The only way a target power is too much is if you can’t complete the workout.
If you look at the study referenced, it was mostly well above 120% for most of the 10 subjects:
In that study they went at “PVOmax” for 2-4 minutes and then reduced power down to threshold (“pLT”) until exhaustion. They modulated the power based on feedback of actual oxygen consumption, to keep oxygen consumption at max (VO2max).
2 Likes
How was LT defined?
Don’t remember, go read it. I’m just repeating the takeaways from my personal notes.
“Each subject performed an incremental exercise test to
exhaustion on an electronically braked cycle ergometer
(ERGOLINE 900, Hellige, Markett, Bitz, Germany). The
VO2max test was used to determine VO2max, the minimal
power that elicited VO2max (PVOmax), and the power
associated with the lactate threshold (pLT), The lactate
threshold was determined from the relationship between
blood lactate concentration and power output and was
defined as a non-linear increase in the lactate concentration
of at least 1 mM (3) (Table 2). The test began at 50 W for
6 min and increased 50 W every 3 min until exhaustion.”
Thanks, was just about to post the same info.
So, clearly below FTP
Fun with WKO5 on a 2020 overpaced 20-min effort (that set new FTP at 243W):
First 2 minutes were 119% of the new field tested FTP. My FTP are usually on the conservative side, 9 days after that overpaced 20 it was held for 51:30 on a TTE field test.
First 6 minutes were ~114% of FTP.
My LTHR is ~160bpm and max 175.
The blue line is estimated VO2max. Red line is HR. Orange line is 10-sec exponentially weighted power moving average.
FWIW that certainly felt like I was near VO2max for most of the effort. WKO’s VO2 model is pretty decent in general, if your PDC has enough max efforts, but for pubmed types its “for amusement only” and not a substitute for putting on a mask and measuring gas exchange. But in my mind WKO is generally a helluva lot better for correlating “was I training close to VO2max” to what I was feeling (breathing mostly), versus eyeballing post-ride with % of HR (or worse, training by it).
1 Like
Estimated VO2 demand.
I have done 2 (i suspect) vo2max intervals. 1 in the season and 1 a couple of weeks ago, with a littlebit rest before.
In the season i have problems with getting my heartrate high enough. The 1e VO2max was in the summer in the mountain with a lot of load before, but i see the whole season that i have problems to get my hr above FTP hr (185). The poweroutput is ok. My question is, when i dont get my heartrate above FTP, is not a Vo2max interval??
Example 1: 7:30min 339w avg. My FTP is around 290w. Uphill.
Example 2: 4min 342w avg. After a 2 easy weeks. Flat
Both examples with the same power output, but difference heartrate. In both examples i have high breathing nearby hyperventilation.
Did anybody saw a study where they measure vo2max improvement using that protocol?
« “The sustainability of VO2max: Effect of decreasing the workload” published 2012, Billat et al »
I did a little test. I started with 116% FTP for 3:30 to raise my heartrate to 178bpm/93.6% of maxHR, followed by 20 min around ftp. Average HR during these 20 min was 178pm, mostly between 175bpm/92.1% of max HR and 180bpm/94.7% of maxHR.
Breathing rate was above 50 breaths (with small exceptions) per min for 20min+, which is really heavy breathing.
I would not say that it was easy, but I could have done more, in terms of length or difficulty.
So my question is: what did I train?
I’m pretty sure that I trained lactate clearance, but did I train VO2max as my breathing remained high?
1 Like
I’m not really sure as I never did a lab test.
I did quite a few max efforts, followed by a few seconds rest and then directly threshold power for a few minutes. It kind of screw the intervals.icu algorithms as I get notifications of new LTHR. Raising your HR, then doing threshold power will just keep your HR stable at that value.
But well, intervals.icu says 172 bpm/90.5% of my maxHR.