Interval training, in the form of repeated sprints, is a common modality used in training programs for those in team sports.

You certainly can’t discount the fact that these athletes need more than the long-slow aerobic type of training that was more common years ago.  Most team sports are intermittent in nature, so various forms of interval training lend themselves well to preparing the athletes to do work at a high or relatively high intensity, recover quickly (sometimes in a minute or less) and then perform a high amount of work again.

There is certainly enough research over the past few years to support this contention.  Here is a brief synopsis of two articles on the subject of interval training and team sport athletes:

• Continuous training (aerobic work for 20-25min) was compared with Interval Training (10sets x 10sec max pedaling on a bicycle ergometer followed by 20sec of recovery) in Eighteen lacrosse athletes.  Vo2max increased significantly in both groups during the aerobic exercise test (incremental cycling test to exhaustion), while maximal anaerobic power only increased significantly in the interval-training group.  Additionally, the interval-training group saw improvements in maximal power in both the early and late stages of the intermittent exercise test (10sets x 10sec max bike sprint followed by 40sec rest).  The researchers concluded that, “Ball game players should therefore improve their endurance capacity with high-intensity intermittent exercise, and it is insufficient to assess their capacity with only Vo2max or continuous exercise.”

• Female college hockey players participated in a study evaluating the relationship between aerobic capacity – measured by Vo2max – and recovery from high intensity intermittent exercise.  The athletes were asked to skate 5-one lap intervals around the rink, separated by 30-seconds of recovery.  The researchers found that aerobic capacity was not significantly related to the ability to recover from high intensity exercise.  Thus, they concluded that, “Coaches and trainers probably do not need to include aerobic training in their practices, because high intensity interval training commonly seen in hockey training also improves aerobic capacity, as reflected in the Vo2max values of these subjects.”

Over Doing It?

As they say, “To much of a good thing can become a bad thing.”

I have gotten the impression that with all the research about interval training and sports preparation, some may be overdoing it, as it is not uncommon to see people programming intense interval workouts daily or several times a week (oftentimes in addition to the athletes regular sports practice).

It is important to remember that interval training can place a high amount of fatigue on the body.  If an athlete is not recovering from this type of training, there is a potential for overtraining.

One particular study looked at the muscle damage following a bout of sport specific repeated sprints.  The subjects performed 15 x 30m sprints with a 10m deceleration zone.  The deceleration zone was used as way to simulate sports specific activities, since team sports often require change of direction, cutting and high amounts of deceleration.  This is also the reason many coaches favor shuttle runs as a means of interval training, as it simulates the dynamic environment during game situations.  Each repetition in the study was followed by 60-seconds of rest.  The researchers measured maximum isometric force (MVC), serum creating kinase activity, muscle soreness (DOMS) and limb girth before training and at 24-hours, 48-hours and 72-hours after exercise.

Creatine Kinase and DOMS were elevated above baseline for 72-hours post training, while maximum voluntary contraction showed a decline at 24 and 48-hours post training, and limb girth was elevated for 48-hours post training.

These results led the researchers to conclude that, “These data show that the repeated sprint protocol with a rapid deceleration precipitates significant levels of damage in the days following the exercise bout and therefore may be used as a suitable alternative to examine the damage response from a sport specific repeated sprint mode of exercise.”

Conclusions

Much like resistance training, you can’t go heavy everyday or  all the time.  Your body needs a break and either you give it the break it needs (proper programming) or it forces you to take that break (injury).

Interval training is a very specific modality that has many applications.  Obviously, identifying the intensity of the intervals is important.  This is one of the reasons why I advocate grading the intensity of the training as “High/Medium/Low”.

Two high days in a row will certainly be pushing the envelope (not that it can’t be done) and would certainly warrant a low day or off day at the completion of those two training days.

Typically I am a fan of sequencing between days of high intensity work and days of low intensity work.

High intensity work would be things like heavy lifting (especially lower body lifts), olympic lifting, intense plyometrics, interval work, sprinting, etc.

Low intensity days would be things like body weight circuits, low intensity medicine ball circuits, tempo runs, etc.

Medium days would fall somewhere in the middle where the intensity is moderate or moderate to high and/or the volume is low.

