I'm surprised there's been no commentary on T-Max intervals - Page 2

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.

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

greg

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.

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

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.

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.

If you can hold your 6 minute peak intensity (power/speed) for more than 6 minutes, it is not your 6 minute max intensity. You have a power/duration curve or a speed/duration curve and at no point is it perfectly flat or upward sloping. It might look a little that way because it's hard to measure small differences.

Sure, but the Tmax concept is only relevant if you apply it to a graded exercise test that attains a certain PPO or MAP or power/speed at VO2peak/max. Otherwise you might as well just say you are going to set interval intensities on the basis of 6 minute mean maximal power or speed. That is not necessarily a bad idea, but adding the Tmax concept is unnecessary then. It is just dressing up a simple concept with unneeded terms to make it seem more scientific. In fact, I think there is a little of this going on anyway. You can set intensities off FTP, MAP, or a single or set of mean maximal powers (speed for runners). You then target certain physiological adaptations in the workouts by setting appropriate %ages of whatever intensity and appropriate interval durations. Because all the possible things you can use to set intensity are well correlated, it doesn't particularly matter which one you choose.

There doesn't seem to me to be much magic in the PPO/Tmax concept and Tmax is particularly devoid of information when you attain your PPO off the basis of a test of fixed time without graduation in power/speed.

So: Back to my question. What determines Tmax, as opposed to PPO?

You were perhaps more diplomatic in the article, but yes, that was about the gist of it.

That's exactly the description of them. Since his blog entry was a week ago, which is about the time I got my new issue of Bicycling and noticed the article, that's probably his inspiration.

BTW, this description's my favorite. I think anyone with a bike attached to the stationary trainer in the garage can relate.

Quote:

Now all you have to do is go out and put yourself in the pain cave and do the work.

Sure, but the Tmax concept is only relevant if you apply it to a graded exercise test that attains a certain PPO or MAP or power/speed at VO2peak/max. Otherwise you might as well just say you are going to set interval intensities on the basis of 6 minute mean maximal power or speed. That is not necessarily a bad idea, but adding the Tmax concept is unnecessary then. It is just dressing up a simple concept with unneeded terms to make it seem more scientific. In fact, I think there is a little of this going on anyway. You can set intensities off FTP, MAP, or a single or set of mean maximal powers (speed for runners). You then target certain physiological adaptations in the workouts by setting appropriate %ages of whatever intensity and appropriate interval durations. Because all the possible things you can use to set intensity are well correlated, it doesn't particularly matter which one you choose.

There doesn't seem to me to be much magic in the PPO/Tmax concept and Tmax is particularly devoid of information when you attain your PPO off the basis of a test of fixed time without graduation in power/speed.

I fully agree with you in that there is no magic in this concept. It's just another way to "skin a cat". Whenever I've looked at the resulting work levels determined from the "6 minute test" compared to a "Power profile test", the numbers have always come out very similar.
I can't say that I have an answer in deciding what would determine TvVO2max, but like you, I don't feel AWC is a major contributing factor. I have a low AWC but am able to sustain VO2max for around the 8 minutes or so.
I think we can all agree that there's "nothing new under the sun", and this TvVO2max concept and associated work intensities give just another way to get the same or similar job done.

The one characteristic of them, however, that seems a bit unique in relation to a good ol' garden variety VO2 max interval is the rest period. A 1:2 ratio is a pretty long rest. I've always been of the thought, and I think most here think so too, that the rest interval for a shorter interval like this ought to be relatively short. When recovery is somewhat incomplete, a higher percentage of the subsequent work intervals fall under the metabolic system you're trying to target.

Take for example, the micro-interval and 15 s.on/15 s. off. Towards the end of one of these intervals, your effort during each "on" stage would probably fall in the VO2 max range. So, although this one is designed to improve muscle recruitment, quick regeneration of ATP-PCr, lactate clearing and the like, the side benefit is quite a bit of time spent in the VO2 max zone.

Or take a typical 4 min VO2 max interval: when rested, the first 2 minute of that interval is using the glycolitic sytem. Once that becomes overwhelmed/depleted, then more of you MAP is utilized. Incomplete recovery between each effort would, in my thinking, kind of bypass that initial anaerobic period and put you directly in the metabolic zone you want.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with a "tweener" workout. You can never truly isolate and target a particular metabolic system. They all fall under a continuum. Besides, racing is the ultimate "tweener" effort.

This phrase brings to mind a quote I've seen cited a number of times: "Testing is training and training is testing". I don't necessarily believe that "Training is racing and racing is training". In training there are certain adaptations that are being targeted. Adaptations that might not be possible in race-like environments.

This isn't to say that there isn't any training value in racing (or competitive club rides) because I believe that there is. I just don't see the need to make them structured.

My 0.02,
Dave

Ummm...did anyone else check out this link only to notice the guy who posted it was killed on his bike 3 days later by someone backing a trailer out of their driveway?? Damn drivers...

Yes

__________________
Custom Training Plans -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Power Meter Hire in Australia