nice!
I caught a typo in my original post – that “100%” should have been “110%”
Also, Billat’s study was with runners, and the energy dynamics of 30-30 are different enough between the two sports that the recovery is too long for a fit cyclist.
30-15 is another ball game, though.
1 Like
Historically I struggle with VO2max efforts longer than 2.5 minutes, so I’ve been following this thread with interest.
Today I swapped out Mills (9 intervals of 2min, declining from 120% to 110%) for Brasted (3 sets of 13 30/15s at 120%). I’ve usually handled Mills without falling apart, but next week starts getting into dicier territory, so felt it was a good opportunity to try a different format. Brasted is definitely not easy, but I would describe it as “repeatably hard.” The recovery intervals are short enough I don’t have time to work up doubts about the next work interval; they just keep coming and you just keep doing them. And the work intervals are short enough I don’t get to the point of feeling I can’t make it to the end of that interval. Perhaps it’s all mind games, but if that unlocks the ability to get the necessary work done, so be it.
2 Likes
I like doing both and I think both have their place. For me, the longer intervals really build a tough mindset and help me deal with the discomfort (paint) of high amounts of lactate. The shorter intervals really get my respiration rate up and train me for keeping it together in those super-intense moments…like Cyclocross.
I also am of the belief that 3 minutes isn’t where the “long” duration VO2 max intervals should start. I think a better progression is starting with 90s, 2min, 2.5min and so on; with a 1:1 work to rest ratio.
5x5 @ 120% is a sadistic workout, how many of us here can do that?
Probably more than a few. As stated, it’s the classic ‘Classic VO2max’ workout. Before power meters it was kind of an art, if you could do 6x5 you weren’t working hard enough, 4x5 you were going too hard, 5x5…juuuust right! And then you throw up. 
1 Like
Didn’t 6 x 5 come from some scientific study? I think I saw Coggan tweet about it a while back.
Classic Hickson protocol
44% - wow!!
But, they were not trained cyclists – they were college students picking up some extra cash by being lab rats.
Coggan tried that program and got slower at 40k TTs. He also said he began to dread workouts and hate the bike.
2 Likes
I have tried both short/long VO2, and I definitely feel more benefit to the longer ones as they feel more challenging/require more focus. My HR is also higher on the longer ones.
We need more info on those intervals and their elicit nature. Were they in VO2max from the very start or did they just have to hit VO2max at some point before the interval ended? TiZ info would be insightful. As well, there was obviously no FTP test done, but as the subjects were untrained, the %FTP probably wasn’t @120%, maybe quit a bit less.
Nonetheless, gross. But I recall doing something similar a few years ago when I didn’t know any better. 
1 Like
Wouldn’t it be the opposite?
Are you referring to this?
the %FTP probably wasn’t @120%, maybe quit a bit less.
Hickson 
Some bad news for the 30/15 crowd:
many of the interval training studies reporting large increases in VO2max also used longer (3–5 min) duration intervals.
Where do you see what these short interval studies were? Protocols are not listed in the review. We can only speculate (or look up each reference individually) what the shorter intervals looked like.
Furthermore, this review considered only “healthy sedentary/recreationally active humans”. Not trained individuals. I’d be very hesitant to draw any conclusions from a sedentary/recactive population.
2 Likes
Hickson:
Did this workout a few times building up to 10 and 25 mile TTs a couple of seasons ago. Intervals were at 112%, found that in order to complete it I needed to extend the rest intervals from 120 to 150 seconds.
Don’t believe that anyone with a correctly-set FTP could do them at 120%.
2 Likes
This is the conclusion I’ve come to, and its probably applicable to a load of road/crit racer types too with solid repeatable anaerobic abilities.
If I do a constant power interval it is too easy at the start - the Anaerobic system makes the start of the interval too easy, doesn’t give you a lot of time near VO2max in a 3-4 minute interval.
I’ve been experimenting with longer intervals with decreasing power and found that they both get me to VO2 max (judged by ventilation rate/RPE/HR) quickly, but then allow me to stay there even though the power is falling. Mentally this makes the interval much easier to complete too.
Have tried 2 formats so far
a) 6m intervals split into 2m blocks at 120%/115%/110%. The ‘this is going to get easier soon’ carrot is a big one - I’d find 6m at a constant 115% would be much tougher mentally, but with probably no additional benefit.
b) 5m Intervals, 90s at 130-135%, to hit VO2max conditions quickly then 3.5m at ~112% to hold you there without frying your legs for the next interval.
The second method seems to work really well at getting breathing fast/heavy, and getting HR up in the >90%max area but then holding it pretty flat. (Literature showed 95%maxHR intervals to be less effective).
The first method however I think will be better for intervals in the 6-8m range if that’s your poison.
At the end of the day, whatever intervals you do have to
- get you into and keep you in a VO2max state (breathing both deep and fast - on the edge of control, probably around 90-93%maxHR)
2a) be sufficiently repeatable (from interval to interval) that you can do enough intervals to get the desired stimulus. For physiological adaptation choose the most mentally easy type for you that still satisfies a). However may be psychological benefits to doing some of the more painful prescriptions some of the time.
2b) Needs to be consistently executable over multiple sessions over days, weeks, months of training. If they frighten or fry you leading to missed sessions then you need to refine.
The method you use to achieve this is up to you. Hard start long intervals seem to do it for me. But for Short-Short intervals I find a lot of TRs iterations don’t quite hit the mark - the RPE is often much more thresholdy than VO2maxy unless I crank up the power to the point they feel more like Anaerobic capacity work. My take is that…
- 40%FTP recovery is much too low and allows too much anaerobic reconstitution
- 1:1 recovery is too much time…
This leads me back to the approach more commonly found in literature of 2:1 work to rest with rest at 50% of the work interval, say 120%/60% is more suitable for this kind of work.
Enjoyed Brendan’s blog post, personally not sure I could consistently execute the “just go as hard a you can” approach - It’d totally fry my legs - think I’d barely be able to ride above threshold after a couple of intervals and not get the right stimulus. Still there’s probably a place for the HTFU method every now and then.
7 Likes
This is my problem with Hickson… I think it is an inefficient design with too much work time at too low an intensity. To complete 30m of work the intensity would likely need to be more like 110% than 120%, especially with the short rest periods. For the first couple of intervals at constant intensity, some individuals would only be eliciting VO2max at the very end of interval, and yet by the last one with that much work in the legs, they will be really struggling to hold the power required, especially as the work mounts up over weeks.
Say the time to reach VO2max in each interval was something like 4.5m, 3.5m, 3m, 2m, 2m, 2m. Then you have ~13m at VO2max for 30m work. Compare that with a hard start protocol where VO2max is reached early in all the intervals, or well executed Short-Shorts where a VO2max state is maintained in the rest intervals, you should be able to get a similar time at VO2max for say 20m total work.
Aren’t your second “hard-start” intervals pretty much the same as what Allen and Coggan dubbed “race winning” intervals in their book?