How did an article from t nation end up on hacker news... I wish I could down vote.
This is not a quality article. The article titled with the incendiary "Interval training doesn't work," doesn't say that it's primarily concerned with fat loss for bodybuilders (I guess the t nation should have been a give away), then goes on to cite studies where it does work. Its like Mark Young wrote this essay like one goes about a 5th grade science fair project. He starts off with a premise, then goes on to find evidence that refutes his premise, but sticks to it anyway?
(I admit I was baited by the title and only skimmed his essay until I realized it was full of shit)
P.S. to all those looking to get in shape: Sports "science" is junk and mostly ignored by coaches & athletes. If a study came out tomorrow that said "Interval training doesn't work" coaches and athletes would still use it because it's effective and has been for the past 50 years.
If something is effective and has been for the past 50 years then it seems like it would be easy to run a scientific study that proves it. If the science disagrees, or at least doesn't conclusively prove that it works, then it seems to me that our common sense assumptions may be wrong.
Case in point would be running in modern running shoes. Almost every coach and doctor has claimed that modern running shoes are the way to go. Yet in the past 40 years since they have been used there hasn't been a study proving that you will run faster or get less injuries than if you just ran barefoot.
I wasn't trying to say science is useless when it comes to sports, just sports science tends to be very very bad scientifically as a whole.
Modern recreational running shoes are the PERFECT example of how wrong sports science can be. All the scientific evidence from the past few decades supported the use of heavily cushioned, motion controlling running shoes to prevent injuries. This is why doctors recommend it. It was coaches and athletes that stuck to what worked - flats (take a look at any track and field/racing shoe) and barefoot training. No track coach in her right mind that would have advocated for the use of a heavy cushioned running shoe for a competitive athlete.
Why the hate? I check t-nation on a regular basis and I have to agree, most of the time the articles aren't what you'd expect to be exact quality. But there are those little articles and tips, that just work. This is a great example of one. If you're interested in fat loss, why not try it out and then judge? People judge and critize before they put the ideas into work, that's why the sports forums in general are filled with "experts" who can't show you the results, but definitely know how to critize.
I understand your point, but if you don't like it, don't read it :-)
From the conclusion of the article: "go 8 seconds on and 12 seconds off for 60 rounds", where "on" is max effort, what does "off" mean? Is it medium effort or zero effort or is it something that you modify as your endurance increases?
"Sprint -> Jog"
or
"Sprint -> Walk"
or
"Sprint -> Lie on the ground, motionless"
?
I've been doing that for a long time (though it isn't exactly fartlek if you do it by yourself) to train for soccer, because it mimics the process of repeatedly sprinting and recovering. It's also easier on my joints than sustained running at a steady speed.
Interesting. I wonder how long it's going to take for people to actually start doing proper scientific studies in this area? Are people who make money off the voodoo that is today's weight loss programs lobbying to stop grants into this kind of research or something?
Is it just me or do those photos make you suspect that this isn't about optimising for health? The author explicitly says it isn't for performance. Not sure how many avid bodybuilders there are at HN.
This is not a quality article. The article titled with the incendiary "Interval training doesn't work," doesn't say that it's primarily concerned with fat loss for bodybuilders (I guess the t nation should have been a give away), then goes on to cite studies where it does work. Its like Mark Young wrote this essay like one goes about a 5th grade science fair project. He starts off with a premise, then goes on to find evidence that refutes his premise, but sticks to it anyway?
(I admit I was baited by the title and only skimmed his essay until I realized it was full of shit)
P.S. to all those looking to get in shape: Sports "science" is junk and mostly ignored by coaches & athletes. If a study came out tomorrow that said "Interval training doesn't work" coaches and athletes would still use it because it's effective and has been for the past 50 years.