instead of the table, the simple version is what I said above:
If you are doing 120% vo2max intervals and cannot complete them, in TR app you can adjust intensity down as low as 90%. If you still can’t complete them, consider halting current plan and doing a short 2-3 week vo2max booster block.
I get it now.
That was embarassing…
not at all. The table is confusing without proper context. And it doesn’t spell out a prescriptive plan of attack. From the top:
If you are doing 120% vo2max intervals and cannot complete them, in TR app you can adjust intensity down as low as 90%. If you still can’t complete them, consider halting current plan and doing a short 2-3 week vo2max booster block.
For the VO2Max Booster block, you need to build a progression into a 2-3 week block of training. The target is to do 2 or 3 a week, and no other intensity work during the week. Nail each one before moving to the next. Build your own progression from the following list:
30-sec intervals Taylor-3
40-sec intervals Stanislaus-4
50-sec intervals Thimble+1
1-min intervals Freel+1
1-min intervals Bashful
1.5-min intervals Baird+2
2-min intervals Mills
2.5-min intervals Dade+1
3-min intervals Spencer
3.5-min intervals Mist+3
4-min intervals Mist+1
4.5-min intervals Shortoff+2
5-min intervals Shortoff+3
6-min intervals Denali+1
There are alternatives in TR library if you don’t like the ones above.
Here is a VO2max Booster block example:
Week 1:
Week 2:
Week 3:
Do those Tue, Thur, Sat - you pick days of the week. Be sure and give a day of rest in-between workouts.
My vo2max was so bad a month ago I started with 30-sec intervals and worked up.
this is awesome thank you!
Big props to that post! 
There’s still something I’m unclear about. I’m in short power build second half right now. The first vo2max workout calls for 2:30 at 120% FTP. Since I’m suspecting my fractional utilization of vo2max is higher than average I set the intensity to 97% which I think corresponds to 116% FTP. This worked out great. I thought I might fail it every time I got to the end of the set, but it turns out I just had to gut it out and I did. So it felt productive but manageable without backpedals which I put down as repeatable power.
Here’s the thing: the plan is clearly designed to increase time by taking you down some and then slowly raising it back up. So the next week calls for 3 minute intervals at 115%.
I’m fighting with myself: reducing the intensity to 97% again seems like it might take them down too much. And if 116% FTP is my repeatable power at 2:30, maybe I can do 3 minutes at 115? Maybe.
I guess the question is what lessons to draw from this for intervals that are longer but have less than 120%?
Or intervals that are much higher intensity 135% but long sets of short intervals that according to the workout description are still meant to keep you at vo2max.
It’s so complicated! 
Start with the word vo2max - “max volume of oxygen” (vo2max) that your body is capable of consuming to feed working muscles.
So the idea behind vo2max intervals is to quickly get you to that state, and then keep you huffing and puffing for up to 6 minutes.
One way:
That first 140% is designed to quickly force your body to begin breathing deeply, to force you into a state of max aerobic capacity. Tapering down to 110% doesn’t stop your body for gasping for more oxygen - the actual power target is less important than being in a state that requires maximum oxygen consumption to keep going.
Another way is Billat intervals:
Or more traditional way:
Again “the game” is forcing your body to consume mass quantities of oxygen, ideally for 3-6 minutes at a time. Then rest. And repeat.
Interesting…I’ve always looked at it from the other side, in that “the game” is training/forcing your body how to function in an oxygen deprived state. 
Hey Captain, I’ve been reading Joe Friel since taking up cycling 3 years ago. Here is what I know based on his books and blog posts:
There are two ways to train the second component: long slow rides (10-20 hours/week) or vo2max intervals ranging from 3-8 minutes. Both will drive adaptations to increasing aerobic capacity.
I’ve truly never heard this before – is this true? True to a point? True across the board?
I do not think losing weight increases your aerobic capacity. Maybe I should say, I do not think that is the right way to say it based on the following.
I believe the the units of VO2max as an absolute measure are ml/min while the relative measure are ml/min/kg. It makes sense that one would use the relative measure for comparing different athletes or your self at different weights.
Thus, decreasing weight increases your relative VO2max. However, your absolute VO2max remains unchanged. 
Ya.
Good reads: Joe Friel's Blog
