Why basing vo2 off percentages is misguided

I use the pause function for effectively the same purpose. Though for me it is mostly so I can pedal to a better spot for outdoor workouts.

1 Like

Quite.

You are using % as descriptive values rather than prescriptive values.

2 Likes

Haven’t thought it this way but yes, you are right. Also, it actually indirectly proves @hubcyclist point :thinking:

Still, I don’t see problem in TR approach: yes, it will give you specific workout with predetermined %FTP but depending on athlete’s rating will individualise it for following workouts.

But I have other issues with TR plans:

  1. in general it prioritises racing oriented maximum aerobic power / repeatability over maximum stroke volume development. I guess racers might care less: externally visible pace has only real meaning, doesn’t matter how you get there. But as long distance slow hobby rider, I’d prefer MSV development (i.e. longer small number of intervals with higher %FTP a la 4x5).
  2. AT should remember each athlete’s individual starting PL for each zone, even if it has decayed to considerably smaller value. If build block has 6 VO2max workouts, it “wastes” 1-2 workouts to dial in productive PL. I used to use Sleeping Deer as quick initial PL boost and let AT take over from there. But now I use my own described 4x5 progression, so I care little bit less.
1 Like

Going by vibes?

Who is this? Lol