Wmax (W) = 430 +/- 35
maximal work rate during incremental test
MAP (W) = 387 +/- 33
maximal aerobic power
4mmol(L) LT (W) = 282 +/- 34
lactate threshold
Also this:
Whether performance adaptations [of varied-intensity work intervals] will be superior to constant-intensity work intervals remains to be stablishedâŚbut similarâŚtraining load metrics suggest it is unlikely that negative training outcomes occur.
VO2max intervals are gross and TiZ should be optimized, but for most of us, the discrepancy between varied or constant methods most likely wonât be physiologically material and the RPEconstant was only 10% greater than than RPEvaried (statistically âthere was also no differences in sRPEâ), so should we really be eliminating all constant intervals?
Agreed. I think itâs great that people are still studying this and still coming up with ânew & improvedâ ways of training. My personal conclusion: feel free to mix it up without worrying if you are missing out on some kind of marginal VO2max gain. Itâs probably actually good to do both kinds of intervals just so you know what your body and mind are capable of. After all, attacking in a race doesnât happen in 30s on/1min off intervals, you might actually have to do a constant 4min VO2max effort.
But thatâs just me, I have a soft spot for VO2max.
Nothing new to see really - a study by someone working under Bent Rønnestad finds that varying intensity intervals let you spend more time at high percentages of VO2max in comparison to constant intensity intervals.
What Iâd be really interested in is which is more effective:
A - Something like 30/30s or 1min on, 1 min off at 120% (I.e. VO2 zone)
B- longer intervals of say 2.5-3 mins then same duration off also at 120%
If total work time was the same (e.g 18 mins at 120% ftp regardless if made up of 36 x 30 secs or 18 x 1 min or 6 x 3 mins)
I ask because would be lot interest (and I like the shorter intervals and find the 3 mins intervals so so so hard!!!)
Which would boost performance more I wonder, which would improve v02 max more, ftp more?
Typically the 40/20 protocols (or similar) are done at much higher percentages of FTP to compensate for the rest periods. You work harder to get to a higher percentage of VO2max quicker but the rests allow you to stay there longer, effectively topping up your effort once a minute.
In the case of doing the 40 seconds on at the same intensity you can do the 3 minute intervals at, my guess would be that it wouldnât be hard enough to get you up to the same percentages of VO2max and even although you may well get much longer at peak VO2max for the workout, it may not be high enough to show as much improvement as the 3 minute protocol.
No point speculating though: Why donât you try it? Set up the workouts in Workout Creator and do them both. See which one gets your heartrate higher and keeps it there because thatâs a great proxy for time spent at high percentages of VO2max.
Interesting, as this is the case for many people, however, with regards to the study, the long/constant 5min intervals (@ ~115% FTP) elicited only a 10% greater perceived effort from participants. So, yes, longer intervals are harder but they arenât that much harder.
You should also read the part of the study (and on the TR forum) discussing VO2 kinetics.
I would say itâs less about those things and more about chasing efficiency. Youâll max out your genetic ceiling no matter which protocol you follow, what you are really after is creating more potential adaptations from doing less work.
âWhile the untrained sled dogs have an average aerobic capacity of 175 ml/kg/min VO2 max (ratio of volume of oxygen to body weight per minute), the aerobic capacity of the fully conditioned sled dogs is estimated to be about twice that (300 ml/kg/min).â
Actually among vertebrates the hummingbird is apparently the VO2max king, theyâve been measured at over 1000ml/kg/min. Youâd need a lot of hummingbirds to get enough blood for a transfusion though!
)
