13 replies to this topic

[Gupster]

http://www.bodyrecom...nd-vo2-max.html

[billh]

 Gupster, on 26 July 2010 - 01:41 PM, said:

http://www.bodyrecom...nd-vo2-max.html

He didn't say it was bad (harmful), just that there was a plateau after 3 weeks and not helping after that, which is sort of interesting . . .

Quote

Basically, the Tabata group improved for 3 weeks and then plateaued despite a continuingly increasing workload.  I’d note that anaerobic capacity did improve over the length of the study although most of the benefit came in the first 4 weeks of the study (with far less over the last 2 weeks)

the graph doesn't look like a plateau to me, looks like they keep improving.  ???

[cleeland]

Where does he say that they are bad?  I see him saying the following things:
1. people say they're doing Tabatas, but they're really not.  A lot of people think that the time relationship is the key to the protocol, but it's a combination of the time AND the intensity.
2. all intervals all the time make jack a dully boy, i.e., the studies tend to show that the improvements from super high intensity work accumulate over about 2-3 weeks and then plateau (I've used this feature in an effort to induce a peak before a key event)

[This is just from me] the word "interval" has too many amorphous meanings such that it can't be used in a conversation without further qualifications on its use.

[Gupster]

 cleeland, on 26 July 2010 - 03:01 PM, said:

Where does he say that they are bad?  I see him saying the following things:
1. people say they're doing Tabatas, but they're really not.  A lot of people think that the time relationship is the key to the protocol, but it's a combination of the time AND the intensity.
2. all intervals all the time make jack a dully boy, i.e., the studies tend to show that the improvements from super high intensity work accumulate over about 2-3 weeks and then plateau (I've used this feature in an effort to induce a peak before a key event)

[This is just from me] the word "interval" has too many amorphous meanings such that it can't be used in a conversation without further qualifications on its use.

could be bad

[cleeland]

 Gupster, on 26 July 2010 - 04:22 PM, said:

could be bad

I don't even get the could part, though.  Ineffective maybe, but not bad.  Heck, even ineffective might be too strong. "less effective than something else" might be the most appropriate.  In the study, even after three weeks the participants were still demonstrating improvement--the slope of the line just wasn't as high.

[Gupster]

 cleeland, on 26 July 2010 - 07:55 PM, said:

 Gupster, on 26 July 2010 - 04:22 PM, said:

could be bad

I don't even get the could part, though.  Ineffective maybe, but not bad.  Heck, even ineffective might be too strong. "less effective than something else" might be the most appropriate.  In the study, even after three weeks the participants were still demonstrating improvement--the slope of the line just wasn't as high.

plateuing is bad in my book.

[Rodder]

Interval types make for good speed work.  But recovery Is the key, should be more of a saw tooth trend to get longterm gains

[Gupster]

 Rodder, on 27 July 2010 - 09:49 PM, said:

Interval types make for good speed work.  But recovery Is the key, should be more of a saw tooth trend to get longterm gains

Note that these intervals are 60 seconds and under. There's also a difference between threshold intervals and aerobic intervals. This is why many programs have three build periods that each consist of three weeks.

Deloading weeks are a must or else you will stall quickly.

[K Mulligan]

This is some guy with a blog about body composition taking pot shots at a peer-reviewed article on training that was published 16 years ago.  I guess I don't understand the point.

[Mike S.]

Maybe he means they are allmichaeljackson.com/bad.html

Two, weeks.  Two, weeks.  Two, weeks.  

Maybe they need a recovery week every 4th week.

[Gupster]

 K Mulligan, on 28 July 2010 - 09:39 AM, said:

This is some guy with a blog about body composition taking pot shots at a peer-reviewed article on training that was published 16 years ago.  I guess I don't understand the point.

I would explain, but I get the feeling you don't really care.

[Pot Hole]

I skimmed the entire article and think it is more about trying to "take down" any published ideas that one type of training is better than another.

Face it, if you have a journalistic background you realize that most of the articles in popular "cycling circles" or other media are using some sort word-play or half-truth to make a very old notion or idea seem like its the latest thing since chocolate-spicy buffalo wings. (which I happen to like with black licorice and orange wedges)

But, I digress, the guy wanted to write an article about people who write articles about writing articles. Try as they may, journalists have failed to turn exercise and training into rocket science. But stick around they'll try again soon.

[Gupster]

 Pot Hole, on 04 August 2010 - 11:30 AM, said:

I skimmed the entire article and think it is more about trying to "take down" any published ideas that one type of training is better than another.

Face it, if you have a journalistic background you realize that most of the articles in popular "cycling circles" or other media are using some sort word-play or half-truth to make a very old notion or idea seem like its the latest thing since chocolate-spicy buffalo wings. (which I happen to like with black licorice and orange wedges)

But, I digress, the guy wanted to write an article about people who write articles about writing articles. Try as they may, journalists have failed to turn exercise and training into rocket science. But stick around they'll try again soon.

He's not a journalist and he's also not a cyclist. He's devoted over twenty years of work to exercise science. The article was meant to enlighten a group of athletes on the negatives of interval training or doing too many high-intensity intervals; not to bring up new information. He never claimed it was new information from a recent study. I can pull up studies from the thirties about this.

I showed it here because I thought it might come in handy when one might be building a training program.

[Mike S.]

Since cardio helps and involves cardiac and pulmonary function, would pullm'nardio be a better name for it?