Originally Posted by ratebeer
I may be dense but I'm not understanding...
Can you explain why all interval training requires such a rest period?
The study I referred to detailed 10 days of interval workouts in the span of two weeks. In high school track (middle distance), we *only* did interval training. It's been my experience that intervals need not be so taxing -- either by reducing peak effort or thetime at peak effort -- so as to require a several day recovery.
Maybe I'm missing something?
Distance athletes (1/2 mile, mile and 2 mile) do intervals three days per week, and distance two; intensity ususlly tapers off toward a meet. The two distance days are similar to rest days (we used to do a 4-7 mile easy jog). It is the same scheduleing principal with cycling, probably because of the endurance factor.
Intervals should be *taxing* and doing a taxing workout every day will burn you out--if not
you arn't doing them right. I am not as well read as many others but, I am pretty sure that low intestity intervals at the aerobic level is simply not efficient cycling training and therefore most would consider them not worth doing.
Comparing training techniques of two different sports is like judging apples by the standards of oranges.