Training & Nutrition - The 6-minute workout revisited

OK, this is just a personal, n=1, empirical, non double-blind thing but two weeks of four minute (12 x 20s fast, 10s rest) high intensity workouts has made me faster over ten miles. Again this could be a number of things, more rest and recovery, general gains that were happening anyway, my expectations, whatever.

One thing is for certain: I'm not poo-pooing the six minute workout. I may integrate it on slow or rest days as an alternative to slow miles during a more intense time of year, or after several weeks of long hard miles as a form of tapering.

Intervals work.

Intervals work.

yep. there are many theories out there about which type of interval is the best, etc. but you can't argue with results. keep us posted if you continue to see gains throughout the year from this program.

OK, this is just a personal, n=1, empirical, non double-blind thing but two weeks of four minute (12 x 20s fast, 10s rest) high intensity workouts has made me faster over ten miles. Again this could be a number of things, more rest and recovery, general gains that were happening anyway, my expectations, whatever.

One thing is for certain: I'm not poo-pooing the six minute workout. I may integrate it on slow or rest days as an alternative to slow miles during a more intense time of year, or after several weeks of long hard miles as a form of tapering.

I never tried this one. How much of a warm up and cool down are you using with this? How high of an intensity are you using? Are you sitting or standing for the interval? Seems like a quick way to get more fit . . .

Seems like a quick way to get more fit . . .

Or torch yourself, get injured, and burn out. Essentially these are speed intervals, and done right they are extremely hard. (In my program there done at maximal effort, 120 rpm, and down wind to max speed.) In my program, they're put in the phase where you're trying to peak.

Not really the way to get fit. But they're a good way to to really ramp up your maximum speed when you're already fit. Very good crit training.

And if you can really do a set of 12 on 10 seconds rest, with maximum intensity, and finish the last one with maximum intensity, then my hat's off.

They need to be done in moderation, like once a week. Doing a steady diet of these multiple times a week, for weeks at a time would be a bad idea for most folks.

I hear all this hullabaloo with more than two intervals a week are bad... When I ran track in HS & college I was a sprinter. All we did were intervals. If you are training to be a sprinter it doesn't make sense to run 6 slow miles. We did 50 meter runs one day, 100 meter runs the next, 200 meter runs the next, practice starts one day, pyramids (50m-100m-200m-400m-200m-100-50m), etc.... Each day was not necessarily 100% effort, but every day was some kind of interval. My track coach in HS was a former olympian.

Sure I understand that all intervals all the time will make you only good at sprinting, and going all out every day will lead to burn out. But in general, you can do intervals every day and not collapse. I did it for six years from HS to sophmore year of College.

I hear all this hullabaloo with more than two intervals a week are bad... When I ran track in HS & college I was a sprinter. All we did were intervals. If you are training to be a sprinter it doesn't make sense to run 6 slow miles. We did 50 meter runs one day, 100 meter runs the next, 200 meter runs the next, practice starts one day, pyramids (50m-100m-200m-400m-200m-100-50m), etc.... Each day was not necessarily 100% effort, but every day was some kind of interval. My track coach in HS was a former olympian.

Sure I understand that all intervals all the time will make you only good at sprinting, and going all out every day will lead to burn out. But in general, you can do intervals every day and not collapse. I did it for six years from HS to sophmore year of College.

You are comparing two completely different sports, and at that, comparable small distances with running track. I'm sure that say, a marathoner, doesn't do intervals every day.

Cycling requires a strong aerobic base to build off of in order to improve. Sprinting 100 meters, not so much.

Personally, I've notice diminishing returns after more than 1 day of sprints and 1 day of intervals a week. You need rest from hard muscular efforts to let your body rebuild. And you need other workouts like aerobic tempo, hillclimbs and endurance. If you end up doing two days of intervals a week, somehow you've left out some other workout that would've been more beneficial.

Also the OP posted this was after two-weeks. This is within a single macrocycle. The following couple of weeks is going to have to be different, followed by a rest week or two. You just can't go out day after day, week after week doing the same routine. You'll end up sacrificing performance in other areas and hinder optimum improvement-rate. Burn-out, physically, mentally and emotionally is very possible.

You are comparing two completely different sports, and at that, comparable small distances with running track. I'm sure that say, a marathoner, doesn't do intervals every day.

Cycling requires a strong aerobic base to build off of in order to improve. Sprinting 100 meters, not so much.


