Off-Topic Some questions about cardio/endurance

[Anders]

Hi,

I was thinking about different ways of training our cardio/endurance. There also seems to be difference between how we in Strongfirst divide up things and how other people divide up things.

The strong first categories:

S&S, Q&D and A+A (sprint intervals and ample rest)
Short training periods (10 seconds or shorter). Relatively heavy weight. Ample rest. The goal it to keep lactic acid relatively low, most of the time.
Personally I also do spring in stairs this way: Ten seconds where I sprint as quickly as possible, and then I rest around a minute or less, and do the same thing over. Sometimes I might also add some push-ups in between sets of sprinting (you could call it Q&D style).

LISS (slow speed, no rest)
Slow and steady cardio. Continuous work. Just as with the before mentioned Spring intervals/S&S style one also tries to keep lactate level to a minimum. You could do this all sorts of way: Hiking, running, jogging, cross-country skiing, swimming, rowing, elliptic machine, stationary bike etc etc.

Glycolytic training (moderate to high speed, with insufficient rest)
The goal here is to continue the set for such a long time (above 15 seconds at least) that you produce considerable amounts of lactic acid. StrongFirst in general warns us not to do this too often, preferable only once or twice pr. month.


Outside Strongfirst categories:

HIIT:
High intensity Interval training. This training could sometimes be similar to S&S training (short interval with ample rest), but it can also have amore glycolytic feel where you exercise/run for a longer period, and thus generates more lactic acid. I think one of the most common intervals are 4 minutes*4 times. I believe this is the one Peter Attia uses.

LISS:
The same as LISS in the strong first category. People and researchers compare it to HIIT and find it much less efficient.


I personally try to follow Pavel and strong first recommendations because I think they appear wise and not too taxing. Therefore I train S&S-like training (spring and ample rest) two-three times a week either with kettlebell or in stairs. Once or twice a month I train glycolytic training either in stairs or in a circuit. And around once or maybe twice a week I train LISS on a rower or a stationary bike.

I am curious about how other people do this. Do you train S&S-like training (sprint intervals), HIIT and LISS ? Do you only train S&S like training ? Im also curious about what people's opinion are about HIIT versus S&S-like training (spring intervals). Are ten seconds intervals too short or do they give the same benefits as longer intervals without the downsides ?


Anders

 

[offwidth]

Bear in mind that we all have various and diverse reasons why we train. Those needs should drive the training methodologies we choose, (at least they do in my case) and no single method will be good for every situation.
That being said…my lifestyle activities require a blend of methods across the spectrum of what you are calling ‘cardio/endurance’.
So… everything from S&S, A+A and Q & D type stuff, HIIT, and a ton of LED.

You will find that many serious locomotive endurance athletes do a lot of LED, punctuated with applicable amounts of ‘high intensity’ stuff. The actual proportions or ratios depending upon many factors including but not limited to… the athletes general sport of choice, event specific preparation and seasonality,

 

[North Coast Miller]

I almost think you need to further define some of this by sorting between local endurance (performed with resistance load) and somewhat less specific aerobic development where the “resistance” is intensity/movement speed driven.

And then break it down by % HR or at least RPE instead of work to rest intervals. Work to rest isn’t very descriptive without some idea of working HR or effort level.

Also have to include recreation aerobics where someone is doing unstructured activity that elevates the HR and may be every bit as effective as structured work.

Anyone doing resistance work is building local endurance to some extent.

Are ten seconds intervals too short or do they give the same benefits as longer intervals without the downsides ?

In addition to spec’ing out the working HR, I think you have to dig into the research a bit on this one or rely on anecdote. Would also have to pin down what exactly are the alluded-to downsides of a longer interval.

Personally I use HIIT variation as my knees and feet do not appreciate jogging. I also live where it is inconvenient to jog on anything but sidewalk or pavement, when younger I was able to jog mostly on turf - a huge difference.

