[Drew]

According to this abstract a 6 week training program of 6.4ish hours per week @ 80% low intensity, and 20% high intensity, gives better results than 7.5ish hours per week @ 57% low, 43% high intensity.

Abstract
Aim: To investigate physiological adaptation with two endurance training periods differing in intensity distribution.
Methods: In a randomised cross-over fashion, separated by 4-weeks of detraining, 12 male cyclists completed two 6-week training periods: (1) a polarised model (6.4(±1.4)hrs.week(-1); 80%, 0%, 20% of training time in low, moderate and high intensity zones); and (2) a threshold model (7.5(±2.0)hrs.week(-1); 57%, 43%, 0% training intensity distribution). Before and after each training period, following 2 days of diet and exercise control, fasted skeletal muscle biopsies were obtained for mitochondrial enzyme activity and monocarboxylate transporter (MCT1/4) expression, and morning first void urine samples collected for NMR spectroscopy based metabolomics analysis. Endurance performance (40km time trial), incremental exercise, peak power output, and high-intensity exercise capacity (95% Wmax to exhaustion) were also assessed. Results: Endurance performance, peak power output, lactate threshold, MCT4, and high-intensity exercise capacity all increased over both training periods. Improvements were greater following polarised than threshold for peak power output (Mean (±SEM) change of 8(±2)% vs. 3(±1)%, P<0.05), lactate threshold (9(±3)% vs. 2(±4)%, P<0.05), and high-intensity exercise capacity (85(±14)% vs. 37(±14)%, P<0.05). No changes in mitochondrial enzyme activities or MCT1 were observed following training. A significant multi-level partial least squares-discriminant analysis model was obtained for the threshold model but not the polarised model in the metabolomics analysis.
Conclusion: A polarised training distribution results in greater systemic adaptation over 6 weeks in already well-trained cyclists. Markers of muscle metabolic adaptation are largely unchanged but metabolomics markers suggest different cellular metabolic stress that requires further investigation.

Obviously this was done on cyclists, but I guess the same could apply with climbing?

[abarro81]

Anyone got access to the whole thing? I can't get the most recent 12 months of that journal through Shef uni account.

[Tommy]

Alex, I should be able to get it. I'll email it over.

[TobyD]

According to this abstract a 6 week training program of 6.4ish hours per week @ 80% low intensity, and 20% high intensity, gives better results than 7.5ish hours per week @ 57% low, 43% high intensity.

Obviously this was done on cyclists, but I guess the same could apply with climbing?

Although cycling has a technique element, it is a relatively such a basic, aerobic endurance activity when compared to climbing, that I'd hypothesize that any similar results in climbing would be a chance correlation. Even if you reduced the study to an effect on the fatigue on the main muscle group employed, say finger flexors for climbing and gluteals for cycling, you are still comparing a series of isometric contractions to isotonic muscle work.
Having said all that it still sounds like an interesting study from the abstract.   

[Sasquatch]

What about applying it to something akin to steve mac's foot on campus board PE workout?  Seems like you eliminate most of the technique aspect, but it's not purely isometric any more, and more akin to the type of
"high intensity" they're talking about. 

Food for thought for the endurance/routes guys out there.  Doubtful it'll make much difference for bouldering tranining. 

[Dexter]

what about vs 100% high intensity? 

[IanP]

According to this abstract a 6 week training program of 6.4ish hours per week @ 80% low intensity, and 20% high intensity, gives better results than 7.5ish hours per week @ 57% low, 43% high intensity.

My reading of the abstract is that it compared 80% low 20% high to 57% low, 43% moderate.  The first being better would fit with the general endurance training position of making sure you have plenty of low intensity 'easy' base training together with smaller amount of properly high intensity 'hard' training.   

[Drew]

My reading of the abstract is that it compared 80% low 20% high to 57% low, 43% moderate.

My bad. Typo.

[Serpico]

According to this abstract a 6 week training program of 6.4ish hours per week @ 80% low intensity, and 20% high intensity, gives better results than 7.5ish hours per week @ 57% low, 43% high intensity.


Obviously this was done on cyclists, but I guess the same could apply with climbing?

 I doubt it, the key points being:

No changes in mitochondrial enzyme activities or MCT1 were observed following training.

and:

A polarised training distribution results in greater systemic adaptation over 6 weeks in already well-trained cyclists.

Endurance in climbing is governed by local factors, not systemic, which is why local mitochondrial adaptation is so important.