tabata
- Thread starter driftking
- Start date
clance79
Likes Bikes
good thread man! I think that unless your on a rower (sub optimal) or your doing sprints (better) or some similar exercise that induce a more global use of your energy systems then you are missing the point of tabata
plyometrics are fantastic but often poorly applied IMO
for a puker of an activity try a tabata session on a treadmill- no slacking the speed when you start to puff that way- it's an eye opener ha ha
plyometrics are fantastic but often poorly applied IMO
for a puker of an activity try a tabata session on a treadmill- no slacking the speed when you start to puff that way- it's an eye opener ha ha
Mywifesirrational
I however am very normal. Trust me.
I've only just glanced at the studies linked and didn't even know what tabata was, but if it's coming from the AIF it's probably some bullshit fad becuase they have completely *&^%$# up the application. But I do know a wee little about Vo2 max as I sometimes get paid to measure AFL/AIS athletes Vo2max among other things in a lab.
V02max is a measurement of maximal oxygen uptake at a cellular level, basically its the measurement of diffusion across a membrane. So you can't go above above 100% of V02, but if take someones maximal functional output - often measured in watts in cycling at peak Vo2 (max), they can certainly exceed this number for a short amount of time, depending on training status, as it relies on anaerobic pathways, not the aerobic pathways that the Vo2max test measures. There's also an inverse relationship between %above and time, the higher above, the shorter the time frame of the output.
Great way to train, once your Vo2max is at a respectable level.
Pastavore
Eats Squid
DriftKing, while I appreciate your passion, I think in this case you are probably being a little pedantic.
There will be very, very few situations where what you consider "true" Tabata protocol can be applied.
First you need to have athletes with measured power output at VO2max for the specific exercise.
Then you need to have a method of measuring ( or requiring through an ergo) the power while the intervals are being done.
So you are essentially referring to a research protocol in a lab environment, or very, very specific training in a Institute of sport type environment.
The principle established by the Tabata research can be applied in a real world training environment, by doing multiple 20second maximal efforts with 10second rests.
For most people I would expect a 20second maximal effort would very,very roughly correspond to 170% VO2max.
There will be very, very few situations where what you consider "true" Tabata protocol can be applied.
First you need to have athletes with measured power output at VO2max for the specific exercise.
Then you need to have a method of measuring ( or requiring through an ergo) the power while the intervals are being done.
So you are essentially referring to a research protocol in a lab environment, or very, very specific training in a Institute of sport type environment.
The principle established by the Tabata research can be applied in a real world training environment, by doing multiple 20second maximal efforts with 10second rests.
For most people I would expect a 20second maximal effort would very,very roughly correspond to 170% VO2max.
Pastavore
Eats Squid
It's just a label.Im been very pedantic, that probably does work for sprints or the like but the issue is trainers are starting to use tabata to explain anything that is on and off for 20/10 where the exercise would not reach anywhere near 170%. While I sound pedantic and somewhat am been there is so much crap in the fitness industry we don't need more spread around.
You should be pleased that AIF are teaching ANYTHING that involves research and published evidence, even if they haven't got it 100%
akashra
Eats Squid
In this regard when they talk about VO2 they talk about the effort you can sustain, much like Functional Threshold on which most training targets are based.
That is to say, for example, at peak when my 20min power was 305W and VO2 was 69ml/kg/min, certain intervals would call for efforts at lets say 150%. These intervals weren't 150% for the same 20 minutes FT was measured, they were 455W for say 3 minutes - that's the significant difference. Sprint power, for example, for me, is around 1170W, but that's a 5 to 12 second output, after which it dies off rapidly. When you look at these numbers - 1170W vs 305W, you might be tempted to think it's 380%, but that's not how it works.
What it does, however, mean, is that you couldn't expect me to sit at 350W for 20 minutes, or 305W indefinitely as an FT.
As far as finding our your actual VO2 outside a lab, I don't believe there's a reliable way to do this. You can find certain CP and FT values via other methods, but you won't get an accurate value of ml/kg/min outside a lab, nor power at that level due to the inability to reliably measure it.
To address the original issue, the problem with Tabata intervals - and most intervals, for that matter, is that people generally don't do intervals right. Most often they go out and hit whatever power output for that period as hard as they can, and if you look at the power output graph you end up with this pointy thing that starts off high but tapers off towards the end of the 20 seconds, 1 minute, 4 minutes etc - whatever duration they're doing. HR might remain that a high level, but power is undoutably not sitting at the same level.
For me to do proper Tabata intervals, I'd need to be trying to aim for somewhere around 650W for 12x 20 second intervals, as towards the last 4 to 6 sets I certainly wouldn't be producing 800W consistently for 20 seconds.
The same is true for 1 min intervals. You see people just starting out as hard as they possibly can, but a graph might show over that 1min it starts at say 600W but ends down around 300W. Last time I did any intervals I knew I had to find a rythym to sit at about 415W for 1m - which isn't always easy being so precise.
Anecdotally, yes, I can say that Tabata Intervals are great at rapidly increasing base ability to retain short-duration intensity. In a lab however? That requires a lot more proof that they're any better than other methods. But, there's certainly no harm.
Good stuff that reply.
Pastavore
Eats Squid
Ummm, no.
HIIT could conceivably cover intervals up to a minute in length. Rest intervals can vary in length and intensity.
Now lets say you are getting athletes to do 19 seconds of work at 180%VO2 max, followed by 11 seconds rest. Repeated for 4 minutes. According to you, this is NOT Tabata, and the resulting adaptation for the athletes would be inferior.
Do you see my point, it is the principle of the training that matters? Tabata is just a research protocol, not a magic potion. It may be possible that better results than Tabata found can be achieved by 15 second work intervals, at 160%VO2max, 10 second recovery repeated 5 times. Who knows, if it has not been studied in precisely that protocol?