From reading the research done mostly by Tabata, HIIT works best with an incomplete recovery. In some regards this is even more important than the %VO2 max being used for the working interval. Tabata found that working at 200% of max with much longer rest periods was less effective than 120% with shorter rest periods. I could speculate that it is important to keep HR elevated and the rest periods allow the breathing to recover enough for another interval. Other researchers have found a lot of benefit to both approaches.

Len Kravitz at U of New Mexico has a lot of published research on interval training, uncluding sub-max SF esque type work. It all seems to provide measurable benefit.

 

[watchnerd]

You will find that many serious locomotive endurance athletes do a lot of LED, punctuated with applicable amounts of ‘high intensity’ stuff. The actual proportions or ratios depending upon many factors including but not limited to… the athletes general sport of choice, event specific preparation and seasonality,

In the rowing off season, I mix walking/rucking and erg work because:

1. Too much time on the erg leads to mobility and RSI issues.

2. Not enough time on the erg means I lose my localized rowing adaptations; regardless of how good my heart & lungs are conditioned, I'll lose endurance in my core, back, and legs.

 

[John K]

In general you can look at 3-5 "intensities" - very easy (usually not training, leisurely), easy (the fabled Zone 2), moderate (the Oh No Zone), hard, very hard.

Whether or not training is glycolytic depends on intensity, duration of the effort, and the duration of the rest interval.

Glycolytic training has a cost, and if you need a large volume of training, it almost has to be polarized. If you don't have a large volume of training, you can handle more and more of it to be glycolytic.

When you look at efficiency of HIIT vs LISS, you have to make sure you are comparing like to like, and where you are getting your information from. You have huge proponents of both, very willing to sing the praises of their chosen modality. Looking at "per minute" of course HIIT spends more calories, but to what effect? Similar to the fabled mythical fantastical EPOC - to what extent does it matter? On the flip side, do you have 2-4 hours a week to engage in LISS on top of your other training? Do you enjoy one or the other more, and will that effect your consistency in adhering to that method?

An easy example with kettlebells, ACE did a study that showed about 272 calories burned in 20 minutes, extrapolating to up to 20 calories per minute aerobic+anaerobic - but when you look at the parameters, you quickly realize this was a challenging to very hard 20 minutes, to get about 400 calories burned. The question quickly becomes how often could you repeat this intensity/workout/duration? Some might do it easier than others. Now compare that to a 30 minute super easy run for me, I supposedly burn around 420 calories (12 min miles, 30 minutes, 220lbs). If I was 180lbs, it'd only be about 350 calories.

And the EPOC? Some research has concluded that most non-athletic individuals are going to be unable to exercise at an intensity to stimulate EPOC. For the rest, it seems to add 6-15% more calories burned - which bumps it up from 400 calories to 424-460 calories for that 20 min hit. I would have to bump my pace up a little to 11 min miles (470ish calories) to keep up.

So which is more efficient? The ACE glycolytic HIIT burns more calories per minute (20 vs. 14, or including EPOC, 23 vs 14, or 23 vs 15.5 at my faster pace), so it is.

What's the point? I could do that ACE workout maybe once a week. Maybe once a month. I could do that running workout daily. At my size, the calories are basically equivalent. The run could easily be tacked on post workout, in the morning, almost whenever I wanted. The ACE workout would be it for the day. I'd rather do those short runs 5-7x a week than do one of those ACE 20 min sessions a week. Maybe I'm lazy.

But so what? I don't say that to say "don't do HIIT" or "don't go glycolytic," but the context is important.

For ME, it doesn't matter if a 20 min HIIT session is "more efficient" at burning calories. I'm less likely to do that consistently than I am to go for a run, largely because I enjoy it less, and FOR ME, my training isn't about calories burned but training qualities I want. For me, efficiency doesn't matter much. (It does in the sense that I don't have unlimited training time and can't spend 2-4hrs a day training, but I'm sidestepping that largely.)

