MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
John Little Wrong on Cardio ?
First | Prev | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49
Author
Rating
Options

Nwlifter

Average Al wrote:
Fleischman wrote:
This week I came across this article on HIIT vs HIRT and I thought those following this thread would enjoy it.It is in line with Pavel's Anti-Glycolytic Training (AGT).
..breakingmuscle.com/fitness/hiit-versus-hirt

In essence, in HIRT (AGT):
1. all-out lasts 5-15 secs
2. rest lasts until ready for a new 5-15 secs all-out where you can perform like in 1st all-out.
3. Repeat 1. and 2 until all-out performance is no longer like first all-out.

If I understood correctly, HIRT brings aerobic improvements of HIIT and avoids its drawbacks, so seems like a win-win.

Plus HIRT might be useful towards the goal of hypertrophy:
...breakingmuscle.com/fitness/hirt-for-hypertrophy

Thoughts?

There are many kinds of interval training protocols, depending on the intensity and duration of the work interval, and the length of the rest period. Physiologists are now starting to distinguish between different kinds of interval training, though I'm not sure if we have yet reached a point of standardized terminology.

HIIT still seems to be a pretty generic term, describing any program where you alternate rest and work periods.

One variation of HIIT that has become popular involves relatively long work intervals (greater than 2 minutes) and relatively long rest periods (greater than 2 minutes). I have started referring to this as "high volume HIIT" because of the relatively long work periods, and the total amount of work done in a typical program (4 x 4 minutes to 6 x 5 minutes). These often require as much total time as steady state exercise sessions. These protocols usually recommend using intensities greater than 80% of your VO2 max, and they are designed primarily to improve the ability of the heart to deliver blood.

You also have SIT (sprint interval training), where you work very intensely (supra maximal VO2 max) for short periods of time (less than 30 seconds), and then rest relatively long. These kind of programs focus on improving peak anaerobic power output. Wingate sprints and the REHIT program fall into this category. These tend to produce aerobic improvements via peripheral adaptations.

Then there is the TABATA style, which also involves very short periods of supra maximal VO2, combined with short rest intervals. I suppose this sort of program targets recovery of the anaerobic system?

Pavel's HIRT seems to fall somewhere between SIT and TABATA, in that he is using short and intense anaerobic effort interspaced with moderate rest periods (somewhere in between SIT and TABATA).

As Marc has said, a lot of this stuff come from the athletic trainers, seeking to push the envelope on performance. If that is your interest, then follow the guidance of coaches who specialize in your preferred sport.

Others (like Gibala) have gotten interested in intervals because of the possibility that it may provide a more time efficient way to get health benefits. (The most common excuse for not getting adequate exercise is lack of time). However, I personally believe that more needs to be done to establish that abbreviate HIIT programs can produce the same health benefits as traditional cardio.

In particular, I'd be cautious about claims that HIIT produces exactly the aerobic conditioning results as traditional cardio but in much less time. These claims are usually based on comparisons of improvement in VO2 max, which is an overall measure of oxygen utilization. It is important to note that even if two exercise programs are shown to produce the same increase in VO2 max, it may be the case that the improvements come from different physiological adaptations (central vs peripheral). And those different adaptations many have different sets of health benefits.

As for Pavel: he is a genius at marketing. He loves to load up his sales pitch with a lot of technical jargon, with lots of references to scientific papers. I suspect, however, that he tends to get way ahead of what the science actually says.



Good post, spot on!
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Average Al wrote:
Fleischman wrote:
This week I came across this article on HIIT vs HIRT and I thought those following this thread would enjoy it.It is in line with Pavel's Anti-Glycolytic Training (AGT).
..breakingmuscle.com/fitness/hiit-versus-hirt

In essence, in HIRT (AGT):
1. all-out lasts 5-15 secs
2. rest lasts until ready for a new 5-15 secs all-out where you can perform like in 1st all-out.
3. Repeat 1. and 2 until all-out performance is no longer like first all-out.

If I understood correctly, HIRT brings aerobic improvements of HIIT and avoids its drawbacks, so seems like a win-win.

Plus HIRT might be useful towards the goal of hypertrophy:
...breakingmuscle.com/fitness/hirt-for-hypertrophy

Thoughts?

