Totally agree. After several years of battling with longer V02 (3 mins and over) on trainer and 'how hard should i go? What power etc? I have now found that best protocol for me is to use my bike without a power meter (radical I know!), wear HR strap, go to a local hill that takes about 3-3.5 mins flat out (but can start on long flat before the hill to extend to longer intervals). Just go hard and hold on as much as possible until I get to the top of the hill. Keep cadence high, HR usually hits 90% max after about 75-90secs and stays well above that until top of the hill. Ignore power, just go hard and keep going! Then roll back down hill, ride easy for few mins…and repeat!
Have you tried longer VO2max intervals? I used to do 10 x 3 minute intervals, but compared to 4-7 minute ones they seemed to place more emphasis on anaerobic capacity.
Such as? And what exactly is ex fizz?
Ex fizz = exercise physiology.
As for untruths, I would say that exhibit 1 is the apparent belief of many here that training VO2max is somehow complicated, or conversely, that making it complicated is somehow better. But, that’s how stuff gets sold, because no one is going to pay for what is already common knowledge.
@old_but_not_dead_yet, yes, I’ve tried longer intervals in the context provided by Sustained Power Build. There are a couple of workout in the 5-minute @ 108% range and 10-minute threshold @ 105%. Nothing beyond that, though.
I thought I heard on the podcast that anaerobic contributions were essentially spent after 75 seconds, so the rest of the intervals should be almost exclusively aerobic. I guess that supports doing even longer intervals, though, from an overall percent of time in aerobic.
Thanks!
Good that you are trying that stuff out, but…as has been somewhat sussed out, power is but a very general target (because VO2max isn’t about training power). Those lower ranges can elicit adaptations but they won’t be awesome; remember, with VO2max intervals you’re going after central adaptations (i.e. the heart).
A good starting point for variety is the classic Coogan ‘no-go’ power zone chart: 106-120% and 3-8min.
It depends on your anaerobic capacity. 75s is, again, like 120%, a general pop. guideline. Just look at the Ramp Test and all the wonky results that spews out for anaerobically under/over-developed riders.
For a platform like TR et al, all these generalities will serve most of the people most of the time and bring about standard bell curve results. It’s up to you to figure out your own capabilities to maximize your efforts and results.
'Nuff said. 
Some of the most effective v02 sessions I’ve ever done was when I got a coach that prescribed them as little more than “jam it up a climb for 3-5 minutes and then spin down for equal time until you get 12-20min of work,” so I ended up just giving it all I had that day.
I think there’s a tendency to view specific power targets as a pass/fail metric to achieve x adaptations, but I found out I was leaving a bunch on the table that way.
I have two VO2max eras – pre- and post-power meter.
I might posit that my pre-PM sessions (5x5min by HR; rarely completed that 5th interval) were a lot harder and a lot more productive than those done by PM. My 5min pre-PM power (measured once I got a PM) has never been matched/beat by PM-era training.
If you’re gasping, you’re doing it right. If you can curse out loud, you need to go harder.
Train the physiology, the power will follow.
Begs the question…why not ditch the PM for Vo2 workouts?
Your coach is right on the money.
Because power is a good carrot. It’s easy to let up just when it starts to matter/hurt, especially if you start out way too hard the way most people do.
I once knew a guy who said he had never completed Friel’s 1-2-3-4-5-5-4-3-2-1 minute ladder workout. I could never understand that, until we did it together one time. He attacked the first couple of intervals as if he were attempting to set a PB, then blew up. The only reason he finished the whole workout that time is because we were doing them on a short-ish loop, and I kept going, lapping him a couple of times in the process.
I don’t get it? Are you holding yourself back now that you have a PM? If so, why?
While it’s true that one’s VO2max relies on a combination of factors, including capillary and mitochondrial density and which can be improved from sub threshold training (base phase), it also largely relies on cardiac output.
Are you suggesting that a decently trained athlete can improve cardiac output riding entirely at or below threshold?
I do/have. My first 6mos with TR is the only time I’ve done power guided VO2 intervals. It’s been HR and breathing otherwise. But that’s not to say power should be completely ignored.
That would depend on just how “decently trained” they actually are. Clearly, though, forcing the heart to pump hard for hours and hours on end is a potent stimulus for adaptation - ultimately, in fact, maladaptation, if you consider hypertensive patients or animal models of pacing-induced cardiac failure.
Again, the notion that the heart only adapts to exercise close to VO2max is clearly incorrect.
To summarize the thread: no, it doesn’t. Good question! Number one rule: be able to finish the workout.
This is one of the questions I had for everyone. Recently I have steered away from an over focus on target watts and have instead switched my focus to RPE and HR as my focus metrics intra-workout.
The question that I have is, is the goal of training not to spend time in different zones, with HR being a great indicator of what energy system you are currently using/have used as well as where you are currently working, instead of relying on target watts? I’ve always been under the impression that the goal of a session, lets say a VO2 session for example, is to put your body into the VO2 training state, and that gauging HR is a great way to see if you are in that ‘zone’? This goes both ways too in that sense that you could also see if you were under training and doing Endurance work instead of say Sweet Spot work etc.
I understand that there are training adaptations and that naturally as you get stronger, you become more efficient and HR will drop when in those zones, but if you constantly perform an FTP test - every three/four weeks let’s say - then your HR zones will stay fairly constant with the increased load, and thus, the training stimulus in those zones is maintained.
Am I on the right path with that?
Make that, “harder is better, as long as you’re still training VO2max and not anaerobic capacity”.
Power is a better indicator of metabolic demand than HR.