That Triathlon Show | EP#169 - FTP, VO2max and VLaMax

Training
328

Interesting. On first glance ~70 ml/kg/min feels about right to me for your W/kg numbers, for whatever that’s worth. I don’t have enough experience to comment on the VLamax estimate. Any chance you’d be willing to share your physiological test data to compare?

Do they give a range for the PPD estimates? Like ±5% or ±5 ml/min/kg or something?

Right. Lower VLamax should imply you produce less lactate at any given workload. So said another way, you should be able to sustain a higher power output and higher %VO2max at lactate threshold. Or the same power output at a lower VO2max.

329

Sure, the reports are in Dutch though so I’ll just share the numbers.

When I started training for my first triathlon November 2016 (background in combat sports only), I did a running test (start at 5.4kph, +1.8kph every 3’) and I was measured at a relative VO2Max of 53ml/min/kg at 72.2kg.

October 2017 I did another running test where I got 57ml/min/kg at a weight of 68.3kg but I quit at a lower heart rate (5BPM short).

December 2018 I did my first cycling test which started at 120W, with a 40W increase every 3’. I stopped at just over 2’ in the 360W step at 13.2mmol/l of lactate. VO2Max was not measured but was estimated at 4112.7ml/min or about 61ml/min/kg. 2mmol/l at 141W (really bad actually) and 4mmol/l at 265W.

Last October I was selected for a ketone experiment on well trained amateurs where I also did a few tests. I came off of a 2 week “rest period” after a 6 week block to go for a half marathon PR so a lot less cycling. Starting at 100W, adding 40W every 8’ (same protocol used for Deceuninck-Quickstep team). I stopped after the 300W step at 10.7mmol/l since I still had to do a 30’ TT and some other tests after that. Submaximal VO2 was measured at 57 as well. Aerobic threshold was estimated at 1.7mmol/l at 200W and anaerobic threshold was estimated at 6.1mmol/l at 265W at 67.45kg.

My Garmin estimates my VO2Max to be 62-63 lately for what that’s worth.

I did not get any accuracy numbers on the estimates and I couldn’t find any myself… They only asked for my weight ±0.5kg and fat percentage ±0.5%…

I assume it’s not possible that I’m already so full of lactate that I just can’t get to that 70ml/min/kg number haha. My max. HR is quite low though at 176 at age 28.

2 Likes
330

I love this. There are so many misconceptiosn about vo2max.

I still have no idea why we persist on calling 2 to 5 minute hard intervals ‘Vo2max’ intervals.

It’s funny to me because (i) you’re using a pretty substantial portion of energy from anaerobic sources, so if you’re building one capacity you’re necessarily building the other too and (ii) it is definitely not the only (and maybe not even the best) way of increasing vo2max.

1 Like
331

How can you be getting a substantial portion of your energy from anaerobic sources during 3-5 minute intervals? Isn’t anything over 1 minute mostly aerobic? By the time you get out to 3-5 minutes, it seems like the anaerobic contribution would be minor, especially with repeated efforts.

As for the best way to build VO2max, Mike Joyner and company argue that such intervals are in fact the most effective.

332

Okay so, let me try to puzzle through this because i’m not a coach or a physiologist or anything, just a dude who reads a lot–so, just like many of us in this forum :slight_smile:. So take this with a grain of salt but i’ll do my best here.

Anyway, so first the aerobic / anaerobic part. I think you are correct that anything over one minute is mostly aerobic, but that’s AFTER you get through that minute–in the beginning, it’s mostly anaerobic, and in fact anaerobic probably provides the majority in the aggregate. Basically as you already note, the energy systems contributing change over time. So if you do a five minute hard interval, yeah by the end it’s almost totally aerobic, and mostly aerobic overall, but you would have dug deep into your anaerobic capacity in the beginning, and even at the end, it’s still firing to break those glycogens and create the lactate that your aerobic system then burns.

So the intervals. Of course any aerobic training increases your aerobic capacity, but i’m assuming that when people are doing these intervals they are looking for the specific max aerobic adaptations that you get from accumulating time at vo2max. And of course, Vo2max is a state, not a power; there’s a bunch of power ranges that get you to vo2max over different time periods.

