Easily measurable and individually programmable – meaning less chance of overuse injury and stagnation.Beneficial crossover to concurrent strength training – continuous or endurance training tends to impede strength gains.Increased anaerobic fitness – the ability to recover quickly from repeated bouts of hard work, for example fire and movement during an attack.Both VO2 max and mitochondrial content are equally improved by SIT for less training volumeĪs I expect from all you astute military readers, you are now asking: so what? Well, for the same of less amount of time on feet you can achieve better aerobic fitness adaptations with interval training and it provides a whole slew of additional benefits, not specific to aerobic fitness, for instance:.Both VO2 max and mitochondrial content are increased more by HIIT for the same training volume.When compared to continuous training, the findings were that: VO2 max is the maximum rate at which you can consume and use oxygen during exercise (the most common measure of aerobic ability) and mitochondrial are the engine cells of muscles, responsible for the recycling of the fuel used for energy production. The studies reviewed focused on the impact of training on VO2 max and muscle mitochondrial content. rest times, number of efforts in a session, and frequency of sessions in a week. This can be periodised, progressed and tailored through modification of work vs. HIIT and SIT are both methodologies involving repeated bouts of high effort intervals interspersed with recovery times with HIIT generally conducted at 85-95% of maximal heart rate, and SIT at 'all out' or supra maximal efforts. What peaked my interest in this paper was that both High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) and Sprint Interval Training (SIT) once again trumped continuous training at its own game – aerobic adaptation. So while my position is not to dismiss aerobic training altogether, I thought I would take the time to discuss in more detail my argument for interval based training – primarily in the anaerobic intensity spectrum over traditional aerobic and LSD training which is so prevalent in our Army today.
This has been discussed in the office over the last few weeks and there was finally enough momentum generated for me to venture forth my opinion again (and sacrifice some lazing around time) when an esteemed colleague of mine highlighted a symposium review paper by MacInnis and Gibala (2017) which covers the topics of physiological adaptation to differing exercise intensities. Many were sceptical of this and argued the need for aerobic training or even the primacy of it. This raised a few eyebrows and some great discussion surrounding the exclusion of aerobic training, or continuous/long slow distance (LSD) training in particular, from military physical training programs. I'm writing this as a follow on from my last article, published here recently.
0 kommentar(er)