It takes more of an aerobic base than you realize. And all of that sprinting put me into good enough shape to run a 5K at a very decent speed with no training specific to that distance. Not all cycling is a century. Criteriums would definitely benefit from intervals...so would track cycling. I am not saying that it is wise to do all intervals. It is just that you won't necessarily burn out from doing intervals every day IF you alternate hard efforts one day with easier efforts the next.

Any type of cycling will benefit from intervals....but you need to do them correctly, which is what was being discussed. Doing them several times a week is not a good idea....well, unless you don't want to improve. Improvements to your fitness come with proper rest/recovery.

Absolutely.

The article cited in the initial thread on this topic mentioned generalized aerobic benefits of HIT (high intensity training) along with other physiological benefits. The subjects, who were off an off-season base of slow mileage, greatly improved their 40k TT after solely doing HIT.

This means they only did sprints of a couple hundred yards for just six minutes, 33% of that being rest, and came away with very real benefits to a race of 25 miles.

This sounds like a good way to reduce wear and tear during post-season (championship) training or in the weeks prior to the start of the season. Although I haven't seen any research to support this idea: one would guess that fewer miles mean less overall chronic stress on the joints and bones, and more time out of the saddle recuperating. I don't know.

Any type of cycling will benefit from intervals....but you need to do them correctly, which is what was being discussed. Doing them several times a week is not a good idea....well, unless you don't want to improve. Improvements to your fitness come with proper rest/recovery.


I am sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. You CAN do intervals 5 days a week IF you alternate easy interval days with harder interval days. If you do all out effort 5 days in a row you will burn out and not reap the rewards of a more structured regimen. But it is absurb to say that one cannot do more than one interval session a week.

Caveats:
Not good for endurance riders
Not good for the casual century rider
Not good for those with no aerobic base or so called base miles
Not good for long road races

I am sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. You CAN do intervals 5 days a week IF you alternate easy interval days with harder interval days. If you do all out effort 5 days in a row you will burn out and not reap the rewards of a more structured regimen. But it is absurb to say that one cannot do more than one interval session a week.

Caveats:
Not good for endurance riders
Not good for the casual century rider
Not good for those with no aerobic base or so called base miles
Not good for long road races

I never said you can only do 1 interval session per week....that was Danno. In the past though, I would typically not do over 2 hard sessions per week. The other rides consisted of tempo, endurance and recovery rides.

Base miles are your friend, if you want to reach your potential as a cyclist.

Oh, and if you don't believe that improvements come with proper rest and recovery rather than beating yourself into a pulp each day, you should research training a bit more.

BTW, what's an "easy" interval?

I never said you can only do 1 interval session per week....that was Danno. In the past though, I would typically not do over 2 hard sessions per week. The other rides consisted of tempo, endurance and recovery rides.

Base miles are your friend, if you want to reach your potential as a cyclist.

Oh, and if you don't believe that improvements come with proper rest and recovery rather than beating yourself into a pulp each day, you should research training a bit more.

BTW, what's an "easy" interval?

What is recommended for recovery? Complete time off the bike, or recovery cycling at approx. 60% of mhr for say a week?

I never said you can only do 1 interval session per week....that was Danno. In the past though, I would typically not do over 2 hard sessions per week. The other rides consisted of tempo, endurance and recovery rides.

Base miles are your friend, if you want to reach your potential as a cyclist.

Oh, and if you don't believe that improvements come with proper rest and recovery rather than beating yourself into a pulp each day, you should research training a bit more.

BTW, what's an "easy" interval?


What in my posts said that I don't believe in proper rest and recovery? I said numerous times that one cannot go all out every day and expect positive results.

Can you really not comprehend an easy interval? Instead of going 100% for 90 seconds. You go 85% for 30 seconds. Or, 90% for 10 seconds. And/or you can have a longer recovery in between intervals also. Sure it isn't as easy as laying on the couch, but it doesn't have to be brutal.

What is recommended for recovery? Complete time off the bike, or recovery cycling at approx. 60% of mhr for say a week?

It depends on the individual, and the period they're in...

Right now, my heavier weeks I ride 5-6 days a week. Last week was a "moderate week", and I did 152 miles in 4 days of riding (Thursday through Sunday), and this week I was on target for 240 miles, provided I do a century tomorrow. However, ith the way the weather is looking, I will probably be stuck on the trainer all weekend, as I don't need to get pnuemonia. I typically will build over a 3 week period, and then have a 1 week regeneration week....which is next week. I will ride usually 4-5 days at a reduced effort (not that I'm going all that hard now), depending on how I feel.

