As you can see, I took brief breaks in intervals 3 4 & 5. This was because I was hitting 94% of max HR, which I can only usually go above in a ramp test, or at the end of a race. If I go higher than that with 3 intervals to go, I’m toast.
So I just stopped, took 5 breaths, and started again. Not long enough to recover, just enough to get back down to 90-91% maxHR. Then in the final interval I just powered through and let my heart rate go right up to race finish levels.
And when I check on TrainingPeaks, it tells me I spent 18:42 at 90-92% maxHR, and 6:07 at 93%+ maxHR. That’s as long a chunk as I’ve ever spent up there in one workout.
Conclusion - time at vo2 is as much about self-control as it is about self-will.
Talking about Elephants +4, I did this workout yesterday. I think my legs were the limiter not the lungs. In the middle of the second interval I thought it’s that tough I can’t finish it. Minute at a time and I did. But reading your post I am concerned that my heart rate wasn’t that elevated. My max HR from the last Ramp test where I buried myself completely was 180 bpm. That gives me 162 bmp for a 90% of max. It took me 90-120 seconds to get there on each interval which leaves about 4 mins at VO2Max per interval. I hit only 167 bmp (93% of max) as a maximal heart rate. Did I do the workout properly or should I try harder (please say no!).
I wouldn’t worry too much. A huge amount depends on your own personal physiology, especially once you get above threshold.
I had one of Elephants baby brothers in my plan last week, Red Lake +3 which is similar at 5x5 at 108% and my HR maxed out at 89% of HR max at the end of the final interval. I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was comfortable but at no point did I ever think I wasn’t going to complete the workout. If we are using the figures from the Seiler Podcast discussion as VO2 max work being time over 90% max HR, 5x5 mins at 108% nets me none at all.
Conversely I had Shortoff +1 earlier in the week, 6x3mins at 120%. I know from experience that that’s not achievable for me so I reduced it to 95% intensity and did hit the targets but only just and was absolutely turning myself inside out at the end just to hold on and the time I had over 90% HR max was around 8.5 minutes.
I’d say you absolutely did the workout properly but the way your body responds to the stimulus and the physiological adaptions that you get from it are reflective of your current physiology and can inform your future training and how to maximise your progress.
Considering that heart rate response can vary from day to day, I’d say that sounds perfectly OK. My maximal HR for the session was 95%, so not so much over yours at 93%. Still sounds like you clocked up plenty of time above 90%.
For me, anything over 93% of HRmax is a VERY high heart rate, and one that suggests you’ve reached an unsustainable level of exertion. I wouldn’t expect to go above that except in a race, a ramp test, or the last interval of a particularly brutal workout.
Note that Red Lake +3, as well as the work intervals being a minute shorter, the rest intervals are 2 minutes longer at 5 mins. The IF for the intervals (minus warm-up and cool-down) is 45 minutes at .93, whereas the IF for the Elephants +4 intervals is 51 minutes at .99.
Thanks. I’ll try harder next time I appreciate the difference but it illustrates the point nicely.
I did do Elephants +4 (obviously with 4 minute recoveries) in a previous build and maxed at out at a similar HR so I still say that it’s hugely dependent on your current physiology.
How high does your HR get at shorter harder VO2 Max efforts?
Thanks @JulianM! On Red Lake +8 (5 x 6 min w/ 5 min recs) two weeks ago my heart rate was higher overall (got to nearly 95%) which is even more confirmation to what @martinheadon is saying that heart rate can very from day to day (or that I adapted since then ).
And it seems we are similar when it comes to VO2Max work. I did a White Down last week (3 x 3 x 3 min at 120% of FTP) which was very tough even on 4 min breaks. This week I opted for indoor version but still did it outside - Bashful +6 (3 x 5 x 90 s w/ 1 min recs @ 122%) and that seemed much more manageable. Three minutes @120% in the erg mode is killing me!
I guess I can learn more from studying my log files than from general suggestions as you both imply. Everyone’s different and as long as the general idea is clear the particulars can be adapted.
Looking at the type of workouts you do and how you respond to them individually is key I think and within the TR ecosystem there are plenty enough to choose from!! Whichever TR plan you are following you can insert or replace sessions which are more specific to your physiology and goals whilst as you say still following the ethos and progression within it.
Work out what specific improvements you want to see in line with your goals and then look at which workouts will most likely give you those adaptions based on how you’ve responded to them previously.
Last time I did Spencer +2, I spent 5:30 above 90% and 6:46 above 93%. And I ended up completely failing the final interval, because I’d hit 95% heart rate on the previous two, and my system just can’t sustain that multiple times.
