30 second intervals - Page 2

That might be because cycling is rife with myths with no scientific credibility.
Well there you go then!

L.

__________________
MSc (Applied Sport and Exercise Science)
RST Associate Coach
ABCC Level 3 Coach
Doctoral Student (Physiology), University of Oxford, UK.
www.cyclecoach.com
www.science4sport.com

30 second intervals are way too short to stress your O2 delivery system. Even if you go hard, O2 debt will acumulate . O2 delivery will continue to rise for the first 2 minutes of a hard interval. So if you stop your interval at 30 seconds, you are just begining to stimiulate O2 delivery. Rather, you will develop the ability to acumulate O2 debt (which is a good thing). But not O2 delivery.

[QUOTE=biker-linz]That might be because cycling is rife with myths with no scientific credibility.

And the only way to determine which are myths and which really do some good is to try them out. My guess is that all of the nay-sayers (and you know who I mean) haven't ridden at an elite level in many years or if at all. Younger or newer riders would blow the 30 sec interval workout idea out the window after reading this post. I have done 20x 30-45 sec intervals both on the road and on an indoor trainer, and if done right (proper gear, 85-95 cadence, stop when the quads scream, 2 min spin recovery) I think they do help me. Most of us do enough 3 to 30 minutes intervals year around, mixing the shorter interval workouts a good mix.

A similiar concept has been popular among the worlds top marathoners since Pavao Nurmi's gold medals in the 30's. Repeat 400m intervals (20x 400m with a 100m jog). These 400m sprints are about 1/100 of a marathon........30 secs on the bike are about 1/100 of a 40k TT.

Not the ones who actually read and were smart enough to comprehend Ric's post. He didn't make any judgements about the effectiveness of the training routine, he just stated that some people probably wouldn't be physically capable of even performing the exercise routine in the study.

The rest of the newbies may blow it out the window after reading Ric's post, or they may blow it out after reading the study which concludes that the benefits were somewhat below those of a traditional HIT routine. If they only spend enough time to skim and misunderstand Ric's post, then they still come out time ahead by following his previous advice of performing 3-8 min intervals at 70-85% of MAP to improve VO2max, as confirmed by the study.

Sure they help, the study confirms that. But do you want to be one of the guys in Group 3 (doing the 30s intervals) while all your competitors are following the longer HIT routines of Groups 1 & 2, and realizing greater benefits? Is that what you'd advise for the newbies reading this?

All I'm saying is that 30 sec intervals seem to have a place in a portfolio of interval training which is mainly 3-30 minutes intervals. If you can take doing 3-8 min intervals all year round and be a Group 1/2, great.

Agree. I use the 30sec - 1 min intervals to improve anaerobic capacity for race surges and charging up rolling hills. Apparently doing lots of them also benefits VO2max to some degree.


I wouldn't advise doing 3-8 min intervals all year round (or 30s intervals either, for that matter), but they are great for improving VO2max.

BTW, I was referring to the training groups in the study that Ric responded to, not any racing levels or categories.

Isn't the question, "What is the training objective that is best met with 30s intervals?" I'm still formulating my own views, but at this point I think training is about defining desired training adaptations and then designing a training program to achieve those objectives. The desired adaptations would be defined as a function of one's current fitness, power/duration curve and targeted events. The training program is then designed to obtain maximum training benefit (for the targeted adaptations) from the one, true scarce resource -- time on the bike.

I´ve experienced the same thing, any ideas to why?

There is actually a similar thread to this where i have made a post about how interval training works [physiologically/biochemically speaking] http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthr...=1#post2498133

I don't have any of the scientific articles sitting next to me but i'd be glad to dig them out and reference them for anyone who is genuinely interested. Alternately there are any number of publically available sports science related journal articles on this subject which can be googled.

