As an experiment, I switched to high-intensity interval type training for a couple months, which required about half the time to do. All of my cardiovascular metrics immediately changed in a strongly positive way. When I did the old endurance training, performance was much higher than it had been before the high-intensity training.
It is the strongest positive effect I have ever seen from any exercise/gym theory that has been widely promulgated. I never expected to see my cardiovascular metrics change as quickly or as much as they did.
For optimum gain you should mix moderate exercise with intense exercise, but the time you put in likely made your later success possible.
I did this on purpose this spring.
I had a shitty winter in terms of endurance and was pretty much starting from the gutter in February. Spring and early summer we're stressful so I did mostly Z1/LSD cycling in the form of extended commuting from work to home. Nothing excessive though as stress was plentiful.
The estimated fitness or the Garmin estimate didn't budge much.
Once vacation started I kept this on for few weeks to recover and after that added few harder sessions in a two week period. Few weeks after this I felt the change and Garmin also estimated 6 mil's of added VO2MAX in a week.
Don't care about the metrics, but the added QOL from this and now I hopefully have a structure for the coming winter not to lose as much of this as the previous.
This is about health.
High volume of exercise is damaging via oxidative stress and other ways. Weekly training volume is the most reliable predictor for injuries.
If health and basic fitness is the goal, rather than bringing home the gold, you can add intensity to just a fairly small volume of moderate exercise, or perhaps even none at all, other than a warmup and cooldown.
Then once the base is built, to make any progress one needs stronger, more focused stimulus, so you introduce interval training at high aerobic (tempo and threshold paces) as well as anaerobic (400-800 "very hard" sustained and all-out sprints) training, combined with a few zone 2 long runs.
And then the cycle repeats: you have to let the body recover so deload, then start a new cycle.
Nicklas Rossner has fantastic resources; there's a video there that explains how to find your current bottleneck: https://m.youtube.com/@NicklasRossnerPT
To be clear, performance-maxxing was never the objective. I am in it for the health benefits and conditioning for grueling pursuits. Nonetheless, observable effects of different kinds of training on performance are still interesting to me and helps me optimize the time I spend on it.
There are plenty of online training program generators that are pretty good and will take you from zero to running 10k. I used an online program to run my first 10k somewhere circa 1990.
There a lot of more cutting edge science online (and I follow Nick as well) but if you're not a competitive athlete and are just trying to get in better shape then the answer is mostly just do it. Over some base of running you can throw in some interval training including HIIT.
I've messed with zone 2 a bit and read a fair amount about it. If it gets you out there moving consistently: great. The best workout plan is the one you do. But otherwise I really think it's more of an optimization strategy for people who are trying to seriously increase their miles per week, and are pairing it with higher-intensity runs and/or weight training.
It is also possible you were over-training in your "moderate" intensity or conversely not increasing the load/distance enough. Training over years should result in good improvement even without HIIT. You will need to put a lot more time in.
To be clear, I was objectively in good cardiovascular condition before adding HIIT. My resting heart rate has been in the 40s for years. The surprise was that there was so much easy margin left by adding HIIT to my regimen.
It’s always that lady who chilled all day who says laughter is how she lived so long!
Low intensity exercise that holds your aerobic base is vital as well - and for a well-rounded exercise week, it should constitute the majority of your exercise time.
That is not to say that you should neglect higher intensities, it's just that you cannot do them as often due to the disproportionate amount of fatigue they generate.
Other than for elite athletes tuning specifically for bursty competitions, interval training is such an unnatural torture that I do not understand the appeal. Even if the dubious popular claim that it is a short cut to optimal fitness might be partly true, I would much rather have an hour or two fun cycling or light running and exploring than 10 minutes of interval agony.
Hits cardio, grip strength and unilateral stability stuff.
Exercise is not a panacea, and those who say it will fix everything and cure depression and make you perfect are quacks. But, it pains my contrarian ass to say, some light cardio every now and again is much closer to what our bodies are happy with than desk life, such has been my experience.
But the dopamine boost I get from this is immense. It lasts 24-48h. I‘m in a general good mood for this period. Sometimes, a little more competitive than normal - that’s a downside.