Say you do these five minutes truly all out, you probably reach vo2max after about 2 minutes, and accumulate 3 minutes there. Great, right? But it’s at a tremendous cost. You just drained that anaerobic battery and if it is really truly all out, it’ll take a lot longer than 1:1 before you’re ready to go again. Imagine doing 5x5 minutes, truly all out, with like 20 minutes rest. This could actually be a great workout, but this isn’t what people are realling doing.

so most people are doing these something less than all out but still hard. In this case, maybe you reach vo2max at the end of the first interval, maybe not even; maybe you don’t reach it until the second one. So charitably, after 15 minutes of intervals, you maybe have accumulated 5 minutes at vo2max. And you still burned a lot of matches doing it. How many more of these have you got left in you? A lot of people, quality starts to decline after this.

Listen, I love these intervals, i think they’re great. They definitely harden you up! But if you’re looking to accumulate more minutes at vo2max, there might be better ways. One is the Seiler type intervals where you go longer, short rests, with lower power (above threshold, but not as high). Heart rate (using as a proxy for vo2max) rises more slowly, but you might be able to accumulate more time because each interval is less taxing. Or you could do two minutes as hard as you can–get up to vo2max real quick–and then drop the power to just above threshold, and see how long you can go. Drop the power so that you can keep going, but still high enough that HR (and vo2 utilization) stay high. Or even tabatas. To my knowledge, that was the whole point: they recognized that getting up to vo2max and staying there is really, really hard, and this protocol was designed to find an easier way to get up there and stay there.

I’ll read your link–haven’t read it yet–but there are others who have found that some of these alternative max-aerobic protocols can be superior (I believe it would depend on the athlete). These are just alternatives to consider.

Energy System Contribution - Runners (key distances)
Energy System Contribution - Runners (key distances)818×611 49.6 KB
Interplay of energy systems over time
Interplay of energy systems over time821×613 57.2 KB

4 Likes
333

I like the way you’re thinking. Some brief (lol) comments.

The Joyner paper linked to above suggests that “longer” (3-5 minute) “VO2max” intervals, and more time accumulated overall near VO2max were associated with better outcomes. There is another upcoming published meta-analysis from a different group that support the finding that “VO2max” intervals >4min are associated with better outcomes.

The rationale given is related to typical VO2 onset kinetics (as you mentioned) taking 90-180 sec, averaged to ~120sec for a trained population. Therefore at least half of the “long” 4+ min work duration can be assumed to be performed near VO2max. It’s a neat, simple way to categorize VO2max intervals, IMO.

You’re right that classic “VO2max”-type intervals will necessarily also burn a lot of anaerobic energy, but the systems are all interrelated. The major (I don’t want to say exclusive, but I can’t think of a counter-example off the top of my head?) stimulus that leads your body to ramp up to VO2max is depletion of ‘anaerobic resources’ and disruption of metabolic milieu from ‘anaerobic byproducts’. Functionally I would suggest you can’t get one without the other.

I don’t know what the current thinking is on how total energy breaks down btwn aerobic/anaerobic through a “VO2max” workout. It’s quite difficult to actually measure during severe intensity work (>CP/FTP). Simple stoichiometric equations break down for RQ ≈1.00. The 2006 paper quoted in the first TP slide seems reasonable enough, but I personally think the second slide is a bit outdated (related comment below)

I do know there are various compelling rationale for both ‘more than you think comes from aerobic’ and ‘more than you think comes from anaerobic’… which each have super interesting implications!

2 Likes
334

The Joyner review considered only sedentary/recreationally active subjects. The upcoming meta-analysis is on trained subjects? Can you provide a reference?

1 Like
335

Great discussion. This is exactly what I have been thinking about. What are the best intervals for improving vo2?

From my understanding any intervals become more aerobic as you go through the workout and the trick is to balance the intensity with duration. In a webinar with inscyd and also on Seilers YouTube channel where there is a great video, they show that using micro intervals to achieve more time closer to vo2 in a sustainable way is more effective. The shorter recoveries limit the recovery of the glycolytic system and make any effort more aerobic.
So 4 mins on with 2 mins rec is better than 4 on 4 off and 30/15’s are better than 30/30’s using this.

More Discussion welcome on this.

336

All could be revealed if you bought this book which explains and prescribes the correct form of intervals for the adaptations that are required. The author did the the rounds of podcast shows earlier this year.

