Comments on: Short-term sprint interval rocks

By: karamat ali

karamat ali — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:55:05 +0000

it’s not how far u go but how fast u go…faster=fitter (in the l o n g run)

By: John

John — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:20:07 +0000

What’s better for fat-loss? Short intervals(say, 10 second sprints), or longer ones(30 second sprints)?

By: Diego

Diego — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:10:54 +0000

Jesper,

I agree with your point you might see more benefits for time trials and criteriums. I am not quite sure that the same will happen in a road race that goes beyond 60 minutes. I would say that the people who train two hours might have a better base to finish up better.

Regards,

By: Jesper Therkildsen

Jesper Therkildsen — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:36:30 +0000

The interesting point is that the high intensity group spend less time on the bike than the distance training group (2hrs vs 10hrs). Both groups made signifant increments compared to baseline. There were similar increments in muscle oxidative capacity, muscle buffering capacity and glycogen content in both groups, indicating that some of the initial adaptive mechanisms for these different training programs might be the same.

As I also write in the post, I will prefer that future studies are done at trained cyclists instead of just ‘active men’. The problem about this is that it will require a larger test group because it is much more difficult to prove a significant difference. A longer testing period would also be of benefit, because these changes observed might be just initial adaptations that will change with time.

By: Lars

Lars — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:59:30 +0000

It isnt very interesting because its done on untrained persons. All training improves your performance when you are untrained.