Truth about intervals- Jason Ferruggia

[JoshDunn]

The Truth About Intervals



The simple truth about intervals is this- they suck. You want evidence that they
suck? Let's take a look at the leanest people on the planet.

First we have competitive bodybuilders. None of them do intervals. Never have
never will. They all do steady state cardio. Some do high intensity, some do low
intensity. But none of them ever do intervals.

How about sprinters? They sprint. Then they rest. For a long time; not 30-60
seconds. How long do they sprint for? Usually about ten seconds at the most. A
100 meter dash takes an elite sprinter about ten seconds to compete. And after
they do that they are completely gassed and need at least 3 minutes rest before
they can repeat the effort.

What about wide receivers, running backs and defensive backs? Anyone see Reggie
Bush on the cover of the most recent Men's Fitness with no shirt on? How about
Terrel Owens on the cover of Sports Illustrated last year? These are physiques
that most people would kill for.

Do they do intervals?

Absolutely not.

They sprint and then they rest. They do plyos and conditioning drills and
practice plays. None of which resemble intervals in the least.

None of the leanest people in the world do intervals yet it is supposed to be
the greatest method of fat loss. Kind of puzzling if you ask me.

The general recommendation for intervals is to use a bike or a treadmill and
"sprint" for 30-60 seconds followed by a coasting period of 60-120 seconds. Now
let's get one thing straight right out the gate before you blow out a knee or
tear a hamstring. No one, and I mean NO ONE, that is not a very well conditioned
athlete can sprint for 30-60 seconds. NO ONE!

Try it and you will find that out for yourself. You will probably also get
injured.

If Olympic sprinters are gassed after a ten second sprint how do think the
average person can possibly sprint for six times that length of time? I know I
couldn't.

Intervals are harder to recover from then steady state cardio or short distance
sprints with adequate rest periods. This means they will interfere with your
size and strength gains. I have seen it happen time and again. Depending on who
you ask, they can also actually be more catabolic than steady state cardio.

If you are looking to get bigger and stronger while maintaining your bodyfat
levels or even simultaneously get leaner, you should probably avoid doing too
many intervals. Instead stick with short sprints or old school steady state
cardio (just be sure to mix it up and add in as much variety as possible like
running, biking, rope jumping, hiking, etc.). It has worked for the leanest
athletes on the planet for decades so I can assure you that it will work for
you.

For more on losing fat and building muscle, click HERE.

Train hard,
Jason Ferruggia

Jason Ferruggia Uncensored

Thoughts?

[JoshDunn]

Thought this was thought provoking. THe issue I have with intervals is the prescribed "sprint" aspect. 20min of intervals is far too much if you literally sprint like I did the first few times I did them.

I think bodybuilders don't perform intervals as they are too taxing on someone who is trainer so often.

Intervals are the winner when compared to low intensity when looking at calories/time. Low intensity is better for direct calorie and fat burning in my opinion but if someone is pressed for time then intervals for 20min, trump steady state for 20min.

Will come up with some more thoughts but thats it for now.

[JoshDunn]

I think my intervals would actually be at 80-85% of my max sprint. Sprint to me means 100% effort.

I was involved in a research study that looked at a range of things after sprinting for 60seconds on a bike. Involved a warm up, the one hardcore sprint, cool down, then monitoring subjects for about half hour as most threw up, or fainted due to the high lactate build up.

I think periods on slightly faster then steady state would be better, in order to increase the work down in the time frame. I think intervals have been misrepresented and ran with by people that don't fully understand the process to build up to intervals.

[Aoife]

Well, "sprints" aren't 100% maximal effort, they're maximal effort for the length of time you pick for your "sprint" portion of your intervals, right? So, it just kinda sounds like he's misunderstood the "sprint" part as meaning something other than what it means in the context of intervals, which is "work interval" (v. rest interval).

I find it tough to really buy what someone says when they misunderstand/misrepresent what they're refuting. It's like calling E.C. an abortion. It's not. And I think it just confuses the issue and makes me think he doesn't know what he's talking about, at best, or is being deliberately obtuse to make his supposed point, at worst.

But then what do I know. I'm just an idiot who finds that intervals have managed to work for her without needing an hour+ on the treadmill.

*shrug*

[Lost Dog]

He's not saying intervals are bad for fat loss. He's saying that they make it harder to keep your size and strength gains than steady state or true sprints do.

Maybe.

[I. Kay]

Interesting angle. I do have to say that I haven't seen anyone prescribe 20 minutes of outright sprints. There's a difference between sprints and intervals.

I wonder how much of it comes down to relative and perceived exertion concepts? I mean, an Olympic sprinter (or other pro athlete) that sprints for 10 secs is working at an entirely different level than an average gym-goer who is working at their perceived 75-80% max speed for a minute.

Another big factor is who the intervals have been aimed at. I think one of the driving forces behind the "interval revolution" was the idea of getting people to simply try harder, and get more work done. Most of the articles and books that include intervals aren't really aimed at bodybuilders or big muscle and strength guys.

ex: Gymgoer X has 60 mins before she has to get home and make dinner for her kids. She's been on her butt all day behind a desk, and will be tomorrow, but won't be able to make it to the gym tomorrow. After changing, she's got 52 mins left. Now... does she lift weights for 10 mins and do 40 mins of steady-state, or 30 mins of weights and 20 mins of intervals?

