Stimulation - or - Annihilation?
by Richard Winett, PhD
I've been giving a lot of thought after some conversations and correspondences with friends and fellow high intensity training devotees to how many of us get into trouble with this kind of training. I believe these observations are important because they apply to many people who may have been led down the wrong road as far as what is the basic purpose of a training session. Let me quickly come to the punch line. You don't have to kill yourself in a training session. In fact, you shouldn't. In many ways, this is not really a startling insight. It's the kind of thing even the very few people who were training 80 and even 100 years ago keenly understood. Their wisdom seems lost in time. Without studying history, we repeat the same mistakes over and over. Let me show you how this applies to high intensity training.
We high intensity people have no qualms pointing toward the lunacy of the high volume, "more is better" approach to training. Yet, we've been believing and acting as if there is no corresponding lunacy to the super high intensity, "more is better" credo for training.
Read the
Heavy Duty Training Bible
Heavy Duty II
Let's explore, if you will, our own lunacy about resistance training by looking at the different ways we can approach cardiovascular training.
Let's say we have a pretty young, reasonably responsive 20 year old who was not active and had an aerobic capacity of 10 METs (a measure of oxygen consumption and aerobic capacity). For an untrained person, this is considered about average.
Let's also say for the sake of argument that we knew that we could increase this person's VO2max by 25%. This is also about what you would expect from cardiovascular training.
So, we have a pretty average "subject".
We could consider 3 protocols to increase VO2max by 25% using a stationary bike.
One would be the Graded Exercise Protocol (GXP) that has been described in Master Trainer and on this site.
In a nutshell, the GXP is very prescriptive and progressive. It entails a 4-minute graded warm-up to about 80% of heart rate reserve (the Karvonen method), 3 minutes at 80% to 85% and then a 3-minute cooldown.
Our subject would train 2 to 3 times per week. We would very carefully adjust the warm-up and the work part of the GXP based on monitoring heart rate. Essentially, when we see evidence of adaptation (heart rate below our target in the work piece) and therefore an increase in fitness, we would slightly increase the resistance on the bike.
But, we would be very careful that our subject never exceeded 85% of heart rate reserve.
It's quite likely that within 4 to 6 months, the person's VO2max (aerobic capacity) would increase to 11.5 METs.
Then over the next 18 months, VO2max could increase to12.5 METs - the person's genetic limit.
Given the GXP, it's likely the person would never get tired, sore, dread workouts, let alone become metabolically devastated. The only important things as far as training are consistency and some orderly progression based on adaptation.
We could try to increase VO2max by using a Graded Exercise Test (GXT). The protocol is about the same as the GXP and also would be done 2 to 3 times per week. However, the GXT would differ from the GXP in one significant way. The work piece would always be done at 100% of heart rate reserve.
Using the GXT and always going to 100%, our subject may increase to 11.5 METs faster than with the GXP. Possibly they would also get to 12.5 METs faster.
It's also possible that there would be no real difference in outcomes. Or, given that the GXT is more stressful than the GXP, progress may be worse because of recovery problems and psychological problems with training to exhaustion each time.
The higher intensity approach may yield worse results.
We could also use the special Tabata interval protocol 2 to 3 times per week to reach the same fitness goal. We could do the same graded warm-up as in the GXP and GXT. Then we could do 6 full-blast 20 second sprints with only 10 seconds rest between each. We would be sure, as called for by the protocol, that our subject reached a point of absolute exhaustion at the end of the sixth repeat.
The Tabata protocol can be even more devastating metabolically and skeletally than the GXT. This is because you need to go to complete exhaustion and because of the fast pace of the sprints.
So, it isn't clear in the long run if the interval protocol would produce any better results than the GXP and over time, it too may be worse.
Interestingly, each protocol would take the exact time, so we've eliminated the issue of different durations and frequencies of training.
What's the logical, safe, and sane protocol to use for increasing aerobic capacity? It's a "no-brainer" - the GXP.
