I always thought that the aim for VO2 sessions was to maximise the amount of time spent with a high Heart and Breathing Rate. That, to me, seems harder to do with such long recoveries.
Is the training stimulus greater from going really hard for the interval and recovering, or from going pretty darn hard and trying to keep the stimulus for longer?
Is the training stimulus greater from going really hard for the interval and recovering, or from going pretty darn hard and trying to keep the stimulus for longer?’
Quality over quantity.
The Raymond workout is prob harder, but falls apart if your fitness isnt good enough to hold the pace. The other workout prob has a relatively lower chance of failure
It’s a question that physiologists have been trying to answer since the 1930s and likely before.
There was a meta review in the last year that basically said it doesn’t matter. Go not as hard for longer or go harder for shorter. The outcome are indistinguishable.
It’s because of the “Ramp Test” generation. Very few want or can complete a true 60 min effort to determine their FTP and base the FTP solely off of the ramp test because it’s much easier to complete. The Ramp Test generation also complained that Vo2 efforts were too hard so the intensity was decreased and the rest was increased.