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?
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:
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 need to perform.
This is applied slightly different in the marathon , but close enough. The problem with doing fast HIIT running close to a marathon is that a marathon is an extension of speed and endurance, but is also limited by the amount of glycogen that can be stored in muscle. Running aerobically burns the glycogen more slowly and if this speed is exceeded the rate of glycogen usage goes up. A big part of marathon training is running at a level where your body learns to use glycogen efficiently. If you do fast training you signal to your body that conservation of the glycogen isn’t important, and it can be sacrificed to run more quickly.
That said, for an untrained or slightly trained person who wants to run a fall marathon I’d 100% include intervals (maybe without the HI, we won’t agree on that) as the benefit they would get from them outweigh optimising fuel usage on the day.
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...