There are many kinds of interval training protocols, depending on the intensity and duration of the work interval, and the length of the rest period. Physiologists are now starting to distinguish between different kinds of interval training, though I'm not sure if we have yet reached a point of standardized terminology.

HIIT still seems to be a pretty generic term, describing any program where you alternate rest and work periods.

One variation of HIIT that has become popular involves relatively long work intervals (greater than 2 minutes) and relatively long rest periods (greater than 2 minutes). I have started referring to this as "high volume HIIT" because of the relatively long work periods, and the total amount of work done in a typical program (4 x 4 minutes to 6 x 5 minutes). These often require as much total time as steady state exercise sessions. These protocols usually recommend using intensities greater than 80% of your VO2 max, and they are designed primarily to improve the ability of the heart to deliver blood.

You also have SIT (sprint interval training), where you work very intensely (supra maximal VO2 max) for short periods of time (less than 30 seconds), and then rest relatively long. These kind of programs focus on improving peak anaerobic power output. Wingate sprints and the REHIT program fall into this category. These tend to produce aerobic improvements via peripheral adaptations.

Then there is the TABATA style, which also involves very short periods of supra maximal VO2, combined with short rest intervals. I suppose this sort of program targets recovery of the anaerobic system?

Pavel's HIRT seems to fall somewhere between SIT and TABATA, in that he is using short and intense anaerobic effort interspaced with moderate rest periods (somewhere in between SIT and TABATA).

As Marc has said, a lot of this stuff come from the athletic trainers, seeking to push the envelope on performance. If that is your interest, then follow the guidance of coaches who specialize in your preferred sport.

Others (like Gibala) have gotten interested in intervals because of the possibility that it may provide a more time efficient way to get health benefits. (The most common excuse for not getting adequate exercise is lack of time). However, I personally believe that more needs to be done to establish that abbreviate HIIT programs can produce the same health benefits as traditional cardio.

In particular, I'd be cautious about claims that HIIT produces exactly the aerobic conditioning results as traditional cardio but in much less time. These claims are usually based on comparisons of improvement in VO2 max, which is an overall measure of oxygen utilization. It is important to note that even if two exercise programs are shown to produce the same increase in VO2 max, it may be the case that the improvements come from different physiological adaptations (central vs peripheral). And those different adaptations many have different sets of health benefits.

As for Pavel: he is a genius at marketing. He loves to load up his sales pitch with a lot of technical jargon, with lots of references to scientific papers. I suspect, however, that he tends to get way ahead of what the science actually says.



Agreed. Also improvements on the HDL side of things has been shown with more volume vs intensity with cardio based on studies I last saw. I suspect volume offers other benefits as well.
Open User Options Menu

Fleischman

Alaska, USA

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Since Ventilatory Threshold 1 is so important for everyday training, I will post this for everyone?s benefit.

https://acewebcontent.azureedg...

Below VT1 the lungs can supply enough oxygen to run fat deposits through the Krebs cycle for ATP molecules. This is the most efficient way to produce ATP by far and reduce fat, but oxygen is absolutely necessary for the Krebs cycle to function. The action of the Krebs cycle helps greatly to provide ATP for anaerobic work. This spares glycogen stores in fast twitch muscles and preserves metabolic equilibrium.

While running/rowing hard and thus exceeding oxygen needs, fast twitch muscles are engaged to provide additional force for these strenuous muscular exertions. You then dip into glucose levels due to anaerobic metabolism, and exhaust recovery to a degree, and ramp up cortisol production. A little bit of interval work goes a long way , just like jalapeno peppers.

Questions?

ATP 4 Vitality,

Thank you for elaborating on this.

Will you please share the source of the diagram you attached to your latest post? I'm interested in reading the article/chapter you found it in.

Is the way you suggest approaching CV training for health summarized in said diagram?

Thank you,
F
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Fleischman wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Since Ventilatory Threshold 1 is so important for everyday training, I will post this for everyone?s benefit.

