30 second intervals

WarrenG said:

I haven't done any 3-5 minute intervals in training that were near VO2max.

Right now, power is limited to 440-480w (~150% of power @ 4mmol/l) during the on. During the off it's just moving my legs.

So your average power is only 220-240 W, which means that your average VO2 during these intervals (including both work and rest periods) is only 3-3.2 L/min, which is probably only 55-60% of your VO2max. That's hardly what I'd call a potent stimulus to increasing VO2max, and it isn't anything at all like what Billat uses.

EDIT: Sorry, I wrote the above before seeing your comments about being cautious this early in the season. Based on those, it sounds like you agree with my conclusions above. So, can you tell us what you work your way up to at your peak, so we can better understand where you're coming from with some of your other comments?

BTW, if you assume that OBLA is approximately equal to what I call functional threshold power, then we're about equal in that regard (in absolute power, anyway). Maybe I'll try the workout you're currently doing and see how it goes...

acoggan said:

So your average power is only 220-240 W, which means that your average VO2 during these intervals (including both work and rest periods) is only 3-3.2 L/min, which is probably only 55-60% of your VO2max. That's hardly what I'd call a potent stimulus to increasing VO2max, and it isn't anything at all like what Billat uses.

I don't ride at zero power during the off. It's coasting and up to about 100-150 watts-but anyway, no work that matters for the actual training effect. Your estimates are far away from how I feel during the intervals (compared to 240w) and the improvement in my ability in the areas above 400 watts is measureable and noticeable virtually every week. And there is a cumulative effect-the later intervals are harder than the first 2-3 in the set.

acoggan said:

EDIT: Sorry, I wrote the above before seeing your comments about being cautious this early in the season. Based on those, it sounds like you agree with my conclusions above. So, can you tell us what you work your way up to at your peak, so we can better understand where you're coming from with some of your other comments?

Also, soft-pedalling at even ~100w during the rest periods still contributes +50w to the average over the set, which is a significant rise from ~240-280w.

acoggan said:

So your average power is only 220-240 W, which means that your average VO2 during these intervals (including both work and rest periods) is only 3-3.2 L/min, which is probably only 55-60% of your VO2max. That's hardly what I'd call a potent stimulus to increasing VO2max, and it isn't anything at all like what Billat uses.

EDIT: Sorry, I wrote the above before seeing your comments about being cautious this early in the season. Based on those, it sounds like you agree with my conclusions above. So, can you tell us what you work your way up to at your peak, so we can better understand where you're coming from with some of your other comments?

BTW, if you assume that OBLA is approximately equal to what I call functional threshold power, then we're about equal in that regard (in absolute power, anyway). Maybe I'll try the workout you're currently doing and see how it goes...

I wrote my first reply before you added your edit... "Timing is everything."

Alors, some may disagree but my coach, (and I strongly agree) tend to progress the workload almost every week for certain intervals except during an occasional resting period of 3-5 days.

In the initial phases of training an objective the stimulus can be relatively low, but eventually it grows to fairly high levels. In the last two seasons, in the month before peak my power targets for 30/30 and finally 40/20 were above 600 watts for the work portion. Sometimes I would do the last interval of the day at 600+ watts for about a minute.

This training might be skipped in some weeks (moreso before June) when I'm also doing mass-start track races that week.

WarrenG said:

I don't ride at zero power during the off. It's coasting and up to about 100-150 watts-but anyway, no work that matters for the actual training effect. Your estimates are far away from how I feel during the intervals (compared to 240w) and the improvement in my ability in the areas above 400 watts is measureable and noticeable virtually every week. And there is a cumulative effect-the later intervals are harder than the first 2-3 in the set.

