Adarq.org
Performance Area => Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion => Topic started by: entropy on June 07, 2012, 05:58:18 am
-
Flies in the face of everything you might think you know about training. The pervasive myth behind HIIT is that a diet of low reps, low volume, heavy weighs and nothing else is sufficient to get one strong, lean, fast, big etc. I think it's taken for granted here and elsewhere that anaerobic activity is superior to aerobic, that aerobic work detracts from strength, speed, power etc.
Here is an ebooklet that contradicts this idea -
http://anthonymychal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/TheMythofHIIT.pdf
thoughts?
-
I think it's taken for granted here and elsewhere that anaerobic activity is superior to aerobic, that aerobic work detracts from strength, speed, power etc.
orly?
-
rely brosefs.. i don't see anyone logging road work or even talking about it anywhere on the forum. not saying people don't do it, or abide by aerobic work just don't see it being stressed or emphasised much.
if you were are talking about the aerobic/anaerobic tradoff well yea it's overstated because no one wants to look or perform like a marathon runner right?
-
I probably run about 10 miles a week just due to rugby training/games. If you were going for strength/speed/poweretc. I don't think aerobic activity would be the best way to go.
Look at American football V Rugby. American football is like an anaerobic game and the athletes are heaps stronger, faster and powerful than rugby players. The only thing rugby players have over American football players is endurance.
Same as you look at basketball and soccer players. You'd expect them to be ripped or whatever because they do soo much cardio but they have even more fat than rugby backs and most american football players. You could argue that they don't need muscle because they're not playing a contact sport but than you'd think they'd be ripped but most of them are just skinnyfat.
-
I probably run about 10 miles a week just due to rugby training/games. If you were going for strength/speed/poweretc. I don't think aerobic activity would be the best way to go.
Look at American football V Rugby. American football is like an anaerobic game and the athletes are heaps stronger, faster and powerful than rugby players. The only thing rugby players have over American football players is endurance.
Same as you look at basketball and soccer players. You'd expect them to be ripped or whatever because they do soo much cardio but they have even more fat than rugby backs and most american football players. You could argue that they don't need muscle because they're not playing a contact sport but than you'd think they'd be ripped but most of them are just skinnyfat.
Most basketball and soccer players are skinny-fat? Good grief, maybe recreational 30 year olds, the majority of professional bball and soccer players are ripped as fuck 6%BF, they just don't have the extra 40lbs of muscle that football players do.
-
Flies in the face of everything you might think you know about training. The pervasive myth behind HIIT is that a diet of low reps, low volume, heavy weighs and nothing else is sufficient to get one strong, lean, fast, big etc. I think it's taken for granted here and elsewhere that anaerobic activity is superior to aerobic, that aerobic work detracts from strength, speed, power etc.
Here is an ebooklet that contradicts this idea -
http://anthonymychal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/TheMythofHIIT.pdf
thoughts?
Please summarize for us why the author thinks that you can build strength better with high reps as opposed to low reps.
-
Please summarize for us why the author thinks that you can build strength better with high reps as opposed to low reps.
The author doesn't argue that anywhere.
Here is what he does claim .. comments in parenthesis mine not the authors
Why HIIT makes you less explosive (doing HIIT means working at a lower intensity, and since it's further from maximal attempts it wont make you more explosive)
● Why aerobic doesn’t equal long distance runs (you can do 20-30 min aerobic workouts that give most of the aerobic benefits)
● Why aerobic training doesn’t take hours (see above)
● Why HIIT is a bad way to burn calories (workouts too brief, not much work is done, EPOC is neglible)
● Why EPOC is overblown (see above)
● Why HIIT isn’t more “natural” (caveman/hunter argument, meh, neither here nor there)
● Why aerobic training is natural (see above)
● Why aerobic work makes you look like a sprinter, not a marathon runner (sprinters actually end up doing a lot of aerobic work in their training as well as the maximal stuff)
● Why HIIT doesn’t burn more fat (calories burnt less than from a good aerobic session)
-
After reading those cliffs you made, I'm going to have to see what the author defines as being aerobic.
-
Some of those points are good in that article. He seems to be an evosport (schroeder) guy as I saw his ldiso articles as well, so dont be close minded to everything he says, but also take some things with a grain of salt.
-
1. i like the book. he's not breaking any new ground but he's also not claiming to.
2. death to crossfit.
3. fetishization of exotic cultures makes me uncomfortable.
4. finishers are fun once in a while, especially when you're competing with someone.
that is all.
