journals.lww.com/.../Aerobic_High_Intensity_Intervals_Improve_V_spacing.12.aspx
This link is to a study that relates to the current discussion. Four groups of randomly selected moderately trained subjects in their 20’s performed four distinct running exercise protocols that ranged from long slow distance (70% max HR for approx 45 minutes); lactate threshold (85% max HR for 24-25 minutes); 15 seconds @ 95% alternating with 15 seconds of recovery (47 repetitons; and 4 minutes @ 95% HR alternating with 3 minutes of recovery (4 repetions). All four protocols were designed to result in similar total oxygen consumption and were performed 3 X/ week for 8 weeks.
Bottom line, the high intensity groups increased aerobic capacity significantly more than the less intense groups (5.5% for the 15/15 group and 7.2% for the 4 x 4 minute group. What I found to be of particular interest was the huge increase in stroke volume (amount of blood pumped per heart beat) in the high intensity groups compared to the moderate aerobic groups.
My point in referencing this article is about how to improve your aerobic capacity. I’m not addressing anaerobic capacity at all. So, if you’re more of the endurance type athlete, this is something to consider when working on your “aerobic base.”
BTW, I do believe that at least one day a week you should do an aerobic recovery day never getting your heart rate higher than 40 beats less than your max. Current research supports that this will enable higher levels of anaerobic work capacity in training.
I also believe that the physiological research in track, cross country skiing and cycling is more advanced than research in swimming.
This is very interesting, and not totally counter-intuitive.
And I totally agree that the other sports are more advanced in their physiological research. This may have to do with the fact that, until "relatively" recently, elite swimmers trained only with clubs and universities, which may not have been interested in making their under-age swimmers available for such research. Contrast that with Olympic and professional sports like track and cycling, which have had well-developed training centers and testing protocols for decades. In that regard, swimming is way behind.
For example, at the most important public university on the West Coast (;)) in the mid 1980s, we had a state-of-the-art strength training program (that included weightlifting, a "speed circuit of isokinetic apparatuses, the notorious "wheels", and an in-water circuit), but we did no physiological assessments other than heart rate, body fat, diet, etc. No V02 max, no lactate measurement, nada. Interesting, looking back. Was it time involved? Cost? Cost/benefit?
journals.lww.com/.../Aerobic_High_Intensity_Intervals_Improve_V_spacing.12.aspx
This link is to a study that relates to the current discussion. Four groups of randomly selected moderately trained subjects in their 20’s performed four distinct running exercise protocols that ranged from long slow distance (70% max HR for approx 45 minutes); lactate threshold (85% max HR for 24-25 minutes); 15 seconds @ 95% alternating with 15 seconds of recovery (47 repetitons; and 4 minutes @ 95% HR alternating with 3 minutes of recovery (4 repetions). All four protocols were designed to result in similar total oxygen consumption and were performed 3 X/ week for 8 weeks.
Bottom line, the high intensity groups increased aerobic capacity significantly more than the less intense groups (5.5% for the 15/15 group and 7.2% for the 4 x 4 minute group. What I found to be of particular interest was the huge increase in stroke volume (amount of blood pumped per heart beat) in the high intensity groups compared to the moderate aerobic groups.
My point in referencing this article is about how to improve your aerobic capacity. I’m not addressing anaerobic capacity at all. So, if you’re more of the endurance type athlete, this is something to consider when working on your “aerobic base.”
BTW, I do believe that at least one day a week you should do an aerobic recovery day never getting your heart rate higher than 40 beats less than your max. Current research supports that this will enable higher levels of anaerobic work capacity in training.
I also believe that the physiological research in track, cross country skiing and cycling is more advanced than research in swimming.
This is very interesting, and not totally counter-intuitive.
And I totally agree that the other sports are more advanced in their physiological research. This may have to do with the fact that, until "relatively" recently, elite swimmers trained only with clubs and universities, which may not have been interested in making their under-age swimmers available for such research. Contrast that with Olympic and professional sports like track and cycling, which have had well-developed training centers and testing protocols for decades. In that regard, swimming is way behind.
For example, at the most important public university on the West Coast (;)) in the mid 1980s, we had a state-of-the-art strength training program (that included weightlifting, a "speed circuit of isokinetic apparatuses, the notorious "wheels", and an in-water circuit), but we did no physiological assessments other than heart rate, body fat, diet, etc. No V02 max, no lactate measurement, nada. Interesting, looking back. Was it time involved? Cost? Cost/benefit?