Sorry, when you said "just moving my legs" I took you at your word. Since you are actually pedaling, though, allow me to revise my calculations:

(440+100)/2 = 270 W average power
(480+150)/2 = 315 W average power

Your average VO2 (which is what would dictate your cardiac output, etc., and hence the magnitude of any cardiovascular training effect) would therefore be around 3.6-4.1 L/min, or 65-80% of what I estimate to be your VO2max. Given that you're a sprinter with a relatively low OBLA, this is probably hard enough to become a bit tiring after cycling the load on and off for 7 min. However, I'm still not convinced that somebody like you would experience an increase in VO2max as a result, and again, these intervals are not all like those used by Billat in all her research. Thus, you probably shouldn't cite her papers as evidence that 30 s on, 30 s off intervals allow you to spend more time near VO2max, as you're probably not getting anywhere close to your VO2max (as evidenced by the fact that your heart rate also doesn't get anywhere close to your maximum).

acoggan said:

Only when the work and rest periods are much shorter than the half-life (i.e., 15 s or less) does things become almost completely "blurred" together.

Ok, I gotcha. Yes, 25% fluctuations in response above/below the norm do not resemble a steady, continuous effort.

acoggan said:

these intervals are not all like those used by Billat in all her research. Thus, you probably shouldn't cite her papers as evidence that 30 s on, 30 s off intervals allow you to spend more time near VO2max, as you're probably not getting anywhere close to your VO2max (as evidenced by the fact that your heart rate also doesn't get anywhere close to your maximum).

There was a study review linked earlier in this thread I think that basically said doing 30/30 at 110% of VO2max power got the people very near their VO2max in the later intervals. As you can see, my targets for the work interval eventually get much higher than that.

WarrenG said:

In the last two seasons, in the month before peak my power targets for 30/30 and finally 40/20 were above 600 watts for the work portion.

(650+150)/2 = 400 W...now that's getting high enough to elicit your VO2max, or 90% of it anyway. (Note: I'm basing my calculations on the assumption that you weigh 95 kg and that your VO2max is between 55 and 60 mL/min/kg.) Still, I doubt that your VO2max is actually increasing much as a result of these intervals, because you don't seem to train at a high enough intensity for the vast majority of the time that you do them.

WarrenG said:

There was a study review linked earlier in this thread I think that basically said doing 30/30 at 110% of VO2max power got the people very near their VO2max in the later intervals. As you can see, my targets for the work interval eventually get much higher than that.

The problem isn't the power that you work your way up to eventually, it's the low power during the off periods. Remeber, Billat's studies involve runners, who can't continue to run if they drop the intensity as much as you do (IIRC, the majority of Billat's studies also were done on treadmills, which don't speed up and slow down all that rapidly).

Hmmm...thinking about it a bit more, didn't Billat recently report that something like 110% VO2max on, 90% of VO2max off, was the best protocol? For somebody like you, 100-150 W only requires 30-40% of VO2max.

acoggan said:

(650+150)/2 = 400 W...now that's getting high enough to elicit your VO2max, or 90% of it anyway. (Note: I'm basing my calculations on the assumption that you weigh 95 kg and that your VO2max is between 55 and 60 mL/min/kg.)

I'm overdue for a VO2max test and I might do one soon just for curiosity, but 95kg is correct and 55-60 is what I would estimate it to be. I don't really care though. Changes to the number don't prove I'm better or worse as well as power output and race performance do.

acoggan said:

(Still, I doubt that your VO2max is actually increasing much as a result of these intervals, because you don't seem to train at a high enough intensity for the vast majority of the time that you do them.

Well, as I've said, I'm training for racing not testing and certain racing abilities are definitely benefitting from this training. I'm also interested in improving how much power I can make in the intensity range around VO2max, which as I understand it, would not require significant changes in my actual VO2max measurement, e.g. 56 vs. 58. IOW, making more power without necessarily increasing the %/amount of oxygen I utilize to do that.

Another aspect that can be worth mentioning is the absolute power around and above VO2max, irrespective of bodyweight.

acoggan said:

Hmmm...thinking about it a bit more, didn't Billat recently report that something like 110% VO2max on, 90% of VO2max off, was the best protocol? .

Based on what Max has told me, I'd say that format would suit you better than me. Was Billat testing endurance runners or sprinters (say, 400m runners)? Was Billat comparing results from those inclined to sprinting against results from those inclined to endurance?

