also important- maybe in their own right, maybe for that fact that they provide a base from which to attach the harder efforts
- Too much moderate training is harmful if it detracts from the hard aerobic training.
There is disagreement between sports, athletes and training programs as to what the perfect mix of “hard” and moderate training should be.
What I was hoping for was some analysis of anaerobic intervals (less than 3 minutes). This seems to be the latest craze in the “get fit quick” scemes.
Anaerobic training is very common in swimming. But less common among age group triathletes and runners.
I feel certain that anaerobic training:
- Increases ones efficiency under duress.
- Extends the tolerance of anaerobic ability- (ie. I do few anaerobic intervals in running- and I fade from sprint much much faster than an accomplished track athlete).
More importantly - anaerobic intervals might increase ones aerobic and lactic thresholds.
Anecdotally- I used to do lots of anaerobic and aerobic intervals in swimming. The result was that my performance did NOT suck for 2:00, 4:00, 8:00, 16:00 minute races.
I have been undeciplined with anaerobic intervals in running and cycling. This seems to corresponds with poor performances in races between 4:00 - 30:00 in duration.
It seems that most of the bullshit- get fit fast schemes are the ones selling anaerobic training. I clicked on this thread to see what the experts though about this.