Intervals vs. steady-state training is often a tough question for skiers when considering their intensity of training. Should the focus of intense training be on steady-paced endurance workouts or on various types of interval training? Or is it better to combine both equally?

Research on this topic mainly explores group-level differences between interval and steady-state training. However, there’s little evidence on the individual suitability of these approaches. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus steady-state endurance training at threshold levels has been extensively studied at a group level, revealing certain differences, according to researcher Vesterinen.

“High-intensity interval training is more effective for improving maximum oxygen uptake and performance capacity. Studies have also shown significant individual variability in the response to high-intensity training. Some people see little improvement, while others experience substantial progress. Why some individuals improve while others do not remains largely unknown. More research is needed to determine whether some people benefit more from steady-state training while others excel with intervals”, Vesterinen explains to Maastohiihto.com.

In his dissertation, Vesterinen specifically examined individual variability in endurance training outcomes. He analyzed the differences between low-intensity, volume-focused training, and high-intensity training on an individual level. Both groups included individuals who improved significantly and those who did not.

“High-intensity training obviously enhances maximal oxygen uptake and related characteristics. When examining factors that explained improvements among these endurance athletes, no connections were found with age or fitness level. The strongest predictor was heart rate variability at rest. Those who benefited most from high-intensity interval training had higher resting heart rate variability, while those who thrived on low-intensity training had lower heart rate variability. For the latter group, low-intensity training was sufficient to stimulate adaptation. High-intensity training may have been too taxing for them”, Vesterinen notes.

High-intensity intervals allow athletes to sustain higher efforts for longer durations because of recovery periods between intervals. This makes it easier to develop maximal performance capacity compared to steady-state training. In dynamic and speed-focused sports, performance improvement is often more achievable with intervals than with steady-state methods.

“Steady-state training is more suitable for athletes preparing for long events, such as marathons or long-distance mass skiing events. For recreational athletes, steady-state training is usually threshold-level work and a good training method. In contrast, fitter individuals may require more high-intensity interval training”, says Vesterinen.

Read also: VO2max – The critical measure for skiing champions

Short Intervals and Their Role in Modern Skiing

Interval training allows athletes to sustain higher intensity levels for longer than steady-state endurance training. Recent Norwegian studies have compared short and traditional longer-interval effects.

“While 3–5 minute maximum intensity intervals have often been considered the most effective for training adaptation, newer research has examined short 30-second intervals. For instance, performing 3x13x30 seconds with a brief 15-second recovery can yield even better results. These sessions maintain higher intensity levels, as oxygen consumption does not drop significantly during the short recovery periods. One of the most critical factors for developing maximum oxygen uptake is keeping oxygen consumption close to its maximum for as long as possible during the workout”, explains Vesterinen.

This is particularly relevant to discussions in Finnish skiing, which emphasize the need for increased speed. Ski Classics and cycling coach Mattias Reck advocates for 40-second sprints with 20-second recoveries, often integrated into high-intensity endurance sessions or long double-poling sessions.

“Shorter intervals are more beneficial for training at higher intensities. In a sport like skiing, shorter intervals prepare the body to execute quick bursts of speed even under considerable fatigue. This helps reduce oxygen debt during breakaways or sprints”, notes Vesterinen.

Traditionally in Finland, endurance training programs have emphasized low-intensity training the most, followed by threshold training and finally maximum intensity training. In Norway, however, a more polarized approach is common, focusing primarily on low-intensity training and maximum-intensity training at the extremes.

According to Vesterinen: “the research supports the idea that polarized training is slightly more effective. Within high-intensity sessions, short intervals may become more prevalent, as they allow for even faster movement speeds”.

The debate between intervals and steady-state endurance training will undoubtedly continue, and individuals are encouraged to experiment with different methods to discover which ones best suit their training needs and how their body responds to various intensity levels.

This article was previously published on Maastohiihto.com. For more skiing-related articles, visit ProXCskiing.com