High-Intensity Training Research Summary

I was reading Ross Enamait's post on the recent report that walking won't get you fit, and followed his link to Sports Conditioning by Mark J. Smith, Ph.D., a four-page PDF (seven if you count the citations) nicely summarizing the current thinking on high-intensity training. How's this grab you:

The acknowledgment that the activity did not need to be continuous was a major shift from the initial recommendations of the ACSM. It was even stated, "accumulation of physical activity in intermittent, short bouts is considered an appropriate approach to achieving the activity goal". This concept was validated in another study that demonstrated that three 1-minute bouts of maximal intensity exercise, separated by 1-hour recoveries, constituted 74% of the oxygen uptake of 20 minutes of low- to moderate-intensity exercise.

In what other venue can 15% of the time buy you 74% of the benefit? And would a fourth minute get you to almost 100%?

I hate to steal Dr. Smith's thunder, and I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing, but he concludes:

...the research is extensive in its support for the notion that high-intensity intermittent training should be the predominant method employed by the field and court sport athlete. It has been established that this type of exercise can have an equal or even greater training effect on the cardiovascular system than continuous endurance training, while also increasing the anaerobic capacity. This form of training also produces a more favorable body composition, and better improves the ability of the athlete to tolerate lactate. Research also supports the fact that there are a number of additional benefits resulting from participation in high-intensity training that are not evident with long continuous exercise.

Leave the endurance training for the endurance athletes.