Just wondering what are the benefits of doing high volume of intervals at a lower intensity than a normal interval session? ie. 20 x 400 instead of 10 x 400?
Just wondering what are the benefits of doing high volume of intervals at a lower intensity than a normal interval session? ie. 20 x 400 instead of 10 x 400?
strength. tons and tons of strength.
Groundskeeper Willie wrote:
Just wondering what are the benefits of doing high volume of intervals at a lower intensity than a normal interval session? ie. 20 x 400 instead of 10 x 400?
What is a "normal interval session"? both of which you describe seem pretyy normal to me.
End the teasing, Malmo. What are the effects of the varying types of intervals. I'm interested in less intense but greater volume intervals for marathon training.
What teasing? Both look normal to me. What's your question?
malmo wrote:
What teasing? Both look normal to me. What's your question?
Well, if you'll forgive me for a missing question mark, my question was the same as the original poster's: What are the benefits/effects of such normal intervals?
malmo wrote:
What teasing? Both look normal to me. What's your question?
allow me to clarify. What are the differences/benefits of say 20 x 400 at sub 5k pace versus 10 x 400 at sub 3k pace. What I'm getting at is the volume of the intervals. So why do more volume at a slower pace?
One of the purposes of breaking up a total volume of running into reps with rest periods is to get as much stimulus (and practice) as possible at a particular pace before getting into trouble.
Doing 20 laps in 68 seconds each with 45 seconds intervals (traditionally, "interval" refers to the break between bouts, not the bouts themselves) is generally easier than doing 10 laps in 68 seconds each with no rest periods between the laps. The heart, lungs and skeletal muscles get a more robust stimulus from the larger volume of work than it does from the shorter continuous run, and with less chance of lowering muscle pH or blood pH. The higher number of reps is also better for promoting a sense of rhythm - hence, the reference above to "practice."
Doing 10 reps at a faster pace (presumably with slightly longer rest periods) increases the chance of lowered pH, which can be a useful training tool in moderation but is easy to overdo. Speeds near 3k race pace tend to better promote mitochondrial biogenesis than speeds at 5k race pace. The faster pace also obviously invokes different muscle fibers and provides some variety in mechanics and impact stress distribution.
To summarize:
20 laps at 5k pace =
* More profound stimulus to the heart, lungs and skeletal muscles
* Normally less sudden reduction (and less end reduction) in pH
* Easier to find the correct tempo and control it
* Familiarity with running 5k pace
10 laps at 3k pace or faster =
* More stimulus for mitochondrial proliferation
* Variety in 1) fiber recruitment, 2) range of motion in muscles/connective tissue, 3) torque and associated impact distribution stress
* Familiarity with running the faster pace
There are plenty of other benefits and drawbacks to using a variety of speeds for interval training (some of which obviously overlap), but above are just a few of the differences between those particular paces.
thanks Tanya, very helpful post.
Tanya Skagle wrote:
Speeds near 3k race pace tend to better promote mitochondrial biogenesis than speeds at 5k race pace.
BOLLOCKS. Pretentious nonsense.
J.O. wrote:
BOLLOCKS. Pretentious nonsense.
Exactly. As soon as someone says 'mitochondria' in a training thread you should run for the hills. Mitochondrial bio-genesis occurs in all types of exercise.
Tanya Skagle wrote:
Doing 10 reps at a faster pace (presumably with slightly longer rest periods) increases the chance of lowered pH, which can be a useful training tool in moderation but is easy to overdo.
Also, lowering blood pH is a training tool? How? Lowered blood pH is merely the temporary result of hydrogen ions being diffusing from high concentrations in interstitial spaces to lower concentrations in the blood, which is a conduit to the kidneys and lungs for processing/recycling. Your bloods pH is one of the most tightly regulated aspects of human physiology. Move it just a 0.1 and metabolic functions cease to be optimal. Move it more than a few tenths on the pH scale and organs will begin to fail.
