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

[Roadie_scum]

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[bbrauer]

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?

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

Excercise physiologist Andrew Coggan, a preeminent authority on training with power, gives his nod of approval to the T-Max: "It seems like a very logical, pragmatic approach to interval training. Here's the maximum amount of time you can go hard. To do that intensity repeatedly, you have to go hard for a shorter amount of time."

 

[bbrauer]

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

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.

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

 

[Mike Lawson]

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.

 

[bbrauer]

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

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.

 

[dkrenik]

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

 

[markfaz]

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

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...

 

[Alex Simmons]

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