BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > Articles on the Main Site
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Unread 03-26-2009, 08:30 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Yeah, see, Tabata is a single protocol so saying 'tabata style intervals' doesn't really mean much even if that's the common use on the internet.

Specifically the Tabata workout did

8 repeats of 20 seconds at 170% VO2 max alternated with 10 seconds (at a very low intensity, I forget the value) and did it once a day 4 days/week. And when you got all 8 intervals without dying, you went up like 11-12 watts at the next workout (something like that).
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 03-26-2009, 12:56 PM
Bioteknik Bioteknik is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 88
Default

After all genetix posted that I did some searching and of course noticed the difference from what we did compared to a traditional tabata session.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 05-26-2009, 11:01 AM
Fried Bacon Fried Bacon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 207
Default

Just to add to this I was listening to the latest fitcast where John Berardi actually ran a test between Intense Interval Running, Bodyweight Circuits and Steady cardio.

He didnt disclose the details but the results in terms of fat loss and fitness were all very similar in a given time. He said whats most important is that you are progressing your fitness.

Progress on interval > running same distance/pace on steady state
Progress on Steady state > running same distance/pace on intervals

Steady state had the highest drop out rate as well, but thats because the participants claimed it to be too boring, but thats a whole different issue.

The recomendations were obvious, and I personally do both, incorporating Steady state while you are recovering from intervals

and recommend of course whatever you are more compliant to, much like Lyle's recommendation for a diet

Last edited by Fried Bacon : 05-26-2009 at 11:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 05-26-2009, 11:04 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

On the dropout rate, back in colledge, one of my ex. phys professors told us about a study (examining the 'fat burning zone' nonsense) that compared (as I recall)

50' low intensity cardio
25' higher intensity cardio

such that the calorie burn was identical.

Fat loss was identical.

People were less bored by the shorter session.

But that's a behavioral issue as much as anything else. It is important but it still outside many of the claims being made for intervals.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 05-26-2009, 11:16 AM
Fried Bacon Fried Bacon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 207
Default

Which is much of what I feel about low carb/high fat diets. Its benefits lie in greater compliance(which is of course the biggest issue), and not some physiological "metabolic" benefits
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 05-26-2009, 11:25 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Here's a lot of what I tend to find in these types of debates: when you're talking about the general public the details really don't matter. What matters is what they will actually do long-term.

I mean, hell, that study comes out earlier this year comparing a bunch of different diets and, basically, they all work (although none of them worked particularly well). I've been saying this for years: the best diet is the one that someone will stick to.

This is why most programs, books, diets, etc. spend a lot of chapters selling you on it. They may be utterly content free but for many people believing that they have finally found the 'right' answer is important. Carbs are evil, fat is evil, food combining is evil. It doesn't matter what the message it, it's all about selling the person that the approach is THE SINGLE TRUTH.

Assuming it's not completely idiotic (and make no mistake, there are a lot of idiotic ones out there), it's more important for the MAJORITY that they stick to it than the details of what it actually is.

As often as not the one that they will stick to is the one that they believe in. This is an oft-forgotten aspect of this: if you don't believe in what you're doing, it probably won't work. Put differently, the best program not followed will do worse than a mediocre program followed with 100% adherence. Especially for the general public.

And let's also face reality: most in the general public quit anything they try withing a few weeks, months at the top end. Figuring out why people stop doing things is far more useful than hashing out what might be slightly more ideal than something else in the short-term. B/c the short-term isn't the issue. It's long-term adherence.

Now when you move from the general public to the dedicated (read: obsessive) body comp people, then the rules change for a lot of reasons. Adherence and behavioral stuff is usually not the issue and dealing with underlying physiology becomes more important.

People tend to confuse the two levels.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 05-26-2009, 11:28 AM
AllGenetix's Avatar
AllGenetix AllGenetix is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 747
Default

the funny thing is that he used his own PN members who are OCD body comp whores to do the study. i am sure they had a pre-conceived notion that they got put in the I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.ty LSD cardio group and they wouldn't see results so they quit.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 05-27-2009, 07:14 AM
Heavy_Lifter85 Heavy_Lifter85 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 553
Default

Lyle,

You have often stated something along the lines of 'elite athletes don't use high intensity training more than twice a week or for more than a few weeks each season (peaking), so it's unreasonable to expect the average joe to manage any more than this.'

For an endurance athlete, does this logic apply solely to anaerobic stuff, or to MVO2 and lactate threshold "cruise" intervals as well?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 05-27-2009, 09:33 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

I think if you start looking at the training patterns of high level athletes, regardless of the type of high intensity work, it's usually limited to a couple of sessions per week.

Whether it's AT/VO2 or speed work, it's usually twice weekly (occasionally you will see a third session such as sprinters who do 2 max speed work sessions and one speed endurance but htey are elite and supported heavily).
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 10-28-2009, 01:48 PM
Monica Monica is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23
Default

How long should each interval and steady state aerobic session be to prevent over training, assuming I work my legs twice a week with weights as in your example?

Also, what %of max heart rate is recommended for the steady state session?

I like doing sprints all out for 30 sec followed by 60 sec walking at 3mph, and I have been doing 8 cycles of that per session.

Last edited by Monica : 10-28-2009 at 01:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.