Vo2 Max training - did I do it right?

[jb0980]

@SpareCycles

What was your fatigue like for the rest of the day? The next day? Anything? Or did it feel like you didn’t perform a workout at all? That as well as anything else might be a reasonable subjective indicator of ‘effectiveness’.

Yeah moderately high fatigue but possibly lower than previous vo2 max workouts I think. Will see how I feel tomorrow.

Here were the intervals:

so as you can see I had a hard start and fell through the power zones soon after, spending the interval in z3/4. HR was high throughout though.

[batwood14]

Super interesting thread. I can ride a lot of Sweet Spot at really long durations (i.e. 3x30, like Wright Peak) but at 46 years old, I don’t recover quickly from Vo2 work, so I’m always looking to get the most bang for my buck out of those sessions.

For those interested, check out Ainslie +1 and use it as a guide for a 5x4 workout.

Just remember - as others more knowledgeable than me have stated - for Vo2 work, don’t look at power… hit the gas and hang on for 4 mins🤘

[SpareCycles]

Thanks for that.

@jb0980

Assuming the colour-coded power are Coggan-zones, you might have been a bit ambitious with those hard-starts, actually? If you were up in ‘anaerobic zone’ territory (whatever purple is), that might have left you quite depleted at the start of such a long interval.

If you deplete PCr and disturb metabolic milieu to a great enough extent at the start, your power output will fall toward Threshold (CP/FTP/etc.). You will basically be stuck at the highest power output that can be sustained exclusively(-ish, usual caveats apply) by aerobic metabolism. Which on paper is CP/FTP, and in the real-world can fall below that as fatigue accumulates and Economy decreases.

[SpareCycles]

@old_but_not_dead_yet

On what basis?

Smarter people than I have recommended ~90% VO2max target. See previous post for references

VO2: 5x5 continuous or 5 individual efforts?

Yup, this is still the question. Maximizing time near VO2max is commonly referred to as optimal for eliciting improvements to VO2max, but the correlation is far from fully mechanistically established. Here’s one reference chain back to 1986. [EndNote_2020-06-23_18-58-07] [EndNote_2020-06-23_19-06-55] (Read this review first, if any. For a comprehensive review of HIIT training methodology & physiology) [Midgley et al 2006] [Wenger et al 1986] I’m not satisfied with this conclusion th…

To repeat what I wrote then, the difference on long-term performance outcomes of training at 90% vs 100% has not been conclusively shown. The literature recommendation is based on acute response studies.

Since then I was referred to this study showing no difference in TT improvements after training at 95% vs 100% of vVO2max, matched at 60% Tlim/TTE @ target intensity. Although as always there were some methodological limitations. At least suggests no difference from spending less time at higher intensity, vs longer time at lower intensity. all wrong. Kept for posterity, Does not show this result and suggests training at 100% may be more effective than training at 95%.

Interval training at 95% and 100% of the velocity at VO2 max: effects on...

[old_but_not_dead_yet]

@SpareCycles

the difference on long-term performance outcomes of training at 90% vs 100% has not been conclusively shown. The literature recommendation is based on acute response studies.

…which mean nothing, as it is essentially a circular argument.

I.e., we assume that time near VO2max is important, so let’s design studies to maximize time near VO2max, even though the importance of time near VO2max is merely an assumption. Are you sure those people are smarter than you?

@SpareCycles

Since then I was referred to this study showing no difference in TT improvements after training at 95% vs 100% of vVO2max, matched at 60% Tlim/TTE @ target intensity. Although as always there were some methodological limitations. At least suggests no difference from spending less time at higher intensity, vs longer time at lower intensity.
Interval training at 95% and 100% of the velocity at VO2 max: effects on aerobic physiological indexes and running performance - PubMed

No difference? Only the group training at 100% of vVO2max improved their 1500 m time, running economy, or vVO2max. The group that trained at 95% of vVO2max did not.

[batwood14]

@SpareCycles

Assuming the colour-coded power are Coggan-zones, you might have been a bit ambitious with those hard-starts

@jb0980 This is the problem in my unprofessional, but semi-experienced, opinion.

Look at your peak power in the chart you shared below:

There are “hard starts” and there is “sprinting” - you are at damn near 1000W during your hard start. That is going to crush you. Even if you can sprint at 1500W … a 900W+ hard start is still basically a sprint.

My FTP is ~300 and my best sprint power is ~1200W. During blind Vo2 intervals, my hard starts on Vo2 intervals won’t get above 450W — and then I hang on and try not to drop below 310 by the end of them… it really depends on the length.

But I promise you if I went north of 600W in the hard start, I would be well below my FTP by the end of a 5 minute interval for sure.

Try and meter out your acceleration more judiciously, your average power will be higher at the end.

Good luck🤘

[SpareCycles]

@old_but_not_dead_yet

we assume that time near VO2max is important, so let’s design studies to maximize time near VO2max, even though the importance of time near VO2max is merely an assumption.

I wouldn’t say that’s a circular argument. More that it’s in line with consensus? Totally agree it needs to be actually tested. Things are happening along those lines behind the scenes. Can hopefully talk about more in detail soon.

