Intensity vs Volume

[Adam R Wende]

An interesting paper on running and high intensity training was just published in the Journal of Applied Physiology.
Take home message is that interval training can produce greater results than volume.

J Appl Physiol. 2012 Jul;113(1):16-24. Epub 2012 May 3.
The 10-20-30 training concept improves performance and health profile in moderately trained runners.
Gunnarsson TP, Bangsbo J.
Source

Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences, Section of Integrated Physiology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

The effect of an alteration from regular endurance to interval (10-20-30) training on the health profile, muscular adaptations, maximum oxygen uptake (Vo(2max)), and performance of runners was examined. Eighteen moderately trained individuals (6 females and 12 males; Vo(2max): 52.2 ± 1.5 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) (means ± SE) were divided into a high-intensity training (10-20-30; 3 women and 7 men) and a control (CON; 3 women and 5 men) group. For a 7-wk intervention period the 10-20-30 replaced all training sessions with 10-20-30 training consisting of low-, moderate-, and high-speed running (<30%, <60%, and >90% of maximal intensity) for 30, 20, and 10 s, respectively, in three or four 5-min intervals interspersed by 2 min of recovery, reducing training volume by 54% (14.0 ± 0.9 vs. 30.4 ± 2.3 km/wk) while CON continued the normal training. After the intervention period Vo(2max) in 10-20-30 was 4% higher, and performance in a 1,500-m and a 5-km run improved (P < 0.05) by 21 and 48 s, respectively. In 10-20-30, systolic blood pressure was reduced (P < 0.05) by 5 ± 2 mmHg, and total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol was lowered (P < 0.05) by 0.5 ± 0.2 and 0.4 ± 0.1 mmol/l, respectively. No alterations were observed in CON. Muscle membrane proteins and enzyme activity did not change in either of the groups. The present study shows that interval training with short 10-s near-maximal bouts can improve performance and Vo(2max) despite a ∼50% reduction in training volume. In addition, the 10-20-30 training regime lowers resting systolic blood pressure and blood cholesterol, suggesting a beneficial effect on the health profile of already trained individuals.

[Jake Krong]

Steve Magness wrote a great "response" to that article -

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2012/05/10-20-30-workout-research-flaws-and-why.html

The study design was essentially easy running for a while, then they did the sprints protocol. Base + Sharpening = better results. It could have been published in the 1912 volume of JAP.   

I guarantee if you had those same people running 50 miles per week (instead of 15) they'd improve even more.

[Adam R Wende]

I think with the decreasing attention span of people the more times a concept can be driven home the better. I'm currently working on a review of heart disease in the obese. One of the articles I looked up was published in 1812, 200 years ago! However, there are still people that do not think their weight is a "major" concern for their health. Or at least not enough to do something about it...

[Nate Page]

I glanced at it, I'm surprised their figure showing 1500 and 5000m times was stat significantly improved in the interval group.  It looks pretty much like the control group with some overlapping error bars.  They should probably have also separated out the sexes or only used one sex because how they were lumped only had to have negative effects on their data variance

[Jake Krong]

Oh I know what what you mean Adam. The problem is that the typical person sees this and their thought process is something like "I only need to workout for 10-30 seconds at a time and anymore than that is a waste!... where'd that bag of Cheetos go?"

[Adam R Wende]

I know, lets tie the bag of Cheetos on a string and hang it from a stick in front of their faces. Works for getting a donkey to move...

The sad part is the other focus of this review is the offspring effect from obesity. There are now studies showing the effects of changes in gene expression in worms going out 20 generations, in mice going out three generations and in pigs going out 2 generations. I'm sure it is only a matter of time before we fully understand how much damage the obesity epidemic is having on society.

As far as the current topic goes though I like anything that makes improvement seem obtainable. I think too many people do not even try because they think they need to do all or nothing. However, if you can give them baby steps and they start to see improvement maybe that will help get them rolling in the right direction and eventually running in the right direction...

[steve ashbaker]

Interesting that I should stumble upon this thread shortly after doing some reading on the Tanaka study which I know is relatively old but still interesting.  The Tanaka workout is somewhat like the one above but with differences such as being just a simple 8-10 rep workout of 20 seconds at 170% of VO2 max with a short 10 second recovery.  However, not being a scientist or exercise physiologist, can some one tell me where the major holes in the Tanaka study are if any.  Obviously this type of regimen is not for marathon training where other types of training stimulus are needed such as fat burning efficiency, glycogen storage capacity etc.  It does make claims though such as a gain of 14% in VO2 max and being more efficient than even an hour of steady state running.  Great gains in anaerobic capacity of course also are claimed which is understandable considering the short amount of rest recovery.  But at 170% of VO2 max?  REALLY..  Is that even possible?  Or are they calculating the intensity in a way that I'm not really understanding.  Somebody please educate me who understands the science better than I do.

[Sasha Pachev]

They call 30 km (about 18 miles) per week training? I do not consider a 20 miles per week runner to be trained. Performances at that level of training are very unstable. In the case of this study, I would argue all they accomplished is they increased the pain tolerance of those runners which trumped over the loss of aerobic fitness. It is interesting to observe that 1500 improved by 21 seconds, while 5000 by only 48 instead of over a minute. In a 1500 pain tolerance is a big deal, and it is significant, although to a lesser degree in 5000. If I race a 1500 without any specific training in the prior 6 months, then just race it again every week for a month, I will be 10, maybe even 15 seconds faster by the end of the month than in the beginning. I can also shave 30 seconds off my 5 K time using the same approach.  In the meantime my marathon performance will be mostly unaffected.

Another question is what would have happened to the fitness over a year of this training change. Aerobic fitness at 20 miles per week is minimal, so there is not much to lose. You cut down to 10 miles per week, it will take some time to lose a significant amount of it. In the mean time pain tolerance and fast-twitch/midgrade muscle power goes up from the speed intervals. So you've got this temporary peak for middle distances, but will it last?

A 52 ml/kg/min VO2 max runner training at 20 miles a week is a bad scientific subject for measuring the effects of a training regimen for the mere fact that his actual middle distance performance will likely be quite lower than his true current actual physical limit. I've paced a good number of such runners over the years in different circumstances, and I know how easy it is to get a surprise time out of them by just getting them to concentrate on the task and forget about the pain. You cannot achieve that with a 60 ml/kg/min VO2 max runner training at 60 miles a week as easily.

We go back to having the intuition to ask the right questions when conducting a study. My question is why it is so easy to get published in a scientific journal when you have next to zero common sense in choosing what you study.