Spencer+2 is unquestionably my least favorite TR workout. I dread it. All the lead up workouts to that one (bluebell, mills) I can handle, but spencer is the worst. I’ll probably skip it in a couple of weeks and just repeat mills.
3 Likes
Megantic is a great crit/cx workout. One of my go-tos.
1 Like
Therein lies the problem with tying actual VO2max work to FTP; instead VO2max work should be a repeatable “all-out” effort for a certain duration. As @bbarrera said in another thread, workouts in this power level are better described as Zone 5 rather than VO2max. Just because your power is in Zone 5 doesn’t make something a workout targeting maximal oxygen uptake. Taylor -2 is a perfect example.
7 Likes
Just for my knowledge, is there a reason to keep TiZ constant instead of say, 6x3, 7x3, 8x3… other than not finishing/difficulty? Is about 20 minutes in zone the best bang for your buck?
Can you explain this further? Do you mean within a workout decrease the interval length? Or subsequent workouts? And what is the benefit?
It is basically the amout of work that will elicit good time near vo2 max and can be repeated in blocks. You can go one interval longer or two but all this things have the repercussions later. And honestly if vo2 max workout is done properly, so as hard you can sustain I cannot imagine why you would like to go loner - I never want 
20 min of intervals gives me around 12-15 min time in vo2 max in wko (I know I know, many other things needs to be assessed and not really vo2 max without gas exchange etc but I am giving only an reference point) and this is good workout. For comparision, workout like spencer +2 - around 10-14 min so why do more if you can do less, less kJ, less energy used, easier recovery.
2 Likes
I topped out at 21 minutes of this type of interval and I was barely staying above threshold by the end of them.
That’s the difference between max repeatable VO2max work and doing intervals in Zone 5.
2 Likes
Again, are you trying to train VO2max? Or are you trying to train repeatability for a duration at a certain power in Zone 5?
If you’re trying to train VO2max, you want max efforts at longer intervals (at least 3 min, up to 6 or more) rather than XxX @120% because first you need to get to max O2 uptake, and then you want to stay there. Fewer, longer intervals should give you more time @VO2max than more, shorter intervals.
A non-cycling example: at the end of my cross-country (running) seasons, we’d do VO2max blocks that lasted 2-3 weeks. Every workout we did was either steady moderate run (Z2) or VO2max work. The VO2max workouts were things like 6x800 all out, 4x1200 all out. There was no “do it at 5:00 pace”. The goal was heavy, hard breathing and a high heart rate, not a specific time. Obviously, by the fourth or sixth interval, we weren’t running as fast, but we were still achieving high HR and maximum fish-out-of-water breathing because we were going as hard as we repeatedly could for that duration.
VO2max work for cycling is no different: repeated all out efforts for longer periods of time. The reason for declining interval length in a focused VO2max block is that your body won’t be able to sustain that kind of beating 3x/week for three weeks without fatigue, so your goal is just to get through the workouts and maximize TiZ. It’s an individual thing, though… some might be able to handle repeating 4x5s for three weeks, older athletes like me probably can’t.
As mentioned above, I started 20min TiZ, went up to 21, and can’t fathom doing more than that as I was almost falling off my bike by the end of 6x3:30s in the third week.
10 Likes
I thought there were studies from Ballat, Ronnestad and Seiler that showed short intervals (20/10s, 30/15s, 30/30s) with certain rest / recovery intervals improved VO2max and anaerobic performance as VO2 doesn’t really drop during the short rest intervals. Not necessarily at 120% FTP, but probably in z5/z6 depending on the individual. I didn’t think it was controversial that short intervals with z5/z6 power targets could elicit vo2max depending on the structure of the workout. Or are those studies flawed?
Personally, they don’t do it for me, but based on the research I thought they must work for some people.
1 Like
1 Like
Ok, this response clicked for me. So basically, get out of ERG and don’t focus on the watts, but say to myself, for the next 3 minutes, I’m going to bury myself and go as hard as I can, knowing my watts will decrease a bit over the interval, but it doesn’t matter as long as I’m pushing as hard as possible. So I’d probably start well above 120% and finish below, and that’s fine. The goal is to be huffing and puffing for 3/4/5 minutes.
This I’m not sure. I race mostly CX but wanted to dabble with some Crit and road racing. The question really came about because of my work schedule. I used plan builder but it got shuffled around and I ended up with a 2 week block of nothing. I decided to do VO2 work (though I realize it wasn’t actually VO2 work now) before starting General Power Build this past Monday. It was when I was looking at the coming weeks’ workouts and saw 1 min intervals at 120% and thought to myself, why would I do those when I was doing 3 min intervals at 120%, which got me thinking and thus my question.
It’s still way early preseason (if we have one) so I feel like FTP/Power build is what I need, maybe VO2, but not really sure building that repeatability is what I need right now (I don’t know). First race wouldn’t be until the end of April at least.
Edit: And thanks for the help. You’ve explained things well.
3 Likes
If you’d care to summarize I’d be happy to read. I don’t find linking to two full podcasts particularly helpful.
1 Like
Nailed it. Just remember you have to be able to repeat it, so it might take you a workout or two to really dial in what is “all-out repeatable”, if that makes sense. If you are aiming for 4 intervals and by the end of the second one, you can’t stay above threshold, you went too hard. If you’re aiming for 4 intervals and by the end of the fourth you’re struggling at threshold… you nailed it.
You’re in a good spot to do some work to raise VO2max followed by some FTP work. I just completed my VO2 work and moving into FTP work after a week (two?) of recovery. Same deal, no races till late April.
3 Likes
I don’t really want to get dogmatic about it, but this hits the nail on the head for me. The floating zone 5 workouts are great for race prep, IME, but don’t elicit the same response in HR and breathing for me as the sustained, max, repeatable efforts do. I just did a VO2max block, but will still do the Richardson-Bear-type workouts as crit/circuit season approaches, just with a different aim in mind - race prep.
1 Like
I hear ya. I’m not a podcast kind of person either, I much prefer reading. Empirical Cycling is well worth listening to if/when you have the time though.
Any case where you would you do shorter rests?
I think KM sometimes prescribes shorter rest if possible for less anaerobic contribution…but I’m not sure I remember correctly…
KM’s advice for VO2max intervals is “as little rest as possible, but as much as is needed”. So if you can do the work and keep the quality high with less than 1:1 rest, seems like you should. But you don’t need to keep it fixed throughout the workout, or through the VO2max block.
4 Likes
I typically do 1:1, but if I’m at the bottom of my VO2max hill and feel like I can go, I do. If not, I recover a little longer. Probably normally averages out to 1:1 but I might take an extra 30s before the last interval or something. I found my best workouts come from being outside, on a hill, just going with a rough idea of my structure in mind and no power target. So I might I go out for 5x4’ on 4’ rest, but recover as little or much as I feel I need to between intervals… last time those rests were 3:30 to 5:00, but mostly around 4.
2 Likes
Super interesting perspective in this thread if you compare Old/Dead’s meta study which basically was peopled by off-the-couch subjects so long as they exhibited no pathology…DaveWh’s meta study which targeted weekend warriors…and Ronnestadt’s data which came from a more well-trained cohort.
Keep dreaming.
You’re comparing 37 studies against 6 against, what, 1 or 2? And those by somebody whose reputation in the field is, shall we say, less than stellar?
I mean, it’s an interesting suggestion, but I know where I’d put my money.