Comments on: Metabolic Adaptations to Short-Term High-Intensity Interval Training

By: Larry R

Larry R — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:45:43 +0000

One interesting area to consider is whether there is also a response by the heart to generate peripheral blood vessels to feed itself. One of the main reasons that I exercise is to have its cardio-protective effect, to increase coronary blood supply. Recently, because I particpated in a blood pressure study, I had to opportunity to have this measured. It showed that after about 5 years of playing vigerous tennis 3x week, and a few years of maybe 70% interval type exercise, and some standard aerobic – that I was in the top 5% for my age for coronary blood supply. So I’m pleased with that. To me that matters more than V02max. And whether I could achieve that with standard cardio is secondary. I’m not sure that I would have kept that up.

Effect on blood pressure is also a consideration. Exercise at low-intensities lowers blood pressure (the pupose of the above-mentioned study). I’m sure that high-intensity intervals I’m sure would raise blood pressure more during, although I’m not sure if there a reduction from baseline so quickly afterwards. Overall blood-pressure is possitively impacted by weight-loss – consisting mostly of fat-loss hopefully!

By: Neil

Neil — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:53:56 +0000

Another interesting article, and certainly provides me with food for thought (as I currently do Oly lifts, cycle to work AND attempt HIIT 2x per week) – this series of articles is certainly making me question whether this protocol has benefits. The question I’m most interested in though (and unsure whether research has addressed) is for how long the benefits of HIIT on performance last once the subject stops performing HIIT. You state that the maximum benefit is achieved somewhere between week 3 and 6, but how long does this last if a subject reverted to traditional steady state cardio? How many HIIT sessions would be required to constantly keep up this level of performance and over what period should they be performed?

By: lylemcd

lylemcd — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 15:37:49 +0000

I recently did a long series on methods of endurance training,my conclusion was essentially what you wrote: both steady state and interval training generate different adaptations and both are part of the overall performance package.

How much of each type is required or appropriate depends on the needs of the athlete and the demands of their sport.

It’s an absurdist either/or to think that training can be or should be one or the other. It would be as idiotic as thinking that you can only use one method of strength training but nothing else.

Yet that’s the exact idiotic dichotomy that I see coaches pushing. Mainly because it helps them sell product.

By: Jeremiah Jacobs

Jeremiah Jacobs — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:45:55 +0000

(website under construction)
I was a college Strength and Conditioning Coach for nearly a decade before going into business for myself, and I have a few exercise related degrees. I think the point that you are getting at is that each has its place and how does it fit together. I would agree, I recommend both as well as weight training. My experience is that a blend, though more complicated to periodize, is the most effective approach. Over training is always a fear and must be closely monitored while doing this. It is note worthy however, that most sports are predominantly anaerobic (even soccer) and therefor by definition, nothing more than interval training (with skill of course). Many athletes do this daily, in addition to their conditioning workouts and 2-4 days of lifting (depending on the season). So it is very feasible to do interval training with a high frequency as long as you work your way up to over time. It requires a lot of time spent on recovery techniques, lack of a full time job, and a lot of will power (or obsession), but it is possible. Then again, perfectly timed recovery is really what separates 1st and 2nd place (since both have obviously put in the work or they wouldn’t be there).