To my very basic understanding of a VO2 workout is that you should:
Work noticeably above your FTP
You should get your HR close to maximum during intervals
Not let your heart rate drop to baseline during recoveries (for instance say at 100W your baseline, meaning fully recovered HR is 100, then you should ideally begin the next interval when your hear rate is still somewhat elevated)
Is my understanding very roughly correct, or would you say that I’m completely wrong ?
If I am on the right track, then what is the point of TR VO2 workouts like Cuervos, where you do just a 2,5 minutes of work (probably not long enough to get anywhere near max HR) and the rest period is 4 minutes.
EDIT: I get the idea that not every workout needs to be super hard. But as I understand VO2max work these HAVE to be demanding to create adaptations. So gradient between easy and hard VO2max interval would be the number of repeats and time spent in zone.
This is a common opinion at the forum but it’s not necessarily true. Research has shown that training at 90-95% max heart rate is preferred. Pushing above 95% adds fatigue exponentially and takes longer to recover from. It is likey more beneficial to add time in said zone than to push it towards max heart rate.
This is a good question, one that I have nothing to help, but would love to hear others opinions on.
V02 for me had a very clear adaptations, as I was fall (CX) focused, I didnt do much through most of the year, but then mid summer when I did my first 5x5 it was always the hardest workout of the year. It would get a bit easier on the second and third week, and after that felt “good” hard, but not misery like the first and second one.
I noticed when I started doing TR workouts, I would do the short ones in the plans, because it sounded great, rather than hopping into the 5x5’s. But found if I went back to the traditional 5x5’s, it was still a big jump up.
A lot of variables in what I just wrote, but curios to hear thoughts, as I have been unsure which direction to send younger riders in that are in need of v02 workouts, I have generally settled around 4min efforts for them, as a worry any shorter and they wont settle into the power as you do in a longer interval, especially if your only working off rpe and maybe HR.
in my opinion, TR gets vo2 work wrong in a couple of ways. Firstly a lot of the easier ones are a bit of nonsense, like steady efforts of a min at 120% aren’t going to elicit vo2 response, and from my own experience with starting that way they don’t really help in setting someone up for longer efforts. Similarly, I did quite a bit of like 40/20% that were doable at 120% but ultimately I didn’t realize any aerobic improvement from those and my CX racing kinda sucked when it came to high aerobic efforts.
That leads to the other pitfall of using percent of ftp to base workouts. And now that I’m coaching some people I get to really appreciate differences in folks. For example, when I do 4min vo2 efforts, I can do about 110-115%, whereas another individual I’m coaching did a block and they were doing 130% of ftp. Without too much experimentation, it’s pretty easy to figure out what your max 3-5min power lies, use that as the basis to help pace intervals, while also accepting that power can drop a bit during vo2 intervals (that’s the 3rd mistake associated with TR, doing all this stuff in ERG mode, leading to a lot of “failure”)
I feel like I’m shouting into the darkness here, I understand people are loving the TR approach and I see why, at the time I really felt like I was given doable workouts that “progressed” me, but in retrospect I didn’t get any better at anything. Ultimately I think TR wastes a lot of users’ time with some pretty ineffective stuff with getting people to a certain baseline
I love TR, but I have to agree here. Although I think part of it is the way the system is built. I think workout progression levels and the way that the AI system handles progression levels doesn’t work for VO2 max. Because workout levels seem to be based off a % of FTP, I think it throws off the rating for VO2 max workouts. I have custom threshold workouts from coaches that TR will classify as VO2. I have VO2 workouts that TR will either give crazy workout levels to or classify as anaerobic (which is kind of ironic). But it just looks to be a flaw in the system.
Also, I don’t personally think you need to constantly progress VO2 workout levels (5->5.5->6->6.5 etc) over a given block because I think you either start too low (too easy) and miss adaptations or you get a workout that isn’t able to be completed. But that’s a training philosophy question I think. For example, I did a dedicated VO2 max block where my workouts would be something like 5x4, 7x3, 7x3 or 4x5, 6x4, 8x3. Longer intervals to start the week but shorter as I fatigue, while still trying to get the same or more time in zone. TR might classify those as going down in the rating. I kind of think once you get to a certain workout level there isn’t a need to try to increase the level, but TR’s system will constantly try to do that.
VO2 Max workouts tend to confuse people fairly often because they aren’t all designed the same with the same expected outcomes.
VO2 Max is a physiological state, but it’s also the name of a power zone that’s roughly associated with most athletes’ VO2 Max. There are many different types of workouts where the power targets fall into the VO2 Max power zone, and many of them aren’t designed to have you working at your true VO2 Max.
A workout like Shir Kuh is a more “traditional” style VO2 Max workout that will likely have you working at your true VO2 Max During each interval.
