I'm surprised there's been no commentary on T-Max intervals

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

especially considering they were featured in the latest Bicycling mag, and apparently received the Andy Coggan seal of approval in a bit of name dropping by the author.

They sound interesting, but I don't see anything substantially different from a standard VO2 max interval. Seem like they both target the same intensity level and energy system.

You have a link?

especially considering they were featured in the latest Bicycling mag, and apparently received the Andy Coggan seal of approval in a bit of name dropping by the author.

I should have been quoted as saying something along the lines of "yeah, they sound like they'd hurt, and so should be good for you, but there's no magic in any particular interval workout" - was I?

I should have been quoted as saying something along the lines of "yeah, they sound like they'd hurt, and so should be good for you, but there's no magic in any particular interval workout" - was I?


Read the article but I don't have a power monitor. Any way to translate this to a heart rate workout

especially considering they were featured in the latest Bicycling mag, and apparently received the Andy Coggan seal of approval in a bit of name dropping by the author.

They sound interesting, but I don't see anything substantially different from a standard VO2 max interval. Seem like they both target the same intensity level and energy system.

That was my read on the situation. I think that's why noone has been jumping up and down about them. You could use them. You could just as well do something else and get a similar effect (5X5's).

I presume you are talking about intervals from the guys in Queensland's studies where they do something like repeated intervals (how many?), duration 60% max time at VO2max and intensity ~100% VO2max? Repeat when HR drops to 60% or after set time period. Is this what you are talking about? Did I recall the details correctly?

Read the article but I don't have a power monitor. Any way to translate this to a heart rate workout
This is addressed in the final paragraph of the article.
but I don't see anything substantially different from a standard VO2 max interval.
Actually, they seem something of a "'tweener". From how they say to calculate the duration they look to be ~2.5 - 3.5 min's long. Too long for level 6 perhaps? Not quite long enough for level 5?
You have a link?
Doesn't look to be available on-line yet - print only.

Dave

This is addressed in the final paragraph of the article.

Actually, they seem something of a "'tweener". From how they say to calculate the duration they look to be ~2.5 - 3.5 min's long. Too long for level 6 perhaps? Not quite long enough for level 5?

Doesn't look to be available on-line yet - print only.

Dave

Based on this kind of work??

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12439086&ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16095414&ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11772161&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

Based on this kind of work??

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12439086&ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16095414&ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11772161&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus
Nope.
This (http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/browse_thread/thread/cca0324140059e67/7a5f544abe86142c?lnk=gst&q=tweener&rnum=1#7a5f544abe86142c)

Nope.
This (http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/browse_thread/thread/cca0324140059e67/7a5f544abe86142c?lnk=gst&q=tweener&rnum=1#7a5f544abe86142c)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. That seems to be a description of what a 'tweener' workout is. I think I have my head around that. I was wondering (since I don't have access to the article) if the Tmax interval workout concept referred to by the OP was based on the links I referred to?

Sorry, I should have been clearer. That seems to be a description of what a 'tweener' workout is. I think I have my head around that. I was wondering (since I don't have access to the article) if the Tmax interval workout concept referred to by the OP was based on the links I referred to?
It sure does as Laursen and the University of Queensland are referenced several times in the article.

Dave

Doesn't look to be available on-line yet - print only.

Is this a fair description of them?
http://mtbjournal.blogspot.com/2007/09/t-maxtorture-to-max.html

Is this a fair description of them?
http://mtbjournal.blogspot.com/2007/09/t-maxtorture-to-max.html

If the Tmax interval concept is from the Laursen work, as I posited and dkrenik seems to confirm, that's pretty spot on. Nothing sensational in them - just another method of targeting VO2max and maybe some amount of AWC depending on your precise PPO and Tmax.

I don't have exact figures right now, but I've been able to hold my VO2max wattage for about 7-10 minutes in the past, which puts 5X5's right in the same ballpark as these. That was off a different test protocol though, which would have resulted in a lower PPO and higher Tmax. No great surprises really. The concept of moderating the interval length to allow repeated intervals to be performed at around PPO/VO2max is not new.

The keys to structuring work like this in my view would be:

(i) Have the interval intense and long enough to attain VO2max.
(ii) Have the interval short enough to allow repeated attaining of VO2max.
(iii) Have the rest periods long enough to ensure repeated attaining of VO2max.

