Try ten (and toss in a 6th interval while you’re at it).
I don’t even know how 6x5 with 2 RBI is possible. Well at least they had a day off in betw - oh they ran some kind of maximal effort between each cycling day?! No idea why coaches don’t prescribe this protocol!
Some do, or at least a variation of it.
But the gainzzz! 0,12 l/min per week
So I tried Dade +4 (2.5min no hard start). It was fine. So fine I did an extra 3 intervals. Partly because there is definitely too much rest between intervals, partly because no hard start I think. Like if I’m thinking about time in zone, I’m sure I didn’t get bang for my buck. I think I’ll try hard starts with 2.5 minutes on Tuesday next week.
Or maybe 120% isn’t quite right for your power target? Why not try to redo it, but shoot for the highest possible power you think you can sustain for 9 intervals?
Better still, make the intervals longer, to better stress aerobic vs. anaerobic metabolism.
I had Matthes+1 on the schedule today, which is 9 x 3’ at 115%.
For context, I come from a distance running background and my strength is long steady state stuff. I really suck at Vo2 and Anaerobic stuff. Vo2 work with intervals over 2.5 mins is a real struggle for me - my legs crack long before my breathing.
I knew I was unlikely to hit the scheduled workout, so I tried a hard start replacement.
I did 9 x 3’, with starts up around 130-150%, and ramping down to 107% for the last 90s. While not an easy workout, I was able to get through this without issue; I even turned up the last couple of intervals. It had an almost identical IF and TSS as the scheduled workout. This was my first attempt at a hard start version, and I really liked it, but I’m wondering how it compares in terms of training stimulus?
Any thoughts on this vs the stimulus from the scheduled workout
Just to be clear: you say that your legs always let you down, but you still choose to start each interval at a power you can’t possibly maintain, just making it all that much harder on them. Does that make sense to you (or anyone else)?
Isn’t that the whole point of the hard start?
And to be clear, this felt easier.
The point of the hard start is to increase time at or near VO2max, by speeding up VO2 kinetics. The theory is that this will maximum increases in VO2max, but in fact there are no data to support that hypothesis.
As for being easier, I would argue that is a sign that you spent less time at or near VO2max.
As mentioned above, the point of hard start VO2 max intervals is to reach VO2 max earlier in each interval. If anything, this type of workout should probably feel harder than steady state efforts, so something doesn’t seem quite right.
If it was too easy then you have a range of options: longer intervals, shorter breaks, higher power IMO prioritse them in that order. If possible do more than one for increased stimulus.
Try 5 or 8 minutes intervals.
I want to keep the % at 120 because its actually around my MAP atm. So I’m going to extend till I can get it to 5 minutes.
This was only meant to be a 3 week vo2max block anyway
Do whatever you think is right. I can tell you what you are doing right now will not improve your vo2. Read what old_but_not_dead_yet is saying. 120% isn’t set in stone for everyone. especially if you have a lot of anaerobic contribution. As you do.
I agree that definitely that workout didn’t do much for vo2max, but I’m also pretty sure that if I can get the right amount of hardstart right with a longer interval I should be good. I think that 1m30 starting from 150% was too much. Maybe 150% for 30 seconds then down to around 120%
I don’t think that’s right. Kinetics won’t change, it’s just the speed of the response. It will remain the same regardless of intensity. Though it will increase over time with training. You’re trying to increase amplitude to induce greater oxygen deficit - spurring greater adaptations. You need to maintain that oxygen deficit over the course of the interval.
I don’t think entering the anaerobic zone is a no-no as long as you can maintain you’re effort above threshold. If you start dipping below threshold, the body is back recovering and you’re not getting the benefit.
VO2 kinetics = speed of response.
Here’s the study that seems to be largely behind this latest fad, although if you search PubMed using the terms “VO2 kinetics decremental”, “prior heavy exercise”, or “priming exercise”, you will turn up a number of earlier (and later) related articles.
That’s not what the thread originator says. If I go all the way back to the first posts in the thread, the OP says “I actually find these easier…”.
Yeah that’s actually technically correct. The kinetics (rate of change ΔVO2/ΔPower) might not change per se (although it might actually get slower with increasing intensity, see below) at least within the severe intensity domain. The speed of the VO2 response will be faster for a hard-start because the higher power (↑ ΔPower) target stimulates a greater amplitude (↑ ΔVO2) of response, eg. trying to reach >100% VO2max, so it reaches the “real” amplitude of eg. 90% VO2max faster.
That being said, functionally if we were to evaluate ‘apparent’ VO2 kinetics of a hard-start interval, the kinetics would be modeled as being faster, since the real VO2 response will of course be clamped at 100% VO2max. This might be a limitation of monoexponential modeling of VO2 kinetics (one more fascinating paper down below).
It doesn’t change the intent of the protocol, but I’ve probably been saying the wrong thing that “VO2 kinetics get faster” when I should have been saying “the speed of the VO2 response increases”.
The ‘priming’ effect does increase the rate of VO2 kinetics, so that also plays a role, but more during subsequent intervals after the first, or after a warm-up.
There’s never less nuance 