-
I think it's time that someone took a stand to the overblowing of HIIT, which I agree has been overblown. THe main reason I feel low intensity aerobic work (and absolutely not high intensity, we're tlaking below 65% vo2max) may be beneficial is to relax the nervous system. HIIT requires a lot of intense energy which can be stressful overtime, just as intense aerobic training which also can be detrimental.
Unfortunately this guy doesn't tell me anything exciting and I'm going to go through his myths and state my objectinos with them.
Myth 1:
seriously, just one page worth of information?
Persistence hunters are a rare breed, they are not good evidence that long distance running is more natural than sprinting. The persistence hunting was done by usually ONE person, the best runner in the tribe, everyone else wasn't conditioned enough so.. yeah.
Myth 2:
"Aerobic training, by virtue of lowering the resting heart rate, can
reduce overall stress on the body during times of inactivity. This is one
of the coolest parts of developing the aerobic system: it improves how
the nervous system functions."
-A low HR is not necessarily healthy. Yes it can reduce stress, but a low HR from excessive aerboic training may be due to a poorer metabolism and inhibited respiration (Ray peat talks about this just look it up). Excessive aerobic training is most definitely unhealthy and increases mortality risk.
HIIT and weight training lowers blood pressure just as much if not more than aerobic. Just depends on what the protocol was in the study used.
Myth 3:
i agree that HIIT is stressful "their eyeballs aren’t
dangling from their optic nerve." - HIIT doesn't need to be like that though.
But ?? comparing 20 minutes of lower intensity to 20 minutes of HIIT makes no sense. When i show people HIIT it takes 5.5 minutes on an elliptical. Comparing the stressload of that to 20 minutes of low intensity aerobic work makes more sense.
Myth 4:
"Congratulations. You burned 400 calories in four minutes. But you can’t exercise again for one week. Sorry."
-start slowly..
Myth 5:
depends on how you define HIIT. I am thinking broadly in terms of anaerobic but full body training. He makes a good point by mentioning how throwing a baseball is anaerobic, but practising that isn't going to make you that fit.
Myth 7:
I have never heard of this myth before. I think he made it up. Maybe some people said HIIT improves VO2 more but it's clearly not a popular myth.
Myth 8:
This is where his logic is totally flawed.
As we have seen form one of the most cited hiit studies ever, http://jap.physiology.org/content/98/6/1985.long, half a dozen or less repeats with 4.5 minute rests of all out 30s sprints on a cycle ergometer double submaximal endurance capacity.
The protocol was not specific to submaximal cycling, yet it improved. The training was not specific at all to aerobic work, but aerobic enzymes in muscle tissue were upregulated.
This was his logical flaw..
IF sports require mostly aerobic (lotta jogging) in between some anaerobic bursts of energy (sprinting), then training that was is better.
But since it has been shown in that article and many others now that endurance can be improved with anaerobic training that is specific to that endurance skill, training in a way that seems specific is not necessary.
Myth 9:
More time needs to be spent on this one.
"But EPOC ignores the sciency stuff like what substrates are actually used to fuel the body. When it comes to high-intensity training,
carbohydrates are broken down inside the body and used for fuel. But medium-intensity “aerobic” training uses more fat. "
So Ithink this guy got brainwashed at UPittsburg. I have heard this same bullshit form professors at University of Maryland who don't know how to use the fucking internet and stay up o date with the research.
Aerobic training would burn more fat if it were true that fat oxidation during exercise relates to fat loss after that exercise bout is over. This certainly isn't true though. If this were an important factor, a HIIT wouldn't burn more fat than aerobic.
this guy, and everyone for that matter, needs to read this paper start to finish http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobes/2011/868305/
FIrst sentence is pretty funny, perhaps a bit extreme for a journal article but oh well.
According to this review, calories are nonsensical, they have nothing to do with this bullshit, whatsoever. EPOC is NOT the main reason HIIT burns more fat than aerobic training. It's probably a hormonal effect (GH and epinephrine and cortisol). Tremblay (cited in the first paragrph under HIIE and fat loss - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0026049594902593) a 9-fold rate of fat loss per calorie burned. That article was published 18 years ago, so I don't know what these professors are reading. I also have no idea what protocol tremblay used.
Myth 11:
I think he just made up his book. Thankfully it's free and uncopyright because it is of very poor quality. We all very well know that hiit is supposed to burn way less calories..
The last part about stress though is the most important. HIIT fails to increase vagal tone after the exercise bout. I'm not sure what the chronic effects are though.
-
I think it's time that someone took a stand to the overblowing of HIIT, which I agree has been overblown.
haha. way to be a pioneer in the crusade against HIIT. no one has ever taken up this cause before. thanks for stepping up.