I have a bit of a question I wanted to see discussed with regards a certain session type and what looks to be changing training theory.
The new VO2 sessions appear to me to target a higher power/proportion of MAP for the same amount of time, with significantly more rest.
South Twin has 5min intervals at 110% with 10+minutes between
Raymond has 5min intervals at 108% with only 5min recovery between intervals
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.
This is a splitting hairs question. It’s like asking which one is 1% better. The best training is the training you do consistently over time.
Remember that 90-95% of training benefits come from sub threshold aerobic training. Intervals are the icing on the cake.
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.