Does the “Swiss Time Trial Machine” put in the minimum?
So much scientific research is wasted (in my opinion) on uncovering the very least amount of exercise necessary to improve “health”. There is a great article on high-intensity training that compares and contrasts the effects of regular endurance training versus brief bouts of high-intensity interval training, and their effects on aerobic capacity. As I’m reading through the article, however, I realize this specific article (like all the rest) is going down the same wrong path and searching for the same insignificant answer: What is the absolute minimum amount of exercise I can do for my wellbeing?
Now don’t get me wrong, I haven’t seen too many examples where over-training was good for someone (some research does find it favorable occasionally however), but there’s a big gap there between the minimum and too much. Why doesn’t science take a closer look at getting near the over-training line without quite slipping over instead of concentrating so many resources on the “is this enough?” line?
Have you ever over-trained? It’s not that bad as long as you’re not too close to a competition because guess what the remedy is….REST.
Guess how you remedy under-training…..TRAIN REALLY HARD
Which side do you want to err on?
Footnote: Conclusion of the article cited above: High intensity training (six sessions of repeated 30-second bike sprints) and regular endurance training (90 to 120 minutes continuous moderate-intensity cycling per session) elicited near identical results in muscle oxidative capacity and exercise capacity, even though the HIT groups total exercise volume was 90% less than the endurance group.