As far as the original posters question/non-question it all depends on pace and recovery -- mainly pace. The foundation of all athletic training is the concept of neuromuscular facilitation. Human athletic performance is a coordinated ballet of electrical and chemical signals to the muscles and the energy processing demands by those muscles and the removal and recycling of byproducts from those reactions. . This is not rocket science. Training at X:XX pace is best for racing at X:XX pace. Training at X:YY pace is best for racing at X:YY pace.
Let me add something here. 10x 400 is typically done at mile pace.
evens wrote:
strength. tons and tons of strength.
Will I be able to bench 300 poinds?
malmo wrote:
Let me add something here. 10x 400 is typically done at mile pace.
...so 20 x 400 would be done at what pace?
what would the recovery be if you were doing 10x400m at mile pace?
malmo wrote:
Let me add something here. 10x 400 is typically done at mile pace.
Seb coe'd, you're thinking too much. Typically a minute, or 70s or 50s, or 80s, or whatever you need.
J.O. wrote:
Pretentious nonsense.
Oh, sorry. My bad. Here, let me rephrase that for you:
When you run really, really hard, like if you were chasing a big, shiny choo-choo, you suck in a lot of air. In that air is something called "oxygen." That's pronounced OKS-uh-jenn, by the way, but don't worry about that. In your muscles are tiny little thingies where the "oxygen" combines with other stuff to make the "energy" you need to chase the choo-choo. The rate at which this happens depends on how fast you're running, and there's a limit to how quickly you can use the oxygen. Your body is cool, though, because if you go quick enough to have to use a whole lot of the oxygen stuff at a really fast rate, your body ends up making more of the little thingies so it gets better at using the oxygen to help you go-go-go! Yay!
It turns out that when you chase the choo-choo fast enough to use the oxygen stuff at the quickest rate your body can use it - at the limit of the process - your body responds by making even more of the little thingies than it would if you didn't run as fast, like if you were chasing Skippy, your pet beagle.
Better?
Now, I think it goes without saying that when you work out, it means bugger-all what happens to your mitochondria if you don't get better at running, right? So you cooould (insert "rolleyes" smilie) simply ignore the "bollocks" about the mitochondria and just focus on the "variety in training" and "familiarity with different speeds" when you work out. But the original question implied there were different benefits that occur when running more reps slower vs. fewer reps faster. And while mitochondrial biogenesis does take place across the spectrum of running speeds, running at max VO2 is more effective for developing mitchondria than running with a lower VO2 is. That seems to be part of the answer to the original question. Hey, if you don't like that part, just skip over it.
Of course, if research has come to light that refutes what I said about max VO2 and mitochondrial biogenesis, you cooould (insert "facepalm" smilie) have the courtesy to point it out without charging out of the gate with "BOLLOCKS." To that, I'd probably say, "Hmmmm. I never heard that before. I guess that means today's scientists are more thorough than those of yesteryear, meaning today's version of the truth must be the final one after all."
I actually understand now.
malmo wrote:
Also, lowering blood pH is a training tool?
Taken to mean "running 10 x 400 fast enough to lower pH can be a useful training tool." (See, people? To eliminate confusion, grammar and sentence structure do matter, and since it was a long post, I rushed it.)
Human athletic performance is a coordinated ballet of electrical and chemical signals to the muscles and the energy processing demands by those muscles and the removal and recycling of byproducts from those reactions.
And this doesn't sound as esoteric and pretentious as mentioning mitochondria (nothing more than one of those energy processors)? No offense, but ... bordering on pot calling kettle there, maybe?
Groundskeeper Willie wrote:
so 20 x 400 would be done at what pace?
If you get fit enough - especially if you get good at doing that workout for it's own sake (don't laugh; too many people do this) - you could run 20 x 400 at faster than 3k race pace with less than a minute rest between reps. If you really killed it, you might even be able to run them all at the pace you'd run for an all-out 2,400. Then again, just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.
Yes, as malmo says, 10 x 400 is better suited for mile pace rather than 3k pace.
malmo wrote:
What teasing? Both look normal to me. What's your question?
He wants you to state the fecking obvious!