Lates post by Martin.
Really digging his explanations and meaningful descriptions.
M.
1 Like
So my interpretation of that study is that you need to get up to 90% max HR in your intervals to get maximum VO2max and power at 4 mmol/L lactate improvements. 88% doesn’t quite get the adaptions you are seeking for the amount of time invested.
The 4 x 8 min group did 64 min /week of SS intensity and the 4 x 4 group did 32 min/week of slightly higher SS intensity. The 4 x 8 group had double the improvement of the 4 x 4 group but invested twice the amount of time at 90% max HR. So maybe you use 4 x ? intervals at 90% max HR (to maybe 93% upper end?) and the longer you can increase the duration of the intervals, the greater the improvement you will see.
2 Likes
These intervals were all carried out above Lactate Threshold 2 (FTP or MLSS if you like).
Sweet Spot is below LT2 so, as they are designed, they are not the same thing.
It’s important to remember that 90% of HRmax is actually referring to 90% of HRmax-HRrest.
Mike
1 Like
Except I think Seiler indicated on the Velonews podcast that he used %HR max to set intensities not a % of the range of HR extremes. But I agree looking at my HR % of max that 90% would put me above MLSS/LT2/FTP/OBLA.
Seiler was reluctant to use HR, I took these notes:
Thanks . I’ve removed the reference to SSB in my post.
My time has come…Elephants +5 today… 6x7min @105-108% (av 106.5%) w/4min rest vs 6x6 @108% w/3min restElephants +4, so not exactly the same workout but close-ish enough…?
(edit: I did Kosciuszko +4 last week – 8x5min @108% w/3min rest…
did last 2 intervals down @ -3% and -5%…)
Would it be wise to to +4 instead of +5 today? 
Looks like the biggest difference is the the rest period 4 vs 3min.
I’ll try to smash it and make you proud! 
YOU DON’T WANT ADVICE FROM ME! 
I bailed on Elephants +4 a few short weeks ago!
Just the same, don’t sell yourself short. Go for the +5. If you can rip out that much of sustained power hi vol you’ve got guts enough to make it through Elephants +5, I’m sure! So go all in. You crushed Avalanche Spire…and next week is some recovery, correct? If you go deep on this workout it’s really gonna pay off at your next ramp test.
Plus, I’m in erg mode when I work out. I think you’ve got to watch your power while you ride? I think that makes you mentally tougher…it’s harder to do that in my opinion.
Done & dusted.
I still think there are harder Elephant versions out there.
Hey peeps, original poster back after some radio silence.
So here’s where life is at:
- Time Trial was horrible, U-shaped course down the coast and 25+ knot winds.
- Did some recovery then 48 hours later ramp tested. Results +5% on previous test (that was 1 week post Everesting). HOWEVER; ill give the caveat the ramp test was coming off the back of a 6 week work project that stopped me training. So my result is probably more like +10% in 2 weeks of short, fast, loud V02 Max countered with Pettit and work commutes.
- Next real training was San Joaquin - 1 (5* 6* 30/30 @ 150%)*3
- Followed a few days later by 4 min efforts floating around 110%
-
I then went out and rode up the steepest hill near my house (actual brutal like 1km at +18%)
-
Two days later was my A race, a PR attempt up the local climb. 9km 415VM Ave 4.8% ave HR 180bpm for 30 mins! I know I have suffered more in my life, I just can’t remember when…
I was aiming at sub 30 minutes but missed it by a minute-ish. Looking at the Strava data I was quick in the first half and slow in the second half.
Moving forward; as I type this I just completed the 6*5 min intervals at 108% and will do some more shorter efforts again in a few days. In the interim I have a few work commutes and a cruisey xmas ride tomorrow night.
My general thoughts so far: working up to 8 minute efforts at 108% is totally doable. Generally speaking looking at the background research everything has been tested at “repeated wingate tests” and “30 second all out efforts” so you also need to still include high intensity efforts (+130%). But this is not to the total exclusion of making up low intensity Km’s, even for the rider trainer for short events (fast bunch rides, PR’s in local climbs and Crits etc).