But then I did Bashful +2 and only had about 3 minutes above 90%.
I was doing HIM build and noted that after the last FTP update the VO2max intervals got significantly harder compared to earlier. all this even though I was doing similar VO2max workouts before in SSB2 and a modified HIM base (I substituted similar VO2max workouts as in SSB2, including spencer +2, kaiser, shortoff +4, …).
In particular, while I was getting through the workouts at the prescribed intensity, I felt more soreness, went right up to HRmax and had 2 workouts where I absolutely needed to backpedal because I bonked. life stress added a bit of spice to the interpretation of what was going on.
I really felt my legs when I had VO2max workouts combined with Julius Caesar in one week (couldn’t do long ride of HV plan b/c weather) - i.e. Matthes +1 then JC +3 just 2 days later, or Mist-1 then JC +4 later in the week.
after revisiting the discussion in the podcast and what you guys wrote here, I should have recognised this earlier and reduced intensity a few %. would have probably left me fitter for the next workouts of the week and not significantly reduced the training impulse.
@Rizzi thanks for the link, I read a lot of it along when it was coming out. it’s a seriously long thread though!
So I did gendarme followed by Baird -3 straight after for the added TSS. I found gendarme to be to easy my HR only hit 160 odd when I lifted the last couple of intervals 5% and was spinning at 110+.
Baird -3 was 1/1 min on/off and felt like a little harder work.
I think I need to reassess FTP and I’ll then go for the 2-3 min or intervals that ramp as suggested above.
Gendarme and Baird -3 weren’t necessarily easy because your FTP is too low. If you are do to retest, then do so, but not on the account of how those two workouts felt.
Generally speaking those are very gentle/mild VO2 workouts. You don’t work hard enough long enough and then the recovery is too long. If you are fit, those workouts should not be much of an issue. If you are coming off the couch, they will probably be a bit more challenging.
The power targets for the workouts may need to be adjusted up or down depending on your physiology. For example, two people with the same tested FTP, one might find 120% too easy while the other not able to complete the workout. The goal is to get your HR up to >~90%HRmax and maximize time there for the duration of the workout.
As @KickrLin says, these aren’t especially difficult workouts. One important thing is not just look at the type of intervals but take into account the overall intensity factor. Gendarme is .81, and while Baird -3 is higher at .89, it only lasts 30 minutes.
For workouts that are likely to elicit time at vo2 max, look for an intensity of .90 or above (for an hour), or .88 to .90 (for 90 minutes).
I’d search for and try a workout like that - Baird +2 for example - before re-testing your FTP.
This is the way to go I think. Do the minimum work required to get the physiological adaptions you want rather than feel like you need to go to failure on those harder workouts. You’ll end up spending more effective time in the zones you’re looking for that way.
There’s been a lot of discussion around the importance of training consistently and especially sustainably over the long term, and one way to hurt that target can be to go too deep too often. It may feel like going to failure is a good workout but often is actually missing the objectives of the session and reducing its effectiveness. As long as you’re training the systems the workout is designed to target there is little advantage in making them too hard to complete.
Both technology and interpretations of training such as FTP, IF and the like are all useful to a degree but having specific and somewhat random targets like 108% or 120% of another estimated metric can also be unhelpful. There’s a lot to be said, especially for targets over threshold, for sessions of 6x4 mins, 4x8mins (or whatever duration you choose) targeting best effort over all the intervals. You’ll likely hit the physiological goals of the workout without the pressure of feeling like you ‘should’ be able hit certain targets for specific periods of time.
Obviously these generic targets work for a good number of people but might also reduce the effectiveness of any workout either if the targets are a stretch and aren’t achievable and conversely may not provide the optimal stimulus required for those who have the ability to work well above threshold.
Ideally you want to get your HR > 90%HRMax. The research shows >90%HRMax is where you achieve the greatest VO2 gains. I’ve seen some that says maybe even >95%HRMax. Either way, your RPE and breathing should be high.
Using the 220 formula is not so good if not outright bad What is the highest you’ve seen your HR recently, ideally from a race or extremely hard effort. Let’s use 189bpm. Then 90%HRMax would be 170bpm.
Spencer +3 is 21min of work. How much of that was >=170bpm? That is what you could consider time spent at VO2. The goal is to maximize that time during a workout by adjusting a number of factors (e.g., length of work interval, power of work interval, length of rest interval, number of intervals, etc… )
FYI… we can’t see your workout files since they are all private.
I appreciate the difference but it illustrates the point nicely.
What is the highest you’ve seen your HR recently, ideally from a race or extremely hard effort. Let’s use 189bpm. Then 90%HRMax would be 170bpm.