Normal jogging or long walks don’t have this effect, at all.
I also do hill sprints. I try to do one [HIIT] workout a week and also some longer runs.
Hill sprints tend to be safer then sprinting on flat surfaces. Last time I did my HIIT sprinting on level ground my knee didn't really like that at all. A stationary bike (like the "assault bike") is even safer. Or you can just do burpies. People who don't run and haven't sprinted in a long time shouldn't just jump into sprinting.
The way to really maximize your potential is to do high intensity 30 mins 3x/wk and then intersperse it with a great deal of low intensity cardio. Like 4x more if you can, per the 80/20 rule.
It works because it's starting to approach the most exercise your body can handle. (Although some athletes definitely fit in more.)
Re your observations. Are you referring to elderly people? I'm not sure this study is about them. My mental model of this mechanism is that relatively young people can choose between e.g. long distance running and sprinting, and that the latter will yield better cardiac outcomes.
The comments on that post were not nearly as favorable as this one for some reason.
30 minutes and you are gassed...
Nowadays I switched over to Pump It Up - I feel like the 5-step configuration lends itself towards larger body movements and less river dancing. :)
I don't want the fuss or expense of an Android or Apple watch. Garmin makes some nice models but they are still relatively expensive.
I personally cannot stand Apple for sports, which is why I have a AW Ultra 1 AND a Fenix 7 lol. Got both 2nd hand for ~30% of their MSRP.
Personally something like a 2nd hand Garmin Forerunner 55 with a chest based HR monitor is for me the best budget setup. But when shopping second hand you, use what you can find. I often see great deals on things like the Garmin instinct series.
2 years ago I got a Fenix 5 for 180 and it was amazing for me. Just turn off all the "smart" features.
Specifically: MIE consisted of 90-min of continuous cycling at 90%–100% of the predetermined first lactate threshold, while SIE consisted of 6 sets of 30-s all-out cycling at a resistance of 0.075 kg·kg−1 body mass, with 4-min rests between the sets (Figure 1A).
The study's sample size was small and the period studied fairly short, but they did measure the levels of several thousand proteins.
EDIT: This book is maybe a bit old but covers a lot of ground on high intensity interval training vs. traditional training. I guess this study adds to the body of evidence that HIIT is effective. My take as a random person interested in this stuff is that ideally you are mixing both high intensity and longer duration workouts for their different benefits. But if you are limited in time it seems high intensity is a winner.
Yep! I tend to do too much (because I like exercising), so I have be deliberate about including light training and recovery days. Absolutely necessary for injury avoidance, and frankly overall health benefits.
Of course, that's going to be different for everyone. It'll make some people worse. For me, though (and apparently for you, too), it is the right way to treat those issues.
For those with knees not tolerant of running, I've taken to also rucking around with a heavy backpack. It's fantastic for building torso strength, and "your body weight plus 30 pounds" is still far less impact than "your body weight, but running". Walk up some hills steep enough to make you pant and wonder if you can make it to the top and your body may thank you for it, the way mine thanks me.
BTW, doctors have a saying: "motion is lotion". Also, "when you stop moving, you die". We are not evolved to take root on a sofa. Our bodies are meant to move and jostle and bounce and twist. Absent specific reasons not to, it can make a huge difference in physical comfort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergetic_systems#ATP%E2%80...
The treadmill also wasn't able to change speeds fast enough to really do the good Sprint simulations
Didn't really have a form of cardio i liked. I could never be consistent with running. I settled on this combination with stairclimbing and farmers carries.
My average heart rate on the test was 58, lowest was 21 (for 3 seconds), and highest was 250 (for 6 beats). A few minutes after getting in bed, my heart rate regularly is in the 40s and sometimes low 30s.
I’m more interested in getting into the 90+ percentile range on the cardio metrics where I’m closer to the average. I don’t obsess over it, it is just interesting to see how different activities that I was going to do anyway move the needle.
After that it's probably determining your LTHR accurately (don't just accept what your Garmin or Apple Watch says it is). This gives a better sense of how hard to push on your hard days, and it's also useful to see what % of HRmax your threshold lands at.