after 3 wk of training, the vo2 max had increased significantly by 5+-3ml.kg/min. It tended to increase in the last part of the training period but no significant changes [emphasis mine] were observed.
Basically, the tabata group improved for 3 weeks and then plateaued despite a continuingly increasing workload. I’d note that anaerobic capacity did improve over the length of the study although most of the benefit came in the first 4 weeks of the study (with far less over the last 2 weeks).
My comments
first and foremost, there’s no doubt that while the steady state group only improved vo2 max, it did not improve anaerobic capacity; this is no shock based on the training effect to be expected. And while the tabata protocol certainly improved both, not only did the tabata group still end up with a lower vo2 at the end of the study, they only made progress for 3 weeks before plateauing on vo2 max and 4 weeks for anaerobic capacity.
Interestingly, the running coach arthur lydiard made this observation half a century ago; after months of base training, he found that only 3 weeks of interval work were necessary to sharpen his athletes. More than that was neither necessary nor desirable. Other studies using cycling have found similar results: Intervals improve certain parameters of athletic performance for about 3 weeks or 6 sessions and then they stop having any further benefit.
I’ve asked this question before but for all of the ‘all interval all the time’ folks, if intervals stop working after 3-4 weeks, what are people supposed to do for the other 48-49 weeks of the year. Should they keep busting their nuts with supra-maximal interval training for no meaningful results?
On that note, it’s worth mentioning that the tabata group actually did a single steady state workout per week. Is it at all possible that this contributed to the overall training effect (given that 70% vo2 max training improved vo2 max in the steady state only group)? Does anybody else find it weird that the tabata promoters ignore the fact that the tabata group was doing steady state work too?
It’s also relevant to note that the study used a bike for training. This is important and here’s why: On a stationary bike, when you start to get exhausted and fall apart from fatigue, the worst that happens is that you stop pedalling. You don’t fall off, you don’t get hurt, nothing bad happens. The folks suggesting high skill movements for a ‘tabata’ workout might want to consider that. Because when form goes bad on cleans near the end of the ‘tabata’ workout, some really bad things can happen. Things that don’t happen on a stationary bike.
As well, i want to make a related comment: As you can see above the protocol used was very specific. The interval group used 170% of vo2 max for the high intensity bits and the wattage was increased by a specific amount when the workout was completed. Let me put this into real world perspective.
My vo2 max occurs somewhere between 300-330watts on my power bike, i can usually handle that for repeat sets of 3 minutes and maybe 1 all out-set of 5-8 minutes if i’m willing to really suffer. That’s how hard it is, it’s a maximal effort across that time span.
For a proper tabata workout, 170% of that wattage would be 510 watts (for perspective, tour de france cyclists may maintain 400 watts for an hour). This is an absolutely grueling workload. I suspect that most reading this, unless they are a trained cyclist, couldn’t turn the pedals at that wattage, that’s how much resistance there is.
If you don’t believe me, find someone with a bike with a powermeter and see how much effort it takes to generate that kind of power output. Now do it for 20 seconds. Now repeat that 8 times with a 10 second break. You might learn something about what a tabata workout actually is.
My point is that to get the benefits of the tabata protocol, the workload has to be that supra-maximal for it to be effective. Doing thrusters or kb swings or front squats with 65 lbs fo 20 seconds doesn’t generate nearly the workload that was used during the actual study. Nor will it generate the benefits (which i’d note again stop accruing after a mere 3 weeks). You can call them tabatas all you want but they assuredly aren’t.
Finally, i’d note that, as i discussed in predictors of endurance performance vo2 max is only one of many components of overall performance, and it’s not even the most important one. Of more relevance here, vo2 max and aerobic endurance are not at all synonymous, many people confuse the two because they don’t understand the difference between aerobic power (vo2 max) and aerobic capacity (determined primarily by enzyme activity and mitochondrial density within the muscle). Other studies have shown clearly that interval work and steady state work generate different results in this regards, intervals improve vo2 max but can actually decrease aerobic enzyme activity (citrate synthase) within skeletal muscle.
The basic point being that even if the tabata group improved vo2 max and anaerobic capacity to a greater degree than the steady state group, those are not the only parameters of relevance for overall performance.
Summing up
first, here’s what i’m not saying. I’m not anti-interval training, i’m not anti-high intensity training. I am anti-this stupid-assed idea that the only type of training anyone should ever do is interval training, based on people’s mis-understanding and mis-extrapolation of papers like this.
High-intensity interval training and the tabata protocol specifically are one tool in the toolbox but anybody proclaiming that intervals can do everything that anyone ever needs to do is cracked. That’s on top of the fact that 99% of people who claim to be doing ‘tabatas’ aren’t doing anything of the sort.
Because 8 sets of 20″ hard/10″ easy is not the tabata protocol and body-weight stuff or the other stuff that is often suggested simply cannot achieve the workload of 170% vo2 max that this study used. It may be challenging and such but the tabata protocol it ain’t
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Frost