One thing about the tempo work is that you need to be objective with yourself and perform within the appropriate intensity.  I believe Charlie Francis said something like, “Most people’s tempo work is to high of an intensity to be considered tempo work and to low of an intensity to be considered speed work.”  Basically, we are working harder than we should, instead of backing off the intensity during the tempo work and allowing ourselves to develop an appropriate work capacity and recover adequately so that our high intensity days will not be compromised.

In the article Cardio: Intervals, Tempo Work and Steady State I get more into making the distinctions between these types of things, as well as give some practical application of these training modalities.

In a nutshell, understand the training objectives and modalities you choose to prescribe to your clients/athletes.  There is nothing wrong with backing off the intensity and allowing the body to recover, as the body can only adapt to so much stress at one time.

References

Tanisho K, Hirakawa K. Training Effects of Endurance Capacity In Maximal Intermittent Exercise: Comparison Between Continuous and Interval Training. J Strength Cond Res2009;23(8):2405-2410.

Carey DG, Drake MM, Pliego GJ, Raymond RL. Do Hockey Players Need Aerobic Fitness? Relation Between Vo2max and Fatigue During High-Intensity Intermittent Ice Skating. J Strength Cond Res 2007;21(3):963-966.

Howatson G, Milak A. Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage Following a Bout of Sport Specific Repeated Sprints. J Strength Cond Res 2009;23(8):2419-2424.

Fillers are extra movements in a training program that can be added in between exercises, as active rest.  I typically will pick a mobility drill that focuses on an individual’s limitation as a filler exercise, or occasionally some sort of core exercise.

The biggest benefit of “fillers” is that you can continue to hammer out a particular limitation that the individual has and that active rest in between exercises ensures that you don’t waste time standing around during training (*Not that rest is bad!  In some phases of training, you may want/need to take full rest periods of nothing to ensure that you are fully recovered prior to the next lift or sprint).

An example of filler exercises for an individual thas has increased hip flexor tone and poor ankle mobility, would be to perform a split squat and then follow it up with psoas active isolated stretching, and wall ankle rocking, before repeating the split squat.  It would look like this:

1a) Split Squat

1b) Psoas AIS

1c) Wall ankle rocking

I have to admit, I am horrible about doing this stuff in my own training program!

I write it into all of my clients programs, but when it comes to my own, I usually don’t do it.  I will often just take normal rest and then repeat the exercise.  The unfortunate thing is that when I don’t do it, I notice it!  I get beat up much easier in training and my durability is poor.  When I am more focused on including my filler exercises, I move much better and I have less aches and pains from hard training.  So, I have decided to get serious and add them back into my training program.

Give some “fillers” a try in between your normal exercises and see how they feel to you.

The arguments for or against sit-ups and other various spine flexion exercises have raged on for some time now.

In light of this current battle, I found an article published in a recentMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise to be rather interesting – Effects of Sit-up Training versus Core Stabilization Exercises on Sit-up Performance.

This study evaluated the effects that core stabilization training would have on the traditional sit-up test utilized by the armed forces.  1467-subjects, ages 18-35, completed the 12-week training program and final testing.  Of the 1476-subjects, 761 were placed into a core stabilization program and 706 were placed into a traditional sit-up program used to prepare soldiers for their physical fitness test.

The Exercise Groups

Traditional Exercise Program

The traditional exercise program group performed sit-ups, sit-ups with trunk rotations and abdominal crunches in their training program

Core Stabilization Exercise Program

Those in the core stabilization exercise program performed a variety of stabilization exercises such as side-bridges, glute bridges, bird-dogs, woodchoppers, and abdominal crunch draw-ins.

Results

As expected, both groups significantly improved their sit-up performance after the 12-week training program.  Interestingly, the sit up performance was not significantly different between the two groups, even though the core stabilization group did not even perform sit-ups in their training program.  In fact, the core stabilization group demonstrated a significant improvement in sit-up pass rate by 5.6% compared to the traditional sit-up training groups 3.9%.

Researcher’s Conclusions

“Incorporating a core stabilization exercise program into Army physical training does not increase the risk of suboptimal performance on the Army’s fitness test and may offer a small benefit for improving sit up performance.”

