intervals question?

*****************************************

I'll say it again, don't talk BOLLOCKS. We don't do faster sessions to increase Mitochondrial biogenesis in fast oxidative fibers, we do them because we will be racing at those paces and we need to improve our ability to last longer at that intensity.

Stick to known provable principles, and don't make stuff up. You don't know what the turnover of mitochondria in different fibers is, so don't pretend otherwise.

edumacator wrote:

I thought it must be a sidekick invented by J.R., due to his insistence in another thread that performance enhancing drugs are in fact not performance enhancing.

No, my new moniker J.O. is a combination of my initials and my tribute to J.R.

And on the subject of performance enhancing drugs (as naïve a premise as any) I will say it again:

Races will get faster and faster with or without drugs for a very long time to come, for the simple reason that strides will get longer.

Great. Now read the bold & italic parts this time:

"Differences between those particular paces" does not mean "We do these sessions because ..." You read that, but I never said that.

This is the assertion as I wrote it: "Speeds near 3k race pace tend to better promote mitochondrial biogenesis than speeds at 5k race pace." So is this incorrect as a general principle? This conclusion (per Dudley's et al. 1982 findings and recommendations for practical use) is still cited and reaffirmed in medical journals today (Ross & Leveritt, Laursen & Jenkins, Kubekeli et al., Burgomaster et al., Gibala et al.) and is put into practical use (e.g., Wingate-based training - obviously only a small part of the picture for serious runners) precisely because of the reason I gave.

Is the general principle incorrect? Anyone? I admit I don't spend too much time investigating crap like this, but I do a cursory search every few years just to see if some of these principles are considered out of date - precisely so I can make statements without being called out - and this doesn't seem at first glance to be out of date.

strength. tons and tons of strength.[/quote]

Will I be able to bench 300 poinds?[/quote]

That's power not strength.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

[Lopes] remembers me that he rarely did more than 10 times 400m and the best he could do was 64-65 average and he remembers me also that he needed 1:10 to 1:20 stand recovery.

64-65secs is related with Carlos Lopes 5000m pace.

Antonio, on this thread:

You mention Lopes running the following staple sessions:

Wed – PM – 30min easy – (track) 15 x 400m in av 62.1 (~3k target pace) with 1:10 rec – 10min c/d

Wed – PM – 30min easy – (track) 20 x 400m in av 62.8 (~3k target pace) with 1:10 rec – 10min c/d

Wed – PM – 30min easy – (track) 15 x 400m in av 62.1 (~3k target pace) with 1:15 rec – 10min c/d

Wed – PM – 30min easy – (track) 15-20 x 400m in av 62.1 (~3k target pace) with 1:15 rec – 10min c/d

Are you sure Lopes wasn't sandbagging you at dinner the other night? ;-)

Speaking of which, do you and Hadd have any plans to revive the old thread?

Tanya Skagle wrote:

This is the assertion as I wrote it: "Speeds near 3k race pace tend to better promote mitochondrial biogenesis than speeds at 5k race pace." So is this incorrect as a general principle? This conclusion (per Dudley's et al. 1982 findings and recommendations for practical use) is still cited and reaffirmed in medical journals today (Ross & Leveritt, Laursen & Jenkins, Kubekeli et al., Burgomaster et al., Gibala et al.) and is put into practical use (e.g., Wingate-based training - obviously only a small part of the picture for serious runners) precisely because of the reason I gave.

.

Would you provide details about this study?

10 times 400m and the best he could do was 64-65 average and he remembers me also that he needed 1:10 to 1:20 stand recovery. This workout it´s what he did for the 84 WCCC win. Read what i say:

i did dinner with Carlos Lopes on last month. During the dinner we both did watch his NY WCC win on DVD. One of the 3 world crosses he did win. At one moment of the dinner he remembers me that he rarely did more than 10 times 400m and the best he could do was 64-65 average and he remembers me also that he needed 1:10 to 1:20 stand recovery.

64-65secs is related with Carlos Lopes 5000m pace.

Speaking of which, do you and Hadd have any plans to revive the old thread? I don´t.

checkered cab wrote:

Would you provide details about this study?

That list of names was a list from memory of studies by several researchers/authors, most of whom I believe only invoke the general principle of high-intensity interval training (HIT or HIIT) promoting mitochondrial biogenesis but do not make any distinction between the rate of mitochondrial biogenesis following training at faster speeds vs. slower speeds.

Here is the original report from Gary Dudley, et al. (this team used rats as test subjects):

From Martin Gibala at McMaster University in Toronto:

Here is another one regarding HIT - co-authored by Gibala:

More general info about HIT promoting mitochondrial biogensis:

Here's some info on the old Wingate test:

So-called Wingate-based training protocols may deviate from the standard 30-second bouts in the original Wingate test, but they're characterized by short-duration, near-maximum efforts. Somewhere back in this adulterated thread was mention of 10 x 400. Coincidentally, Martin Gibala has recommended 10 bouts of 1 minute at near-maximum intensity with 1-minute rest intervals as a practical HIT protocol.