The Laursen approach seems to be one way to reach these goals, though for people with a short Tmax, would it be possible that the interval isn't long enough to attain VO2max? And what determines Tmax? Is it largely AWC? Or something more subtle about VO2 kinetics/metabolic fitness? Or both? I would be surprised if Tmax was all about AWC, as I seem to have a fairly high Tmax and a fairly low AWC.

RS

And what determines Tmax?
TMax looks a lot like MAP at (my) first glance, which of course has been discussed quite a bit here and elsewhere.

Well said on the rest of the commentary. Looks like a safe, well controlled way to get people to just go hard in a way that's going to have some positive training effect.

To answer obxbes, no you'd generally not want to modulate supra=threshold intervals like these using HR...which will lag too far behind power. PE and a watch, or even speed/distance up a known climb would be effective ways to execute this workout without a PM.

TMax looks a lot like MAP at (my) first glance, which of course has been discussed quite a bit here and elsewhere.

Um... doesn't PPO look like MAP? Tmax is a little different right?

Um... doesn't PPO look like MAP? Tmax is a little different right?
From the Bicycling magazine article, Tmax = time @ PPO. I suppose PPO does like a bit like MAP (perhaps with different protocols?).

Dave

This all looks very similar to a testing and training protocol developed for runners by Veronique Billat several years ago. I've used this arrangement with runners I coach and also in recent times, several cyclists.
The original running protocol called for a 6 minute time trial to determine vVO2max (velocity at VO2max), then a second test to determine the time one was able to sustain running at this particular velocity, i.e. TvVO2max.
The training schedule then called for one workout per week running at vVo2max for 50% of TvVO2max one week, 95%vVO2max for 60%TvVO2max the next week, and 105%vVO2max for 40%TvVO2max the next. All workouts called for 5 reps to be completed with recovery at 60%vVO2max, for the same time as rep time.
The other main workout for the week was one that is basically a LT session at 80%vVO2max....4 * 10min; then 3 * 15min; and our classic 2 * 20min.
All other running was at 65-70%vVO2max.
So looking at the sort of time one would spend running at vVO2max and LT, there's nothing particularly new or different here. The main advantage is I guess that it gives the athlete/coach quantifiable measures for feedback on the effectiveness of the training regime, which is what we all look for isn't it?
The variation in training pace and length of the reps in the workouts also provides some "relief" in that you are not facing the identical "torture" each week.
For cyclists with Power Meters, simply subsituting wattage for velocity seems to work ok, and fits our normally accepted ranges for L4 and L5 workouts.

Is this a fair description of them?
http://mtbjournal.blogspot.com/2007/09/t-maxtorture-to-max.html


Here's another description of them. http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/1030.htm

greg

Um... doesn't PPO look like MAP? Tmax is a little different right?
Um...Um...Um.

The blog I linked to with the description used them interchangeably, at least in one place "First, you've got to find out what your peak power output, or T-Max, is."

Looking at it more in context though, you are correct, that's what I meant, that PPO looks like MAP.

The original running protocol called for a 6 minute time trial to determine vVO2max (velocity at VO2max), then a second test to determine the time one was able to sustain running at this particular velocity, i.e. TvVO2max.


If Tmax doesn't equal 6 minutes with this protocol you didn't test right the first time. :rolleyes:


Um...Um...Um.

The blog I linked to with the description used them interchangeably, at least in one place "First, you've got to find out what your peak power output, or T-Max, is."

Looking at it more in context though, you are correct, that's what I meant, that PPO looks like MAP.

So it's an open question then: what determines Tmax, as distinct from PPO/MAP?

[QUOTE=Roadie_scum]If Tmax doesn't equal 6 minutes with this protocol you didn't test right the first time. :rolleyes:

Not sure about that. The 6 minute time trial is just that, a 6 minute trial, so you stop the test after 6 minutes. That's not to say you might not be able to sustain that pace (or power) for longer than 6 minutes. You might not be able to physically go faster (or produce more power), but might be able to hold that intensity.
Regardless, it's proven to be a useful protocol to give some guidance to setting up a training program with regards volume and intensity for L4 and L5 work. Gets you working "in the ballpark" for improvements in L4/L5.