The great white shark wrote:
It seems that the right mix of HIT-training and endurance training is the superior way of training.
https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/HIITvsCardio.html
Great! Maybe we can return to the the glory days of US distance running, the 1990s!
BigTex wrote:
The great white shark wrote:It seems that the right mix of HIT-training and endurance training is the superior way of training.
https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/HIITvsCardio.htmlGreat! Maybe we can return to the the glory days of US distance running, the 1990s!
The thing is to take the knowledge from light and pure HIT-taining into a well balanced moderate low mileage system, where there is also the right complement of aerobic work and threshold workouts. Never more then 2 quality workouts(sometimes 3) in the week for the body to recover properly.The very best training approach is not about doing only the HIT-training or only the high mileage. It`s more about a " golden middleway". This way there will never be a plateau and the runner keeps on improving year after year up to the optimal capacity. There will never be a stop,burnout, after 6-8 weeks.
Hi Coach JS!
Convinced guy wrote:
Well, I'm convinced. Let me get in my SUV-vehicle and stop by the ATM-machine so I can pay for your training program. All these PhD-doctors seemed to really do some bang up research.
Did you use your PIN number at the ATM-machine?
Did you stop by the Department of Redundancy department afterwards?
Friidrett wrote:
The great white shark wrote:It seems that the right mix of HIT-training and endurance training is the superior way of training.
https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/HIITvsCardio.htmlThese guys are laughed at in Norway by actual athletes and actual coaches.
Kaggestad, the coach of Ingrid Kristiansen, said one time that these guys are responsible for a generation of young cross country skiiers training the wrong way.
I tell you why it went wrong. They didn`t evaluate and implement the knowing from HIT-training correct. You can`t overdo the HIT-training....and you can`t overdo the mileage! You got to find the very best mix!
What you did there, I see it
Opinion only here: I think this is great for general health and fitness, and probably for your hobby jogger/runner. Heck, maybe for most of us, but not for elite runners. Sure elites need HIT, but they also need 85-100+ mpw if they are 5k and above.
For me, though....at 57, my real running days are far behind me. I walk a lot, I jog a little, and I do HIT workouts once or twice a week - nothing compared my youth. Something like 8x200 or 10x100 or 4x400 - with running times most would not even consider to be high intensity.
I personally feel that HIT and a few 20 minute jogs and lots of walking is far better for my health than to still be putting in 50-70 mpw.
However, I'm never going to toe the line again.
The great white shark wrote:
It seems that the right mix of HIT-training and endurance training is the superior way of training.
The Edmond Fitzgerald sank in Superior.
I am in the Bob Schul camp. Run them repeats every day!!!
I'm 32 and gave up the life of high mileage (80-100 mpw) long ago in favor of the less than 10 mpw HIT plan. I only run 3 times a week no more than 20-30 minutes at a time but its all uphill faster pace intervals of varying degrees with short rests (90 seconds or less). Now that my diet is dialed in (modified vegan) and my supplement stack is on point (GW1516, Cordyceps, Quadralean) My body is fitter than its ever been and looks great (lifting also helps). I don't miss those long miles or races one bit. Life is good.
BigTex wrote:
The great white shark wrote:It seems that the right mix of HIT-training and endurance training is the superior way of training.
https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/HIITvsCardio.htmlGreat! Maybe we can return to the the glory days of US distance running, the 1990s!
was thinking the exact same thing reading this thread!
Running has to be the most injurious non-contact sport out there. I played Rugby Union and League and I've seen more injuries in running than I have in 20 seasons of rugby. You can't discount that when talking about different types of run training. Even if HIT was the most beneficial it's impractical and unrealistic for 90% of runners. You could probably get pretty quick doing mostly HIT, but doing it whilst avoiding injury, mental and physical fatigue and staying motivated is highly unlikely. Someone pushing this kind of training that doesn't mention those factors lacks credibility and should be ignored irrespective of how good a runner they are.
The great white shark wrote:
there will never be a plateau and the runner keeps on improving year after year up to the optimal capacity
Hi Richard! Did you manage to break that 4 hour marathon PR of yours yet?
Very good point. The best compromise I have found is Seiler polarized training, 90% easy/10% fast. Allows me a touch of fitness on top of a mountain of health.
Zed wrote:
Running has to be the most injurious non-contact sport out there. I played Rugby Union and League and I've seen more injuries in running than I have in 20 seasons of rugby. You can't discount that when talking about different types of run training. Even if HIT was the most beneficial it's impractical and unrealistic for 90% of runners. You could probably get pretty quick doing mostly HIT, but doing it whilst avoiding injury, mental and physical fatigue and staying motivated is highly unlikely. Someone pushing this kind of training that doesn't mention those factors lacks credibility and should be ignored irrespective of how good a runner they are.
Well we all know gold medals are awarded to those who obtain the highest stroke volume during their race. 🤦â€â™‚ï¸ Will research ever learn or are we going to keep wasting research money on these studies?