More bang for your buck in a time-crunched world.

That's my take on it anyway.

[JoshDunn]

I guess the issue is only present depending on how each person defines sprint. There is a big difference in my book between sprint; being a max effort, and sprint; pace yourself in order to get through the desired number of intervals.

The working for you, you mentioned comes back to what I was saying about effectiveness / time.

[JoshDunn]

Ian.

One major issue I have with gym goers in general is ignoring the progressive overload principal. Would intervals be better then someone actually using the overload principal properly?

Ie increasing distance travelled in a given time, increasing frequency of sessions?

Just thoughts.

[JoshDunn]

Originally Posted by Aoife

I find it tough to really buy what someone says when they misunderstand/misrepresent what they're refuting. It's like calling E.C. an abortion. It's not. And I think it just confuses the issue and makes me think he doesn't know what he's talking about, at best, or is being deliberately obtuse to make his supposed point, at worst.

Can you explain what this actually means. I have no idea.

[Chris Correia]

The term sprint for interval training means more effort, not max effort. The term is loosely used when talking about intervals. Pick a number: 75%, 80%, 85% of max effort; I think I've seen a few percentages referenced by trainers/writers. The basic issue, I think, is training with periods of greater intensity (at a level that can't be maintained very long) to make the body work harder for some periods. It helps conditioning, and helps fat loss, more compared to steady state or lower level intensity work.

That said, Jason's point is interesting to consider. I've not really read programs or read of what research might say about sporadic, true sprint training.

[I. Kay]

Originally Posted by JoshDunn

Ian.

One major issue I have with gym goers in general is ignoring the progressive overload principal. Would intervals be better then someone actually using the overload principal properly?

Ie increasing distance travelled in a given time, increasing frequency of sessions?

Just thoughts.

I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive. I mean, if someone comes in and does the same speed intervals for the same duration with the same rest periods for the same amount of days every week ad nauseum, then eventually it will just be spinning their wheels. But this is true of most things in the gym.

I agree that most people don't progress properly, and perhaps people tend not to progress with intervals unless they're told to. But this happens (especially with women) with weights too.

[tscm]

This is very similar to what I said in a previous thread. Sprinters do alactic sprint with FULL recovery. Middle distance guys do sub-maximal 30 seconds-3 minute efforts with limited recovery. It is also not as someone suggested a case of 10 seconds for an elite being hugely different to the average joe, as the energy systems are the same and phosphagens/ATP last the time.

Josh, you are correct in pondering that intervals are not the best for progressive overload. Even elite middle distance guys, who have better proficiency with this type of training than almost anyone else only perform hard intervals two to three times a week for most of the year, and lactic intervals for really only a 10-12 pre-competition phase. Ireally can't understand why regular gym goers doing intervals for months on end, as even elite guys consider 8-10 weeks to be the limit for lactic tolerance adaptations.

[gobbla]

I'm with Ian on this one. Forest\Trees

those examples tend to naturally be lean and muscular (they have to be), they've also been training for 15+ years often for several hours a day, some had "assistance" in getting to\maintaining that level of athleticism. If you want an legitimate athlete to get leaner then "eat less" and possibly "train more at an irrelevant level, aka burn more calories".

What does that mean to the normal person? Jack shit. It's apples and oranges. The point of intervals is to get the maximum amount of higher intensity effort in the same amount of time. If a "normal" person trains 3-5hrs a week then they need to figure out a way to get more bang\intensity for their time.

[JoshDunn]

So what about fartlek training. Wouldn't going as hard as possible for as long as possible before a low intensity rest, before upping the intensity again, be better then straight intervals?

(My underlying point is: intervals should still be in the tool kit but maybe not be all, end all, for all people, all the time.)

[gobbla]

Originally Posted by JoshDunn

(My underlying point is: intervals should still be in the tool kit but maybe not be all, end all, for all people, all the time.)

bingo

For the average person\non-athlete\nothing to gain out of the activity itself (in my mind) think of all your cardio stuff as a conditioning tool, not a fat loss one. The better conditioned you are the more work you can do, the more calories you can burn, the faster you can recover to train harder to burn more calories to burn fat. Work harder\eat less. If you "can't" work harder then eat\sleep more until you can and then eat less.

What's better for who will be an individual thing. If you've got a guy\gal that doesn't like to run\bike\swim and doesn't have a compelling reason to do it...they don't need to do it at all. If you deem better conditioning necessary try calisthenics, endurance circuits, sleds, strongman (some events). If you've got an athlete then they're training will mimic (to a degree) the demands of their sport and they'll do *that*, any other work would have to be low enough that it wouldn't interfere with what's important (their training). If you've got a mildly athleticish person that likes to do X cardio...use it as a conditioning tool, people can get better at darn near anything if you're paying attention to what you're doing.

[maxattack]

So for a young, normal, active weight trainer that is trying to put on some muscle mass and does cardio (intervals) on his non-training days, steady state cardio may just fine?

[karky]

I'm from Norway, I'm tall, and I'm lean. You don't have to do cardio to be lean, all you have to do is be from Norway and be tall. It just makes perfect sence.