Intervals (Read 666 times)

Wow, interval training improves fitness. Who would've guessed? They also don't seem to mention some of the other risks, such as increased chance for injury.

Wow, interval training improves fitness. Who would've guessed? They also don't seem to mention some of the other risks, such as increased chance for injury.

Scout at his cranky best. I have to say that I disliked the article as well because this is a hypothesis that does not need a scientific laboratory to conclusively test. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of science and the experimental method, but the experimental method and the laboratory apparatus are not necessarily related. In fact, one could argue that the institutions of science are keeping the experimental method from spreading by localizing it under the authority of scientific experts.

Interesting article. Well, not really. Nothing new, and too vague to be much help to someone who didn't already know it. But still. One thing that popped out was this: But new evidence suggests that a workout with steep peaks and valleys can dramatically improve cardiovascular fitness and raise the body’s potential to burn fat. Best of all, the benefits become evident in a matter of weeks. Two big problems with that. Other than the obvious - like Scout said, they don't mention injury (other than increased risk of heart attack). First - they make it sound like a shortcut. Sort of like a fad diet. You know people are going to read this and say "hey, why run 30 miles this week - I can just do some intervals." That approach won't work any better with running that it does with weight loss. Second - that "just a matter of weeks" bit. As I understand it, yeah - you can get quick results. But are they permanent? My impression is that intervals are great in the weeks or months building up to a race, for that last push towards a goal ... but that its all the base training that creates permanent improvement, a foundation for the next push forward. I love intervals. But I don't look at them as a shortcut. I've always liked Mikey's analogy about using a hammer for the blunt work before you switch to the razor for the fine tuning. (Or something like that). This article makes it sound like you can skip the hammer part.

Actually, it is the government. If the NIH budget were not so actively shrinking (ever wonder where those dollars going to Iraq are coming from), then science would have a better chance. But our country's voters have elected different priorities. And so the few remaining dollars for science go to those institutions with the greatest research intertia. Sometimes they have good scientists. Sometimes they just have a lot of experience writing grants.

Sure. I didn't mean to suggest that the way the institutions of science are organized was dreamed up by scientists. If only that were the case! In fact, the problem is that these institutions themselves aren't subjected to the experimental method--because of funding problems and other reasons.

Actually, there are some groups evaluating this exact question. But it ain't easy research to do.

Cool. I'd love to know who these folks are. Sweet geeky hijack, by the way. Well done.