vo2 max intervals.

[MintID]

went out and did a 20 minute interval. unfortunately someone stepped out in front of me and i crashed. Spent 5 hours in the emergency room...
anyway... I crashed 18minutes into the interval, I checked it when i got up, and it said an avg. of 388Watts...
Will load it into trainingpeaks tomorrow and see...
do you guys measure ftp from NP or from AVG?

 

[bbrauer]

If he's able to complete 5 x 5 min @ 140% FTP then I'd suggest concentrating on raising his FTP to a higher percentage of VO2max as that may be his weakness (or re-testing). OTOH, if he has an unusually high anaerobic capacity I'd suggest lengthening his VO2max intervals to 6-8 min each.

Or shortening the rest interval between reps. Remember, too, that power really should drop somewhat after the first interval if he starts completely fresh. Subsequent intervals would would be lower, but more or less consistent. A slight power drop at the end of the interval is not really the end of the world, either, imo, so long as it's still at your max effort and it doesn't drop off the table. When I do them, I usually cover the computer with a towel and hammer them out as consistently as possible.

It'd be interesting to have him tested for a few other parameters. It seems he's "guestimating" what his efforts ought to be. If he's got a trainer, he can perform a ramp test to check his pVO2max, another test to determine the max time he can stay pVO2max (it varies from person to person).

 

[frost]

went out and did a 20 minute interval. unfortunately someone stepped out in front of me and i crashed. Spent 5 hours in the emergency room...
anyway... I crashed 18minutes into the interval, I checked it when i got up, and it said an avg. of 388Watts...
Will load it into trainingpeaks tomorrow and see...
do you guys measure ftp from NP or from AVG?

Too bad for the crash.hope you didn't hurt yourself too bad and recover quickly back on the bike. Couple of first nights are awful.

If I really test ftp it is average,especially if I use a shorter than hour effort to estimate, but NP of longer effort (say at least 45 minutes) gives a hint to retest.

Based on your numbers I would assume (have you ever tried monod calcs?) that you have a very big anaerobic capacity and if you want to know your 'real' ftp you must suffer for an hour.
And I still would be very interested to see your 1 MMP!

 

[Ade Merckx]

went out and did a 20 minute interval. unfortunately someone stepped out in front of me and i crashed. Spent 5 hours in the emergency room...
anyway... I crashed 18minutes into the interval, I checked it when i got up, and it said an avg. of 388Watts...
Will load it into trainingpeaks tomorrow and see...
do you guys measure ftp from NP or from AVG?

Jesus, I hope you're not too badly beaten up

 

[MintID]

(have you ever tried monod calcs?)

Haven't heard of that before.

 

[MintID]

Jesus, I hope you're not too badly beaten up

the xrayed my hip and elbow. there were no broken bones. But I have a sprained elbow, i can't move it in any direction. I can only keep it in a 90 degree angel...

 

[frost]

Haven't heard of that before.

It's a calculation model to estimate your power on different durations based on tested efforst on few durations.

Check eg. this link http://www.cyclingforums.com/t345350.html or browse google-wattage forum for more.

Though it is not very accurate in very short or very long durations if you enter your figures you will see why I am so interested in your true tested 1 MMP. I think the concensus is that the FTP-estimate it gives (based on ~5 and 20 min tests) is a bit on the high side but very nice tool anyway in addition to other ways to analyze your power.

Back to the original question what is your goal/reason to do VO2max intervals?

 

[Steve_B]

ehy, my time for that kind of test is, in order, exactly 5 and 20 minutes

Thanks, wise guy. The point was to see if his average speed for some easily testable duration made sense based upon available models. Obviously it's not proof - it's only a rough guide but given the high numbers he was stating, I thought it might be useful. However, he has answered the question to my level of satisfaction in other ways.

 

[Simone@Italy]

Just a question.. almost everybody in this forum suggests 5 x 5' for VO2max workouts, but I've also read that the real VO2max "training" starts 2-3 minutes after the interval's beginning. Let's suppose it's 2,5 minutes, doing a 5 x 5' results in a 5 x (2,5 min) "real" workout: in other words, 12,5 minutes at VO2max. Wouldn't be better 4 x 6', which yelds a 4 x (3,5 min) = 14' at VO2max? In total, it's 1 minute less of workout for 1,5 minutes more of training!

Seriously.. going on with this "pattern", 3 x 8' would be yet better, since it's a 3 x (5,5 min) = 16,5 min of training. I could go on, but I suppose that longer interval are too much hard at L5 level.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Just a question.. almost everybody in this forum suggests 5 x 5' for VO2max workouts, but I've also read that the real VO2max "training" starts 2-3 minutes after the interval's beginning. Let's suppose it's 2,5 minutes, doing a 5 x 5' results in a 5 x (2,5 min) "real" workout: in other words, 12,5 minutes at VO2max. Wouldn't be better 4 x 6', which yelds a 4 x (3,5 min) = 14' at VO2max? In total, it's 1 minute less of workout for 1,5 minutes more of training!

Seriously.. going on with this "pattern", 3 x 8' would be yet better, since it's a 3 x (5,5 min) = 16,5 min of training. I could go on, but I suppose that longer interval are too much hard at L5 level.

Try it, report back and let us know how you got on

 

[Simone@Italy]

Try it, report back and let us know how you got on

To be honest, I was looking here for volounteers

 

[frenchyge]

Just a question.. almost everybody in this forum suggests 5 x 5' for VO2max workouts, but I've also read that the real VO2max "training" starts 2-3 minutes after the interval's beginning. Let's suppose it's 2,5 minutes, doing a 5 x 5' results in a 5 x (2,5 min) "real" workout: in other words, 12,5 minutes at VO2max. Wouldn't be better 4 x 6', which yelds a 4 x (3,5 min) = 14' at VO2max? In total, it's 1 minute less of workout for 1,5 minutes more of training!

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]

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.

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

 

[frenchyge]

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

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]

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.

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]

Two comments:

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

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

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).

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...

As the OP correctly states the VO2max state is only reached at around 180 (seconds) from the start.

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

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.

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?

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

 

[frenchyge]

Any further insight as to why it would take more or less time to reach VO2 Max state?

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

 

[acoggan]

Thoughts?

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.