Flip all this around to a hypothetical trainee named Tim, who is only concerned about calories burned, has minimal time he is willing to commit to training, and doesn't mind "embracing the suck" 3-4 times a week... Well maybe he'd be better served with 2 strength sessions and 2 glycolytic HIIT sessions - or, dare I say, *gulp,* CrossFit MetCons a couple days a week. For Tim, efficiency matters, and doing 3x 20-minute MetCons might both get him stronger and fitter and lose a little weight and be something he can do until he decides he's able and willing to invest more time to training - or not, and he continues his trajectory in perpetuity.

All this to stay, context matters - who are you, what do you like doing, and what is your goal in training are BIG pieces to the puzzle of How To Train Your Dragon.

 

[watchnerd]

In general you can look at 3-5 "intensities" - very easy (usually not training, leisurely), easy (the fabled Zone 2), moderate (the Oh No Zone), hard, very hard.

Whether or not training is glycolytic depends on intensity, duration of the effort, and the duration of the rest interval.

Glycolytic training has a cost, and if you need a large volume of training, it almost has to be polarized. If you don't have a large volume of training, you can handle more and more of it to be glycolytic.

When you look at efficiency of HIIT vs LISS, you have to make sure you are comparing like to like, and where you are getting your information from. You have huge proponents of both, very willing to sing the praises of their chosen modality. Looking at "per minute" of course HIIT spends more calories, but to what effect? Similar to the fabled mythical fantastical EPOC - to what extent does it matter? On the flip side, do you have 2-4 hours a week to engage in LISS on top of your other training? Do you enjoy one or the other more, and will that effect your consistency in adhering to that method?

An easy example with kettlebells, ACE did a study that showed about 272 calories burned in 20 minutes, extrapolating to up to 20 calories per minute aerobic+anaerobic - but when you look at the parameters, you quickly realize this was a challenging to very hard 20 minutes, to get about 400 calories burned. The question quickly becomes how often could you repeat this intensity/workout/duration? Some might do it easier than others. Now compare that to a 30 minute super easy run for me, I supposedly burn around 420 calories (12 min miles, 30 minutes, 220lbs). If I was 180lbs, it'd only be about 350 calories.

And the EPOC? Some research has concluded that most non-athletic individuals are going to be unable to exercise at an intensity to stimulate EPOC. For the rest, it seems to add 6-15% more calories burned - which bumps it up from 400 calories to 424-460 calories for that 20 min hit. I would have to bump my pace up a little to 11 min miles (470ish calories) to keep up.

So which is more efficient? The ACE glycolytic HIIT burns more calories per minute (20 vs. 14, or including EPOC, 23 vs 14, or 23 vs 15.5 at my faster pace), so it is.

What's the point? I could do that ACE workout maybe once a week. Maybe once a month. I could do that running workout daily. At my size, the calories are basically equivalent. The run could easily be tacked on post workout, in the morning, almost whenever I wanted. The ACE workout would be it for the day. I'd rather do those short runs 5-7x a week than do one of those ACE 20 min sessions a week. Maybe I'm lazy.

But so what? I don't say that to say "don't do HIIT" or "don't go glycolytic," but the context is important.

For ME, it doesn't matter if a 20 min HIIT session is "more efficient" at burning calories. I'm less likely to do that consistently than I am to go for a run, largely because I enjoy it less, and FOR ME, my training isn't about calories burned but training qualities I want. For me, efficiency doesn't matter much. (It does in the sense that I don't have unlimited training time and can't spend 2-4hrs a day training, but I'm sidestepping that largely.)

Flip all this around to a hypothetical trainee named Tim, who is only concerned about calories burned, has minimal time he is willing to commit to training, and doesn't mind "embracing the suck" 3-4 times a week... Well maybe he'd be better served with 2 strength sessions and 2 glycolytic HIIT sessions - or, dare I say, *gulp,* CrossFit MetCons a couple days a week. For Tim, efficiency matters, and doing 3x 20-minute MetCons might both get him stronger and fitter and lose a little weight and be something he can do until he decides he's able and willing to invest more time to training - or not, and he continues his trajectory in perpetuity.