337

Your comment about meta-analyses got me to digging through the literature, and I came across this:

They concluded that high intensity intervals longer than 161 seconds in duration were likely more effective, increasing VO2max by about 33% more than shorter high intensity intervals.

1 Like
338

once again, only sedentary/recreationally active subjects. Is there any review/meta-analysis on trained subjects?

339

Not that I have found, but this meta-analysis did look at baseline VO2max, and found that it only made a small difference.

340

the same causations do not necessarily apply to a higher baseline VO2max as we can see among trained subjects.

1 Like
341

edit: it definitely is published, my bad! Thanks @old_but_not_dead_yet. And it does look at trained cyclists.

It’s not published yet, nothing solid until it is. I don’t think it specifically covered trained subjects. You’re right, that is definitely a missing piece. Initial characteristics do appear to influence subsequent adaptations as fitness/training status increases.

342

Hey, thanks for posting that info. It’s interesting. I’m not sure I have any breakthrough ideas unfortunately :man_shrugging:

It seems like most of the VO2max tests have been consistently estimated around ~4 L/min, but the protocol have all been very different and it sounds like there are a lot of indirect estimates going on, so it’s tough to say.

Peak power/max aerobic power is very dependent on the specific ramp/step protocol used, and if VO2 is estimated from power that can drastically change the result. I’m not a huge fan of using power to estimate VO2.

Your W/kg numbers are very good, regardless! If the lower lab VO2max estimates are accurate, your economy & gross efficiency must be very high. I suspect INSCYD estimates VO2max based on a ‘typical’ Economy, which is around 70-80 W/L/min for trained cyclists. ~360 W / 75 = 4.8 L/min, so there you go.

Great article exploring the maths behind performance and gross efficiency:

https://wattmatters.blog/home/2013/08/looking-under-hood.html

Hope that gives you some ideas at least! I’m not an expert on the INSCYD methodology, so don’t take my word for it. I’m sure the coach who set up the test would be equally as interested to look into the disparity. :+1:

2 Likes
343

Hot off the presses!!

3 Likes
344

thx

HIIT definition:

HIIT consists of repeated bouts of exercise that occur at a power output or velocity between the second ventilatory threshold and maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max).

SIT definition:

SIT is performed at a power output or velocity above those associated with VO2max.

Results:

A total of 6 articles met the inclusion criteria for the subjective and objective analysis.

and

subgroup analysis based on duration of work interval indicated a 2% greater improvement in TT performance following long-HIIT (≥ 4 min) when compared to SIT.

and

There was no difference in change in VO2max/peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) between groups.

and

There was a moderate effect (ES = 0.70) in favor of HIIT over SIT in maximal aerobic power (MAP) or maximal aerobic velocity (MAV).

3 Likes
345

That’s the one, thanks! Why did I not realize or check if it was already published :sweat_smile:

I’m gonna edit my previous posts to link the article

346

Or 4+ minute intervals at roughly 100-120% of FTP versus shorter intervals at more than 120% of FTP?

347

It could be approximated to this, but of course %FTP will be drastically different between individuals for >FTP efforts. I think the criteria in the paper are very elegant and worth discussing.

They propose the use of MAP: Max Aerobic Power to represent the highest (evenly paced) power output that will elicit VO2max in the shortest duration.

Meaning any higher power output will cause exhaustion before VO2max can be reached, due to other limiting factors, ie. depletion of ‘anaerobic resources’ and accumulation of ‘byproducts’.

MAP can be assessed as peak 60sec power on an incremental ramp test (~20-30 W/min). Or MAP should be approximately your peak ~120sec power, depending on VO2 onset kinetics (range typically ~90-180sec).

So (and this is in my own words, so please check if I have this right) HIIT is defined by a power output that falls above CP/FTP/“threshold” and below MAP, that elicits VO2max during the work interval.

  • Short HIIT intervals < 2min (~0% duration near VO2max)
  • Moderate HIIT 2-4min (~0-50%)
  • Long HIIT 4< min (~50% < )

SIT is defined by a power output above MAP, typically performed all-out with a duration too short to elicit VO2max during the work interval. But VO2max may be achieved briefly after the work interval during recovery. Despite this SIT intervals are shown to improve aerobic fitness and performance.

edit: Note, MAP is like a measure of overall efficiency at VO2max: How much power can you produce at VO2max? You might see performance improvements in MAP despite no physiological change in VO2max.

1 Like