Programming for VO2 max-centric workouts

Training
1

I’ve looked over the forum for a succinct answer to this and didn’t manage to find one.

Q: When designing reps/sets for V02-max (e.g. maximum effort) type workouts, does the timeframe of the effort take precedence, or wattage? Which would be titrated up in a progressive-overload methodology?

Background: as an ice hockey player, our games consist of approximately 15-20, 1-2 minute efforts (shifts) at near maximum output. Work/rest ratios are typically 1:1 or 1:2 (on average).

As of right now, my simulated game workout is done on my Cascade air bike, holding a steady 250-300W for 1 minute, followed by 2 mins of rest (off the bike, sitting in a chair, as this is what happens in a real game sitting on a bench). Looking at heart rate recordings the pace and tempo of the workouts matches closely to what I see in a real game (however my max/peak heart rate in a real game is higher on average).

However my question is: I’d like to work on increasing the output power I can hold for that 1 minute, up as high as possible. From fully rested, I can put out over 900W into the bike (this is all-out), however I can only hold it for about 25-30 seconds before I have to stop.

What is the best way to program a progressive overload into my HIIT training to improve this score over time? Is it:

a) Hold the work/rest ratio fixed at 1 minute work, 2 minutes rest, and slowly try to hold higher and higher powers?
b) Work as hard as I can can for as long as I can, but do my workouts at maximum power, and slowly try to increase the time I can sustain it?

Literature seems to suggest that option b is actually more effective, as it conditions the body to work at maximum effort rather than at middling wattages.

In an ideal world, I could do the 900W for 1 minute, 15 times, and that would be the best I can do at my current level of strength. Currently, at 900W, I need more like 3 to 4 minutes to fully recover before I can do it again, which is too long, but my Zone 2 training has been making this shorter over time as well.

Any thoughts welcome. I imagine there is a cycling analog, in hitting a series of short hills, requiring max effort climbs followed by light-pedaling coasting down hill.

1 Like
3

1 or 2 min efforts are not z5-vO2 max efforts. Youre solidly into z6

5

In my understanding, if you want to improve your 1min power WITHOUT repetition, this is an anaerobic effort. You would do a close to 1 min effort, not maximal but close, with a long rest and then repeat. You get progressive overload by increasing the power, or the duration, or the number of repetition (this one is more for increasing durability)
If you want to improve your 1min effort WITH repetitions and « short » rest (1:1 or 1:2), it becomes an aerobic effort. That will best improve with real VO2max efforts and zone 2 (some will argue sweetspot and threshold). All the lactate that you produce during the 1 min effort needs to be cleared out with oxygen in the slow twitch fibers.
The maximal power you can produce during a long sustained effort indicates the upper limit of what can be produced during that time. Any effort with variations will be less efficient. If you can do 300 W for 30 minutes, the equivalent would be 10 repetitions of 900W for 1min, and 2 min at zero (and these are totally theoretical numbers, real numbers being much lower due to inefficiency). If you can do 210 W for 30 minutes, theoretical max numbers would be 10 repetitions of 1 min at 630W, 2 min at zero. You cannot beat the power curve by using short bursts then rest.

6

This is very interesting! If I can paraphrase, you are suggesting that over an interval, lets say 1 hour, that what limits performance within that hour is total energy you can expend (work, in terms of Joules, or watt-hours). So I think this translates directly into FTP, which is also an expression of energy expenditure (watts sustained over 1 hour)? In my mind, the energy systems used at short, high bursts of effort with stationary rest (anaerobic) weren’t the same as those used to drive long sub-maximal efforts (aerobic, more like FTP), and didn’t cross over much.

Indeed this does seem to point towards threshold or sweet spot training as the most bang-for-the-buck: like the 4x8min at 105% of FTP, with 5 min rest intervals, etc.

7

I think you should look into Monod-Sherrer’s work on critical power. W’ (anaerobic capacity) is what you are grasping at.

8

You are right, short intense efforts do (mostly) not consume oxygen. For the first few seconds, intense efforts use phosphocreatine that get depleted fast. After that energy is produced via anaerobic glycolysis that produce lactate. That’s why one short intense effort does not require oxygen. However, phosphocreatine needs to be replenished, which is done in the mitochondria using ATP that is produce aerobically. And lactate needs also to be cleared, which is done in the mitochondria aerobically (via pyruvate), using it as energy source. Clearance is faster if the muscles are used at low intensity vs total rest. Maybe ask your coach hockey to put some bike trainer in the rest area :wink:
For what regards your 4x8min at 105% of FTP, it’s pretty intense and taxing, you cannot repeat that too often in the week. As you are still newish to cycling, I would continue with your zone 2 that gave you good results. When you see no more progress replace one day by sweetspot and see how it goes. The hockey already gives you plenty of intensity. I would do VO2Max once a week when the season is over. You can look at hardstart intervals threads that looks to give the best VO2Max results. You can also look at 30/30 that are probably closer to your hockey efforts. Just do the first “on” longer to raise heartrate, and then adjust power or time to keep your heart high.

1 Like