VO2 max intervals...again

[Spunout]

What lab tests? What study?

Are you referring to the Stepto, 1999 study that showed that doing 12x30 sec at 175% PPO with 4-5 minute recovery increased 40 km TT performance? Great, but the same study showed 8 x 4 minutes at 85% PPO was even better. Personally, I find 85% ridiculously low for 4 minutes and can always do 105% or so for 4 minutes.

-Bikeguy

These studies were quoted in Jeukendrup 'High Performance Cycling' I think. I do both sets. I believe that the percentages are based on MAP power, and not FT or LT power. Thus, 85% is a VO2Max interval (lower range).

 

[acoggan]

Personally, I find 85% ridiculously low for 4 minutes and can always do 105% or so for 4 minutes.

Are you using 1 min rest periods like Nigel did?

FWIW, I've done a handful of 8 x 5 min on, 1 min off workouts, and find that the maximum power I can tolerate during the "on" intervals is just slightly higher than what I can sustain during much longer level 4 intervals, e.g., as 2 x 20 min. Of course, as you might expect the normalized power turns out to be almost exactly the same.

 

[bikeguy]

Are you using 1 min rest periods like Nigel did?

I must have nodded off. Who's Nigel?

No, I use 5 minute "rest intervals" where I'm still cycling at 250-270 w. However, I only do 4 intervals and the last one is very hard.

FWIW, I've done a handful of 8 x 5 min on, 1 min off workouts, and find that the maximum power I can tolerate during the "on" intervals is just slightly higher than what I can sustain during much longer level 4 intervals, e.g., as 2 x 20 min.

5 minutes is a lot harder for me than 3 or 4, and I could hold three intervals with a high power, but the 4th would kill me.

I've never done 2x20's, but just do a 1 hr effort and try and hold the same
power and then increase or even sprint the last minute. I usually feel better at the end. Sometimes I do 45 minutes, yesterday I did 75 minutes. My 60 minute power is 75% of my Wmax power, determined in 25 w/3 min stages.
This year I can hold 20 more watts for 75 minutes, than I could for 60 minutes last year. I think over 2 hrs, I'm about 60(!!) watts better now. However, I seem to be in a state of flux, I'm still seeing big improvements across the board.

Of course, as you might expect the normalized power turns out to be almost exactly the same.

Directed to WarrenG:
I'm a bit confused as to why a running study is being used to support a premise of increased VO2 max using 30 sec-30 sec intervals for cycling over say 3 minute intervals in particular since the link itself says:

Rating the workouts:

Quote:"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. Thus, moving from 30-30 to 5 x 3 is a beautiful progression, both in terms of the ease with which the workout can be accomplished and also the magnitude of the stimulus for physiological improvement."

So there you have it, definitively 5 x 3 is better.

Then: Quote: "Note, though, that individual variations might make the 30-30 better than 5 x 3 for some athletes."

Might. Doesn't sound very certain to me. 5 x 3 minutes is mostly better but 30-30 might be better in some other cases. Doesn't help me, but I already know for ME, that 30-30 won't help my VO2 max. It probably will allow me to surge better.

Frankly, I've already seen 30 second intervals espoused in at least two training programmes of professional cyclists. They basically do it for improved surging.


-Bikeguy

 

[acoggan]

I must have nodded off. Who's Nigel?

Nigel Stepto.

No, I use 5 minute "rest intervals" where I'm still cycling at 250-270 w.

The protocol in the paper being referenced was 8 x 5 min on, 1 min off - shortening the rest period to just 1 min has a huge impact on the physiological responses, and hence on the power you can produce. Consequently, an 8 x 5 min on, 1 min off interval session is really mostly aimed at raising your LT, not your VO2max (although of course it will tend to improve the latter as well).

Quote:"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."

So there you have it, definitively 5 x 3 is better.

Better at enabling you to spend more time at/near VO2max, maybe...but this doesn't necessarily mean that it is better at raising VO2max, which is what really matters (well, what really matters is increasing the power you can produce when exercising at/near VO2max...but that's mostly accomplished by raising your VO2max).