My comments

One of the arguments that those in favor of spine flexion exercises make is, “Athletes go through this movement in sport, and so we need to make sure they train it so that they are prepared for it when it happens.”

Who is not prepared for spine flexion?  Seriously!  I haven’t done sit-ups in years, but I know that I can get down and bang them out if I absolutely need to.  This study clearly demonstrated that 12-weeks without performing sit-ups had no negative impact on sit-up performance.

In addition, we spend most of our days in flexion (seated).  Why do we need to train that movement more in the gym?  Shouldn’t we try and break that pattern in the gym and do something else?

Obviously, there are some people who can go through life and do sit-ups everyday and never have a back problem.  As well, there are those that may do all the stabilization training in the world and still sustain a back injury.

I think of it like smoking – some will get cancer and others will smoke 2-packs a day until they are 80-years old with no ill effects (I call those people cockroaches).

At the end of the day, you need to evaluate your exercise menu and determine if this is a movement that you want to program or not.  Whether we are talking about sit-ups, back squats or bench press, everyone will have a different risk vs. reward when it comes to training and as long as you have a good reason to do what you are doing, then go for it.

I dropped the sit-ups a long time ago and I feel very confident about my decision based on the things that I have read.  Having a strong core goes way beyond sit-ups or plank exercises.

Serving too many masters is an issue that most people have with their overall training programs.

I often get emails from individuals looking for program design assistance and find that they are trying to do everything all at once.

They want to be fast, strong, lean, and muscular, have good anaerobic capacity and be a great olympic lifter all at the same time.  Their program looks like a huge mish-mash of lots of different training variables with no consistent theme or concept.

The problem with this is that you become a “jack of all trades, master of none.” 

Concurrent Training

Concurrent training is a training concept, where the individual attempts to train all of their qualities at the same time – strength, speed, endurance, etc – typically without a clear focus on one specific quality during a given training cycle.

While training all of these qualities at the same time is not an issue when one quality is trained at a higher volume/frequency and the other qualities are trained at more of a “retention” volume/intensity, to prevent them from becoming de-trained.  Training them all at the same time without a clear focus or theme leads to less than desirable results.

A recent study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchevaluated the results of concurrent training on the endurance performance of well-trained cyclists.  The athletes were placed in two groups for the duration of the 6-week study:

1. Control Group – The control group performed their usual cycling training
2. Resistance Training Group – The resistance group performed a lifting program, in addition to their usual cycling training.  The program was a nonlinear periodization program, where each of the three training days, separated by at least 24-hours, had a different focus

Day 1: Power – 3 sets x 6 reps

Day 2: Hypertrophy – 3 sets x 12 reps

Day 3: Strength – 4 sets x 5 reps

While the resistance-training group improved leg strength (1RM squat), they did not improve on markers of endurance performance, endurance cycling, or sprint performance when compared to the control group.

There are several potential reasons why the resistance-training group did not show a favorable outcome with regard to cycling performance; however, based on the results of the study, the researchers concluded that:

“Although concurrent resistance and endurance training in well-trained cyclists enhanced 1RM strength, it did not improve overall cycle time trial performance and in fact was shown to reduce 1-km final cycle spring performance compared with a control group performing their normal cycle training.”

The researchers noted that the cyclists in the resistance training group may not have tested well because the post test was conducted immediately following the 6-week training period, and it may take 7-14 days for the elevated fitness levels that one may achieve from a training program to manifest themselves (allowing the fatigue they also gained through the training to dissipate).

One issue I see in the program is the potential for over-training the lower extremity.  The athletes in the resistance-training group were asked to complete a strength training program in addition to their normal cycling program.  While the strength training group did end up decreasing their cycling training slightly (3%), there is still a relatively high amount of training volume taking place, especially when you consider that the entire resistance training program was comprised of lower-extremity exercises (many of them being single-leg exercises).

