By Team ICG® Master Trainer Jim Karanas
Interval: n., the amount of time between two specified instants or events.
You teach indoor cycling, so you know intervals. If you asked another instructor for the workout he/she used in class that morning, odds are you”™d get a response something like, “The main climbing set was 4 X 5/1:30 min at 85%,” indicating four five-minute climbs at 85% max effort, with 90 seconds of recovery between efforts.
Intervals are standard practice in indoor cycling and all types of CV training because of how effective they are. Interval training dates back to the 1930s, when German coach Dr. Woldemar Gerschler pioneered training methods based on sound physiological principles. He teamed up with cardiologist Dr. Herbert Reindel to develop a training protocol that would maximize the heart”™s fitness.
The study involved some 3000 subjects completing three weeks of precise, heart rate-controlled training. The participants were track athletes who ran a relatively short distance at a very fast pace. Average stroke volume increased 20%, with significant improvements in performance. Gerschler and Reindel dubbed the repetitions “interval training” and considered the recovery period between the runs the most important part of the training.
When I first read this, I was amazed. To the founders of interval training, “interval” meant the recovery interval. When managed correctly, that period of time had the greatest physiological impact. The descriptive “formula” I used above would have made no sense to them because the rest interval should be the primary concern and dictate the repetition of the work effort.
For Gerschler and Reindel, if my heart rate did not recover properly in 90 seconds, I wouldn”™t be allowed to do the next interval. Improved fitness would have occurred when my heart rate actually achieved the desired recovery in 90 seconds.
If that heart rate reduction didn”™t occur, the workout was too difficult. Unless it was adjusted, the heart would be overworked, leading to fatigue and exhaustion, rather than to the desired training effect. So, the reduction of the recovery interval is the most important aspect of the training, not the degree of effort or duration of the work interval.
Consider the state of training within indoor cycling today in light of that information. Rigid interval formats form the core of most classes, with limited (or no) attention paid to what the founders of interval training actually meant by interval training. And not just in indoor cycling. Consider the prevalence of high intensity interval training (HIIT), such as the Tabata Protocol, in the fitness industry in general. Tabata intervals are often max efforts with extremely short recovery — less than half the duration of the work interval. Consider Gerschler and Reindel rolling over in their graves.
Is respect for recovery even possible with current class schedules, equipment or perceptions? My guess is no, except in selected, controlled situations. Is it even desired by the average class member? Most of them would not feel they were getting a good enough workout because we gave them too much recovery.
As indoor cycling instructors, we”™ve all heard, “It”™s not how hard you work but how fast you recover.” Yet it”™s difficult to implement, given what we have to work with, and that includes the mindset of our members.
Maybe the question becomes whether or not we should really be doing intervals at all. When an interval is considered as described in the first sentence — the amount of time between two specified instants — then it”™s a valuable tool for us as instructors. It allows us to develop patterns and give participants an understanding of the training we have planned for them. It also enables us to implement music more effectively by selecting songs by length to fit the patterns that we create.
As soon as “interval” becomes “interval training”, however, I think it”™s wise to take a step back and consider where this kind of training came from and what the founders of interval training discovered about the work/recovery relationship.
Make that the recovery/work relationship.
Originally posted 2013-04-08 07:42:14.
- Spinning Our Wheels:Can’t We Go Faster? - February 24, 2024
- Still More on Motivation - January 1, 2024
- Differentiation:ICG® Academy Opens in San Francisco - December 23, 2023
Jim you’ve been reading my mind again 🙂 I have an interview with an expert in heart rate variability tomorrow and a tool they have that helps you understand if/when you are recovered. can’t wait to share it.
AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!
Jim the ‘interval’ message needed to get out there. Great post.
Your question, Is respect for recovery even possible with current class schedules, equipment or perceptions? You thought no. It is hard to refute from a pure training perspective. But if put in the context of commoditization of indoor cycling, then the wisdom in taking a step back to consider the origins of such training is – for us – to recalibrate how we teach intervals.
I see intervals as one of the most powerful teaching tools for an indoor cycle instructor. Used properly, intervals offer a host of performance gains. (Reference stroke volume) They can be beat matched to high energy/motivating tracks. Many of our riders like such challenges. Moreover, it is consistent with ‘cycle class mentality’. In other words, such efforts are expected.
The downside is that very few riders wear heart rate monitors. Fewer still have had any education on establishing anchors from which to gauge their efforts. Yet – Gerschler and Reindel rolling over in their graves notwithstanding – we can more or less pull it off using verbal descriptors because our riders want such efforts.
Consider that if, intervals are explained correctly, (regarding how heart rate recovery during the ‘interval’ drives interval time) and executed properly (on the instructor to make happen) I do see them as an integral part of an instructors toolbox even given the limits of 45 to 60 minute class times.
After all, we all agree there is no need to do intervals for 60 minutes. I see interval training as an opportunity to provide an extended warm up keeping our riders working but very much aerobic. Teaching them throughout the warm up period how and why we do intervals including your definition. Three, two, one; HIIT it!
P.S. Just back from teaching my 0700 class. Pulled out an old ‘climbing strength interval’ ride. They loved it. Warmed them up in the first 15 to 30 minutes, truly explaining interval training as we rode along. We did some leg speed drills. I gave them a couple of practice efforts of different lengths.
Then we started. I had them spend lots of time during intervals watching recovery heart rate. For those with HRM strapped on it was easy. Just cue them to watch the numbers and the timer on the bike.
For those not wearing heart rate straps we used the return to ‘effortless’ gauged by when they could breath ‘comfortably’ through their noses.
Excellent post. IMO, this is an area where bikes with power can be a a useful tool. Since many riders don’t or won’t wear heart rate monitors, power meters conveniently located right in front of their eyes can be a good way to prescribe both work and recovery intensity. Riders can clearly see if they’ve been pushing too hard and/or not recovering sufficiently that they won’t be able to hold the desired power later in the ride, and/or their perceived exertion for the same power output over the same duration begins to feel much more taxing.