 

[bikeguy]

Nigel Stepto.

Ahhh.. I only had the last name.

The protocol in the paper being referenced was 8 x 5 min on, 1 min off - shortening the rest period to just 1 min has a huge impact on the physiological responses, and hence on the power you can produce. Consequently, an 8 x 5 min on, 1 min off interval session is really mostly aimed at raising your LT, not your VO2max (although of course it will tend to improve the latter as well).

I must have nodded off again. Are we talking about the Stepto study, which was 4 minutes at 85% PPO and 1.5 minute rest intervals? Yes, 1.5 minutes is much shorter, however I assumed the rest in the Stepto study was essentially no power output (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm guessing), while I keep on going at 61% of my interval power inbetween.

Also, I was under the impression that the interval needs to be more than 90% of VO2 max to increase VO2 max. So I do my intervals at 105%.

Better at enabling you to spend more time at/near VO2max, maybe...but this doesn't necessarily mean that it is better at raising VO2max, which is what really matters (well, what really matters is increasing the power you can produce when exercising at/near VO2max...but that's mostly accomplished by raising your VO2max).

I was quoting the Veronique Billat article, and I said I disagreed that 30 sec-30 sec intervals are better than 8 x 3 min intervals for raising VO2 max. Billat seems to agree too, although I'm not sure she's sure. For VO2 max training, I do 105% VO2 max for the intervals.

-Bikeguy

 

[Eldrack]

The reason why the 30-30 are better for some athletes is when the athlete can perform more than 20 work intervals and therefore spends more time at V02 max in the 30-30 than the 5 * 3.

Now is not the time to think: 'So what?' Remember that time spent at VO2max is a critically important variable during training. Many experts believe (with backing from research) that time passed at VO2max during training is a much more potent fitness expander for endurance athletes than time spent at 80, 90 or even 95% VO2max. The reason for this is clear: if you are forcing your heart to send as much oxygen as possible to your muscles and also forcing your muscles to use the incoming oxygen at the highest-possible rate, that creates a maximal stimulus for the heart and muscles to adapt by enhancing the body's capacity to process oxygen. If you use a less intense stimulus, the muscles and heart will 'believe' they are meeting the demands of training quite well (since you haven't tried to push through the upper limit of O2 utilisation) and you will thus generate a smaller adaptive response to the training.

What it means by "fitness" is slightly unclear but one would assume it is VO2max. Therefore if you want to increase your VO2max then pick whichever work out (with guidance from the article) will allow you too spend more time at maximum oxygen uptake.

 

[acoggan]

I must have nodded off again. Are we talking about the Stepto study, which was 4 minutes at 85% PPO and 1.5 minute rest intervals?

Ack - I was recalling this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=11224822&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

not this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=10331896&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

What the subjects did during the rest period was not specified in the latter study, but I assume that it is the same as in the first, i.e., they continued pedaling between efforts, but at <100 W.

 

[bikeguy]

The reason why the 30-30 are better for some athletes is when the athlete can perform more than 20 work intervals and therefore spends more time at V02 max in the 30-30 than the 5 * 3.

Might be better. That was a running study, and only one at that.

What it means by "fitness" is slightly unclear but one would assume it is VO2max. Therefore if you want to increase your VO2max then pick whichever work out (with guidance from the article) will allow you too spend more time at maximum oxygen uptake.

I would pick a 30-30 system, but not for increasing VO2 max. Like I said, this isn't the first time I've seen such a system proposed.

-Bikeguy

 

[bikeguy]

Ack - I was recalling this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=11224822&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Ok, great yet another morsel for me.

not this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=10331896&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

What the subjects did during the rest period was not specified in the latter study, but I assume that it is the same as in the first, i.e., they continued pedaling between efforts, but at <100 W.

I was wondering about the rest intervals. I might just try this format of intervals, because the rest between intervals is short and should give a
different stimulus then doing the intervals with long breaks in between, even if the power is lower.

