Is it really a VO2max workout if you don't get anywhere near HRmax?

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… :man_shrugging:t2:

I’m sure we are just splitting hairs here. VO2 is hard. You get faster doing it. Hopefully that we agree on. :+1:t2:

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 :sweat_smile:

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% :joy: 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 :joy:).

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

That’s why I found it interesting – at least now in retrospect, during it I just found it painful :joy:

So far I never had such a reaction, maybe it was the combination of long intervals indoors (maybe closed window equals lack of oxygen?) and high intensity after a traditional winter season with a lot of Z2 and little intensity? Also I did the workout in resistance mode, so during the last intervals I pushed a little harder than the prescribed 105% of FTP.

1 Like

This explanation seems very plausible. Probably the specific combination of intensity, interval and recovery duration was just enough to get me near my point of maximum oxygen uptake.

I always test with the 20min test. A few weeks after a lactate test, it turned out that the calculated value of the 20 min test protocol is pretty close to the FTP (in terms of a 1h sustained effort) that the lab gave me. Testing always hurts. However, I have never had this feeling of lack of air. Thats also why I was left wondering what happened within my body on that day

…or his fitness is such that the last interval was what he needed for progression, or he needed to add some carbs, or fluids or salts.

When you’re racing a 1500 or 3K you’re aiming for max power/speed. When you’re training VO2max, you’re not. As I’ve said throughout these threads, when trying to train stroke volume/VO2max… power is not your primary concern.

You breathe differently when doing VO2max training, you also pedal at 110+ RPM which probably isn’t the optimal cadence (on a geared bike) for most people to generate high power for 3-5 minutes.

I think the biggest disconnect here is this focus on power generation. If I want people to maximize 3-5min power, I give them different prescriptions than if I want to train VO2max. There is a distinction there in my mind, and again we do a disservice by calling this power range “VO2max” instead of something less specific - just because you’re riding at 125% of FTP doesn’t mean you’re training VO2max.

You guys can disagree all you want with me, it’s fine. I believe in the science behind it, I see the results I and my athletes achieve, and it’s been handed down from some elite coaches who know a hell of a lot more about it than I do. You guys are free to train how you like. :slight_smile:

7 Likes

If you ride long enough above threshold you’re going to push VO2max, but I wouldn’t prescribe a 4x8 as VO2max training. But again, for my training methods, I’m not concerned about power as much. I don’t do a lot of 4x8 stuff except for early base season/offseason threshold work, and I don’t love training at 105% of FTP for really anything unless it’s specific to something.

If you force me to choose, I’d call it “suprathreshold” training rather than VO2max.

2 Likes

the problem is “training VO2max” is ambiguous and carries a lot of baggage. Without re-listening to the Empirical Cycling podcast(s), I can’t be more specific.

I’d suggest calling it “training for a specific adaptation to the heart muscle” which has shown to increase both vo2max and ftp in well trained athletes. Calling it “vo2max training” confuses a lot of people.

3 Likes

Goes back to the zone naming IMO, but yes, that’s why I mentioned training stroke volume, which is a central adaptation to maximal oxygen uptake in the muscles (VO2max). As mentioned above, training some of the more peripheral adaptations takes time and a lot of riding. Still other factors of VO2max are not trainable. :slight_smile:

But the TL;DR is that statement about “Just because you’re riding in this VO2max power zone doesn’t mean you’re training VO2max.”

4 Likes

Even that is confusing LOL.

I’ve pushed my absolute vo2max to the highest levels simply by riding endurance 8 hours/week and sprinkling in some intensity on 2 or 3 days a week. Counter intuitively I’ve seemingly increased both my stroke volume and muscle uptake by doing low intensity work - and thats what we see in athletes that do 20 hours of low intensity “base” training.

I’ve increased my 3-5 minute power by simply doing 8 hours/week of endurance, and then juiced it a little more with some classic vo2max intervals.

I’d wager to say to most coaching and cycling website articles on training vo2max are about increasing power output at 3 to 5 minute durations. Not going to attempt debating if those are adaptations to central or peripheral (or both).

Its a bit of trying to claim “true vo2max” training is focused on what I’ll refer to as heart muscle “strength” training via a certain type of maximal effort. And all the other stuff that increases vo2max is childs play, get with the program and have your heart pick up the heaviest weight and flex that muscle! LOL.

Just kidding, but you see how this becomes somewhat of a pissing match over the term vo2max.

2 Likes

Are you saying a 3k race at 100% of VO2 max is easier than doing interval training at VO2 max?

I think he is trying to say there is a specialized form of vo2max training, unlike what you’ve seen and are familiar with, that targets adaptations to the heart muscle which have been shown (by coaches) to improve stuff that you can measure (absolute vo2max and FTP, to name two).

So everytime you read “train vo2max” understand that it means something different to Coach Kurt, because this particular form of “vo2max training” is something he wants to tell the world about. But his message is confusing because the term “vo2max training” has already been established.

Using established terms to describe something different is guaranteed to generate confusion and Internet forum fun :wink:

2 Likes

Is it though?

Isn’t maximal stroke volume reached at a relatively low intensity? The heart chambers have longer to fill, and the heart muscle has to squeeze harder because it’s full?

Isn’t the theory that the low intensity volume increases left ventricle size whilst high intensity makes the walls thicker? Combine the two to improve chamber volume and ejection fraction?

For muscle uptake the low intensity helps improve that capillary bed in the slow twitch fibres. That slows down blood through the muscle enabling greater oxygen take up?

It was counter intuitive because when I got started that info wasn’t easy to find. Despite reading the Time Crunched Cyclist, CTS blogs, and Friel books/blogs it really wasn’t obvious. And then I did TR for two years and the plans didn’t exactly have a lot of endurance work, and the traditional base plans that did have a lot of endurance work had descriptions that left me feeling it was the wrong choice.

It wasn’t until I really dug deep, and this is from a guy with no background in exercise physiology, that I started to get it when reading Couzens and San Millan. And then I dug deeper into studies, and the aha moment came after listening to Empirical Cycling podcast (so hard to follow, but worth it).

So yeah, it was counter-intuitive because so much of the stuff written for average cyclists is biased towards intervals over endurance.

1 Like