 Get Mentzer's Latest Book Muscles in Minutes |
Now consider controlled slower repetition resistance training (or any variant of high intensity training) as many of us have been led to believe is the right way to do it.
You can't just complete a set to volitional failure. That's for wimps. What needs to be done is to go for the next repetition, even if you can only do a partial repetition and even if it takes a long, long time. But even that's not enough. Now you have to hold that very last repetition as long as you can and do a slow negative repetition. If you have a training partner, perhaps you will add in a couple of forced repetitions.
If we had blood pressure monitors on during such antics, we may see that we're close to cardiac arrest. If it was also possible to look inside our muscles, we may see that we've done some extraordinary damage. It's just too big a stimulus. Is it any wonder that people find it hard to recover from such training?
Such super high intensity training is similar to constantly training with the GXT or the Tabata interval protocol. You can improve that way - I suppose - but it has some real costs.
In fact, what we've done in resistance training with our super high intensity tactics is analogous to going beyond the Tabata interval protocol as if that was not enough.Imagine that after the sixth repeat of the interval protocol when you are at the point of exhaustion and close to 100 % VO2max, that you did the following. You just slightly decreased the resistance on the bike and drove yourself into the ground by doing a few more repeats. You would make the session truly devastating and require lots of time to recover and somehow you would have to persuade yourself to do it yet again.
So, the GXP, GXT, and Tabata interval protocol analogies tell us some important things.
Most of us would say that continually using the GXT and Tabata protocol, let alone being crazy enough to further increase their intensity, doesn't make sense. As we've seen, there's a much more benign and in the long-run more effective way to train - the GXP.
In light of these points, consider my recent experience with two workouts. Granted there were other variables involved, but nevertheless, I believe it's instructive.
On October 11, at the start of a lower body workout, this is what I did:
First, I did the barbell squat using about an 8 second positive, 4 second negative cadence for 6 repetitions. I probably could have done another rep.
I then rested about 90 seconds.
Second, I then did a set of leg extensions also at 8,4 for 5 repetitions.
I also rested here for about 90 seconds.
Third, I did the leg press at 8,4 also for 5 repetitions. Once again, I probably could have done one more rep.
I went away from the workout believing, as I think one should, based on my performance that I could do better next time in this workout. The next day, there was no real soreness.
For a number of reasons (not good ones), I did a different lower body workout the next week on October 18 using the same exercises.
First, I did the barbell squat again at about 8,4 but for 8 repetitions. Not quite satisfied with the set, I continued and did one last somewhat quicker rep, similar to an assisted rep.
I then rested 60 - 75 seconds.
Second, I then did a set of leg extensions at about 8,4 but for 6 repetitions. Again, not content with the set, I continued and did a static hold for about 10 seconds and a slow negative also for about 10 seconds.
I also rested here for 60 - 75 seconds.
Third, I did the leg press at 8,4 for 6 reps plus one quicker rep, similar to an assisted repetition.
I went away from this workout wondering how I was going to exceed this effort the next time. I also got very sore for two days. In fact, there was so much residual fatigue in my quads that I didn't do cardiovascular training two days later. I essentially replicated the experience of some other people using high intensity training tactics who report their inability to train for many days after a workout.
You can argue that the squat and leg extension are sufficient and the leg press is redundant. You can argue that long Time Under Loads are the problem. You can argue that here's a great example of why you should stick with heavy weights (the weights used in the first workout were heavier) and not grind out the reps with lighter weights.
I don't think any of these points are true or are the point.
What I'm arguing is that the first training day was similar to the GXP and quite manageable. The second day was similar to a GXT or the Tabata interval protocol. Both physically and psychologically, the effects of the second day were possibly negative.
As a long-term training approach, quite admired and advocated in some quarters, the super high intensity tactics may be counterproductive for many people.
There's a very worthwhile adage about training to keep in mind every time out. The purpose of a training session is "stimulation and not annihilation".
If you follow that adage, I know your training will be both sane and productive.
This article first appeared in the April, 2001 Master Trainer. For information about the Master Trainer go to www.ageless-athletes.com
Home