Cheers, -Bikeguy

 

[WarrenG]

Directed to WarrenG:
I'm a bit confused as to why a running study is being used to support a premise of increased VO2 max using 30 sec-30 sec intervals for cycling over say 3 minute intervals in particular since the link itself says:

I wasn't the one bringing up a running study. And I've also said a few times in the last three days that I wouldn't tell someone that 30/30 was better than say, 3-minute intervals. What I have said about that is that sprinter-types may accomplish more with the 30/30 and 40/20 format and the non-sprinter types may accomplish more with intervals like 3-5 minutes.

Rating the workouts:

Quote:"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. Thus, moving from 30-30 to 5 x 3 is a beautiful progression, both in terms of the ease with which the workout can be accomplished and also the magnitude of the stimulus for physiological improvement."

So there you have it, definitively 5 x 3 is better.

I have also said that the 30/30 or other formats could be chosen based on trying to maximize the total work time at the appropriate intensity. I said this in reply to someone who wanted to do VO2max training but was not able to maintain that high intensity for the full 3x4' or whatever it was.

It also depends on how high the intensity is during the 30/30's. Last night I mentioned that I do these in a progression that finishes with high power during the work interval( as high as I can maintain for a total amount of work near 10 minutes), which for me is around 600-640 watts. With that intensity the work intervals don't have much trouble stimulating my ability for intensities around VO2max and above.

Then: Quote: "Note, though, that individual variations might make the 30-30 better than 5 x 3 for some athletes."

Might. Doesn't sound very certain to me. 5 x 3 minutes is mostly better but 30-30 might be better in some other cases.

.

Which probably relates to what I've said earlier about which format may help different people more than the other. And yes, ability to handle surges is good for some racers too. SFR training can help with this too.

-Warren

 

[bikeguy]

I wasn't the one bringing up a running study.

Ok, I probably got lost in the thread, it's getting pretty long.

And I've also said a few times in the last three days that I wouldn't tell someone that 30/30 was better than say, 3-minute intervals. What I have said about that is that sprinter-types may accomplish more with the 30/30 and 40/20 format and the non-sprinter types may accomplish more with intervals like 3-5 minutes.

What do you think they would be trying to accomplish? I'm saying for pure VO2 max training, 30-30 is out. For responding (or initiating!) surges, oh yeah!

I have also said that the 30/30 or other formats could be chosen based on trying to maximize the total work time at the appropriate intensity. I said this in reply to someone who wanted to do VO2max training but was not able to maintain that high intensity for the full 3x4' or whatever it was.

Better, I think would be to cut out one or two intervals.

It also depends on how high the intensity is during the 30/30's. Last night I mentioned that I do these in a progression that finishes with high power during the work interval( as high as I can maintain for a total amount of work near 10 minutes), which for me is around 600-640 watts.

I agree that at a good intensity these should be sufficient to increase VO2 max doing them this style, but there is little evidence that it's better than longer intervals.

Which probably relates to what I've said earlier about which format may help different people more than the other. And yes, ability to handle surges is good for some racers too. SFR training can help with this too.

-Warren

I wish I could ride you side by side starting from zero and up to 40 km/hr. I have a great jump, but it came from doing plyos and deadlifting 140 kg for 30 consecutive reps at 76 kg bodyweight, 200 kg for 3, and partial deads with 300 kg x 2 (I also have a background in track events, although my best 100 m dash was only 11.4, I'm a stiff guy, 400 m in 53 sec indoors), although at the time I wasn't into competitive cycling. I've stopped lifting weights to reduce body weight, but I still have a great jump on the bike and vertical.

-Bikeguy

 

[WarrenG]

Ok, I probably got lost in the thread, it's getting pretty long.


What do you think they would be trying to accomplish? I'm saying for pure VO2 max training, 30-30 is out. For responding (or initiating!) surges, oh yeah!

I don't know the exact chemical response, but from my own experience (and being a sprinter -type) I can do much more work with the little rests than with steady output. A buddy of mine is okay as a pursuiter but better as a points racer and criterium racer and he seems to prefer the format of 45"/15" on/off. I think it's because I/we use lots of type 2 fibers to go this fast, i.e. produce high amounts of lactate and the little break lets us take care of some lactate (proxy) issues, which seems to be an adaption. He and I both recover relatively well in just 15-30 seconds so this format allows us to do more work than if the lactate was just building and building during a longer effort.

