Having just done spencer+2, I found that this was the first time I really actually started gasping for air. And that was only in the last 30 seconds of the interval which had me gasping, (and this was at 135-140% ftp for 3 minutes rather than 120%). It was the recovery that was the issue again. Seems like any time I get 1:1 or greater recovery, my anaerobic engine bounces right back.
In build if I spot any 1:1 style vo2max workouts they will be rotated out for 2:1
Their Wmax test is very similar to the TR Ramp test.
Based on that they did the 30/15s at ~125% FTP and the 5m intervals at ~105% FTP (94%/79% of Wmax)ā¦ which seems way too low for the LIs vs the SIs.
Would be interesting to see the data tables and find their 20m test power (done after the VO2max test and some sprint efforts so likely to only just over FTP). Could be that these are another set of athletes who āfall outside the bell curveā for the ramp/VO2 test.
Both groups was instructed to perform intervals with their maximal sustainable work intensity, aiming to perform highest possible average power output during each interval session. Similar effort during both the SI and LI training was evident via similar mean RPE across all work intervals (Table 1)
next time electro shocks ? 
Check your power meter calibration, then increase or re-test your FTP. IMO no amount of anaerobic capacity can make a rider do Spencer +2 at 1.35 in the intervals.
If my calculations are correct, that means the SI work period was >1.0 IF for 34.5 minutes, and the LI work period was .98 IF for 27.5 minutes.
(Note that the rest intervals were done at 50% intensity of the work intervals, which is higher than weād do it. Though Iām sceptical that the 15sec periods were done that high in the SI sessions.)
Iād like to have seen the HR or oxygen uptake during those sessions. My instinct is still that time spent at a high % of vo2max makes sense as the best indicator of likely adaptations. And you can get that from shorter or longer intervals; whichever works for you.
Iāve been constantly re-calibrating my powermeter. More it just seems that in the last 2-3 weeks, despite the heavy load, my FTP is up a lot (so Iām trying where possible to keep the power up)
I donāt want to go for a vanity number though and this is the last week I have of SSB2 so Iāll wait and retest
.98 IF for 27.5m sounds too easy, certainly not āas hard as you can goā 
My point was that 105% for 5m intervals even with 2:1 rest isnāt going to elicit a high enough VO2max% in a lot of people, certainly not until near the end of the set. If that was all they could do then the prescription wasnāt fit for purpose. Or the 20m test results might reveal their true sustainable power was lower, so maybe it was 110%+ā¦ oh the limitations of using a max Aerobic test to estimate FTP.
I donāt like that prescription, the method of work/effort-matching by keeping 2:1 rest and 50% rest intensity in both interventions IMO results in the LIs being suboptimal, and therefore not a fair comparison.
Also think a highly trained individual should be ācomfortablyā able to do that workout at more than 105%FTP/78%Wmax. It should definitely be higher than 20m max power given that it is 20m work with 3 rests!
~50% of work intensity in the rest interval is what I prefer for SIs at 2:1 (with similar work intensity), and is whatās prescribed in older Ronnestad papers. Keeps the aerobic systems working harder and the anaerobic contribution lower than resting way down in zone 1.
UPDATE: Did Clouds Rest +2 (30/15 at 130%). Too much. Made it through the first set, but was seeing stars. Going from 20s to 15s of recovery just made it that much tougher. Plus it means two extra intervals get snuck into the set (16 instead of 14); nothing breaks my will more than realizing I have two more intervals to go than I had anticipated.
So I reduced intensity for the second set by 3%, but still skipped two intervals in the middle.
Third set I rallied and didnāt skip any intervals. I nudged the intensity down by 5% (total, not in addition to the prior 3% reduction), and that seemed to get at a sustainable effort level for these 11:40 sets.
All told the workload wasnāt any higher than last week (due to reduced intensity and the skipped intervals in the second set) but arguably I extended the total time I spent working at/near aerobic capacity. But who really knows? All I know for sure is there was more fear and intimidation this week than last week.
UPDATE: The data tables are now viewable. We get Interval power, Wmax from their 25W/min Test, 4mmol Power (~FTP) and 20m test power (which had suitable clearing efforts).
SIs at 132% of 4mmol power. LIs at 112%. Sounds really tough for the SIs, and pretty achievable for the LIs. Also seems like their maths isnāt that great as the short/long Intervals were at 96/78% Wmax not 94/79. Seems like a disconnect between the two groups- like these athletes were especially good at short efforts or the LI group underperformed. The LI group had lower sustainable power as % of Wmaxā¦ maybe the LIs didnāt suit those individuals?
ORā¦
Maybe the SIs were easier to recover from and maintain over the course of the intervention? So the SI group did better quality work despite the RPE being the same. The falls in power for the LI group on all 3 power tests would also support the theory that they were more fatigued at the end of the training cycle.