Of course, serious runners had better not rely solely on HIT. In part, it was misapplication of findings just like these (i.e., shortcut seeking) that characterized the dismal state of USA running in the 1990s. The HIT protocols are recommended as a reasonably effective and time-saving alternative to prolonged cardio work for relatively untrained people who "don't have time to work out" but are interested in getting some basic fitness.

Well done Tanya.

However to reduce or limit the analysis HIT ot HIIT intervals to the unilateral physiology consideration, the one of mithochondria and cardio vascular efects is to touch the surface of the matter.

To understand the fast short high intensity interval training - HIIT or we need to look for the big umbrella. Despite the physilogy conclusions might be correct i remember you that the biomechanics as well as muscular lactate effects are some among othere aspects to consider. The biomechanics improve trough the HIIT training is undeniable. By the way, to some extend and to what is relate to the biomechanics HIIT training done on flat surface can replace the muscular effect of hill training as well as the cardio-vascular and neuro-muscular hill training. The HIIT can replace the need of plyometrics in the long distance runs. Consequently the run economy can improve by the HIIT training as well.

What i may say about other HIIT effects doesn´t dismiss the physiologist studies or your comment. But in most of the science analysis, the studies do run only in one single direction, they don´t analyse every process by a sinthesis of variants. They isolate one or two aspects out of the whole and total variants.

I also agree with you that HIIT might be the very best workout for the long distance training approach, however it needs to be completed with other type of training.

I don´t think that in the present days no coach imagine to train HIIT in a daily basis with nothing else, to rely solely on HIIT as you say. We don´t live no more in the 50s or 60s of the past century.

Exactly correct about HIT on a flat surface. One of the greatest gains from very short repetitions (sometimes substantially less than 30 seconds) comes from reducing the time spent in the plant phase. This is one of the benefits assigned to plyometric training, but short running reps at high speed accomplish much of the same results and the activity is more sport-specific than plyos. Use of hill repetitions is fine sometimes, since this requires greater recruitment (and because people do sometimes race on hills, after all), but level-surface work at the same intensity allows for higher rate coding (faster stride frequency), which provides that sport specificity when preparing for track events. In fact, if runners favor hill sprints and plyos to the point of neglecting enough level-surface work, they probably won't be as prepared for track races as they could be.

Longer reps within HIT protocols help the body process lactate, as well as conferring many other benefits, some of which probably aren't even studied in labs yet.

We can conclude (not from any of these findings, but from decades of runners figuring it out by doing it) that HIT has an occasional place in a complete repertoire.

And herein is a danger in relying on lab findings to design a game plan. Their focus is limited to at most a few variables, so that it never addresses the gestalt that is human performance. The true scientific inquiry into performance must emphasize analyzing real-world trial and error and determining how to arrive at the best results in competition, not merely how to create more mitochondria, reduce ground contact time, process lactate, und so weiter.

Tanya, The first citation on rats doesn't address the topic.

The second, doesn't either. It only says that high intensity (HIT, or interval training, which both 10x400 + 20x400 are) increases peak oxygen uptake and increases mitochondrial enzyme activity. Hardly earth shattering and doesn't address the question. Both 10x400 and 20x400training (at mile and 3k paces) are HIT sessions. The effects of interval training have been understood for 50-60 years.

I haven't yet read the other studies, but I fear there's nothing new there either.

ok the 3rd study, 10x60s with 70s rest. Nothing new here.

The 4th study. 30s all out sprints with 2-4 min recovery.

Some researchers think it does. I couldn't remember the link at first, but I've located the paper which I consulted before making that statement in my initial post:

Here is a specific quote concerning the topic:

I assume that the issue in this thread surrounds whether "greater" means "greater relative to any possible amount of lower intensity work." For example, would 10 x 400 at mile race pace confer a greater stimulus for mitochondrial adaptations than 20 x 400 at 3k pace would? And what if you ran 50 x 400 at 3k pace, assuming you could? Would 10 x 400 at mile pace still be better for mitochondrial biogenesis? That, I assume, is what's under discussion. When you factor in the issue of specificity, I have asserted that the faster pace does have a different effect by promoting mitochondrial adaptations in the different fibers which must be recruited.

And ... voila! These sections of the report address this intertwined topic of adaptations occurring in accordance with specificity of the work done and muscle fibers involved:

... and ...