30" on/off intervals done at power near VO2max power and slightly above VO2max power are an effective way for some people to improve certain abilities, among them VO2max power. During lab testing the physiological responses to the 30/30" format are quite similar to the responses from single VO2max intervals of longer duration. By the time the person is doing the 3rd, or maybe 4th 30" on they are effectively exercising components of VO2max ability. Rest between blocks/sets of these intervals is kept to 3-4' (incomplete recovery).

I haven't formally researched this but my very knowledgeable coach says that the 30/30 (or 20/20, etc.) approach for VO2max training seems to work best for sprinter types-people with relatively high amounts of type 2 fibers. The brief rest periods allow some lactate clearance (proxy for other things) that help the rider perform more total, effective training for VO2max. Riders with relatively more type 1 fibers will probably find the 3-4' interval protocol a more effective way to train their ability at VO2max. I have found this to be very true for myself (lots of type 2).

I begin with weeks building from 10/50", then 20/40, and then 30/30, while increasing total time at each protocol before moving to the next (more stressful) protocol. Right before championship events we'll do some 35/25 on/off and a little bit of 40/20.

Contrary to what some people say about VO2max training, I've had good results using this training every 7-10 days for 4-6 months before season peaks. I'm just now starting the 30/30 and peak is planned for August. If I'm doing mass-start races at the track I'll skip the VO2max training that week, unless it's within a month or so before peak. Don't overuse VO2max training. It's a good tool when used properly.

-Warren

Warren brought up a good point. That is, one thing works for him that doesnt have the same results for others, that is why one coach might use different methods for two athletes under his tuition. There is not a journal article that i am aware of that shows similar results for 100% of the participants in the study. Try different things and see which works for you. Having said that, when an article states that a particular training method works, it is for a scientifically significant number within each group. In other words, in the majority of cases, Interval training WILL improve VO2max in MOST people [though i must admit this is conditional on things such as current VO2max, pervious training etc]. BUT that it is very dependent on currernt condition and compliance to a given routine.

Try and keep in mind that VO2max is a measure of oxygen carrying capacity only, NOT performance. It is used as an indicator of CAPABILITY. That is to say, while you can increase your VO2, that does not mean you will ride faster, or longer, but is is a good indicator of your physiological ability to provide oxygen to working muscles. Many factors are involved when considering performance. As many on the forum have stated, you need a portfolio of training exercises, which must be managed in the correct sequence and timing to maximise performance. If you focus too much on one training method, you do so at your peril!

I'm impressed. You point to two very important points that I rarely see mentioned. First, just because a "study" shows performance improvements as a result of a certain kind of training does not mean that all study participants responded positively to the training, and some may have actually responded negatively, or some may have responded positively to a slight degree but another method would have worked even better. In the end, the coach and/or athlete should be doing a study where the number of participants is 1, or N=1.

Second thing, regarding VO2max, yes, it's just a number and increasing VO2max from 57 to 61 isn't really the goal unless you just want to get better at lab tests. The real objective is to increase your performance. I like to use VO2max as just a level of intensity among the many levels of intensity, like LT is a level, recovery pace is a level, 110% of LT power is a level, and so on.

So, by doing 30/30's you may be trying to improve your performance at a commonly-understood level of intensity called VO2max. You can also train with 30/30's at levels far above your VO2max power to improve your ability near the end of races or during some track events like the points race.

-Warren

Do you have a science background Warren, as you seem to have a good grasp of the concepts?

__________________
B. Exercise Science.

That's interesting because I think Andy Coggan said something quite similar to this just yesterday.


I've been racing for about 25 years, I like to learn about ex phys stuff, and I'm very fortunate to get lots of help from my coach, Max Testa.


-Warren

I struck gold today looking through some boxes that got wet during the last heavy rain here. Got articleswith titles like "Relationship Between the Lactate and Ventilatory Thresholds During Prolonged Exercise" and "Anaerobic threshold and maximal aerobic power for three modes of exercise". I'll try and post some of the pertinent info for anyone that is interested in the near future. Heavy reading tho.

__________________
B. Exercise Science.