10x 1m Sprints = 10 hours steady

[David Martin]

Or so claims a canadian study..

10 minutes of fast sprints beat 10 hours of cycling
 | Metro.co.uk

[border-rider]

Hard to judge without reading the original paper

I suppose it depends what endpoint they were looking at and what the study population was.  I find it hard to believe that 10 minutes sprinting would produce the same physiological changes as 10 hours cycling done regularly, but that's probably not what they're suggesting...

[mike]

I think there's something in this..  if you google for 'tabata intervals' there's a lot of work gone into proving that short, sharp intervals can make more difference than long Tempo workouts. 

[Greenbank]

I think it was in the context of maintaining existing fitness, not building up fitness.

I'll see if I can dig up the original paper...

[Moloko]

One of the benefits is a less numb arse.

[andygates]

Don't forget that there'll be a fair warmup time before you can actually hit 95% MHR.  Call it an hour session in total.

And this is the sort of thinking behind Crossfit et al, so it's not impossible.  We'd need to know what they mean by 'fitness' too - that's a moveable feast.  Leanness?  VO2max?  Endurance? 

[Chris S]

The title of the article (and incidentally, this thread) is slightly misleading, and should read "10x 1m Sprints Three times a week = 10 hours steady" which is a somewhat different proposition to that originally implied.

[mrcharly-YHT]

imo, most people would drop dead if they tried 10m of sprints.  How many sprints is that?

[vorsprung]

The study does not suggest all out sprints

The study has a sensationalist title.  It is in fact the old, old news that a little high intensity work is as good as a lot of low intensity work

Linky to website of researcher:

<Exercising just got easier for busy people, study>

[mattc]

The title of the article (and incidentally, this thread) is slightly misleading, and should read "10x 1m Sprints Three times a week = 10 hours steady" which is a somewhat different proposition to that originally implied.

And also, neither approach is the optimum training schedule for anyone*, so it's a pretty moot point!

[well, not if your event is longer than 10minutes, anyway]

[vorsprung]

neither approach is the optimum training schedule for anyone*, so it's a pretty moot point!

[well, not if your event is longer than 10minutes, anyway]

The idea behind interval training is that it raises your tolerance to exercise at higher levels of intensity

But..as this happens your tolerance also increases at lower levels too

So it is possible if you were doing ( for example ) a 200k audax then these relatively short sessions of gym biking could prepare you for it

[Greenbank]

A quick glance at the overview shows that the study only lasted for 2 weeks (and 6 training sessions). I don't attach much weight that suggests one method of training is better than (or just as good as) another based on such a short period.

From what I've read, he took two sets of people with unspecified fitness levels; some trained using established recommendations from health agencies (x hours of low intensity cycling per week, y hours of medium intensity cycling per week, etc), and others trained using interval training techniques (albeit not at all-out pace, but slightly lower than all-out, and for slightly longer¹). The subjects showed the same "benefits", despite the second lot exercising for a shorter duration overall.

People who may not have exercised enough in the past show benefit of exercising more than they used to (despite using different regimes). Shock horror.

Study too small, too short, not adequately controlled, and outcome too subjective. If I were a cynic I'd smell free advertising for an upcoming book promoting a new training regime.

1. Which seems to be the actual claim of this paper. Not that interval training works just as a well as hours of low intensity work, but that interval training at a more comfortable level just below all-out works just as a well as shorter durations of interval training at all-out pace. Extending this claim to say that as intensity decreases, duration should increase to compensate, and that you can pick where on this trade-off you'd like to train is certainly bold and something that this research doesn't back up at all.

[Chris S]

I tried a set of these this morning - having generally favoured 2x20s or 3x10s when doing intervals.

Man, it's tough. I couldn't finish 10 - only made 7 properly, and the 8th was truncated; mostly due to The Burn in the legs - ow ow ow...  

Max HR for me is 185. I was peaking at about 175 in the work phases, and troughing at about 140 in the rest phases (also one minute).

I'll forgive myself this time for not finishing - having not done "sprint" type intervals before. Not sure how useful this is (other than for weight loss) as an audaxer. But three times a week?  . No chance  .

--
Edit: I may have also started tired - having "warmed up" with a near PB 5000m on the rower...

[mattc]

I tried a set of these this morning - having generally favoured 2x20s or 3x10s when doing intervals.

Man, it's tough. I couldn't finish 10 - only made 7 properly, and the 8th was truncated; mostly due to The Burn in the legs - ow ow ow... 
 

Chris,
If we make up some other training sessions, would you try them out for us?

[MSeries]

1 metre sprints ?

[andrew w]

This is a quote from the University Newsletter in which details of the study were described:

"The workload was still above most people's comfort zone - about 95 per cent of maximal heart rate - but only about half of what can be achieved when people sprint at an all-out pace."

95% of maximum heart rate, but only 50% of what could be achieved if you went all out - that doesn't sound right, does it?

[Greenbank]

Probably means something along the lines of (figures plucked from arse):-

You can push out 400W at 95% MHR.
You can push out 800W at 100% MHR.

Obviously you can't maintain that peak power output for anything more than a bunch of seconds whereas you can maintain the lower figure for longer.

ATP vs Anaerobic.

The graph on this page: Anaerobic and aerobic Energy Pathways

[simonp]

This is a quote from the University Newsletter in which details of the study were described:

"The workload was still above most people's comfort zone - about 95 per cent of maximal heart rate - but only about half of what can be achieved when people sprint at an all-out pace."

95% of maximum heart rate, but only 50% of what could be achieved if you went all out - that doesn't sound right, does it?

Yeah, what Greenbank said.  I think it goes a bit non-linear once you get above your AT.  You're able to produce a hell of a lot more power than your VO2max power for shorter bursts, e.g. I hit 1302W during a 6 second power test, and my VO2max power must be around 270W, but I can produce 380W for one minute.