Since I'm in a base building period, the effort level is not real high....been averaging around 145 bpm during rides, and rarely go over 165-170 on hills. This makes racking up miles and consecutive days fairly "easy"....in both effort and recovery. Base-building has been doing wonders for heart rate recovery and adaptation to efforts.

What in my posts said that I don't believe in proper rest and recovery? I said numerous times that one cannot go all out every day and expect positive results.

Can you really not comprehend an easy interval? Instead of going 100% for 90 seconds. You go 85% for 30 seconds. Or, 90% for 10 seconds. And/or you can have a longer recovery in between intervals also. Sure it isn't as easy as laying on the couch, but it doesn't have to be brutal.

I'm curious to see what your workouts are like for such short intervals....

THe thing is, it takes more than 24-hrs to recover and rebuild from an interval workout. More like 3-4 days if you really did the intervals hard enough.

THe thing is, it takes more than 24-hrs to recover and rebuild from an interval workout. More like 3-4 days if you really did the intervals hard enough.

+1

For example, if I did an interval workout on Monday, I wouldn't do another one until at least Thursday at the earliest.

+1

For example, if I did an interval workout on Monday, I wouldn't do another one until at least Thursday at the earliest.

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?

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.

Slim explained it pretty well. Your body grows and improves while it is resting, not during exercise. Therefore, if you strain and break down your muscles with high-intensity intervals on a daily basis and do not allow proper time for recovery.....unless you're on EPO, you're not going to recover in time, and this will lead to diminished results/overtraining. This is why incorporating recovery rides is so important during periods when you're hitting some hard interval training days - the recovery rides flush your muscles of excess waste, and are so light in intensity that you're not taxing your body.

The "lowest intensity" intervals you'd ideally want to do would be muscle tension intervals, where you crank along in a huge gear at a low cadence, which builds leg power. Your heartrate is much lower than if you're doing sprint or power intervals, so therefore it doesn't necessary feel like you're killing yourself....but, do a good hour of them, and you'll feel it. Next up the ladder would be steady state intervals, which will help to improve your lactate threshold. These can be particularly brutal if done for long periods of time, but they are easy to focus on and repeat...."easy" being a relative term. Sprint intervals are hard, especially if you limit your recovery period....but the hardest ones (IMO) are a toss up between hill repeats and power intervals. I like hill repeats because I'm sorta masochistic, but power intervals can be equally brutal. I have a really nice hill near me that is a mile long, and gains around 300 vertical feet that I use for climbing repeats. My goal is to ascend it 10 times in a session this summer.

And you can't compare cycling to running, as has been pointed out before.

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?

Because you need time for your muscles to repair themselves, i.e. get stronger. Muscles don't repair themselves with more intervals. It just creates a condition perfect for overtraining and injury.

I'm curious to see what your workouts are like for such short intervals....


Most of my intervals are either 90 seconds or 60 seconds with about 2 minutes of recovery. I wouldn't say that they are short. It is pretty standard. Nothing wrong with a 15 second interval either. Look at the track(velodrome) times for the shorter distances. We are talking less than 1 minute and as low as 11 seconds.

I still don't believe it. My body gets stronger in the 10 seconds in between my hard 20 second cranks. That's what the rest is for.

The days off thing sounds like a wayward scientific rationalization of a tail-between-the-legs training philosophy.

If you look at those guys who haul dirt in potato sacks out of strip mines 10 hours a day, they aren't exactly all broken down and burned out. These are buff dudes with a Pyrenees-lot of lung power. They do "interval training" every day and their "coaches" don't give them 3-4 days to rest. Ever.

I'd be curious as to what references you have.

The longtime tradition for our middle distance track team was a brutal two weeks of five days a week interval training designed to quickly toughen our fat Atari 2600-playing, deep fried burrito-eating asses up for a season. No one ever got hurt during this phase although there was a lot of moaning and groaning and post-workout time spent in the locker room clutching our aching heads.

:rolleyes: Ok, don't believe it. What kind of references are you citing? Developing world wage work? base employment vs. a really expensive hobby?

WTF..."tail-between-the-legs training philosophy"? Ok, I understand. Now, lets move on...

If your body can recover in 10s, god bless and I look forward to seeing you in the TDF...if you are not doing intervals pushing your max HR, then you are not doing interval training...you are doing an aerobic workout. Recovery is an aerobic workout...aerobic workouts alone will not make you faster. If you like doing low intensity 20s shuffles from the bottom of zone 2 to the top of zone 2...then hey, nothing wrong with that go enjoy yourself.

