The opposite of HIIT
Options
wabmester
Posts: 2,748 Member
HIIT is all the rage, so you LC iconoclasts might enjoy this:
Run Slower, Get Faster
... a growing body of research suggests that 80 percent of your workouts should be done at a slow speed, with just 20 percent at medium to fast. At this ratio, you're able to get all the performance-enhancing benefits of high-intensity work while avoiding the injury risk and burnout that often come along with it.
I just started training for an 8K, so I'm trying this newfangled approach.
Run Slower, Get Faster
... a growing body of research suggests that 80 percent of your workouts should be done at a slow speed, with just 20 percent at medium to fast. At this ratio, you're able to get all the performance-enhancing benefits of high-intensity work while avoiding the injury risk and burnout that often come along with it.
I just started training for an 8K, so I'm trying this newfangled approach.
0
Replies
-
I walk two 50kg mastiff-x's every morning.
Slow and steady is our SOP. The med-fast would be when we go down hill :-)
We're doing it right!0 -
The 80/20 strategy is just a way to try prevent overtraining, cause as amateurs we tend to take things to extremes.
It's really common sense. ...If you're someone who wants to improve long distance running, then doing a majority of your training volume that improves exactly that is logical to do. Exercise physiology is extremely sport specific. For example if you're good at cycling and think you can hop into triathlon, cause you have the aerobic capacity...think again. Cause the mechanics of moving muscles and mobility in running and swimming are different. In short: You get good at what you're training.
When doing high endurance you need a high volume of training. It's again common sense that you must build up muscle conditioning slowly to let body adapt to high volume, at least if want to avoid injuries.
That's why pro athletes have a majority of volume in LIT. They need to keep muscle memory fresh and well oiled almost year round. Even in off season their training can be hours/day...cause not training for weeks or months means losing valuable time catching up when the season start again.
I agree with the general notion in the article that LIT is not only good for endurance, but crucial. IMO I still think that doing a varied program is what charges a bigger growth in performance. Including strength protocols in the mix and some sprints here and there is great! Because it forces the body to go beyond comfort zone.
Personally I find the strategy of just listening to body and muscles a far more intuitive way of training than slavisly following a protocol. It takes me out of the brain heavy zone and makes organic growth easy and enjoyable
However, the blind use of heart rate as a measure of correct training zone in the article is somewhat misleading in MY case.
After going LCHF, I've mysteriously «lost» between 5-27 BPM on exercises. Some of this is muscle adaptation. But I wonder if it's the phenomenon described in Phinney and Volek's book «The art and science of Low Carbohydrate Performance» that FA is more oxygen efficient. In other words; you get higher power output per breath.
Might sound like nitpicking. But I know my perception of «intensity» is highly subjective and it can change. My walks started out at 132 BPM in december. Which is just below green zone. Now the same walk is around 99-119 depending on where I measure HRM. BUT the climb is the same! Possibly equals around 10% incline on treadmill at avg speed 4 mph for 51 mins (the climb is ca 600 meters), then downhill same route. I tried to simulate the walk on treadmill. At 300 meters climb it was 7.5 METS and 95 watts, which is a decent output for walking! In december I was feeling absolutely knackered doing only 6 km. Now I can do 12 km daily and feel only moderate strain and not completely exhausted after.
The hilly walks have improved core, balance, endurance. I can now do stuff in yoga class that was impossible to me before. It's also improved cycling performance, easier to sustain 10-20 mins in orange zone. And they're much less taxing on knees and muscles than running. Improving slow twitch muscle fibers take a lot of time, but it's a great investment for bigger burn in more mitochondria (at least in mice) and endurance in every day life.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3883043/#!po=43.8525
Performance growth ladder cardio:
Length -> Pace-> Intensity0 -
Great info, Foamroller.
The 80/20 approach is something I did pretty naturally, but it's great to give it a name and to have some research behind it. I found that I was able to run comfortably faster during a 5K than my fairly slow training runs.Foamroller wrote: »After going LCHF, I've mysteriously «lost» between 5-27 BPM on exercises. Some of this is muscle adaptation. But I wonder if it's the phenomenon described in Phinney and Volek's book «The art and science of Low Carbohydrate Performance» that FA is more oxygen efficient. In other words; you get higher power output per breath.
How has your resting pulse changed? Since we're pure fat burners at rest, I'd think this would be a better gauge of fat adaptation than exercise. Of course, both pulse and BP go down as we lose tissue due to weight loss.
0 -
Great info, Foamroller.
The 80/20 approach is something I did pretty naturally, but it's great to give it a name and to have some research behind it. I found that I was able to run comfortably faster during a 5K than my fairly slow training runs.Foamroller wrote: »After going LCHF, I've mysteriously «lost» between 5-27 BPM on exercises. Some of this is muscle adaptation. But I wonder if it's the phenomenon described in Phinney and Volek's book «The art and science of Low Carbohydrate Performance» that FA is more oxygen efficient. In other words; you get higher power output per breath.
How has your resting pulse changed? Since we're pure fat burners at rest, I'd think this would be a better gauge of fat adaptation than exercise. Of course, both pulse and BP go down as we lose tissue due to weight loss.
She's not talking a gauge of fat adaption, but a gauge of efficiency while fat adapted (and changes between being sugar adapted and becoming increasingly more fat adapted). Attia documents his own experiences with this, as well -- http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance. His changes in performance/fuel utilization far outpace his weight loss (a net total of about 15lbs down from 2009 to 2011), especially when you also take into account the fact that he retained all of his lean mass (thus a smaller change in blood needs than one who loses both fat and lean mass).0 -
So you're saying the pulse and O2 needs go down during exercise because of the fuel partitioning? I guess that makes sense. Since the partitioning doesn't change at rest, no pulse change at rest?0
-
HIIT is all the rage, so you LC iconoclasts might enjoy this:
Run Slower, Get Faster
... a growing body of research suggests that 80 percent of your workouts should be done at a slow speed, with just 20 percent at medium to fast. At this ratio, you're able to get all the performance-enhancing benefits of high-intensity work while avoiding the injury risk and burnout that often come along with it.
I just started training for an 8K, so I'm trying this newfangled approach.
This "newfangled" approach isn't new! Elites have been doing it for decades. Arthur Lydiard basically invented it if that gives you an idea of it's age. Many average and recreational runners drifted far away, but many are coming back to this wisdom. It fits with the saying that the Kenyan's have for American runners (paraphrasing): "Your slow runs are too fast, and your fast runs are too slow.". Take the 80% seriously and the 20% seriously as well.
0 -
Yeah, we're always in a hurry. For my slow days, I go by the ability to talk during the run. If you see me in the gym, I'll be the guy talking to myself. 0
This discussion has been closed.