For any training program, whether it be running, cycling or triathlon, there are three main components to take into consideration: volume (how much work, how many hours or miles), intensity (how hard you are going; interval sessions) and frequency (how often your are training).1
For a long time, is has been thought that the response to training/adaptation is directly related to the athletes training volume.2 It must be understood that there is a limit to the volume in which you will have positive increases in your functional capacity. High-level age-group athletes and professionals are very well aware of this: they walk a tightrope between chronic intensive training and inadequate recovery that can culminate in decrements in performance and overtraining.3
One of the key tenants of exercise physiology is the principle of training specificity, which holds that training responses/adaptations are tightly coupled to the mode, frequency and duration of exercise performed.1 This means that the majority of adaptations that occur due to training occur in the muscles that are trained. The principle of specificity states that the closer a training session is to the requirements of a sport, the better the outcome.
A recent study by Burgomaster,4 we are forced to reexamine some of the long held theories regarding training specificity and the response/adaptation. It also reinforces that for certain individuals, a very intense training regimen can be a time-effective and potent stimulus for inducing many of the benefits normally associated with more prolonged, submaximal endurance-type workouts.1
Burgomaster reported that a 6 week, low-volume, high intensity sprint cycling intervention produced similar changes as a traditional high-volume, low-intensity endurance workouts. It was found that 4-6 30 second sprints with 4-5 minutes of active recovery, 3 days a week result in the same basic physiological adaptations (carbohydrate metabolism, lipid oxidation and mitochondrial biogenesis) as when athletes underwent 40-60 minutes of continuous submaximal cycling a day for 5 days per week. What makes these findings most interesting is the roughly 90% reduction in training volume (roughly 1.5 hours versus 4.5 hours per week).
The study presented by Burgomaster did not include a functional outcome measure of exercise capacity or performance. A study similar, yet shorter (14 day) study by Gibala5 reported no differences in the time to complete two different exercise tests: one high-intensity test lasting about 2 minutes and a longer test of 55-60 minutes.
When looking at these two studies, the ‘lack of time’ is very promising. As with all studies, one should use caution when extrapolating the results beyond the specific conditions of the investigation. With regard to the time course of training-induced responses, it may be that high-intensity sprint training stimulates a more rapid up-regulation of selected physiological/metabolic markers than traditional low-intensity endurance training, but that over a longer period, the two training regimens elicit similar adaptations.1
1.Hawley JA (2002). Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 29, 218–222.
2.Fitts RH, et al. (1975). Am J Physiol 228, 1029–1033.
3.Hawley, JA. J Physiolo 586. 1 (2008) pp1-2
4.Burgomaster KA, et al. (2008). J Physiol 586, 151–160.
5.Gibala MJ, et al. (2006). J Physiol 575, 901–911.
Coach Ryan is a USA Triathlon and USA Cycling Certified coach, the Founder and Head Coach of Break Through Multisport Inc. Ryan has earned a Masters Degree in Biochemistry and Organic chemistry and is currently working towards a Masters degree in Exercise Physiology. You can reach Coach Ryan at Ryan@BreakThroughMultisport.com with any questions, comments or for all of your coaching needs.