It may be that individual response to a type of training was not considered.

WarrenG said:

I'm overdue for a VO2max test and I might do one soon just for curiosity, but 95kg is correct and 55-60 is what I would estimate it to be. I don't really care though. Changes to the number don't prove I'm better or worse as well as power output and race performance do.

Right, but to achieve improvements in power output over particular durations means that you have to train in a manner that targets the specific physiological attributes that determine power over that duration. So, while 30 s on, 30 s off may be helping you, say, deal with surges in a points race, the way you do them probably isn't benefitting your VO2max, which in turns that they can't be recommended as a way of increasing that "limiter" in somebody else, or even for you in a different situation (e.g., a hard 5 min chase during a points race).

WarrenG said:

Well, as I've said, I'm training for racing not testing and certain racing abilities are definitely benefitting from this training.

They probably are, but probably not for the reasons that you think, which in turn means that your training may not be optimal for achieving your goals.

WarrenG said:

I'm also interested in improving how much power I can make in the intensity range around VO2max, which as I understand it, would not require significant changes in my actual VO2max measurement, e.g. 56 vs. 58. IOW, making more power without necessarily increasing the %/amount of oxygen I utilize to do that.

That's called an increase in efficiency, and there's really no reason to believe that 30 s on, 30 s off would be any better at eliciting an improvement in such than any other type of training that also involves recruitment of type II motor units (e.g., longer intervals at around VO2max, overdistance training).

[quote="acoggan"]Right, but to achieve improvements in power output over particular durations means that you have to train in a manner that targets the specific physiological attributes that determine power over that duration. So, while 30 s on, 30 s off may be helping you, say, deal with surges in a points race, the way you do them probably isn't benefitting your VO2max,

Max mentioned a year or two ago some lab measurements he had done or seen that showed that by the time the person was doing the 3rd or 4th interval they were essentially at VO2max. My ability for 3-5' efforts has definitely improved as a result along with the improvement in surges. Other than racing these intervals are the only ones I do above 4mmol/l power except for sprints.

[quote="WarrenG"]

acoggan said:

Right, but to achieve improvements in power output over particular durations means that you have to train in a manner that targets the specific physiological attributes that determine power over that duration. So, while 30 s on, 30 s off may be helping you, say, deal with surges in a points race, the way you do them probably isn't benefitting your VO2max,

Max mentioned a year or two ago some lab measurements he had done or seen that showed that by the time the person was doing the 3rd or 4th interval they were essentially at VO2max. My ability for 3-5' efforts has definitely improved as a result along with the improvement in surges. Other than racing these intervals are the only ones I do above 4mmol/l power except for sprints.

WarrenG said:

pponline.co.uk0896.htmOpen ↗

Here is an excerpt... Bon appetito!

Don't miss this part:

Rating the workouts
Will 5 x 3 minutes improve VO2max, vVO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy more effectively than 30-30 and 60-60? In many cases, the answer is yes: the average time at VO2max during the 5 x 3 is around 10 minutes, about 25% more high-octane time than during the 30-30.

WarrenG said:

Okay, I went and found the link from the first page of this thread. Review of research done by the beloved Bilat.

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0896.htm

Here is an excerpt... Bon appetito!

"Much better results for 30-30
While the continuous running at a pace halfway between lactate-threshold speed and vVO2max led to a paltry total of less than three minutes at VO2max and 8:20 of overall running, the somewhat unusual strategy of alternating 30 seconds at vVO2max with 30 seconds of floating produced an average of 19 intervals at vVO2max before exhaustion set in, 9:30 of high-quality running, and a grand average of seven minutes and 51 seconds at VO2max (83% of the total). In other words it produced 19% more VO2max running than the continuous run! An additional 309 seconds were spent at VO2max during the 30-30 workout compared with the continuous run, yet blood-lactate levels were similar in the two efforts!