Below VT1 the lungs can supply enough oxygen to run fat deposits through the Krebs cycle for ATP molecules. This is the most efficient way to produce ATP by far and reduce fat, but oxygen is absolutely necessary for the Krebs cycle to function. The action of the Krebs cycle helps greatly to provide ATP for anaerobic work. This spares glycogen stores in fast twitch muscles and preserves metabolic equilibrium.

While running/rowing hard and thus exceeding oxygen needs, fast twitch muscles are engaged to provide additional force for these strenuous muscular exertions. You then dip into glucose levels due to anaerobic metabolism, and exhaust recovery to a degree, and ramp up cortisol production. A little bit of interval work goes a long way , just like jalapeno peppers.

Questions?
ATOP 4 Vitality,


It is ATP 4 Vitality





Thank you for elaborating on this.

Will you please share the source of the diagram you attached to your latest post? I'm interested in reading the article/chapter you found it in.



https://michaelkummer.com/...it-bike-review/

I gained more from studying the Krebs cycle thoroughly.



Is the way you suggest approaching CV training for health summarized in said diagram?



I never suggest, I provide information for personal choices, which makes one responsible for choosing their own personal training routine.





Thank you,
F


Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Avg. Al,

Not political but a reality. They are wrong on almost any subject they discuss relating to health or exercise.

OBS

Edited, pre coffee rant
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Avg.Al,

My guidelines for exercising?

All physical attributes must be trained. Strength, speed, stamina, SLA, hand eye coordination, and flexibility.

However, the most important factors are the goal of the trainee and their ability to recover from training. These are far more important than doing the minimum recommended amount for a specific exercise according to some arbitrary guideline.

According to that Physical Activity Guide posted all exercises are equal. It does not separate exercises by intensity or recovery time. Swimming, bicycling, and running are not the same because they are "Aerobic".

Swimming is more intense, mobilizes more muscles, burns more calories, and requires more recovery time than bicycling.

The same is true about resistance training which again the guide equates all methods as equal. Is one set to failure the same as one set not to failure?

Everyone knows exercising and having a well balanced diet matter but not all exercises and diets are the same.

The details matter.

OBS




Open User Options Menu

Average Al

oldbutsteady wrote:
Avg. Al,

Not political but a reality. They are wrong on almost any subject they discuss relating to health or exercise.

OBS

Edited, pre coffee rant


That would be remarkable, to be wrong on almost everything. I have to wonder how you arrived at this conclusion?
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

oldbutsteady wrote:
Avg.Al,

My guidelines for exercising?

All physical attributes must be trained. Strength, speed, stamina, SLA, hand eye coordination, and flexibility.

However, the most important factors are the goal of the trainee and their ability to recover from training. These are far more important than doing the minimum recommended amount for a specific exercise according to some arbitrary guideline.

According to that Physical Activity Guide posted all exercises are equal. It does not separate exercises by intensity or recovery time. Swimming, bicycling, and running are not the same because they are "Aerobic".

Swimming is more intense, mobilizes more muscles, burns more calories, and requires more recovery time than bicycling.

The same is true about resistance training which again the guide equates all methods as equal. Is one set to failure the same as one set not to failure?

Everyone knows exercising and having a well balanced diet matter but not all exercises and diets are the same.

The details matter.

OBS



Details matter for some things, especially if you are training for a sport, or a specific kind of athletic capability. But many of the things that are trainable in the context of sport or athletic activity, are also specific to the sport or athletic activity that you train. Developing good hand eye coordination by shooting a basketball likely does little to improve your ability to pitch a baseball.

In any case, the other poster's interest appeared to be general health. And the CDC guidelines are for the promotion of general health. For that context, how specific or detailed do you need to be?

From the standpoint of lowering your overall risk of heart disease or cancer, does it matter if you swim, run, or ride a bike? The available evidence, which is what CDC guidelines are based on, suggests that greater levels of activity are associated with better health outcomes. The data does not have enough granularity to support a conclusion beyond that.

Of course, you can find trainers who will provide a whole list of attributes that should be covered by your training program. Cross fit has a list of 10 fitness attributes. I'm sure there are many others. But is there strong evidence that all those elements are trainable in a general sense? Maybe the idea of GPP is just speculative BS and bro science, for the promotion and marketing of different training systems?



Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49
Administrators Online: Mod Jump'n Jack
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy