VO2 max workouts

[RapDaddyo]

As in pyramid or criss-cross intervals?

I adapt my workouts to my routes. Some segments lend themselves to L4 efforts (e.g., 3-5 mile climbs). Other segments lend themselves to L5 or L6 efforts. Plus, I usually do 3-5 L7s at the end of the ride. About the only time I do a ride with only one type of effort is when I do long L4s (30-90 mins) on a road with a long, steady upgrade. I don't pay a lot of attention to the order of the high-intensity efforts. I focus on the total minutes at each level. So, if my target is 40mins at L4, 20mins at L5 and 20mins at L6, I don't really care how the efforts are sequenced on my ride.

 

[jeff828]

The problem is that the short recovery protocol limits the number of high-intensity efforts you can do before you hit your MMP/duration curve. Take, for example, the following two workout scenarios. Scenario #1 is 3min intervals at 120%FTP w/ 3min recovery at 150W. Scenario #2 is 3min intervals at 120%FTP w/ 1.5min recovery at 150W. For both scenarios, FTP is assumed to be 250W and VO2MAX power is 300W.
Scenario NP(AVG) AP
#1 257 231
#2 272 254
Scenario #1 results in NP of 257 (103%FTP), which is likely sustainable for a set of 4-6 efforts (24-36mins). Scenario #2 results in NP of 272 (109%FTP), which is likely sustainable only for 2 efforts maximum. So, the protocol in Scenario #2 results in total time at VO2MAX power of 6mins versus 12-18mins in Scenario #1. I think the adaptation benefits of Scenario #1 trumps that of Scenario #2.

I agree, I think getting a little more recovery is the better way to go (scenario #1) and the total time spent in a zone seems to be very relevant.

I haven't believed for a number of years about the incomplete intervals (old school) we were taught. The accumulative time of not recovering takes its toll by the 3rd, 4th, 5th interval. Don't think it trains your body to recover better.

Theory behind it was when you got to the top of the hill, he who recovered faster was able to attack, before the other guy, but I look at this way, why don't you build your strength so you don't have to go anaerobic like the other guy going up the hill, you will then naturally be able to attack because your aerobic or at threshold so what are you recovering from.

Example: rider A sets pace on a hill and is only riding at 65% of max, mean while rider B (who isn't as strong) is on his wheel but working at 92% of max, when they get to the top who will recover faster? Hope ya say rider A, what does he have to recover from, he didn't even hit threshold. All the incomplete intervals/shorter recovery isn't going to help rider B stay with rider A

I prefer taking a 1:1 ratio when doing Vomax
3min on 3min off maybe 4min off
5min on 5min off

If you did 20sec all out sprints @1000watts, could you train your body to recover in only 10sec so you can do another 20sec all out sprint around 1000watts? Just think if you could do 5-6 of these you could demolish a good part of the pack.

Just my opinion

 

[RapDaddyo]

I haven't believed for a number of years about the incomplete intervals (old school) we were taught. The accumulative time of not recovering takes its toll by the 3rd, 4th, 5th interval. Don't think it trains your body to recover better.

Theory behind it was when you got to the top of the hill, he who recovered faster was able to attack, before the other guy, but I look at this way, why don't you build your strength so you don't have to go anaerobic like the other guy going up the hill, you will then naturally be able to attack because your aerobic or at threshold so what are you recovering from.

The fundamental question is whether one separately trains his body to recover faster and, if so, how does that training differ from training for increased power at a given duration? I think the answer is that there is not a separate and distinct training protocol for recovery rate. I think we train for physiological adaptations, produced by riding at specific power/duration combinations. Faster recovery is a byproduct of the adaptation. IOW, it is associated with improved fitness. I sometimes wonder if people are looking for a "silver bullet" to attain results without having to do the high-intensity efforts. I don't think that silver bullet exists (chemicals notwithstanding).

 

[acoggan]

The fundamental question is whether one separately trains his body to recover faster and, if so, how does that training differ from training for increased power at a given duration? I think the answer is that there is not a separate and distinct training protocol for recovery rate. I think we train for physiological adaptations, produced by riding at specific power/duration combinations. Faster recovery is a byproduct of the adaptation. IOW, it is associated with improved fitness. I sometimes wonder if people are looking for a "silver bullet" to attain results without having to do the high-intensity efforts. I don't think that silver bullet exists (chemicals notwithstanding).

Stop making so much sense, or I'm going to have to start ignoring you as well as Ric.

 

[RapDaddyo]

Stop making so much sense, or I'm going to have to start ignoring you as well as Ric.

LOL. That stuff? I think I got that from some guy on an Internet forum, maybe this post.
http://www.cyclingforums.com/showpost.php?p=2138205&postcount=44

 

[AndROOb]

Does anyone do both long LT (10+ min) intervals AND Vo2 Max (1-5 min) intervals in the same week, or do you just concentrate on one type for a period and then move on to the next?

I've done 2 x 20's, followed by 5-6minute VO2 max intervals(X3).
I remember thinking half way through the 2nd LT(20mins), how was I going to complete the VO2 max work, but I found that once I had taken 15 minutes recovery, the VO2max work was hard, but challenging, and I felt great when I'd conpleted the workout.
This really pushed my boundaries, and made me realise that sometimes doing that bit more is what generates greater improvement.

 

[scotmart]

Or, conversely, do longer intervals.

HR is a response to training load. You're already doing the work, using the energy systems (okay, in the most part after AC power is depleted) in the VO2Max zone even though your HR is not.

Well, no =).

Presumably (and I say this because there is no direct way of studying this) adaptation comes from training the body at the desired intensity. VO2max is by definition maximum uptake of oxygen. When you first start an interval at 'VO2max level', you are nowhere near maximum uptake of oxygen. Presumably the muscle fiber recruitment pattern is the same, but much of the energy is being supplied anaerobically. There is a lag period for O2 consumption. That lag is due to both systemic O2 delivery (of which the primary determinant is HR, stroke volume making a small, but still very important contribution) and local extraction (vascular bed recruitment). So while it is true that when you initially start the interval, you are likely using the muscles that are used when working at VO2max, you are not using them in the same manner.

Again, presumably, the desired benefit (improving VO2max) comes from working the entire system that determines it. So actual work time at (or near) VO2max is at least as important (I'd say more) as time spent at a workload associated with VO2max.

Given that, manipulations of work/rest periods are an interesting topic. There's a fair bit of literature on this subject, which tend to promote shorter rather than longer recoveries. Now how you mould that into a training plan, that's the art (and by art I mean is very open to the artists interpretation =).

Scott

 

[jeff828]

LOL. That stuff? I think I got that from some guy on an Internet forum, maybe this post.
http://www.cyclingforums.com/showpost.php?p=2138205&postcount=44

LOL

 

[blkhotrod]

The problem is that the short recovery protocol limits the number of high-intensity efforts you can do before you hit your MMP/duration curve. Take, for example, the following two workout scenarios. Scenario #1 is 3min intervals at 120%FTP w/ 3min recovery at 150W. Scenario #2 is 3min intervals at 120%FTP w/ 1.5min recovery at 150W. For both scenarios, FTP is assumed to be 250W and VO2MAX power is 300W.
Scenario NP(AVG) AP
#1 257 231
#2 272 254
Scenario #1 results in NP of 257 (103%FTP), which is likely sustainable for a set of 4-6 efforts (24-36mins). Scenario #2 results in NP of 272 (109%FTP), which is likely sustainable only for 2 efforts maximum. So, the protocol in Scenario #2 results in total time at VO2MAX power of 6mins versus 12-18mins in Scenario #1. I think the adaptation benefits of Scenario #1 trumps that of Scenario #2.

Makes sense to me. Thanks!

 

[kuan]

Again, presumably, the desired benefit (improving VO2max) comes from working the entire system that determines it. So actual work time at (or near) VO2max is at least as important (I'd say more) as time spent at a workload associated with VO2max.

Given that, manipulations of work/rest periods are an interesting topic. There's a fair bit of literature on this subject, which tend to promote shorter rather than longer recoveries. Now how you mould that into a training plan, that's the art (and by art I mean is very open to the artists interpretation =).

Scott

So, in layman terms, a shorter rest period will result in greater proportion of the aerobic system being recruited?

 

[Doctor Morbius]

The fundamental question is whether one separately trains his body to recover faster and, if so, how does that training differ from training for increased power at a given duration? I think the answer is that there is not a separate and distinct training protocol for recovery rate. I think we train for physiological adaptations, produced by riding at specific power/duration combinations. Faster recovery is a byproduct of the adaptation. IOW, it is associated with improved fitness. I sometimes wonder if people are looking for a "silver bullet" to attain results without having to do the high-intensity efforts. I don't think that silver bullet exists (chemicals notwithstanding).

I've also always viewed recovery as a byproduct of fitness rather than something that can be trained for. Diet, supplements, sleep and active recovery can help of course.

 

[frenchyge]

So, in layman terms, a shorter rest period will result in greater proportion of the aerobic system being recruited?

Umm... sorta. A better way of saying it is that shorter rest periods may mean your O2 delivery system spends *more time* working at maximum capacity and therefore sees a greater stimulus for improvement.

There was a study posted a while back which studied O2 uptake during short intervals and found that, above a minimum rest duration, resting longer didn't really improve one's ability to produce power during subsequent intervals, but did reduce the amount of time that O2 uptake spent near VO2max due to slower response during the next interval. That rest duration was ~2.5-3 minutes, IIRC.

 

[acoggan]

presumably, the desired benefit (improving VO2max) comes from working the entire system that determines it. So actual work time at (or near) VO2max is at least as important (I'd say more) as time spent at a workload associated with VO2max.

Given that, manipulations of work/rest periods are an interesting topic. There's a fair bit of literature on this subject, which tend to promote shorter rather than longer recoveries.

You could just as easily hypothesize that it is time spent at, or at least near, maximal cardiac output that is the key factor in inducing the central cardiac adaptations that are largely responsible for the training-induced increase in VO2max (a-vO2 diff does increase slightly, but this is thought to be largely due to peripheral, i.e., muscular adaptations that may be best induced via continuous training). If this hypothesis is correct, then causing VO2 to drift towards VO2max via the use of short recoveries (i.e., Billatt's approach) may actually be less effective than the classical approach.

 

[kuan]

Umm... sorta. A better way of saying it is that shorter rest periods may mean your O2 delivery system spends *more time* working at maximum capacity and therefore sees a greater stimulus for improvement.

There was a study posted a while back which studied O2 uptake during short intervals and found that, above a minimum rest duration, resting longer didn't really improve one's ability to produce power during subsequent intervals, but did reduce the amount of time that O2 uptake spent near VO2max due to slower response during the next interval. That rest duration was ~2.5-3 minutes, IIRC.

Makes sense (to me at least). During intervals, it seems like you're first recruiting your anaerobic systems to ramp up, then cruising on your O2 delivery system, then finally switching over again to more of your anaerobic system if you push a little too hard. So resting longer may be key to restoring the anaerobic systems which allow you to get there in the first place. Conjecture of course.

 

[scotmart]

You could just as easily hypothesize that it is time spent at, or at least near, maximal cardiac output that is the key factor in inducing the central cardiac adaptations that are largely responsible for the training-induced increase in VO2max (a-vO2 diff does increase slightly, but this is thought to be largely due to peripheral, i.e., muscular adaptations that may be best induced via continuous training). If this hypothesis is correct, then causing VO2 to drift towards VO2max via the use of short recoveries (i.e., Billatt's approach) may actually be less effective than the classical approach.

Yep!

That's why I've taken to what I believe to be your approach (based on some of your previous posts)... I don't mess with the shorter intervals because I'm not sure what to do with recovery. I stick with 5-6 minute intervals with 3-5 minutes of recovery. That way I know I'm getting several minutes per interval at the desired physiologic state.

I don't kid myself that there is any scientific evidence for the superiority of this approach, but it decreases the questions and confusion that occurs in my head, which has to have some value =).

Scott

 

[AndROOb]

There was a study posted a while back which studied O2 uptake during short intervals and found that, above a minimum rest duration, resting longer didn't really improve one's ability to produce power during subsequent intervals, but did reduce the amount of time that O2 uptake spent near VO2max due to slower response during the next interval. That rest duration was ~2.5-3 minutes, IIRC.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16177614&query_hl=1

 

[acoggan]

I don't mess with the shorter intervals because I'm not sure what to do with recovery. I stick with 5-6 minute intervals with 3-5 minutes of recovery. That way I know I'm getting several minutes per interval at the desired physiologic state.

I don't kid myself that there is any scientific evidence for the superiority of this approach, but it decreases the questions and confusion that occurs in my head

Now you're really thinking the way I do: forget all the "circus training" and just stick with first principles!

EDIT: A little more seriously...the notion that driving cardiac output to/toward maximum occurred to me after seeing the way my PhD advisor, Ed Coyle, did his 5 min intervals. Rather than just using a fixed power, he performed each one like a mini-VO2max test, i.e., incrementing the power throughout. Apparently this is the way they always used to do such intervals in John Holloszy's lab back when the late Bob Hickson and later Ed were post-docs there. By the time I came around, though, the approach had shifted to performing such intervals in an isopower fashion (just like a runner would perform 1500 m repeats at a constant pace), which may in part explain why we were never able to quite match these results:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...st_uids=838658&query_hl=9&itool=pubmed_docsum

 

[AndROOb]

Now you're really thinking the way I do: forget all the "circus training" and just stick with first principles!

EDIT: A little more seriously...the notion that driving cardiac output to/toward maximum occurred to me after seeing the way my PhD advisor, Ed Coyle, did his 5 min intervals. Rather than just using a fixed power, he performed each one like a mini-VO2max test, i.e., incrementing the power throughout. Apparently this is the way they always used to do such intervals in John Holloszy's lab back when the late Bob Hickson and later Ed were post-docs there. By the time I came around, though, the approach had shifted to performing such intervals in an isopower fashion (just like a runner would perform 1500 m repeats at a constant pace), which may in part explain why we were never able to quite match these results:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=838658&query_hl=9&itool=pubmed_docsum

Andy, were the Ed Coyle 'intervals' started at 105%FTP, and incremented through to 120%FTP, or if not, could you elaborate more specifically how they were done please?