All this to stay, context matters - who are you, what do you like doing, and what is your goal in training are BIG pieces to the puzzle of How To Train Your Dragon.

I don't even consider calories as a factor for the cardio I do.

It's such a rounding error in weight maintenance compared to my nutrition.

 

[pet']

Hello,

I guess it depends a lot on your goal.

Usually, I dedicate about 80% of my 'cardio' to LISS because:
- a strong aerobic base is necessary - IMHO - to build any kind of other cardio abilities.
- it helps to recover

HR wise, I do not know if an approach only based on S&S, Q&D, A+A could make you reach a 50 bpm RHR which is always interesting (espacially if you are involved in diving for instance).

Kind regards,

Pet'

 

[North Coast Miller]

I don't even consider calories as a factor for the cardio I do.

It's such a rounding error in weight maintenance compared to my nutrition.

This comes back to HIIT being referenced largely as a way to effect body comp. To me it is an alternative to building traditionally measured aerobic capacity with less time and wear and tear. It is exponentially easier to just eat less.

At an extreme one can look at the effect of various aerobic strategies in combination with a muscle or strength building phase. Is my opinion this is an individual response sort of thing.

 

[Halfakneecap]

My work capacity has gone right up this year from higher volume C&P. However, I had a surf yesterday for the first time in maybe a year or so. There’s no real substitute for paddle fitness. I mean, it wasn’t too bad, but it just seems to be one of those things you just need to do a lot.

It would be good to improve that fitness outside the water, but I don’t really know how. I think A+A type training might help. I plan on trying that soon. Halfway through the Wolf, which certainly gets the heart pumping

 

[Anders]

Here was one pop article about sprint intervals and its benefit. They mention 30 second periode og training and a couple of minutes rest.

Sprint Interval Training: How to Burn Fat and Increase Speed

Sprint interval training is a time-efficient workout that combines periods of maximal work with longer rest periods. Here are the benefits, downsides, calorie info, and more.

www.healthline.com

Effects of short sprint interval training on aerobic and anaerobic indices: A systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed

The effects of short sprint interval training (sSIT) with efforts of ≤10 s on maximal oxygen consumption (V̇O₂ max), aerobic and anaerobic performances remain unknown. To verify the effectiveness of sSIT in physically active adults and athletes, a systematic literature search was...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Eyetic]

There also seems to be difference between how we in Strongfirst divide up things and how other people divide up things.

The strong first categories:

S&S, Q&D and A+A (sprint intervals and ample rest)
LISS (slow speed, no rest)
Glycolytic training (moderate to high speed, with insufficient rest)


Outside Strongfirst categories:
HIIT:
LISS:

Its almost the same if you compare athletes/enthusiasts with a certain grade of knowledge, ATP, ATP-PCr, Anaerobic Glycolisis and oxidative.

What is true is that here at Strongfirst things are pretty detailed/explained and the grade of knowledge of users is quite high, these are things that are mentioned in their books, in their seminars, in their classes, in this forums.. etc... if you compare a Strongfirst-newbie with a local Gym newbie...imagine the lack of information the gym newbie will have as normally they receive a sheet with ABC routines and some 10 min cardio warm up in the best case scenario. If we consider instead a Crossfit newbie in a good box ( this is pretty important as Coaching is a must) then even if the user do not have that info, their coach will program a good amount of each energy systems, even LISS running.

Which one is better? Depends on your goals and your body, I can run a 5k or 12k race, I could even consider half a marathon without doing running, but I'm not optimized and efficient at it as I train my different energy systems by doing something else.

If instead we are looking for the "best bung for the buck" training to improve ALL the energy systems, I would say the one which is most pleasant to you in order to ensure adherence over time.

 

[Halfakneecap]

Here was one pop article about sprint intervals and its benefit. They mention 30 second periode og training and a couple of minutes rest.