BTW: You didn't cite a source other than a "tradition" of "your track team"...ok, why then this intense intervals for only two weeks (10 days) why not 14 days? Why not the entire HS track season (20 weeks)? Those workouts were to push you...pushing alone does not *necessarily* mean targeting optimum performance or even any increase in performance. It may not kill you, but low intensity intervals won't not do anything for you either...that is my point.

The following three threads are very informative all from BF posts:

Peer evidence #1 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=222442&highlight=recovery+ride)
Peer evidence#2 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=157745&highlight=recovery+ride)
READ THIS ENTIRE POST (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=256265&highlight=Recovery+ride)

enjoy with a cold one...:)

Thanks for the reading.

To back up, I was just playfully suggesting that it seems we don't really know very much about this and in the end here, people are making educated guesses as to what training methods to use. It's a bit like diet. Anything anyone says with great authority you know is a good bit wrong and what they're saying is more fashion than truth.

Honestly, I don't doubt that rest after intense exercise benefits growth and improvement but I also wonder if there are other unexplored interval-rest training methods for making bigger or faster gains.

I also wonder if there are other unexplored interval-rest training methods for making bigger or faster gains.

no problem...sooo much has already been posted that searching and finding a ton more info on a geneal topic is pretty easy.

One thing that everyone agrees, training programs must be individualized. And *you* may need one day recovery between high intensity workouts...I need 1-2, others may need 2-3...so that exploration should be done based upon your own experience.

I get what you are saying, but I wonder about the quality of faster gains though...I not implying I know, but "haste makes waste...one in the hand is worth two in the bush...stop and smell the roses" all come to mind. Unless your race is in two weeks (if it is...use search)...personally, I would prefer to enjoy the ride, for the long haul.

Thanks for the reading.

To back up, I was just playfully suggesting that it seems we don't really know very much about this and in the end here, people are making educated guesses as to what training methods to use. It's a bit like diet. Anything anyone says with great authority you know is a good bit wrong and what they're saying is more fashion than truth.

It is fact that muscles grow after then have been broken down (exercise), and then allowed to regenerate (rest/recovery). How is that an "educated guess"?


Honestly, I don't doubt that rest after intense exercise benefits growth and improvement but I also wonder if there are other unexplored interval-rest training methods for making bigger or faster gains.

This is what macrocycles are for - you can do a period (depending on what you're training for and your fitness level) of hard efforts spanning several days, BUT, you also need a recovery period afterwards so your body can successfully grow and adapt. And, you typically do not do those types of efforts all the time, usually only leading up to an event. For example, a buddy of mine has several teammates that ride in the Green Mountain Stage Race up in Vermont, and a week or two before they will head up north and basically simulate the race during training....riding very hard for 4 straight days, and then they allow themselves time to recover after that period, then go race.

They call them "6" minute workouts because they are for Cat 6's:) :)

It is fact that muscles grow after then have been broken down (exercise), and then allowed to regenerate (rest/recovery). How is that an "educated guess"?



This is what macrocycles are for - you can do a period (depending on what you're training for and your fitness level) of hard efforts spanning several days, BUT, you also need a recovery period afterwards so your body can successfully grow and adapt. And, you typically do not do those types of efforts all the time, usually only leading up to an event. For example, a buddy of mine has several teammates that ride in the Green Mountain Stage Race up in Vermont, and a week or two before they will head up north and basically simulate the race during training....riding very hard for 4 straight days, and then they allow themselves time to recover after that period, then go race.

That all sounds good and right.

These short intervals suggest your same process actually... interval training causes strain, break down and a build up during recovery. The interesting point herein is that the recovery process then is relative to what is broken down. Performance benefits are related to the recovery process but not in any fixed way -- you can have equal gains from a very high load very short duration set of workouts as you do with a high load, long duration calendar of workouts. This is proven.

The crux here is that a coach using longer intervals and more aggressive trainiing may be adding recovery time without increasing relative benefit, at least in terms of VO2 max and 40k TT performance.