Also surprised not to see some bigger power numbers out there for supposedly āEliteā athletes. Average 4.44/4.39 W/kg FTP for the SI/LI groups. Pretty close to my in-form numbers as a good UK 3rd cat on the road.
FINAL UPDATE: Got to the end of my short-interval experiment today, with Rattlesnake (1 min at 140% followed by 15 30/15s at declining target power from 120% to 110%).
After getting cracked by Clouds Rest +2 last week, I was pretty apprehensive coming in. The first minute and opening trio of 30/15s at 120% really stirs things up, but I was a little surprised to see my HR falling as the set proceeded to the lower power targets. By eyeball, I think leveling out the work intervals at 115-117% would have kept the workload at a constant level. I would raise these latter intervals before increasing the target for the first couple above 120%. I do NOT think that increasing the initial surge interval would have been a good idea.
FWIW: I saw substantial improvement swapping these short intervals in place of the longer intervals in the second half of SSB2 (mid volume). I ended up extending it by one week by repeating week 5, and saw clear improvements in the threshold workout on Thursday (Lamarck) and Saturday (Leconte, with 30-second surges) and even the Sunday sweet spot ride (Wrightās Peak). By āimprovementā I mean I was better able to hit the targets and sustain them for the full work interval without fading; and lower RPE (i.e. feelings of despair). Iām not saying this is attributable to the Tuesday workouts; just that the swap still left me with a training block that felt stressful but manageable, and led to good results.
Thatās good to hear, as I was leaning the same way.
One workout in particular that I find intriguing is Gardiner +3:
https://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/workouts/292579-gardiner-3
Itās 6 sets of 6min 15/15s @ 180%.
Because of the high intensity, only 12 bursts per set instead of 16 (e.g. Spanish Needle).
I find 15/15s to be very manageable mentally, and perhaps the 180% makes up for the 1:1 work to rest.
@brendanhousler here is an example of what I think of as a āswimming setā ā 20 x 1:00 on, :30 off. These are on a fixed gear on a kurt kinetic, so power gets limited by cadence (Iām more of a masher than a spinner, and the high rpm of these makes them a challenge for me to hold the power in the last :15 of each interval).
Iāll peg these at somewhere around 115%. The first ten are not that bad. The last ten kind of suck.
Need to test myself couple times, but i think i can achieve that 90% HR āeasierā with short intervals. I think just because the intervals are short, it makes it somehow mentally easier or they are mentally easier because i do them indoors (less boring?), who knows.
Mostly i have done 3 sets of 13x30s/15s, but couple days ago did 2 sets of 12x40s/20s so longer sets around 125% FTP. Was manageable.
How long should your HR stay at 90% or above to get good stimulus?
This was my experience with Rattlesnake too. The structure of the first half of each interval was good - then gets too easy.
As has been said, HR is not a great proxy for hitting VO2 max if the work bouts are short. Astrand saw this in the 60s ā work bouts under 2min didnāt produce high HR or high lactate (when the recovery periods were the same length or longer than the work interval ā when the recovery interval is half the length of the work interval or less, things change ā a lot).
Itās all about the manipulation of intensity, duration, and recovery interval.
Bouts under 2min need to either be higher than the power output you can actually sustain for an ~6min effort or you need a rest interval that is more like 25% of the work interval.
The set I posted above didnāt hit me hard until the last 10 repeats, because the recoveries were :30. Right now I donāt think I could hold 390w for 6 minutes, so the 390w work intervals were about the right intensity ā but I needed the :30 rest to hold that output.
No one was pricking my finger or measuring my oxygen consumption, but by the 12th interval, my breathing was deep and labored for most of the recovery interval ā the same breathing sensations I would associate with the last 2min of a 4min hill repeat at 390-400w. Subjectively, that tells me that I had done enough work on incomplete recovery for the first 15min of the set to make me work at a high % of VO2 during the short 1min work intervals over the last 15min.
Iād argue that if you are work matching the efforts (youāre 115% of FTP or higher ā the same effort you would do for a continuous ālongā VO2 interval, and youāre getting the same amount of time in zone during the set), and if the recoveries are less than or equal to 50% of the work interval, ok, do enough of them and youāre going to elicit VO2 max eventually.
Iām going to do sets of 1min on/:15 off next week, and 2:00 on/:30 off the week after. Iāll do some repeats on my 4min hill in early March and tell yaāll how it goes.
Seiler has been YouTubing on this lately. Motivated me to dig out my own copy of Textbook of Work Physiology for old timeās sake.
Same here. Did this today and I could easily do 160% of my FTP. Just started reading this thread as it came up on a search as to what target power should be for 30/30.
I have to say that reading through this thread, I worry about some of my fellow TR users sanity. The sets/workouts youāre doing are nuts! I like a good VO2 mashup but thereās a few of you Iād NEVER join for a group workout.
