vo2 max intervals.

Simone@Italy

To be honest, I was looking here for volounteers

frenchyge

Rather than lengthening the work duration of the interval, I prefer to work on shortening the rest interval so that my aerobic output is not dropping as far between intervals. This is a way to shorten that 2-3 minutes delay before reaching VO2max training you mentioned.

There was a study on pubmed which found that for 4' intervals, the resting portions could be shortened down to about 2.5 minutes without significantly hurting the working power which could be achieved. The study also showed better VO2max training results for that protocol than with longer rests.

Simone@Italy

So what you are suggesting is 'n' times ( 4' @ L5 + 2.5' @ L1 ), am I correct?

frenchyge

Yes, that's what the study tested. Personally, I find 6x4' with 3' rests allows me to complete the set around 117% FTP (vs. ~115% FTP for 2.5' rests), so that's what I prefer.

acoggan

Two comments:

1) the study was of running, not cycling (which entails a greater degree of local muscle fatigue), and

2) the shorter rest periods were better only in the sense that they allowed the individuals to spend more time at/near VO2max. Whether this actually leads to greater improvements in either VO2max or in performance is an unanswered question (and in fact, I am unaware of any research to either support or refute the "time at/near VO2max" hypothesis).

frenchyge

Ok, I don't remember if that was clear from the abstract or not.

I thought the study actually tested for VO2max changes, and that that group showed the largest percentage change.

Edit: You're right, their response was measured during the exercise, but it was not a study for training effectiveness.

See:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15387806?ordinalpos=51&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15387806?ordinalpos=51&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

wattsup?

From the "How do I" thread...

From the article by Dr. Stephen McGregor:

"One thing to take into consideration is that at the start of an interval, increased oxygen consumption takes anywhere from 60-180 seconds to reach the point of VO2max..."

It seems 180 seconds is being used as a hard number in the former quote, which is at odds with the article quoted above, which is frequently referenced. For my own RPE, 90 seconds feels about right for that "VO2 Max feeling," if you will.

Any further insight as to why it would take more or less time to reach VO2 Max state? Is it dependent on being between 105% and 120% of VO2 Max, with the higher the percentage being the quicker path to VO2 Max?

If it takes 3 minutes just to get into the zone, I think I would choose to do a 5x5 vs. 6x4 (6 minutes vs. 10 minutes in the zone for 1 more minute of work). I prefer 6x4 because that last 60 seconds between minute 4 and minute 5 would be a painful one (perhaps that's the point). Now I'm all for suffering with a benefit, but I find that not completely flogging myself keeps me more mentally fresh week in and week out. Given the same benefit, I'd rather do 4 minute intervals.

Thoughts?

Porkyboy

Hi

FWIW I've just launched my L5 programme and did a session last night, to start with I'm doing 4x4s and after a warmup I hit each affort hard as if trying to hang on to a sudden acceleration, I don't build nto it. I think part of the variation between individual thoughts about how long it takes to hit VO2 max intensity is purely down to how people do the sessions, some raise the load slowly, some quickly, so it's like comparing apples and pears.

I think if you hit the effort like a brick wall, rather than a slope, to simulate real world riding a VO2 max level effort will indeed be reached at about 90 seconds. Personally @ 90 secs from the general feelings of systemic hypoxia and the increasingly laboured breathing, all good pointers to an aerobically maxed out state, I'm sure I'm there. At about 90 seconds there is also often a small jump in HR s if some form of compensatory mechanism is kicking in, I'm guessing that this is a cry for more gas from the aerobically maxed out system trying to jack up the HR, who knows, maybe it's just a response to pain!

Like you I find that initially doing 4 minute efforts is preferable to 5 minute efforts, I do not believe that these efforts need to be done to exhaustion and I do not believe that it is beneficial to do so, better I believe to do a slightly shorter effort and make all the efforts quality efforts. Previously I'd done 4x5 efforts building the load during the 1st minute of each effort, I managed to do them at about 320W and I really hated it. Last night I managed 4x4 @ 340W and I didn't "like" it but I will go back for more as I think they will help me.

It's not scientific but a reckon doing these this way will deliver greater benefits to me and will allow me to stick at them better as I get used to them until such tme as I feel able to increase the length/number/load for the efforts. The efforts are certainly being done at a higher % of my FTP this way which I think is a good thing, and I'm certain I'm at VO2 max intensity after 90 seconds or less, sure feels like it!

Just my thoughts!

Regards to all,

PBUK

__________________
What do you mean your legs are hurting? Give it some welly man!
Visit My Training Weblog

frenchyge

How long it takes to get there also depends on where you're starting from.

acoggan

Modeled as a single exponential function, the half-time for VO2 kinetics in endurance trained individuals is ~30 s. Thus, in response to a sudden ("square wave") increase in power output from 0 watts to one that which just elicits VO2max:

after ~30 s you would be at ~50% of VO2max

after ~60 s you would be at ~75% of VO2max

after ~90 s you would be at ~87.5% of VO2max

after ~120 s you would be at ~91.25% of VO2max

Etc.

Now a single-exponential is a bit of an oversimplification, and opinions might differ at to what constitutes "at/near VO2max", but nonetheless it is correct that it generally takes "a couple of minutes" to get to VO2max, at least when starting from a much lower level of exercise.

Porkyboy

Hi

In your experience/opinion what power output, in terms of tested FTP, would "just elicit" VO2 max? (100% FTP 120% FTP?)

and..

What power output, in terms of tested FTP, would you define as a "much lower level of exercise"?

Thanks,

PBUK

__________________
What do you mean your legs are hurting? Give it some welly man!
Visit My Training Weblog

acoggan

1. On average, probably about 115% of functional threshold power (although due to VO2 drift, VO2 may eventually rise to maximum at a lower, but still supra-critical power/maximal lactate steady state/functional threshold, power output).

2. Well, I was thinking "level 1" when I wrote what I wrote before.

frost

How about the "half-life" of VO2Max progress or how quickly you hit the plateau when concentrating on training VO2Max? I have understood that it happens relatively quickly? But still there is research that indicates that VO2Max can be developed quite much. Is the plateau related to metabolic fitness that prevents training more/harder?

__________________
"It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."

Porkyboy

Hi Andrew


Thanks for that, very helpful. This confirms that @ 340W with an FTP of 296W I'm working at the right sort of level, pretty much on the 115% nose really! Also raising the load from 175W up to 340W pretty much immediately would seem to fit with the numbers you suggest so I think, as far as I can see and understand, I'm doing them "right"!

Cheers,

PBUK

__________________
What do you mean your legs are hurting? Give it some welly man!
Visit My Training Weblog