@old_but_not_dead_yet

No difference? Only the group training at 100% of vVO2max improved their 1500 m time, running economy, or vVO2max. The group that trained at 95% of vVO2max did not.

oof, I was way off. I gotta stop trying to multi-task and throw out references from memory without double-checking. Thanks for catching that.

[jb0980]

@SpareCycles

Assuming the colour-coded power are Coggan-zones, you might have been a bit ambitious with those hard-starts, actually? If you were up in ‘anaerobic zone’ territory (whatever purple is), that might have left you quite depleted at the start of such a long interval.

Yep, purple would’ve been anaerobic for me. I didn’t realise that going too hard to start was a problem, and thought the goal was just to elevate HR to 95% of max as quickly as possible.

@SpareCycles

If you deplete PCr and disturb metabolic milieu to a great enough extent at the start, your power output will fall toward Threshold (CP/FTP/etc.). You will basically be stuck at the highest power output that can be sustained exclusively(-ish, usual caveats apply) by aerobic metabolism. Which on paper is CP/FTP, and in the real-world can fall below that as fatigue accumulates and Economy decreases.

This follows with what happened. And I take it this won’t have elicited a good vo2 max training stimulus despite elevated HR?

@batwood14

My FTP is ~300 and my best sprint power is ~1200W. During blind Vo2 intervals, my hard starts on Vo2 intervals won’t get above 450W — and then I hang on and try not to drop below 310 by the end of them… it really depends on the length.

my peak power is just north of 1400w, so I didn’t go 100%. But the first minute was like a hard attack in a race.

[jb0980]

interested to try these again with a slightly easier start and slightly lower cadence

[byoungxprt]

Thanks. I have played around a little with hard start V02 intervals in the past. It does seem like the way to go when you are aiming for max time at a high heart rate but man it does hurt.

[splash]

Those of you that do VO2max blocks, what sort of progression do you do within the block? I’ve build from a horrible first set where I couldn’t do 2 min sets to 6x3min and 4x4min, and want to go to 5x4min and then 4x5min. But I might want to keep going for a few more days, do you just try to increase interval length, while keeping the total TiZ the same?

[super7]

what do you use?

[jarsson]

RPE (breathing) and HR. You do VO2 max as hard as you can and do power review after.

[TomasIvarsson]

@jarsson

You do VO2 max as hard as you can

I’m not sure what post you are responding to (maybe @byoungxprt?) so my comment could be off. If that’s the case please ignore.

AFAIK very few athletes need to push themself as hard as they can in order to benefit from VO2max-intervals. It is usually recommended to target a heart rat of 90-95% of max to improve. The reason is that most athletes reach their hearts maximum stroke volume in that percentage. Pushing past ~95% only add fatigue without any major benefit leading to longer recovery times.

[old_but_not_dead_yet]

Do we know that it is maximizing SV that drives cardiac adaptations? What if it something else, like maximizing sympathetic stimulation or cardiac power?

What do scientific studies say about the importance of intensity? Do they support the suggestion that going to only 90-95% is as effective as hitting 100%?

[webbierrex]

I agree with this. Every time I have done a block of VO2 at 100% I end up off the bike after 2 or 3 weeks. Either injury, fatigue or complete loss of motivation. Every time I do them at 95% I end up stronger.

Seiler also speaks about this regarding his daughter and that as her coach his job is to hold her back from going 100% during VO2 max intervals as her nature is to dig too big a hole to recover from.

[TomasIvarsson]

@old_but_not_dead_yet

Do we know that it is maximizing SV that drives cardiac adaptations?

I can’t cite any reference from the top of my head right now but to me it’s reasonable hypothesis. Neither Helgerug &Hoff nor Seiler advocates higher intensitets than 90-95% when going VO2max work. If that is because of maximal SV at that intensity or just because they consider it the “sweet spot” when balancing training load and fatigue doing VO2max work is beyond my knowledge. Maybe I should have claimed that “The reason might be that most athletes…”?

Edit: Heart rate max is basically untrainable, that leaves stroke volume the remaining parameter to improve. Why would the heart adapt to the demand of higher stroke volume if we don’t ask for it to deliver it’s maximum?

[old_but_not_dead_yet]

@TomasIvarsson

Why would the heart adapt to the demand of higher stroke volume if we don’t ask for it to deliver it’s maximum?

I don’t think what you wrote is what you really meant. But in any case, just because SV has hit a plateau doesn’t mean that the heart is working as hard as it can.

[old_but_not_dead_yet]

@webbierrex

Seiler also speaks about this regarding his daughter and that as her coach his job is to hold her back from going 100% during VO2 max intervals as her nature is to dig too big a hole to recover from.

So has her VO2max gone up, or not?

If it hasn’t gone up, is she really training her VO2max, or just torturing herself for no reason?

[jarsson]

Sorry for not including a quote, I was responding to super7.

@TomasIvarsson

It is usually recommended to target a heart rat of 90-95% of max to improve.

Yes, and it is basically as hard as you can. I cannot imagine someone hitting 100% HR for every interval. And if you want to spend more time with this HR you hit the first minute really hard and then power naturally will drop during the course of interval. And the power output to elicit proper SV and “vo2 max breathing” will be different on the course of the workout.