Yeah moderately high fatigue but possibly lower than previous vo2 max workouts I think. Will see how I feel tomorrow.
Here were the intervals:
so as you can see I had a hard start and fell through the power zones soon after, spending the interval in z3/4. HR was high throughout though.
Super interesting thread. I can ride a lot of Sweet Spot at really long durations (i.e. 3x30, like Wright Peak) but at 46 years old, I donât recover quickly from Vo2 work, so Iâm always looking to get the most bang for my buck out of those sessions.
For those interested, check out Ainslie +1 and use it as a guide for a 5x4 workout.
Just remember - as others more knowledgeable than me have stated - for Vo2 work, donât look at power⌠hit the gas and hang on for 4 minsđ¤
Thanks for that.
Assuming the colour-coded power are Coggan-zones, you might have been a bit ambitious with those hard-starts, actually? If you were up in âanaerobic zoneâ territory (whatever purple is), that might have left you quite depleted at the start of such a long interval.
If you deplete PCr and disturb metabolic milieu to a great enough extent at the start, your power output will fall toward Threshold (CP/FTP/etc.). You will basically be stuck at the highest power output that can be sustained exclusively(-ish, usual caveats apply) by aerobic metabolism. Which on paper is CP/FTP, and in the real-world can fall below that as fatigue accumulates and Economy decreases.
Smarter people than I have recommended ~90% VO2max target. See previous post for references
To repeat what I wrote then, the difference on long-term performance outcomes of training at 90% vs 100% has not been conclusively shown. The literature recommendation is based on acute response studies.
Since then I was referred to this study showing no difference in TT improvements after training at 95% vs 100% of vVO2max, matched at 60% Tlim/TTE @ target intensity. Although as always there were some methodological limitations. At least suggests no difference from spending less time at higher intensity, vs longer time at lower intensity. all wrong. Kept for posterity, Does not show this result and suggests training at 100% may be more effective than training at 95%.
âŚwhich mean nothing, as it is essentially a circular argument.
I.e., we assume that time near VO2max is important, so letâs design studies to maximize time near VO2max, even though the importance of time near VO2max is merely an assumption. Are you sure those people are smarter than you?
No difference? Only the group training at 100% of vVO2max improved their 1500 m time, running economy, or vVO2max. The group that trained at 95% of vVO2max did not.
@jb0980 This is the problem in my unprofessional, but semi-experienced, opinion.
Look at your peak power in the chart you shared below:
There are âhard startsâ and there is âsprintingâ - you are at damn near 1000W during your hard start. That is going to crush you. Even if you can sprint at 1500W ⌠a 900W+ hard start is still basically a sprint.
My FTP is ~300 and my best sprint power is ~1200W. During blind Vo2 intervals, my hard starts on Vo2 intervals wonât get above 450W â and then I hang on and try not to drop below 310 by the end of them⌠it really depends on the length.
But I promise you if I went north of 600W in the hard start, I would be well below my FTP by the end of a 5 minute interval for sure.
Try and meter out your acceleration more judiciously, your average power will be higher at the end.
Good luckđ¤
I wouldnât say thatâs a circular argument. More that itâs in line with consensus? Totally agree it needs to be actually tested. Things are happening along those lines behind the scenes. Can hopefully talk about more in detail soon.
oof, I was way off. I gotta stop trying to multi-task and throw out references from memory without double-checking. Thanks for catching that.
Yep, purple wouldâve been anaerobic for me. I didnât realise that going too hard to start was a problem, and thought the goal was just to elevate HR to 95% of max as quickly as possible.
This follows with what happened. And I take it this wonât have elicited a good vo2 max training stimulus despite elevated HR?
my peak power is just north of 1400w, so I didnât go 100%. But the first minute was like a hard attack in a race.
interested to try these again with a slightly easier start and slightly lower cadence 
Thanks. I have played around a little with hard start V02 intervals in the past. It does seem like the way to go when you are aiming for max time at a high heart rate but man it does hurt.
Those of you that do VO2max blocks, what sort of progression do you do within the block? Iâve build from a horrible first set where I couldnât do 2 min sets to 6x3min and 4x4min, and want to go to 5x4min and then 4x5min. But I might want to keep going for a few more days, do you just try to increase interval length, while keeping the total TiZ the same?
what do you use?
RPE (breathing) and HR. You do VO2 max as hard as you can and do power review after.
Iâm not sure what post you are responding to (maybe @byoungxprt?) so my comment could be off. If thatâs the case please ignore.
AFAIK very few athletes need to push themself as hard as they can in order to benefit from VO2max-intervals. It is usually recommended to target a heart rat of 90-95% of max to improve. The reason is that most athletes reach their hearts maximum stroke volume in that percentage. Pushing past ~95% only add fatigue without any major benefit leading to longer recovery times.
Do we know that it is maximizing SV that drives cardiac adaptations? What if it something else, like maximizing sympathetic stimulation or cardiac power?
What do scientific studies say about the importance of intensity? Do they support the suggestion that going to only 90-95% is as effective as hitting 100%?
I agree with this. Every time I have done a block of VO2 at 100% I end up off the bike after 2 or 3 weeks. Either injury, fatigue or complete loss of motivation. Every time I do them at 95% I end up stronger.
Seiler also speaks about this regarding his daughter and that as her coach his job is to hold her back from going 100% during VO2 max intervals as her nature is to dig too big a hole to recover from.
I canât cite any reference from the top of my head right now but to me itâs reasonable hypothesis. Neither Helgerug &Hoff nor Seiler advocates higher intensitets than 90-95% when going VO2max work. If that is because of maximal SV at that intensity or just because they consider it the âsweet spotâ when balancing training load and fatigue doing VO2max work is beyond my knowledge. Maybe I should have claimed that âThe reason might be that most athletesâŚâ?
Edit: Heart rate max is basically untrainable, that leaves stroke volume the remaining parameter to improve. Why would the heart adapt to the demand of higher stroke volume if we donât ask for it to deliver itâs maximum?
I donât think what you wrote is what you really meant. But in any case, just because SV has hit a plateau doesnât mean that the heart is working as hard as it can.
So has her VO2max gone up, or not?
If it hasnât gone up, is she really training her VO2max, or just torturing herself for no reason?
Sorry for not including a quote, I was responding to super7.
Yes, and it is basically as hard as you can. I cannot imagine someone hitting 100% HR for every interval. And if you want to spend more time with this HR you hit the first minute really hard and then power naturally will drop during the course of interval. And the power output to elicit proper SV and âvo2 max breathingâ will be different on the course of the workout.