I agree that at a good intensity these should be sufficient to increase VO2 max doing them this style, but there is little evidence that it's better than longer intervals.

My coach has trained lots of bike racers and he's the one that's noticed this about 30/30 vs 3-4', and mentioned it to me after I conveyed my own feedback about this training.

I wish I could ride you side by side starting from zero and up to 40 km/hr. I have a great jump, ... I've stopped lifting weights to reduce body weight, but I still have a great jump on the bike and vertical.

-Bikeguy

So what am I supposed to do when we hit 40kph?
I'm a starter for team sprint (in 2005 won all 3 Districts, 1st at Masters Nat's and 4th at Masters Worlds) so you better hang on tight! At sea level, outdoors, I'll stop accelerating when we get to about 38mph, okay? 6'5" 211 pounds, out of the saddle until we're up over 37mph, enjoy the draft!

BTW, I haven't done any weights since 2001.

 

[bikeguy]

I don't know the exact chemical response, but from my own experience (and being a sprinter -type) I can do much more work with the little rests than with steady output. A buddy of mine is okay as a pursuiter but better as a points racer and criterium racer and he seems to prefer the format of 45"/15" on/off. I think it's because I/we use lots of type 2 fibers to go this fast, i.e. produce high amounts of lactate and the little break lets us take care of some lactate (proxy) issues, which seems to be an adaption. He and I both recover relatively well in just 15-30 seconds so this format allows us to do more work than if the lactate was just building and building during a longer effort.





My coach has trained lots of bike racers and he's the one that's noticed this about 30/30 vs 3-4', and mentioned it to me after I conveyed my own feedback about this training.





So what am I supposed to do when we hit 40kph?
I'm a starter for team sprint (in 2005 won all 3 Districts, 1st at Masters Nat's and 4th at Masters Worlds) so you better hang on tight! At sea level, outdoors, I'll stop accelerating when we get to about 38mph, okay? 6'5" 211 pounds, out of the saddle until we're up over 37mph, enjoy the draft!

BTW, I haven't done any weights since 2001.

I take it you're a 200 m specialist?
Oh, you'd probably pass me over 60 kph, I get tired quickly. I've done 80 kph behind a 18 wheeler up a 1% gradient, but that isn't quite like being in the open air.


Join me at a red light in Finland if you should stop by. Here's a pic of my scrawny 73 kg during my first TT:http://www.cyclingforums.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/74/cat/505
Nothing too exciting. Yet.
Got a pic of you from the worlds?

-Bikeguy

 

[acoggan]

Join me at a red light in Finland if you should stop by. Here's a pic of my scrawny 73 kg during my first TT:http://www.cyclingforums.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/74/cat/505
Nothing too exciting. Yet.
Got a pic of you from the worlds?

I don't know whether to respond:

"Get a room, you too!"

or just inform you that Warren's married...

 

[bikeguy]

I don't know whether to respond:

"Get a room, you too!"

or just inform you that Warren's married...

I just want to know if he actually is what he says he is.

-Bikeguy

 

[WarrenG]

I just want to know if he actually is what he says he is.

-Bikeguy

Andy's right. I am married.


2005 Worlds results are here. Look down the page and you'll see my name. We actually had two disappointing rides because our third guy turned out to be very tired from doing the pursuit final the night before. He did his best though and we ended up 4th.
http://www.cyclingmasters.com/results/2005 Results/sat.html


2005 Nat's results here. Our time wasn't great because our second rider lost his chain midway through his lap and we had to do a re-ride about 4 minutes later. We were about a second slower than our first ride was going to be.
http://www.usacycling.org/results/index.php?year=2005&id=1836&info_id=5076

Sorry, no links for the three districts wins in 2005 in the Team Sprint because the website is being remodeled and they haven't re-done the pages with those results.

 

[bikeguy]

You've left quite a trail on the internet and on the track, Geissert. Sorry if I seem a bit rude, but you never know if people are who they say they are on the internet.

-Bikeguy