Yes, recovery depends. In the example you cite, a TT are periods of very high intensity energy expendature and not necessarily related to recovery days. Given that you train for a specific event you train your body to more efficiently manage the duration of that specific intensity. Also, you don't have much time in a TT to recover unless the terrain allows. So, given your initial example of shorter and less intense intervals, thus less recovery and more efficient training, the above example is not really complimentary. I say this because those longer intense intervals familiarize your body with the build up of lactic acid and the interval recovery trains your body to more efficiently buffer and clear it so to enhance your ability to perform at that level. If you do not create that build up by pushing hard, then you can not learn to buffer at and clear that quantity at an efficient rate--or push your VO2m. This, as we agree, is relative to the individual. Still, you seem to be emphaizing building of muscle rather than the internal processes associated with the LT...nevertheless, fatigue is still the least effient training possible.

Ultimately, the intensity is a more vital variable in the example you mention to proper training than the recovery component because if you don't hit it, then you are not as efficiently training anyway...and your recovery becomes moot. So, breaking down and building up is one thing, buffering a greater LT is another.

This is what macrocycles are for - you can do a period (depending on what you're training for and your fitness level) of hard efforts spanning several days, BUT, you also need a recovery period afterwards so your body can successfully grow and adapt. And, you typically do not do those types of efforts all the time, usually only leading up to an event. For example, a buddy of mine has several teammates that ride in the Green Mountain Stage Race up in Vermont, and a week or two before they will head up north and basically simulate the race during training....riding very hard for 4 straight days, and then they allow themselves time to recover after that period, then go race.

This group, and others they cite, are focusing on maintaining workout intensity and tapering volume in order to achieve major performance "race day" improvements. They might recommend your friends begin tapering their training a month before the event. It also seems like the reduction in training volumes afford the time-off required to make successful gains pre-event without sacrificing "fitness" (to use a general term.) Slim's right that LT only improves with HIT in about half of well-trained athletes. You build a base first and then extend VO2max for the time period around the event.

From Training Techniques to Improve Endurance Exercise Performances.
Sports Medicine. 32(8):489-509, 2002.
Kubukeli, Zuko N.; Noakes, Timothy D.; Dennis, Steven C. (http://sportsmedicine.adisonline.com/pt/re/spo/abstract.00007256-200232080-00002.htm;jsessionid=FJyhShG1f7QsR23lggHcF1rqnWbwGLYDFW8KnWqVj22Cql7wT61s!135410792!-949856145!8091!-1)


The optimum reduction or 'taper' in intense training to recover from exhaustive exercise before a competition is poorly understood. Most studies have shown that 20 to 80% single-step reductions in training volume over 1 to 4 weeks have little effect on exercise performance, and that it is more important to maintain training intensity than training volume.

Progressive 30 to 75% reductions in pool training volume over 2 to 4 weeks have been shown to improve swimming performances by 2 to 3%. Equally rapid exponential tapers improved 5km running times by up to 6%. We found that a 50% single-step reduction in HIT at 70% of Wpeak produced peak ~6% improvements in simulated 100km time-trial performances after 2 weeks. It is possible that the optimum taper depends on the intensity of the athletes' preceding training and their need to recover from exhaustive exercise to compete. How the optimum duration of a taper is influenced by preceding training intensity and percentage reduction in training volume warrants investigation.

Caveats:
Not good for endurance riders
Not good for the casual century rider
Not good for those with no aerobic base or so called base miles
Not good for long road races

I'm not so sure about some of those:

Endurance riders - intervals can increase their power at endurance pace, so they can finish their long rides faster. Plus, intervals increase endurance.

Casual century rider - they want endurance, too.

Long road races - same as the other two above. More power across the intensity spectrum, from multi-hour endurance pace to 10-second sprints.

And for the skeptics who don't think sprint intervals are good for endurance:


We conclude that short sprint interval training (~15 min of intense
exercise over 2 wks) increased muscle oxidative potential and doubled endurance
capacity during intense aerobic cycling in recreationally active individuals.

— Burgomaster et al, Six Sessions of Sprint Interval Training Increases Muscle Oxidative Potential
and Cycle Endurance Capacity in Humans, J Appl Physiol. 2005 Feb 10

I'm not so sure about some of those:
And for the skeptics who don't think sprint intervals are good for endurance:


We conclude that short sprint interval training (~15 min of intense
exercise over 2 wks) increased muscle oxidative potential and doubled endurance
capacity during intense aerobic cycling in recreationally active individuals.

— Burgomaster et al, Six Sessions of Sprint Interval Training Increases Muscle Oxidative Potential
and Cycle Endurance Capacity in Humans, J Appl Physiol. 2005 Feb 10

Note that the study Terry is citing is not referring to 15 minutes per day that greatly improved MOP and VO2max. It's 15 minutes over the course of two weeks.