Additionally, you get what you train for!  While the resistance training group lowered their cycling training (3%) to accommodate for the extra resistance training workouts they were doing, the control group ended up increasing their cycling training by 8% during the 6-week testing period.  If you want to be a great endurance cyclist, you need to have time in the saddle, especially as a competition (or in this case a testing day) draws near.  This is the basic concept of periodization.  Perhaps the resistance-training group would have done better with only 2-days of resistance training, or maybe a more balanced resistance training program?

Furthermore, perhaps the results would have been better if the program was periodized to target specific training objectives.  I understand that 6-weeks is a relatively short period of time for doing something like this, but ideally the 6-week phase leading to the competition (or in this case the testing) should be highly specific to what the athlete hopes to accomplish.  Perhaps this sort of concurrent program would be more beneficial in the offseason when the athlete is performing less cycling and devoting more time to cross-training and/or improving other qualities (strength, power endurance, etc) that may be a limiting factor in their performance.  In addition, a concurrent training program may have more benefit for an inseason athlete who participates in a sport that has many competitions over a long period of time (IE, baseball, basketball, football, hockey, etc).  In this case, the athlete has less time to devote to training due to the intense competition/travel schedule and increased number of practices.  So, concurrent training can be a great way for the athlete to work on the necessary things in the gym, without worrying about doing too much and overtraining.

Conclusion

Training can be as simple or complex as you want it to be.  At the end of the day, the program just needs to make sense and it needs to get you to where you want to be.

Training is a highly individual process and what works for one may not work for another.  Use the research as a means to develop ideas/concepts on how you structure your training and then tweak things so that they are specific to your situation.

Reference

Levin GT, Mcguigan MR, Laursen PB. Effect of Concurrent Resistance and Endurance Training on Physiologic and Performance Parameters of Well-Trained Endurance Cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 2009;23(8): 2280-2286.

Today I have a guest blog from Joe Bonyai.  Joe is a great strength coach and the owner of Empower Athletic Development in Scarsdale, NY.

Joe was nice enough to contribute an excellent article offering parents some practical information regarding their young athletes and ways to incorporate after school physical activity into their daily lives.  If you are in the Scarsdale area and have young athletes, I highly suggest checking out Joe’s program as he offers a top-notch service and brings a strong science based background to his training philosophy.

_____

Bring Back the After School Athlete
Joe Bonyai M.Ed., CSCS

Kickballs have gone flat, fence posts are no longer field goals, and mailboxes are home base no more. Instead, kids nowadays are specializing at the expense of free play. As strength and conditioning professionals, we have the opportunity to provide a safe, structured replacement for decreased variety in after school physical activity. Here are some of my ideas on training youth athletes.

Train the Person First

Your coaching style and program design should take into consideration a child’s psychosocial preparedness as much as their physical capacity. Training groups can be difficult, but the ability to react and treat different personalities while implementing a team program is called coaching!

Make it FUNctional

Youth training programs must be enjoyable. However, regardless of your creativity, exercises and games should involve functional, developmental movements. Crawl, squat, lunge, step, catch, dip, dive, and dodge. Training kids should be fun for you as well.

Train their Strengths

No kid wants to feel weak, slow, or uncoordinated, especially in front of their friends. Find ways to target weaknesses without spotlighting them. Train what they CAN do well, as much as what they need to work on.

Think like a Parent

My mom was always correcting my posture, telling me that balance and moderation was the key to success, and mixing my vegetables with mac and cheese. Moms know best. Train posture, use your “tools” in moderation, and find ways to mix challenging and fun exercises.

Make it Sport-focused

Sport-focused training is a rational middle ground between what we do and what parents want. Youth training shouldn’t be sport-specific insomuch that exercises mimic sport movements; however, youth training programs should make kids feel like athletes!

In a Field of Gurus, Find the Expert

Researchers like Dr. Avery Faigenbaum are leading the charge in the field of youth strength training and athletic development. Do your homework! Don’t guess with a child’s physical development.

Bring back the Afterschool Athlete

Empower young athletes to run, jump, climb, roll, swing and do the things “we used to do”. Building faster and stronger bodies is secondary to developing young minds that look forward to training.

Joe Bonyai is co-director of Empower Athletic Development, located in Scarsdale, NY. Please feel free to send questions or comments to jjbonyai@hotmail.com.