lol, no.
So here’s my n=1 experiment today - turned off erg, went hard on the warm-ups to clear some anaerobic capacity, stayed seated, and just blasted high cadence with 2-3 shifts through each repeat to help keep resistance / power high. I was definitely breathing hard, but could not complete the sets even with longer recovery. Not sure how much was from overshooting or if I could have managed at target in ERG.
Today was totally different from my usual approach of follow the plan as close as possible (one ending hero effort out of saddle lol…), often in ERG, steadier efforts that are still very hard, but I generally complete the workout. Similarly high cadence except I’ll sometimes do a couple standing to get through. Below is a more typical example for me from 9 days prior:
Which is actually better?
In the second “traditional TR ERG” example, I spent about 10% more time at high HR over the workout. Looking just at the intervals+warm-up peaks, avg. HR was 6 BPM higher for the ~50 mins; peak HR about the same for both.
Meanwhile, going out hard today blew me up a bit - and I accumulated less time at “high” HR. As to the breathing - hard to say - it’s been 9 days since the other one. I was definitely breathing very hard through a lot of work today, but can also find myself in that state on longer ambitious over/unders. Not sure if it was uniquely different from any very hard workout.
I definitely felt better about the one I completed last week whereas I challenged myself harder today in a way I haven’t yet this indoor season and also found my limit which can be worth something… Tough call on what to do next.
1 Like
Different warmups, and possibly different power targets. Not a very good way to conduct an experiment. 
1 Like
Yep. Good listen is
“For an athlete with a high VlaMax I would recommend the following design of a VO2max session: 5x7mins of 40/20s.”
=> As a first interpretation of that description the on interval is set to 133% of FTP. Adjust power as needed for a VO2max session. If using ERG raise or lower target to your ability. Make it very hard over the wohole session (if going all out keep the whole session in mind).
—-
“For an athlete with a low VlaMax I would recommend the following design of a VO2max session: 1.5-2min @ VO2max power + 7-9mins @ maximum lactate steady state intensity, which is repeated 3-4 times.”
=> As a first interpretation of that description the hard start part is set to 120% and steady part to 102% of FTP. Adjust power as needed for a VO2max session. If using ERG raise or lower target to your ability. Make it very hard over the wohole session (if going all out keep the whole session in mind).
You’ll find both workouts in this TR team:
https://www.trainerroad.com/app/teams/14144-hard-start-vo2-max-intervals
That would match to the low VLaMax variant described above.
2 Likes
I’d repeat the resistance mode approach, but this time perform the warmup as prescribed. Now you’ve had this practice run, you should be able to complete all the sets and then you’ll have a proper basis for comparison.
FWIW, I did all my stochastic workouts in erg for months before switching to res, and much prefer doing them in res now.
I’d disagree, this is a good example of intensity control to better stay within your target. That was the whole goal of seiler’s interval study, not that 4x8 was the perfect workout. That a lower power for longer creates a better stimulus. (Within certain specifications)
But i agree that the different warmup could be conflating the results, however we do know that more minutes at near vo2max is ideal.
3 Likes
Yeah, the different warm up was intentional too. Lots of people promote depleting early to not cheat off W’ reserves on interval set. I often see slow HR rise through first portion of a TR vo2max workout and could be convinced that blowing off some of that capacity early has sound theory, much like the good article someone posted a few links back that suggested declining intervals. Going harder early has to be compensated somewhere in the targets, either intensity or duration and I didn’t do that here.
Overall, not a surprising outcome… Go slam harder out of erg mode, blow up earlier, less time working but qualitatively felt like harder intensity of work. TR had a better idea of what was likely repeatable for the duration so kudos for that.
I have no doubt both workouts accomplished something. I’d have to experiment more to see whether I could have pushed a few more repeats at power below the original TR target - might have accrued a bit more time breathing hard, but mentally I was done in a way I’m not on a more paced approach and at the time really didn’t feel like I had anything left.
Which gets to another point, depending on the person, 4-8 min repeats may be totally different mentally vs 30-60 secs. If you can spend meaningfully more time at intensity with one vs the other because you can keep your head in it longer, better motivation, etc. that should probably be a consideration. Otherwise it’s all just theoretical talk about optimized workouts you can’t/won’t actually do.
1 Like
Most of us are not measuring actual VO2 max. Thus a lot of this is theoretical. If you are improving based on the sessions you are doing, then keep at it. If you seem to have stagnated then consider what you might change to further progress.
2 Likes
Yeah, you need enough of a stimulus to give you adaptations, for most people that means you don’t need an optimal stimulus because most people aren’t super-highly trained to that degree.
But because it’s fun to think about… I’d be incredibly surprised if just being at VO2Max was indicative of optimal VO2Max training, physiology is rarely so simple. Being at VO2Max is definitely correlated with some stimulus, but my takeaway from the Empirical Cycling series on VO2Max was that cardiac filling volume was likely the core stimulus for improving VO2Max. And filling volume is affected by cadence, through venous return. So in a thought experiment the same person can reach VO2Max for the same duration, but if their cadences are different, the higher cadence will have higher filling volume and so a better stimulus.
So IMO any arguments that 30/30’s or 40/20s or whatever are ‘better because you can hold VO2Max for longer’ don’t hold water because that’s not actually what you’re looking for in an optimal stimulus. They might well still be the best workout, but not on that basis. And they’re definitely better than no workout at all.
For my n=1, i would do the 1st 2 to 3 full gas, then settle closer to target for the remaining intervals. I do have a slower hr response to suprathreshold intervals unless i go max effort.
