Originally Posted by David Wood
Are we over-thinking this a bit here?
Seriously, I'm kind of surprised to think that there is a difference between High Intensity (Anaerobic) Training and High Intensity (Aerobic) Training . . . in fact, I would have said that if it's "High Intensity", it pretty much has to be "Anaerobic", doesn't it? If you can do the work using only aerobic metabolism, is it still "high intensity"?
I get the idea that cranking up EPOC is a big part of Alwyn's strategy . . . is it really that important to fine-tune the workout to the nth degree?
For me, 8 sets of 1-minute on / 1-minute off seems to do it reasonably nicely . . . the 1-minute "on" is all-out for whatever I'm doing (uphill sprints, 300 meters on the C2, go hard on the bike, whatever), and the 1-minute 'off' is just "cruising" until I get my breath back. 1 minute isn't always enough, so I tend to start the later rounds not fully recovered, which makes them 'interesting'.
Does it really need to be more complex than this? I'm thinking I've got Pareto's rule in my favor here . . .
David while I agree intensity is the key, by definition true anaerobic work is mainly the work of the phosphagen and glycotic pathways right? So to keep these efforts mainly in the phosphagen path then you'd want to keep the duration of the work along the guidelines that Mike Moore said of 5-12 seconds and then to recovery that system completely you'd want a work rest ratio along the lines of 1:12-1:20 (that's a number pulled from CFJ #56).
Then aerobic HIIT would be something of longer duration while INTENSE, you still would be more in the glycolytic/oxidative pathways. So your actual work would be 1-3 minutes and the work/rest ratio is somewhere more along the lines of 1:2-1:4 and true oxidative work is 3 minutes+ and the work/rest would be more along the lines of 1:1.
I'm not saying from a best VO2 max or best conditioning work/rest ratio, it was just my conjecture to what Alwyn Cosgrove meant in his article for the Anaerobic HIIT and Aerobic HIIT.