Sprint Interval Training: How to Burn Fat and Increase Speed

Sprint interval training is a time-efficient workout that combines periods of maximal work with longer rest periods. Here are the benefits, downsides, calorie info, and more.

www.healthline.com

Effects of short sprint interval training on aerobic and anaerobic indices: A systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed

The effects of short sprint interval training (sSIT) with efforts of ≤10 s on maximal oxygen consumption (V̇O₂ max), aerobic and anaerobic performances remain unknown. To verify the effectiveness of sSIT in physically active adults and athletes, a systematic literature search was...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I’ve done exactly that a few years ago for a few months and definitely dropped weight and increased fitness. Actually it was probably more like losing a few kg’s meant everything was easier?. I don’t want to not do kb training though haha. I could fit in 1 extra gym day a week I suppose. It got boring but it did work

 

[TimothyGander]

If I understand it correctly, the current SF thinking is that for GPP you need just enough of traditional cardiovascular training and beyond that you should focus on mitochondrial adaptations. Here's how Pavel puts it in Q&D's chapter called "Where is the Cardio?":

Since Q&D is a circuit, one might think that one of its goals is “cardio,” VO2 max, oxygen transport, heart and lungs, or whatever else you call it. Sort of. There is enough work to meet the cardiovascular exercise requirements set by government health bodies— but not more. [...] Russian scientist Andrey Antonov calculated that a regular untrained adult’s heart pumps out enough oxygen to enable him to keep up with advanced runners in a long-distance race. [...] Scientists used to believe that the VO2 max was the bottleneck and the end-all of elite endurance performance. Today’s prevailing point of view is that it is the muscles’ ability to extract arriving oxygen and utilize it in the mitochondria that limits further growth of results and thus must be the training priority.

He has also discussed related concepts in his appearance on JRE: just enough to stimulate adaptations in the heart, mitochondria as the key to endurance.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Its almost the same if you compare athletes/enthusiasts with a certain grade of knowledge, ATP, ATP-PCr, Anaerobic Glycolisis and oxidative.

In some cases its best to simply look at adaptive response based on improvements from baseline or maintained at a higher level. You’re almost better off NOT knowing the supposed reason for some training approaches beyond what it will do for you.

The state of understanding of exercise and metabolic physiology does not stand still. Eg many people still adhere to the notion that lactic acid buildup is responsible for fatigue-reduced muscle contraction force.

 

[John K]

Here was one pop article about sprint intervals and its benefit. They mention 30 second periode og training and a couple of minutes rest.

Sprint Interval Training: How to Burn Fat and Increase Speed

Sprint interval training is a time-efficient workout that combines periods of maximal work with longer rest periods. Here are the benefits, downsides, calorie info, and more.

www.healthline.com

Effects of short sprint interval training on aerobic and anaerobic indices: A systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed

The effects of short sprint interval training (sSIT) with efforts of ≤10 s on maximal oxygen consumption (V̇O₂ max), aerobic and anaerobic performances remain unknown. To verify the effectiveness of sSIT in physically active adults and athletes, a systematic literature search was...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

what is your goal with your training?

 

[Eyetic]

In some cases its best to simply look at adaptive response based on improvements from baseline or maintained at a higher level. You’re almost better off NOT knowing the supposed reason for some training approaches beyond what it will do for you.

The state of understanding of exercise and metabolic physiology does not stand still. Eg many people still adhere to the notion that lactic acid buildup is responsible for fatigue-reduced muscle contraction force.

We can not understimate bro-science!

 

[Anders]

Bro-science: I understand the concept. It is a slightly negative term about people who put too much confidence in their own experience and in youtubers/influencers advice without taking any heed to the findings of research. I think the problem lies in putting too much emphasize on one source and neglecting critical thinking. If you are nuanced and modest in your conclusion based on your own experiences I would call that wisdom, not broscience. Don John also seem to know a thing or two about training, and he seems to mainly build on his own experience and experimenting.

My goals: If I could become more healthy and hike a mountain quicker I would be happy. In addition I would like to do this in a very knee-friendly way. And lastly I would not like this to reduce my strength gains.