1 Like
My comment is regarding the statement of erg vs resistance. Here is what @hvvelo did on those two different 30/30 workouts:
| resistance | erg | |
|---|---|---|
| TR workout | Clouds Rest | Shining Rock |
| target for 30-sec on | 130% FTP | 120% FTP |
| target watts at 268 FTP | 348W | 322W |
| intervals/set completed | 8 | 9 |
| sets completed | 3 | 3 |
| warmup | not really | short |
| priming efforts | way over | on target |
| day of week | Tuesday | Sunday |
| date | 7 March 2023 | 26 February 2023 |
| Freshness/Fatigue/TSB | ??? | ??? |
(somebody correct me if Clouds Rest and Shining Rock are different than what I wrote above)
Ignoring cadence as I can’t really see it. Ignoring freshness/fatigued state as we don’t have the athletes calendar or TSB.
Maybe we agree, I’d say the intensity control should have been exercised on the priming effort. And the first couple intervals on the first set.
On the 130% workout, the net effect of skipping the remaining 30/30s was longer recoveries between sets, which for myself would lower average HR. So using HR to determine effectiveness seems a poor choice.
Personally if I was doing that experiment, I’d drop the “must progress” and do the same workout, on the same day the following week, and attempt to match freshness/fatigue as much as possible by doing it immediately after a day off the bike and at similar TSB.
Just saw this:
Unless I’m mistaken, it was at a substantially higher wattage target as well. But still, by my count - correct me if wrong - you completed 8 of the 30/30s. And 9 at the lower wattage target. And 9 is 12.5% higher than 8. And you said something about accumulating 10% more HR something something.
1 Like
On the contrary, it is my belief if you don’t get to this point, you’re not training VO2max. You’re training high power, sure, but not VO2max. That is how I have trained VO2max in two different sports under a bunch of different coaches who know what they’re doing. 
Not that it’s the core stimulus necessarily, it’s that it is the component of VO2max that is trainable in a relatively short period of time. Other adaptations are more peripheral and take a lot of riding at low intensity. Still others are almost entirely genetic and not really trainable.
1 Like
I guess we have had different experiences. I prefer not to publicly share the team I trained with but we had some of the top runners in the nation. We certainly had some grueling workouts (to the point I could barely walk-jog a cool down) but never had a “VO2” workout where we were “gasping for air.” Maybe I’m just hung up on that terminology… or maybe running is different… 
I’m sure we are just splitting hairs here. VO2 is hard. You get faster doing it. Hopefully that we agree on. 
1 Like
I think what you might be thinking of as gasping for air and what we are actually after are disconnected.
For example you talked about deep controlled breaths… we are looking for deep (belly) breaths but at a rate that you are not able to purposefully control. Most of the time mouth is wide open dumping air into your lungs, but you’re using your BIG primary breathing muscles diaphragm, obliques, etc. not gasping like you can’t talk and had the wind knocked out of you.
When I get done with these sets, my obliques are fatigued from forcibly expelling air. I usually tell my athletes to focus on the forcible exhalation as the inhale will take care of itself.
When you see a fish out of water, their WHOLE BODY is involved in trying to get oxygen, mouths are agape, rapid but deep breathing. That’s what we are after.
But the results speak for themselves when this training is done and recovered from correctly: improved stroke volume, lower HR at all intensities without losing the ability to go high, and usually a marked increase in FTP among them.
5 Likes
Going to have to also pile on to disagree. Watch a 1500 or 3k race in indoor track. What you are describing is present, but not the norm. Most athletes are beathing hard but very controlled.
1 Like
I can, at least anecdotally, support that statement. Last Saturday I did long 4x8min intervals at 105% of FTP. During the last interval, I was exactly feeling like this. Literally like a fish out of water, almost suffocating. Felt like my body couldn’t get enough air needed for the work I’ve been doing.
I am however curious, would such intervals be classified as threshold or VO2Max intervals? TrainerRoad labels them as threshold, and with their target wattage only slightly above threshold they most likely are. But looking at my breathing and my heart rate at the end of the last two intervals, it seems more likely that I dipped into VO2Max territory. Or is this just a case where the body doesn’t care about classifications and flawlessly transitions from threshold to VO2Max depending on intensity and duration of the interval? Sorry if this question has been answered somewhere else.
On a side note: I’m breaking my six months abstinence of the forum for this question. Welcome back me, time to get once again sucked into endless debates about training methods 
Interesting. I haven’t done those in a while, but last week I did 5 * 6min at 105% and at no point I was close to VO2max “feeling” or HR. I consider 105% still as a threshold workout. Wonder if the 2 additional minutes changes the nature of the workout so much or your FTP estimation might be a bit off….
1 Like
Whilst I’m no expert I think someone said long enough at at tempo power will get you to the VO2max zone eventually. That seems to be true of my longer 105-6% Threshold work outs too but it only takes 30secs or so (maybe two short intervals at most) to get there at 120-135% 
Getting to a VO2max state after at 8mins of 105% doesnt sound too wrong to me. A lot of the TR VO2max workouts are set up that way, they I think generally TR use 106-108% but 105% isn’t that far off that it wouldn’t get you to VO2max after just another couple of minutes (probably seconds IMC ).
2 Likes
I’m sure we’ve all noticed when doing intervals that the first ones / sets are easier than later ones. If you’re working above lactate threshold then by definition you are not in a steady state. Then it’s a balance between interval duration and recovery duration etc. As time goes on you’ll move closer and closer to your maximal oxygen uptake.
A 20 min interval at 105% of FTP is after all a test to derive it. How do you feel at the end of the 20 mins?
2 Likes