To continue:

This was good enough for me. I certainly didn't misread these quotes and don't tell me I misinterpreted them. Concerning the first one, yes, a certain intensity and a different duration can confer the same overall effects ... but the specificity isn't equal, which is one reason (which I mentioned) for using a variety of speeds. The only possible points of dispute that are left are 1) the findings still apply only to rats (but the authors make practical suggestions for humans, so they must believe otherwise) and 2) this information is (within the last couple of years) outdated or is flat-out incorrect, in which case, blame these authors for their own shoddy interpretation of a 1982 study. I only referenced it. Don't blame the messenger.

And I still don't see any published work or even a general consensus disputing the notion contained in these quotes. In addition, I have said that I'm open to correction if such dispute does exist.

Gyah! Do we have to have our ducks in a straighter row than this before we can post on a topic?

Tanya, nothing about those studies says directly, nor implies anything, about the difference between 10x400 and 20x400 paces on an intracellular level.

Again, nothing about a study on rats could have any useful information about the difference between 10x and 20x (at mile and 3k paces) training sessions.

We already addressed the issue of specificity. That's been the point all along. The sciolistic walkabout in the wilderness adds nothing to the topic, so far.

Huh???

Given:

1) All miblurps are squeezoids.

2) Effect "Zed" occurs with squeezoids.

Therefore:

Effect "Zed" occurs with miblurps.

Given:

1) All sessions of 10 x 400 at mile race pace are higher intensity, shorter duration training sessions than are sessions of 20 x 400 at 3k race pace.

2)

Therefore:

Greater increases in mitochondrial content occur within oxidative muscle fibers with sessions of 10 x 400 at mile race pace than with sessions of 20 x 400 at 3k race pace. Q.E.D.

Whether 2) is true or false is still the issue. If we take the quote from the paper as is, not only can we draw the conclusion I gave; that conclusion is imperative. If 2) is false, blame the authors because my conclusion from their information is de rigeur.

I'm not the only one to make that conclusion.

Over 15 years ago, I had a former national champion long distance runner who is also an exercise physiologist by profession tell me that he believed Dudley's findings implied higher intensity workouts for human runners were better for inducing mitochondrial adaptations than lower intensity workouts were. When pressed as to whether a high-rep, moderate-speed workout could have the same overall intensity as a high-speed, low-rep workout, he clarified that by higher intensity, he meant faster speed - up to and perhaps exceeding speeds which elicit max VO2. Ten years later (2003), another multi-time All-American runner and physiologist by training also said this was generally-accepted information. Whether it is actually true or is just one of those up-in-the-air non-conclusions that people hold onto until it's finally debunked ... I don't know for sure. But by no stretch am I being "pretentious" in stating something many intelligent, experienced and trustworthy professionals have also believed. Again, don't shoot the messenger.

At this point, that is definitely true.

Tanya Skagle wrote:

Given:

1) All sessions of 10 x 400 at mile race pace are higher intensity, shorter duration training sessions than are sessions of 20 x 400 at 3k race pace.

2)

"... greater increases in mitochondrial content occur within oxidative muscle fibers with higher intensity, shorter duration training sessions."

Therefore:

Greater increases in mitochondrial content occur within oxidative muscle fibers with sessions of 10 x 400 at mile race pace than with sessions of 20 x 400 at 3k race pace. Q.E.D.

That doesn't imply that. It just says simply what the cellular response is to HIT. It does not differentiate between two kinds, and two very close kinds I might add of HIT.

Using your logic trail you could say that 6 x 400 at 800m pace produces even HIGHER cellular responses, when in fact, you don't know unless it is ob severed.

Tanya Skagle wrote:

Given:

1) All sessions of 10 x 400 at mile race pace are higher intensity, shorter duration training sessions than are sessions of 20 x 400 at 3k race pace.

2)"... greater increases in mitochondrial content occur within oxidative muscle fibers with higher intensity, shorter duration training sessions."

Therefore:

Greater increases in mitochondrial content occur within oxidative muscle fibers with sessions of 10 x 400 at mile race pace than with sessions of 20 x 400 at 3k race pace. Q.E.D.

malmo wrote:

That doesn't imply that. It just says simply what the cellular response is to HIT. It does not differentiate between two kinds, and two very close kinds I might add of HIT.

Using your logic trail you could say that 6 x 400 at 800m pace produces even HIGHER cellular responses, when in fact, you don't know unless it is ob severed.

