Third option; just do the next interval but accept a lower power output.
As I said before; if you skip a workout or take a ‘back-pedal’ on a vo2 workout you’re wasting your time with the rest of the set.
1 Like
Oh, yeah the point you made about focusing on the point of the workout type vs the exact power requirements made a lot of sense. That’s going to be my aim by default if I get part of the way through and feel like I can’t hold on to the power target.
Tbh when thinking back to the workout and how I felt at the time I couldn’t hang on to the target power, but if I had thought of it as staying at my max oxygen intake (even if it meant a power drop) vs just hitting the power target then I definitely would have been able to do all of the intervals.
I think I’ll adjust intensity on workouts where going in I know I’ll likely need to hedge vs feeling fine at the start and finding out I can’t hang at the exact target until part of the way through. Even then I’d aim for the “lower the intensity at first and then edge it up to 100% as I go” approach suggested in one of the TR articles that was linked in this thread.
There was a lot of good feedback in this thread and I feel like I have a better understanding of recognizing the workout goals and the strategies to get the most out of it if things go wrong.
2 Likes
Sorry, I have to disagree. A “back-pedal” or temporary reprieve happens outside all the time. It might come in the form of the road slightly leveling out, a brief downhill, a wind gust. There is no way the rest of the set is a waste of time. Heck, there is still value in finishing the rep.
There are workouts where time in zone is important. There are workouts where you want to maintain intensity (and if more rest is needed to maintain that intensity you take it). There is certainly a point where you shut it down or don’t want to risk injury… but in general, more work is better than less work.
3 Likes
I don’t think you’ve understood my argument - no worries, I’ll try again.
If you skip an interval and backpedal because the intensity is too high for you in a workout where adaptations are being made by sustained effort at maintain maximum oxygen uptake, then you will not get back to maximum oxygen uptake for several more intervals.
Obviously, if this was the second interval of 20 and the reason is you got stopped by a car pulling out - carry on.
If you’re doing it late in the set and you only have 2-3 intervals left, the remaining intervals will not be enough to bring you back to that state and so are a waste of energy that could be put towards a more productive set later.
Instead, I argue (and others got) that you should just do the interval anyway and accept whatever power you can put out as long as your RPE/Hr is correct (assuming you don’t have access to Lactate monitoring).
There are workouts where … if more rest is needed to maintain that intensity you take it.
That only applies to anaerobic / very short power durations or weightlifting, not the VO2 session the OP was doing.
Thank you for pulling this out and posting! I need to print it out & keep a copy near my trainer
2 Likes
I’d have a power range in mind and cut the workout when you drop below that. For example, if your target watts are >=400w, cut the workout when you drop below 5% loss (ie can’t sustain 380w for another intervals). This is just an example so tweak it accordingly, but the principle is sound.
2 Likes
Im curious about the power oscialltion in the graphic you showed. Whats going on there? ERG issue?
- No ERG, rollers and real power from what I read.
I dont know if its a TR issue or not, but the 226 FTP shown on the screenshot you included should have target power of 237 to 271 watts (105% to 120% of FTP) for a full 20 minute duration in vo2 max. That looks like 280 watts, or 125% which brings the whole interval power to 106% of ftp (assuming 50% of FTP ‘rest’) and 21 minutes of ‘work.’ And it looks like you are missing the ‘rest’ target by averaging 180 watts or so in the rest interval. This brings the whole segment to an average of 114% most riders would fail that workout by the 3rd set, if not sooner based on my math (:30 at 125% then :15 at 80%).
The concept of vo2 max workouts is maintaining 90% ventilary threshold by putting out the least effort possible and you can easily accomplish this with a 110% 30/15, which is shown to be one of the most effective workouts in studies and is a much more common workout. The 30/15 at 110%/50% averages 95% of ftp over the interval.
At the very least try the workout again doing the rest intervals as advised by TR (it looks like 50% based on the screenshot) and thats what i would assign a rider.
And at most TR should reconsider the Spencer +1. I understand wanting to make riders feel like they are progressing independently of FTP going up, but i dont think there is a scientific basis for 30:15s at 125%.
Is it? I’m sure that’s one way of looking at it.
Generally in exercise performance you maximize gains by doing the minimum work possible to get the desired adaptation. In VO2 max workouts in particular there is no benefit to not being efficient. Thats why the 30:15 is so popular and effective.
Put differently, why spend 80 TSS getting in a vo2 max workout when you could spend 60 and have 20 extra TSS in the bank for time at threshold in another workout?
I’m not sure what adaptation you’re specifically targeting though.
VO2 Max, which is the maximum amout of oxygen your body can consume during intense exercise and it also correlates with clearing the biproducts of hard work from the blood stream, particularly CO2 and thus acidity.
In riding terms a higher vo2 max improves your one to five minute power, as well as how quickly you can recover from very hard effiets such as sprints.
I meant what physiological adaptation(s) are you targeting when doing 30/15s. And how does this correlate with “maintaining 90% ventilary threshold”?
We are getting away from cschmitz’s question on this thread - and I would love to discuss his power output on rest intervals still so we can troubleshoot if that is the problem!
The adaptations are primarily increased blood plasma volume, increased red blood cell and hemoglobin counts, aerobic enzyme stimulation, increased cardiac output (stroke volume), increased respiratory efficiency and tolerance to mild hypoxia during exercise. Some say respiratory efficiency goes up as well.
My personal view is that increased plasma volume is the primary driver as a good VO2 Max regiment can improve VO2 Max by 10% over ten weeks, while heat adapation protocols - which also increase plasma volume can capture a large part (but not all) of the improvements in VO2 Max over a very similar time period.
1 Like
I knew there was a TR podcast on this - Both VO2 Max work as well as failing VO2 Max intervals.
Chad contradicts himself a bit by first saying VO2 Max workouts arent important then later saying they should be part of every plan, as well as saying he loves 120% then highlighting minimum effective dose is the right approach. I often think he struggles with stating the TR training philosophy (the first ten min this segment) and more common coaching philosophies (the remainder of the segment).
2 Likes