**
It is interesting to see that there are different opinions here on Strongfirst about lactic acid and H+ ions. So if I understand this correctly some people here are saying that frequent sprints or intervals to failure is not particularly taxing or unhealthy ?

 

[offwidth]

Bro-science: I understand the concept. It is a slightly negative term about people who put too much confidence in their own experience and in youtubers/influencers advice without taking any heed to the findings of research. I think the problem lies in putting too much emphasize on one source and neglecting critical thinking. If you are nuanced and modest in your conclusion based on your own experiences I would call that wisdom, not broscience. Don John also seem to know a thing or two about training, and he seems to mainly build on his own experience and experimenting.

My goals: If I could become more healthy and hike a mountain quicker I would be happy. In addition I would like to do this in a very knee-friendly way. And lastly I would not like this to reduce my strength gains.

**
It is interesting to see that there are different opinions here on Strongfirst about lactic acid and H+ ions. So if I understand this correctly some people here are saying that frequent sprints or intervals to failure is not particularly taxing or unhealthy ?

If you want to hike a mountain quicker… go to the mountain… read TFTNA and TFTUA

 

[John K]

My goals: If I could become more healthy and hike a mountain quicker I would be happy. In addition I would like to do this in a very knee-friendly way. And lastly I would not like this to reduce my strength gains.

It sounds like All Terrain Conditioning is right up your ally. I don't remember which Toshner teaches it, but it might be something to look in to - or reaching out to Ryan or Derek. I've worked with Ryan and he is great.

If you goal is to climb mountains, what does your training look like currently? How does adding glycolytic training or HIIT with incomplete rest help you climb a mountain better?

**
It is interesting to see that there are different opinions here on Strongfirst about lactic acid and H+ ions. So if I understand this correctly some people here are saying that frequent sprints or intervals to failure is not particularly taxing or unhealthy ?

I don't speak for SF, but it was my understanding that excess was what they were steering away from - rather than every day being a constant unrelenting glycolytic bath, stop and train the qualities you want and use it as a timed strategy. They say this will give you better results. The purpose becomes training qualities - such as sustained power production and mitochondria. This shift is not unique to StrongFirst; you see this in a lot of high level athletics (my two "outside" favorites are Stephen Seiler and Joel Jamieson, but Mike Prevost has a couple articles out there that really succinctly show you how to create training plans).

If you bake or cook, think of it like a spice or cinnamon - a little cinnamon isn't bad and it actually enhances things; but too much constantly isn't better - its usually worse. Joel Jamieson has a similar approach, and has found that too much time spent at higher intensities (of heart rate) actually leads to worse performance over a few weeks, and that you need a balance. I think Joel has found 200-400 min easy / 40-50 min medium / 10-14 min hard (red-lining your heart so to speak) to be where his athletes generally land. Rather than looking at the time (up to 500 min of training in a week!), you can look at these represents - the large volume of training is done "easy" because, to recover from a lot, it has to be easy. 80-86% is easy, 10-16% medium, and 3-4% where you are redlining your heart. He also focuses on the effect training has on mitochondria, and the important of "training your mitochondria" by doing a lot of easy conditioning.

 

[wespom9]

Anyone who has trained long enough, or coached long enough, knows you can't push too hard too long. Cardio, strength, whatever.
High effort needs to be balanced with rest. In order to get to high levels, ample training is needed. Too much high intensity interferes with recovery and therefore training time; meaning you will not get the volume needed to excel at your level if you push too hard too often.

In the materials devoted to endurance, in my view SF recognizes the above and programs accordingly - they may not be the first, but they are one of the loudest I've seen regarding 'repeats' with full recovery vs 'intervals' with incomplete recovery as the primary modality to long term training.
There is ample research for intervals being helpful, but one also has to consider the goals of research, the training time allotted, the population, etc.

My personal 2c is that intervals are helpful for many things, especially for gen pop looking for time efficient ways to achieve health benefits as recommended to reduce health risk. For athletes, who have more training time and more specific goals, they must be a little more nuanced in their training and use accordingly.