If I’m reading the charts correctly it is a different 5 minute work rate.
b) 5 minutes steady at ~78% MAP with spikes
vs
c) 5 minutes steady at ~84% MAP
My assumption then, if you want to improve vo2 you are better off doing over/under vs spending all work time in the vo2 zone(?).
Not exactly. You’re better off doing shorter intervals at a higher percentage of your MAP versus longer at a lower percentage. If you go through the TrainerRoad workout library it would be something like doing Dana -2 vs Garfield (not exactly the same due to longer periods of rest and work intervals on Dana-1, but fairly comparable.)
By my reading the study wasn’t done by RPE, only the warm up was. The actual test intervals were done using % of MAP, which is watts based.
Yep, I posted before understanding 
I haven’t got time to go through the rest of the study, but it’s suggesting we can last longer with varied intervals for the same HR/RPE than constant. And if time around VO2max is a good training stimulus (called out as an early assumption), then this is a good thing: more training stimulus for the same physiological stress (as measured by HR and RPE).
84% of VO2 max (assuming VO2 Max = MAP) = threshold, for a well-trained cyclist
so no, a 5-minute effort at 84% of VO2 max isn’t going to do much for your V02 Max (or your threshold, for that matter).
My max aerobic power/VO2 is 415w. My FTP is 350. So sure, 5 minutes at 350 is going to elicit less of a VO2 max stimulus than riding at 325w with some bursts all the way up to 415. Who is going to do a 5-min interval at FTP, unless it’s something like 5 of them with 1 min recoveries.
I would rather see a study where one group is doing the 5min at 95% of VO2 max, and another group is doing the 5min at 78% of VO2 max + surges up to 100%. That’s more apples to apples.
well, the paper has a method section 
I don’t think their MAP is necessarily your MAP. Hence MAP = VO2max does not necessarily apply.
And I would have a hard time believing that they ran such a study with 5min at threshold. I mean Ronnestad knows his stuff.
By the way, there is also a discussion section in the paper. This is where the put their study into context with other studies and what they consider new/unique. I don’t think it’s justified to be too harsh with this study. I actually find it quite inspiring.
I’d just like to see it broken down into wattage values we are more familiar with – Ronnestad is one of the cutting edge guys now, yes.
Why are people mentioning over unders? This has nothing to do with over-unders does it? Not seen any information on the subjects threshold vs VO2Max (might have missed it) I would think that b) for example is over-moreover intervals rather than over-unders.
it’s over-under relative to the constant work interval
Over-Under in context means being above and below a general value. Typical use is with respect to Threshold as the common TR prescription bounces between 95% & 105% of Threshold.
The work above is definitely up-down, but I don’t think “over-under” is appropriate when thinking about the context above.
I say that without reviewing their info closely. Maybe their top and bottom in the interval are “over-under” some value other than Threshold? I am not sure the O-U make sense with simple reference to the “other” constant one?
Anybody understand the specificity of this to know?
If the HIIT intervals of the steady-state group were at the intensity that usually elicits VO2 max within that 5 min work time, the “spike” group corroborates what the Australian study from a few years back showed (a group that did their 3min HIIT intervals with an all-out sprint and then went as hard as they could go for the remainder of the interval vs. a group that did the intervals even-paced at a very high percentage of VO2 max – the "go out hard and go 'til you bow group spent more time at VO2max even though their wattages declined over the course of the set): that all-out surges result in oxygen debt, and sub-maximal efforts following the surges are just hard enough to keep you in debt.
I didn’t immediately track down Daniels reference, however TR’s ramp test is a MAP test and produces a MAP estimate. Its the 1-minute max power from ramp test, or your TR FTP estimate divided by .75. There are other ramp tests, some use longer steps.
They don’t use the term over-under. I did. And someone else here. And this simply without considering the wider semantic implications of such a usage.
That’s in line with how AIS measures MAP.
Assuming the Daniels protocol for MAP gives the same result as TR ramp test, and TR is using 75% of MAP for FTP estimate, here are the intervals in TR terminology:
Varied Intervals. 30-seconds at 133% FTP, then 1-min at 103% (repeated for 5-min total with last at 1.5-min)
Constant Intervals. 5 minutes at 112% FTP (roughly Mount Foraker +3)
Exactly, if using the term in a different way to general accepted then it should be defined.
Oh yeah now that makes sense.
And yep, matches up with the AIS study where the cyclists did full-gas sprints at the start of their 3min intervals, then faded as their RPE was still maxed – going that deep into the red and then trying to hold a supra-threshold pace is a great recipe for oxygen debt and eliciting VO2 max.
Makes sense.
hmm, interesting but vo2max isn’t an energy system. Too bad there are no vo2max modeling tools other than post analysis using WKO, and that reminds to re-read sparecycles.blog findings.
I’m a diesel and outlier where FTP is limited by max aerobic power / Power@5-min-VO2max. Getting more time at high % of vo2max is a good way to raise the ceiling 
after sweet spot work. Also looking forward to rebuilding FRC, nothing better than throwing down a lot of power for 30 or 60 or 90 seconds 
