I came across the term “interval training” recently–specifically, a type of interval training invented by a Japanese doctor (whose name I forget now, six letters starting with a “T”, maybe Tanaka or Tanata or something like that) that mandates two minutes of intense aerobic exercise and a one-minute period following of very mild exercise, such as 2 minutes of balls-out spriniting followed by a minute of walking, with the intense/mild alternations to be repeated several times. As I get it, if you did eight cycles of 2-minute sprints followed by 1-minute walking, you would get a much better, more efficient workout than if you had run for an hour.
Does this make sense to you? (I realize that you don;t sprint for an hour.) More importantly, does it work? It would be a whoreson saver of time, if it does work, and sounds intriguing. Has anyone here tried it? Does it work if the 2-to-1 ratio is maintained with different numbers? (One minute of sprinting alternated with 30 seconds of walking, repeated sixteen times instead of eight, or 3 minutes of sprinting alternated with 90 seconds of walking, etc.) Is there something sacred about the ratio of 2 to 1?
I think the basic idea is that the rest periods allow you to recover for another stint of high exertion, meaning that by the end of the session you have spent more time at an elevated HR than if you just sprinted flat out for as long as you can manage.
The intervals my PT has me doing are
5 mins warm up at a steady jog
90 secs at full speed
90 secs at jog
60 secs at full speed
60 secs at job
30 secs at full speed
30 secs at jog
repeat the above (minus the warm up) 4 - 6 times. When you can comfortably do 6 up the top speed.
Too soon on the program for me to tell you the results though.
It’s the big rage right now as the claim is you can burn more fat and get a better workout this way than a longer, less intense workout.
The main difficulty I see is few are in good enough shape to benefit without getting hurt and even fewer can maintain that level of intensity year round.
Here’s a typical sitewith workouts. And you were thinking of Tabata.
Interval training has been used by athletes (runners, cyclists, swimmers) to prepare for the demands of competition.
They look for improved muscular endurance and co-ordination at high intensity and resistance to fatigue poisons.
Intervals are mandatory for serious training in a lot of sports - particularly those that involve hills - cycling, fell running etc. It depends on what your goals are, though, as to whether it’s a relevant approach for you - they can be (brutally) tough workouts and are more orientated for people who want to compete at some level. I don’t think there’s any doubt that it works for building speed / endurance.
If you’re more interested in refining your weekly workout to make it more efficient, then full on interval work is probably not the answer (although there are no doubt ideas you can take from it). Have you heard of Fartlek? A tried and tested training regime based on interval-type methods that was originally formulated for cross-country running. I know a few club runners (ie fit lads who do several races a year, but nothing amazing) who use it and say it’s a great structure, particularly in regard to maximising the time you have available for training.
Tabata intervals are just one protocol, which Tabata chose for his seminal study with cyclists because it was the ratio used with some success by the Japanese speed skating team. There is nothing magical about it but the idea is to allow partial recovery and then full out again. Other H.I.I.T. protocols exist and have been validated as effective in at least short to moderate term use.
Personally I use it as part of a mix of what I do and do a variety of activities in that H.I.I.T. style form stationary bike, to wind sprints, to burpees, and so on. I am of the personal experience that having a wide variety of sorts of work outs is a good strategy and minimally it helps prevent me from burning out or getting bored. But then I am not trying to achieve any competition level fitness. I’m just a short bald 50 year old thrilled to be “fit” (and try defining that if you do not a particular sports objective) and healthy.
Intervals of all types are great. Tabatas (as I’m familiar with them) are typically 20 seconds at maximum intensity followed by 10 seconds of rest repeated for a set period of time, around 4 to 5 minutes. If done properly it is a very, very good workout.
As said, what you’re thinking of is the Tabata protocol. The thing with the Tabata protocol is that your interval on is at or above your max, and most people have difficulty reaching that level, especially for interval after interval. Another benefit of Tabata’s is that it encourages your body to recover quickly.
Most people do best using some type of HIIT rather then the actual Tabata protocol.
I have been using Tabata intervals, mostly on a rowing machine, for several months now, and the results were impressive (and I was doing several intense circuit classes a week prior to starting).
For me, max intensity (20s) is rowing at sub 1:40/500m pace. Then I drop off for 10s. I do this for 4 minutes. After 2 months, my normal (hard but not intense) 2500m rowing average dropped from 1:57/500m to 1:53/500m. I have tried to do it on the stationary bike, but increasing/decreasing resistance rapidly is a bit hard. A spinning bike would be better, but we don’t have any at the gym.
The purpose of interval training is that it gives you a different effect from training at length.
For instance, if you sprint, you have to do interval training. If you’re running a marathon, interval training isn’t going to be helpful. It certainly isn’t going to hurt you any, but what interval training does is it gives your heart the momentum to operate at peak efficency in bursts.
In real day life, most of us don’t have a lot of need for being able to spint, unless you’re always running to catch a bus.
For the average person, it would probably be best to alternate interval training with duration training.
