I would agree. It seems like it uses the same principles as the slow fiber hypertrophy protocols (sorry, I'm not going to link to all four of them, but searching the blog for "slow fiber hypertrophy" will bring them all up, and nothing else).
I think the issue is a little more long term. Essentially, you have two competing stimuli. The oxygen demand of intense training stimulates the production of more mitochondria (something that happens with everything from sub-MAF aerobic work to HIIT), while the byproducts of anaerobic glycolysis supposedly damage the mitochondria. I think this is highly plausible, but I still say supposedly because I know not everyone is in agreement here. Anyways, you essentially end up simultaneously producing more mitochondria, while destroying some of the ones you already have. When these two processes reach a steady state, we could theorize that this is where you start to see the typical HIIT plateau.
I think the issue is a little more long term. Essentially, you have two competing stimuli. The oxygen demand of intense training stimulates the production of more mitochondria (something that happens with everything from sub-MAF aerobic work to HIIT), while the byproducts of anaerobic glycolysis supposedly damage the mitochondria. I think this is highly plausible, but I still say supposedly because I know not everyone is in agreement here. Anyways, you essentially end up simultaneously producing more mitochondria, while destroying some of the ones you already have. When these two processes reach a steady state, we could theorize that this is where you start to see the typical HIIT plateau.
So the problem is not that you're de-training your aerobic system. The problem is that you are both training it and de-training it at the same time. Over months and years, while you still make progress, you make less progress than you could have. So it's less a matter of decreasing performance and more a matter of missing out of the improvements you could have made, if you had trained more efficiently. This is all based in the context of someone who isn't just blatantly over-training themselves into the ground...
At this point, I think it's safe to say we are within the realm of theory, and as such, everything should be taken with a grain of salt
I think things start get muddled when we try to sort out why things happen. You can make the empirical statement that your performance improved, but what factors played into that? Metabolic adaptations, psychological adaptation, improved neurological efficiency (i.e. skill), and more could have played into it, but how do you sort out how much to attribute to each thing? Maybe you made metabolic improvements, and as your movement patterns cleaned up you used less energy. Maybe as you got used to training, you were less aroused by it, and the decreased stress hormones allowed your body to remain more aerobic. We can try to parse things out by looking at how well the improvements made in the dojo translate to other areas of life, but even then it's still pretty hard to pin down.
Yes, In the end Al's statement holds true, we practice what we know works (measured by results). This is what I do, in my case I look at the science articles and say "hmmm, very interesting..", then I go back to what I know works.I think things start get muddled when we try to sort out why things happen. You can make the empirical statement that your performance improved, but what factors played into that? Metabolic adaptations, psychological adaptation, improved neurological efficiency (i.e. skill), and more could have played into it, but how do you sort out how much to attribute to each thing? Maybe you made metabolic improvements, and as your movement patterns cleaned up you used less energy. Maybe as you got used to training, you were less aroused by it, and the decreased stress hormones allowed your body to remain more aerobic. We can try to parse things out by looking at how well the improvements made in the dojo translate to other areas of life, but even then it's still pretty hard to pin down.
Ultimately, we know that most training works. I think the issue when comparing HIIT with HIT with HIRT (say that five times fast) is trying to figure out when each one is the most appropriate/efficient use of time. With respect to hypertrophy, I suppose it's a question of "My goals are hypertrophy and...[what?]" If my goal is big muscles that function aerobically, HIRT might be the ticket. If it's big muscles with a high lactate threshold, then maybe HIIT. If it's just big muscles and who cares about the rest, HIT seems to do alright.
All we have to do to really figure it out is take a few groups of identical people, and put them through slightly different training programs for a decade or so, and see what the results are
The people who didn't wash their uniform regularly smelled like cat p*ss, not fun when practicing self defense with close contact..
My philosophy is to be informed and guided by research but not paralysed by it. The nature of our existence is more complex and heavily intertwined than I think we will ever fully understand. Breaking things down into digestible components for analysis is useful but probably not all encompassing.