Edit. I am not sure why the last paragraph is bold…
What I find most interesting about this study " Adaptations to aerobic interval training: interactive effects of exercise intensity and total work duration." which found that " 4 × 8 min training induced greater overall gains in VO(2) peak, power@VO(2) peak, and power@4 mM bLa- (Mean ± 95%CI): 11.4 (8.0-14.9), vs 4.2 (0.4-8.0), 5.6 (2.1-9.1), and 5.5% (2.0-9.0) in Low, 4 × 16, and 4 × 4 min groups, respectively (P<0.02 for 4 × 8 min vs all other groups)."
Is that the overall prescription for work was “Three groups (n=9 each) trained 2 sessions/wk × 7 wk: 4 × 4 min, 4 × 8 min, or 4 × 16 min, plus 2-3 weekly low-intensity bouts.”
So, with regard to low intensity vs high intensity sessions it was 50:50 or 60:40 which doesn’t align with Seiler’s previous descriptive work of 80:20!
And perhaps he is using total time vs sessions to describe the workout allocation, but this isn’t what he has previously stated.
As has been said, there is nothing magic about the 8min duration.
The key is to get to VO2 and to accumulate time there.
Here is the work part of the today’s trainer session on the fixie. 2 sets of 4 x 2:00 @ 106% FTP, :30 recovery, then 10 x 1min @ 110%, :30 recovery. I’ve overlaid the SMO2 with the watts.
On the Humon screen “in the red” means that oxygen demand has exceeded delivery, and red with a white number means you are at the limit. I was hitting that “red with white number” in the last thirty seconds of each of the 2min intervals, and you see that the SMO2 kept dropping lower and lower.
The same thing started to happen on the last 5 of the 1min intervals.
I remember these kind of sets as a swimmer, and, if you figure out the pacing, yes, you start to hit VO2 as the set progresses. Many ways to skin the interval cat. I like these because they are less mental stress than doing a 4 x 4 or 5 x 4, and this early in the year I don’t want to be going too gung ho on the zone 5 work anyway, I just want to get there and stay there a bit to give that system a kick.
1 Like
But keeping HR at approx 90% max which cannot be possible if you go all out for 8 minutes. The study had the participants doing this but the conclusion to be drawn from the study was to go at a power which elicits ~90% max HR.
No it isn’t. I’ve listened to a whole load of his podcasts over the last few weeks and HR max is HR max, there is no mention of subtracting your resting HR.
You’re correct. I was confused by the explanation of equating HR to percentages of VO2max as explained on the FLO podcast.
Mike
The subjects doing 4 x 8 minutes did them at 90% HR ±2 so I don’t see how you can say that it was different to the conclusion of the paper.
Mike
If we are talking about the same study, the participants were instructed to:
- do a maximal effort for X minutes
- where X was 4 minutes for group1, 8 minutes for group2, and 16 minutes for group3
HR was recorded, but was not used to pace the intervals.
The conclusion of the study was the 8-min group had the best performance gains.
You can read it here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51543724_Adaptations_to_aerobic_interval_training_Interactive_effects_of_exercise_intensity_and_total_work_duration
The 3rd page of the study, labeled page 76, has the Training Intervention detailing how participants were instructed to do a max sustainable effort for X minutes.
The next page has the results, where data compiled from the study revealed a HR of
- 86-90% HRpeak (HRmax for cycling) for the 16-min group
- 88-92% HRpeak for the 8-min group
- 92-96% HRpeak for the 4-min group
If you want to do the same, ride at your max sustainable power for 8 minutes. If you are similar to the cyclists in the study, your HR will likely be in 88-92% HRpeak.
2 Likes
Reaching 88%-92% in a 8 minute interval is very doable for me. But reaching 96% in a 4 minute interval is much, much harder because my legs will definitely burn out just as I reach it. Maybe that’s why 8 minutes just makes the most sense.
2 Likes
Duration being the important part… But I think you’re getting the description right but not quite in the prescription. They were told to go as hard as they could that would be sustainable for the duration of the intervals. Supposedly the rpe between the 4, 8, 16 minute sets were roughly equivalent. Seiler also stated on a slowtwitch thread from a few years ago that the HR numbers quoted are the avg HR from the last 25% of the intervals.
1 Like