"All Redheads in the gym are women"

"All women were in the swimming pool"

"Therefore, everyone in the swimming pool were redheads"

Paragraph 2) actually read like this (bold what you left off:

The magnitude of the increased mitochondrial content is influenced by the duration and intensity of training sessions. Exercise sessions of longer duration tend to result in greater increases in mitochondrial content (3, 8); however, this relationship is not linear. As the training sessions become longer, the effectiveness of increasing mitochondrial content becomes less. In addition, exercise intensity interacts with the exercise duration. Dudley et al. (8) have shown that greater increases in mitochondrial content occur within oxidative muscle fibers with higher intensity, shorter duration training sessions. Thus, the increases in performance associated with prolonged training sessions may be due in part to adaptations outside those specific to skeletal muscle fibers (i.e. increased mitochondrial content) (3).

Nowhere in that paragraph does it distinguish what the levels of "greater" means, nor does it offer anything about the difference in 10x400 and 20x400, which are TWO KINDS of shorter high intensity training.

Longer training activity results in larger more mitochondria. So does shorter interval sessions. HELLO TO 1950. You don't train for the 800 by running focusing on long training session and you don't train for the marathon by focusing on short intense sessions.

Again, saying that you are running 10x400 or 20x400 for different cellular responses is off focus, unless you can demonstrate it with actual measurable and replicatable observation. You are choosing those different paces for the neuromuscular benefits.

I particularly like this one:

"Detraining results in a gradual but fairly rapid loss of muscle mitochondrial content. Studies have demonstrated that approximately 50 percent of the increased muscle mitochondrial content induced by training can be lost within one week of detraining (3). The time period to return muscle mitochondrial content to pre-detraining levels is longer than the detraining time period."

I don't know what constitutes "detraining" but if 50% of the increase in muscle mitochondria content can be lost or given back in a week, that just shows you how little we should be paying attention to cellular organelles when it comes to athletic training. The benefits and responses to athletic training are many.

Well, the authors didn't place any qualifying limits on their own statement. My conclusion follows directly from what they wrote. According to their generic statement, it actually follows that 5 x 100 at 300m race pace would be a better stimulus for mitochondrial adaptations than either 20 fairly fast 400s or 10 even faster 400s.

Now that is something I do not believe to be true, partly as a consequence of both intuition and experience, but also because it's considered a no-no to make predictions or inferences outside of the range of observed data, and the highest intensity used in Dudley's original study represented 116% of the speed at which max VO2 was reached. We do have to make a leap to human runners (which the authors themselves took the liberty of doing), but the given parameters of Dudley's study are going to include reps at mile race pace for humans. I believe a few of the later researchers did try to justify use of all-out sprint repetitions in their HIT protocols by taking Dudley's findings a bit too far.

Hence the mention of specificity, which (as you said) is what most of this is about. I did read all of paragraph 2 and wasn't just reading what I wanted to read. Because of the diminishing returns of many benefits as exercise durations are increased beyond certain points, occasional inclusion of shorter, faster work is useful. Of course it's not all about mitochondria and we don't "focus" on mitochondria at all when we run. HIT probably does a lot more for mechanics and economy than it does in promoting mitochondrial growth anyway.

Ah, but that's misreading my original post. The initial question inquired about the benefits of workouts, not our reasons for choosing those workouts. One of many benefits we get from doing fast reps is mitochondrial biogenesis. But we don't do a workout with the specific intent of creating more and bigger mitochondria. We do the workout because our own experience and that of thousands of other runners leads us to believe now is the right time to include this workout in our routine in order to give ourselves a good chance of getting excellent future results. That is "why" we do it - what we do it "for" (there - it turns out at the end of the day we're on the same team after all). But that wasn't the wording of the original question. It asked specifically for some benefits conferred by doing different workouts. Not all benefits; some benefits. I listed some. Increased mitochondrial content in a variety of muscle fibers is one of those benefits.

PS - I wasn't being condescending with the logic example. I just couldn't resist using some made-up words like miblurps and squeezoids.

Both conclusions are right rationale and logic.

Based on the time and space concepts, and if consider the entropy theory and it´s consewuence in every science filed from mathematics, statistics, biolog or physiology both conclusions are correct.

Simplistic way, because my englsih is poor to complex definition of that theory.

20X400m isn isn´t the linear double stimulus impact of 10X400m. 30X400m isn´t the linear triple of stimulus of 10X400m and not the 1/3 add to 20X400m.

For the same reason 30min run isn´t the double mithocondria benefit than 60min run and so and so.

The same entropy theory if you go reverse from training to detraining. If you decrease from 60min run to 30min run it´s more than half decrease.

For instance, you run 21k/13miles in 1h40m run as a medium long run for HM training. However if you prepare for a marathon - the double distance than the HM - you don´t need to double the time of 3h20min run or go for a 41k/26mile. You might, but don´t expect the double of the result. Otherwise if you decide to train for 11k/6.5mile (or 10k) if you decrease for a 6.5 mile run don´t expect for just have the half of the effect than 21k/13miles.

Of course that all the entropy theory is a fact only close to the threshold limit of phenomena occurrence.