Interestingly, three individuals were able to complete between 22 and 27 intervals during the 30-30 workout, with as many as 18.5 minutes completed at actual VO2max. By contrast, the most expansive time spent at VO2max during the continuous run was seven minutes. If you are wondering how 27 30-second work intervals can lead to 18.5 minutes at VO2max (instead of, say, 13.5 minutes or less), bear in mind that runners often sustained VO2max during the 30-second recovery intervals too, even though they were running at only half of vVO2max!"

I gather that you haven't run in a while, and hence are having a hard time putting the term "floating" in context? Here's a hint: for a runner, it means going a lot harder than "...moving my legs around..." would mean to a cyclist. Or to put it another way: for you to replicate Billat's protocol while cycling, you'd have to keep your power >200 W at all times while maintaining an average power of 460-470 W (which means doing the "on" periods at 720-740 W). (Again, based on the assumption that your VO2max is 60 mL/min/kg.)

BTW, whenever referencing Billat's work I think it is important to keep in mind that she has never determined whether such short intervals are more efficacious in increasing VO2max than the way a runner would typically train (e.g., using 1500 m/mile "repeats"😉. In fact, she and her colleagues make this very point themselves: "These results do not allow us to speculate as to the chronic effects of these two types of training at VO2max." (See last sentence of abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10638376&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_DocSum). Notably, though, some of her more recent work suggests that although you might spend more time at VO2max doing intervals that are 30 s on, 30 s off (if you're a runner, anyway), this doesn't necessarily mean that your cardiac function is being stressed more, or even as much. Specifically, depending on the so-called slow component of VO2 to drift up to VO2max doesn't elicit maximal cardiac output:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15292744&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

One last comment: contrary to the tone taken by Anderson in his article, 5-10% improvements in VO2max, etc., over 9 wks isn't very impressive at all, at least when you consider the subject population. In similar individuals, we've obtained comparable improvements in just 10 days:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8304438&query_hl=12&itool=pubmed_docsum

frenchyge said:

Don't miss this part:

Rating the workouts
Will 5 x 3 minutes improve VO2max, vVO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy more effectively than 30-30 and 60-60? In many cases, the answer is yes: the average time at VO2max during the 5 x 3 is around 10 minutes, about 25% more high-octane time than during the 30-30.

This conclusion cannot be supported by the available data. It is predicated upon the assumption that more time at/near VO2max = bigger increase in VO2max, something that has never (to my knowledge, anyway) been experimentally demonstrated.

"Never send a science writer to do a scientist's job." - A. Coggan, 2006.

frenchyge said:

Don't miss this part:

Rating the workouts
Will 5 x 3 minutes improve VO2max, vVO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy more effectively than 30-30 and 60-60? In many cases, the answer is yes: the average time at VO2max during the 5 x 3 is around 10 minutes, about 25% more high-octane time than during the 30-30.

Yes, she said in "many cases". To explain why she said "many" instead of all, she said that a few runners were able to perform more work at their VO2max with the 30/30 than they could with the other format and gave examples of this. This difference in the individual response is what I've mentioned all along.

She also suggested doing 30/30's as a lead-in to doing 5 x3'.

acoggan said:

"Never send a science writer to do a scientist's job." - A. Coggan, 2006.

Yep. 😄 I started out reading that article in a serious manner, until I saw the words "huge" and "impressive" in the first couple paragraphs. At that point I realized that I may as well have been reading a training article from Bicycling magazine.

Edit: Actually, most of the article raves about the benefits of the 30/30's and how runners were able to do more work at VO2, etc. It's only at the end that they say "oh, in many cases, 3 minute intervals are probably still better."

So, to sum up, you keep referring to Billat's studies about 30/30's and suggesting that 30/30's won't provide very much time at VO2max. Then when you are shown that indeed a person can spend significant time at VO2max during 30/30's as measured by Billat herself, and sometimes more than during 3' intervals, then you want to discount the importance of time spent at VO2max. 😄

And she said that running at 50% of VO2max during the rest portion of the interval was helpful in increasing the total time at VO2max _beyond_ just during the total of the work portion of the interval. She did not say that 50% of VO2max during the rest portion was a requirement to get to VO2max during the work interval.