eurg comments on Open Thread, September 15-30, 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (206)
Evidence is building that High intensity interval training, e.g. Tabata sprints, is more effective at physical conditioning than low intensity endurance techniques. In terms of weightlifting, "low-rep, high-weight" workouts seem to be better than "high rep, low-weight" workouts.*
I wonder if something analogous is true for mental training. E.g., will you improve mathematical ability faster by grinding through a bunch of relatively easy problems, or by spending a shorter amount of time mentally exhausting yourself on problems that push your limits? Anyone know of any solid evidence?
My experience seems to reflect the latter being more effective. I spent a lot of time my last year or two of undergrad grinding through a bunch of relatively easy calculus problems in order to finish up my degrees in a reasonable amount of time. In my second year of grad school, I took a measure theoretic probability & statistics sequence that was the opposite - a small number of problems, but each one was a struggle. It was rare that I could finish more than 25% of the problems the first time I attempted them. Unsurprisingly, I felt like I improved much more in mathematical ability after taking that sequence than I improved after my undergrad calculus grind. The effect seems stronger than this though - I felt like the measure theory sequence improved my ability to do difficult yet standard calculus problems more than the calculus grind ever did even though I wasn't actually doing those types of problems during the measure theory sequence. The effect was probably mediated through improving my general mathematical/logical reasoning abilities. Now these are just my impressions - untrustworthy for the whole gamut of reasons - plus even if we take them at face value there's a ton of confounders. Nonetheless, it's Bayesian evidence. Anyone else have a similar experience?
* I'm not an expert here and could very easily be wrong. If you have evidence one way or the other to share, please allow me (and others) to update.
Off-Topic Nit-Picking:
"physical conditioning" is a very general term. For instance: Is evidence building that Tabata sprints are more effective for preparing for a 100k ultra-marathon?
Of course competitive runners do some sort of interval training, and -- if information on The Internet (reddit) is to be believed -- runners do not train the full distance. And if basic health and looks is your goal, running is probably not the most time-efficient (of even effective) way for doing it. But this "endurance is all wrong" meme is overshooting it a bit...