The “magic interval” for increasing VO2max has been known since at least the days of Jim Ryun.
4 Likes
Perhaps then you and Paul Laursen @plaursen ought to discuss this.
1 Like
What’s there to discuss? They used a bogus statistical approach to conclude that, hey, guess what, those who work harder improve more. Whodathunkit?
#sportsscienceatitsfinest
ETA: Speaking of @plaursen, I always thought that this was a good review:
In particular, this point mentioned in the abstract and discussed in the article:
“It seems that, for athletes who are already trained, improvements in endurance performance can be achieved only through high-intensity interval training (HIT).”
IOW, intensity matters, and the fitter you are, the more it matters. That is undoubtedly why the studies reporting the biggest increases in VO2max (e.g., Hickson et al. and others from JOH’s lab) have been the ones pushing participants the most. OTOH, there really aren’t any data supporting Billat’s hypothesis that “dwell time” at/near is what really matters.
4 Likes
I mean not to pull on Superman’s cape here. But what it sounds like they proved was average power does not an equivalent effort make. Someone ought to come up with something like normalized power and then make an intensity score or uh…factor maybe. Taking into consideration the relative difficulty of higher fractional percentages of vo2max.
It’s neeeever been done. 
But to be fully honest, it’s all a bit confusing to me. It sounds like high vo2max cohorts saw improvements in vo2max efforts at 15min. But not at 40. It seems like higher vo2max had better effect. But I don’t know I’m just a simple mamil, it seems like a paper in search of a finding to me, and granted it’s not for me so maybe that makes sense.
So where does this figure/statement originate? It doesn’t seem connected to either of the two links you posted.
It’s a pdf from link two (left side).
Page 19 in the pdf
1 Like
Hey all. Thanks for bringing me in. I think personally everyone’s made good points. The scientists have done their best and certainly I’ve been down the ‘time at VO2’ rabbit hole myself. Is there anything definitive in this area? I couldn’t say today there if I’m honest. I know there are more studies out there recently completed and are under review that might shed more light for us in these next few years. There’s some good logic around it. Let’s see.
At the end the day with my coach hat, what matters for me and my athletes is: is my power improving across the power-time continuum that matters? This is how we like to look at this in our cyclists (see graph). This is an ultradistance cyclist example so not showing a big anaerobic power reserve you’ll note but he rides long (he did at least one 7 hour ride in the last 6 weeks). Everyone’s profile is a bit different.
Now. I thought @freoishom’s comment here was really interesting:
Yesterday I would have 100% agreed with my coaching hat on to that comment. And I still do agree with most of it. For experienced cyclists it will always be this way. However we have to agree that there’s some uncertainty around how to go out on these, especially for less familiar athletes. I’ve read everything from going at a percentage of FTP (flawed method of course), to all-out (not a good idea), to building into them (better). Notwithstanding the important coach feel comments we should all eventually grasp, what we believe will be useful is (wait for it… new term coming) to keep an eye on your Workout Reserve. What’s this you ask? It’s a live readout on your Garmin head unit around how much you have in the tank. By knowing your power profile (i.e., maximal mean power curve, above) during the last 6 weeks we can take that data and calculate what you are more or less capable of at any given moment in your workout. Or how many matches you have left to burn. If you are at 100% (across any power-time continuum; short or long) you have a full set of matches. If you sprinted your first 30s your WR would dive towards zero (bad pacing) and matches just about burnt. When WR goes negative, that means you hit a PR over the last 6 weeks. From a press release I’m working on for this — short interval section — we are currently saying:
The main target for these sessions is typically your VO2MAX. Initially, manage the minimum Workout Reserve to prevent rapid declines towards short durations (“S”). Gradually, let the Reserve approach 0% for longer durations (“L”) as the session advances.
[Note that S and L will be displayed on your device to tell you which end of the WR is being depleted].
Here’s an example of a 3 x 12 30/30 post analysis. Its not perfect pacing because the athlete hadn’t done a 30/30 in a while and was due for a big one. As you can see, WR (green line) goes negative on the last set highlighting a PB (-16% mWR). He might have gone a bit hard and I would have told him so as a coach.
But to the point of this thread (if I understand it right) notice the pacing guidance potential with that live WR number on your cockpit. It’s a match detector. We believe this data gives you new insight into pacing relative to your past abilities. For my athletes, I’ll be using it for coaching alongside the qualitative cueing points that @freoishome makes. Keep an eye out for its release.
2 Likes
Workout Reserve is an interesting workaround, however, looking at the paper, it’s not clear how is it taking into account the accumulated fatigue of repeated efforts. Can you elaborate on that?
For sure. Like anything, its confusing at first glance. With WR we basically say to hell with all the arguing about physiology (see above thread) and we simply look at what matters — OUTPUT — power, or pace for runners. So WR compares, either retrospectively in those graphs, or in real time on your cockpit, what your current output looks like in any power-time domain relative to your recent past.
I’m just reviewing some literature we’re putting out so copy/paste here fyi as its relevant.
Understanding Workout Reserve: Its Capabilities and Limitations
Workout Reserve is a powerful tool for measuring your current performance against your personal bests. It acts as a real-time indicator of how closely you are approaching or surpassing your historical peak performances. However, it’s crucial to understand what Workout Reserve does not signify.
What it is: Workout Reserve quantifies how your current effort compares to your historical maximum for a specific rolling average. It’s a benchmark of your current performance level.
What it is NOT: Workout Reserve is not an indicator of your energy levels, or anything physiologically-related. A 0% Workout Reserve doesn’t imply that you’re “out of gas” or should feel exhausted. It simply means you’ve matched your historical best in that particular metric. Conversely, a negative Workout Reserve indicates that you’ve exceeded your past records, setting a new personal best. This accomplishment leads to an update in your Athletica power/speed profile, reflecting your improved performance.
3 Likes