for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

More efficient running style

183 watchers

Canute Apr 2013 10:12pm, 12 Apr 2013 592 posts	Quote Pin Canute FR, There is little doubt that large volume, low intensity running does build aerobic capacity, though it is also very time consuming. There is also no doubt that HIIT over a period of 6-8 weeks develops aerobic capacity as measured using biochemical measures such as mitochondrial oxidative capacity and in various measurements of performance, such 40Km cycling time trial performance. Some of this data is covered in the review by Gibala in the Journal of Physiology, vol 590, 2012. However, there is little doubt that in preparing for marathon running, one also needs to condition the connective tissues and develop good fuel economy, so even the most ardent supporter of HIIT would probably accept that a marathoner should do a substantial number of long runs. So in my mind, the really important question is whether including of some high intensity sessions puts an end to aerobic development for that season. Some people consider this to be the meaning of Hadd’s recommendation that the tooth paste tube must be squeezed for the end. At one extreme, some people even suggest that one should walk up hills to try to prevent HR exceeding aerobic threshold. I am aware of anecdotal evidence from individuals who report that including high intensity sessions arrested their aerobic development, but I am not aware of any good evidence from systematic studies for this. It is probable that individuals differ in what suits them best. It is certainly reasonable to suggest that for recreational runners, whatever best suits their temperament is best for them. However, if one want to develop to the best of one’s ability , I think it is important to establish whether HIIT actually arrests the development of an aerobic base produced low intensity training. Your comment, and indeed your performances, indicate that a large volume of low intensity running is effective. Nonetheless, I would be interested to know if you have found that high intensity work actually arrests the development of aerobic capacity.
SPR Apr 2013 10:31pm, 12 Apr 2013 18,262 posts	Quote Pin SPR Aerobic Capacity vs Condition. Increasing size vs Efficiency.
Boab Apr 2013 10:41pm, 12 Apr 2013 7,128 posts	Quote Pin Boab From personal experience the high intensity work tends to stump progress. I've found that high volume, mostly low, intensity running has helped me to PB over all distances from 5k to marathon. However, high intensity needs to be defined properly as I think that a lot of runners carry out high intensity work at an intensity that is higher than it should be. This is evident where a runner expects times for specific race distances and ends up falling vastly short. In other words they run their high intensity sessions too fast. It is very easy to run very hard in training. I've done it and I've felt it. For example running 1 mile reps at 5:00 pace but barely able to string 3 miles together at 5:20 pace. Understanding your current fitness level is key to correct training paces and one of the best way to do this is with heart rate, or effort perception.
FenlandRunner Apr 2013 1:41pm, 13 Apr 2013 15,693 posts	Quote Pin FenlandRunner Canute, the reason my development has been so protracted is due to running at the 80% + level of intensity and it did wreck my endurance. The improvements made when training at sub-75% has been a welcome surprise and staggering. I also think that walking briskly aids endurance.
SPR Apr 2013 2:39pm, 13 Apr 2013 18,265 posts	Quote Pin SPR Canute - What did the 2012 study conclude? The wiki summary for the 2009 study suggests its about time efficiency rather than greater benefit: en.wikipedia.org "Professor Martin Gibala and his team at McMaster University in Canada have been researching high-intensity exercise for several years. Their 2009 study on students uses 3 minutes for warming up, then 60 seconds of intense exercise (at 95% of VO2max) followed by 75 seconds of rest, repeated for 8–12 cycles. Subjects using this method trained 3 times per week, and obtained gains similar to what would be expected from subjects who did steady state (50–70% VO2max) training five times per week. While still a demanding form of training, this exercise protocol could be used by the general public with nothing more than an average exercise bike."
SPR Apr 2013 2:47pm, 13 Apr 2013 18,266 posts	Quote Pin SPR FR - Problem with what you were doing though is that was neither high intensity or easy and also most likely above LT. Boab - IMO, once runners start trying to do race pace sessions, aerobic condition is not the main focus anymore. Interval training and race pace are not the same, even if both have a rest period. Also as you alluded to, changing pace, length of rep, recovery, or number of reps will change the effect of the session.
SPR Apr 2013 4:37pm, 13 Apr 2013 18,267 posts	Quote Pin SPR This is the Bolt video that was debated before although it has been shortened for the official documentary (and is missing the most debated parts) and the original was taken down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k50oBkXxQU
Kieren Apr 2013 5:40pm, 13 Apr 2013 3,661 posts	Quote Pin Kieren I don't think HIIT would dull development of a base training - at least not directly. Adding HIIT might lengthen your recovery time which is then going to affect your base training. (I'm still reading up on this so please correct, critique, fill in blanks etc) When you are running for endurance and eventually carb deplete your body will start shutting off non-essential processes to focus energy on 'getting away'. So blood flow to the digestive system is reduced for example but also blood flow to the liver is reduced which can normally release blood sugars or fats. Simply, everything that draws on ATP that can be turned off, is disabled. The body will tend to break down what it needs close to the source of where it is need - both fats and muscle protein. The enabler for this is an enzyme called AMPk which propegates when your cells mitochondria (power houses) are struggling to meet demand. AMPk is an enabler for increased protein use as fuel. If you are not rested properly that can be pretty detrimental to your gains. However, prolonged levels of depleted ATP & raised AMPk (base training?) are probably going to develop you at the cellular level. When AMPk is high, growth hormone is usually also upregualted in the body so hopefully your muscles are getting some protection from breakdown but make no mistakes about it, cortisol will also be high and you will be in a catebolic state and highly sensitive to insulin. It seems, from my limited googling, that like a light switch, you can make stress hormone, AMPk and your cateboic state go away pretty much instantly by taking on sugar. The insulin spike will deliver nutrients where they are needed as long as you add it. HIIT might be great for raising VO2MAX, but I don't think it will increase your ability to use fat as a fuel or increase your levels of ATP in the same way that base training / elevated levels of AMPk will. It's the light switch effect that interests me. Lifting heavy weights will tend to do the opposite, mTOR will switch on, the body switched to using & replenishing ATP in the rest between sets. Testosterone is high and when rested the body is in build mode rather than tear down mode. I think that by see-swawing this approach good gains can be had. It's only something I found about recently but while doing the fasted long runs and lifting weights, I have actually got stronger, reaching PBs on benchpress, pullup and squat recently. In caontrast, training constantly at one level, like stready state base running will probably mean you miss out on other development you could be doing at the same time.
FenlandRunner Apr 2013 7:43pm, 13 Apr 2013 15,695 posts	Quote Pin FenlandRunner "HIIT might be great for raising VO2MAX, but I don't think it will increase your ability to use fat as a fuel or increase your levels of ATP in the same way that base training / elevated levels of AMPk will." Kieren, that's my thoughts precisely. I think that improved VO2MAX is the only benefit from HIIT. Still wouldn't it be great if HIIT worked and people could HIT their marathon targets on short sharp stuff. But I have my doubts. It is all about specificity.
James1982a Apr 2013 9:57pm, 13 Apr 2013 8,993 posts	Quote Pin James1982a er.. so a combination of both would be a good idea? Some interesting stuff on here. I haven't been reading all of it, but have read the last page. Bolt annoys me because he's always looking round. I'm sure if he looked straight ahead he'd gain 0.001 of a second Especially with his ability. When I was running 100's at school, I didn't need to look around as I knew I was winning and I could hear if there was anyone near me! Canute - Are you a coach?