Lots of folks don’t seem to appreciate that to get to/near VO2max, you need to get to/near max HR. It can be done repeatedly, but only if you’re sufficiently motivated, 'cause it hurts. If you’re only getting to, say, 90% during a ramp test or intervals, you’re not training at/near VO2max.
Except that puts the emphasis on how hard you are breathing, which isn’t a good indicator of how close you are to VO2max.
Especially when they are only a couple minutes long.
Then they try a true VO2max interval at the same power, and wonder why it’s so hard.
Be careful using race data to inform HR targets. Adrenaline has a big input. A few examples of mine from past races:
- 6 hours at 89% of max HR
- 1.5 hrs at 95%
My estimated LTHR is 91% of max.
I could never replicate those numbers in normal riding/training.
Despite being so easy to measure, I still find HR surprisingly hard to interpret… HRmax varies from one day to another. I’d find it impossible to prescribe my intervals as a certain %HRmax just because I don’t know what “HRmax” is at a given point in time.
Or not. But thanks for believing you’re the only person whose ever ridden a bike hard enough.
3 Likes
The two VO2max tests I’ve done have been for clinical research trials. Both times it was using a recumbent trainer bike, which I’d never used before and didn’t get on with. Felt like I was using completely different muscle groups. On that basis I reckon I under-tested - that’s my excuse anyway. Still, they were free!
Who said anything about prescribing intervals based on HR?
Well I understood your post as implying that one should get “near” HRmax to effectively train VO2max (making the additional assumption that one should be “near” VO2max for VO2max intervals to be effective). If this is the case then it is only natural to target a certain %HRmax (at least as a necessary but perhaps not sufficient condition).
1 Like
Probably not the correct thread, but this is short enough to digest for me…
I was doing my VO2 max sessions last season based on RPE and stopped looking at power during the interval. I was focused on high cadence and making sure HR stayed elevated. Still felt like death during and after.
I know that’s not the TR philosophy but after listing to some EC podcast that sounded easier to complete for me. I still left those sessions drained and borderline concerned about my health for a few minutes after the workout. Philosophy being that VO2 max “ain’t a power zone” - color me confused.
1 Like
Pedaling abnormally fast makes you inefficient, and so 1) reduces the power you will generate at/near VO2max, but 2) also elevates your HR even at the same VO2. So, it’s hard to say how close you were to VO2max based on your HR (or RPE). Your power, though, will always tell you the “floor”, no matter how fast you pedal.
Would definitely not get you close to your VO2max. You end up with a lot less perfusion of the muscles because gravity isn’t helping, so legs get starved of oxygen. Researchers use it to investigate pathologies (diabetes, aging etc) where there’s a drop in VO2max or slowed kinetics, to see if it’s from the impaired blood flow to the muscles or uptake within the muscles itself.
Fair play for taking part in the studies though, I can imagine it was awful😅.
Go really hard for a few minutes, rest a bit, rinse and repeat. If you’re wondering whether you’re going hard enough, look at 1) your power, and 2) your HR. (Most of the time, though, all they will tell you is “go harder”.)
The difference doesn’t seem to be quite as large as you might think.
This may be because the heart fills better when you’re recumbent or reclining, even if you don’t have gravity aiding muscle blood flow.
However, trained subjects may be penalized more, because cardiac filling is already maximized when upright.
Net-net, this study reports that VO2max is 11% lower in highly-trained cyclists when tested fully supine (so legs actually above the heart when actually pedaling) versus upright.
1 Like
I got this by now / put into practice for a couple of years.
But in an earlier post you stressed the importance of getting to (or at least near) HRmax. I’m still wondering what you mean be this. Actually, how do you define HRmax? Is it a new value every day?
The second trial certainly was! The worst part was having a tube shoved down my throat and somehow into my lungs 
which was present during the 3 hours of tests, which included 60 electro shocks to the neck of increasing intensity (using the pads seen in resuscitation) and other horrors.
It was a worthy cause, though. The aim was to investigate the ageing process in veteran endurance cyclists. The results were widely published and I (along with most other volunteers) were tested as having fitness levels comparable to those 30 years younger.
My VO2max was scored at 52, but as I say I reckon I under-tested 
1 Like
TR says VO2max training shouldn’t be that hard:
There’s good recent evidence to suggest that easier and longer efforts like sweet-spot intervals are the best way to improve VO2 max for untrained (or relatively untrained) athletes.
That’s hilarious. I actually interned with Dr Egana, he was also my supervisor for my final year. Much of his research was based on DiMenna studies. The CO increase is really interesting. I think some of Mikel’s other papers contradict that one, though maybe I should have been paying more attention😅.
As a side note on testing, both mine were to the point of exhaustion, with the lab staff shouting in my face to squeeze every last bit of effort out.
Looking at commercial tests, it appears some use a different method where they only take you to anaerobic threshold and extrapolate from there. So rather like the ramp test in place of a full 1-hour FTP test (which is what I used to do before TR)?
I presume they figure they will get fewer paying customers if they make the process too unpleasant!