Something like Shortoff +5 though is a completely different style workout that still fits into the VO2 Max training zone. The goals are very different as well. These shorter intervals are designed to get you to help you get more time in zone to improve neuromuscular fitness in addition to the aerobic benefits of simply pedaling hard. Think of these like strides for runners. The intervals are short and sweet, but the stress signaling is extremely effective while being less fatiguing than longer intervals.
Each type of workout has its own goals. If you’re looking to actually spend time at your true VO2 Max, a “traditional” long-suprathreshold workout will work well, but there are lots of other benefits to be had by simply working in this power zone for different durations.
I agree with most of this - there are different reasons to train at different intensities, even within the “VO2 Zone.” E.g. repeatability, fatigue resistance, responding to attacks as well as training your VO2 Max. But, one subtlety I want to somewhat disagree on (maybe clarify?)
I think it is extremely rare that someone is actually at their VO2 Max. It is an extremely difficult and physiologically taxing state to get to, and while I don’t have a metabolic cart to back it up, I would wager that I don’t hit my actual VO2 Max during an entire block of VO2 workouts - really only “test” workouts where I go in fresh. (There’s a thread on this where Cog was talking about VO2 Peak vs. Max before he got booted, and whether VO2 Max can be impacted by psychological factors - it’s worth a read)
For example - My max heart rate is 177-178. And I can only hit that on a test workout where I go in fresh and ready. On a typical VO2 workout, even where I’m shelling myself by the end like Shir Kuh above, I’m only hitting in the ballpark of ~95% max HR. Even when I’m giving it everything I have at the end of the workout to stay in zone.
I think this post below nails it. You’re trying to maximize time in zone at a high percentage of your VO2 Max (and HR) to maximize adaptations, but not necessarily working at your VO2 Max.
This makes sense if you’re trying to maximize time near VO2 Max during long intervals, but isn’t as applicable for shorter intervals like on/offs.
You could be right! Maybe even during those more traditional workouts we aren’t really working at VO2 Max. Regardless, the intention of those types of workouts is very different than the shorter intervals workouts that many are questioning here.
If time in zone is the #1 priority, then the shorter interval workouts such as Shortoff +5 are a great option, but if it’s time near VO2 Max that you’re looking for, then yeah, I think you’re onto something, and watching HR in addition to power could be a good option to ensure that you aren’t stepping into that state of fatigue that will affect the rest of your workout. I like that idea!
Completely agree there are reasons for all of these workouts and durations.
My point was that you’re very rarely getting to that state and you’re probably not really training at it, just a high percentage of your Max. Actually getting to your VO2 Max is an ALL OUT effort on fresh legs. It is a 10/10 on the difficulty scale and how terrible you feel afterwards. And I wouldn’t be surprised if you not getting there on any 30s or 60s interval either. I’ve done MMP / Test workouts at those durations and they aren’t the same as a properly paced 5 min, 8 min, or 10 min interval because of the Anaerobic contribution.
No VO2 workout is fun, you’re shelled by the end of the workout. But there’s a big difference between 1 all out / MMP effort when you’re fresh, and a workout with 20 minutes of intervals that you have to make it through.
If it’s not easy, you’re not ready for vo2 sessions would be my take on that one.
I’d call 95% ‘close to maximum’ and probably exactly what the guy you were replying to meant. I think Seiler tracks time above 90% Max heart rate, which is hard enough work to get the adaptations but not so hard you either can’t or won’t do the next session!
I appreciate your response, and while you have provided a plausible story around this type of training session. But can you actually provide data that supports the story ? Because I have never seen a study that showed accumulating time at 110-130% of your FTP with moderate efforts and long rest periods is an effective strategy to achieve specific goals. Nor have I heard any coaches advocate this type of training. So - not saying this is not true, but I haven’t come across that. If you have data, please share.
You should check out some of the VO2 Progression threads here. Extensive discussion on it, but it also comes down to how you execute the workout. Power isn’t the focus, it’s more No erg mode, high cadence, driving up heart rate and breathing, and holding on.
I’m in the middle of a block now and by power my intervals are all in that range.
Make sure to take note where they mention that while there was “no group difference in change of VO2 Max, improvements in performance measured as mean power output during 20-minute cycling test were greater.”
I think many people get stuck on improving VO2 Max when there is often a lot of lower-hanging fruit in the nervous system.
this looks like it was 20min of sets and at the time it was great because I felt like I accomplished something, but HR stayed under 170 (where generally I’m in a vo2 max state after 170)
whereas with something like the following 4x4 workout where I’m going as hard as I can for the period of time, my HR was in the mid 170’s.
in my mind on/offs have their place but you gotta do maximal efforts for ons and I reserve those for working extensive FRC capacity (so like 5min sets of 30s at like 150-160%)
Here are a few more that start to cross into anaerobic efforts similar to how some of our VO2 Max workouts’ intervals are technically in the anaerobic power zone, but the findings are vey similar – no major changes in VO2 Max, but big improvements in speed at VO2 Max (vVO2 Max).
