Short intervals > long intervals

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

User avatar
Tapeworm
Posts: 2585
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 am

by Tapeworm

Interesting, especially over the duration that the intervals were tested.

Full text (inc the interval protocol) should be available on the right of screen).

http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... d_approach
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



olebole
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:42 pm

by olebole

Been doing those for a while now and they have become one of my favourite sessions, especially compared to other VO2max oriented protocols.
Since n=1 in my case, I can't say if my gains is better than on doing 4x4's. But I have been doing significantly more VO2max sessions due to this protocol being better on keeping my motivation up by adding the 15s "off".

Marin
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:48 am
Location: Vienna Austria

by Marin

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

KWalker
Posts: 5722
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

The results are not surprising nor really that prescriptive, but its a good article in that it clearly shows why/when someone would want to use one protocol over another. There is no such thing as an ideal or perfect interval protocol, but rather different reasons for using different protocol.

A 4.5min interval done at the correct percentage will significantly deplete W'. The rest period was 1/2 the work period, which is extremely low for an interval that length and lowers the W BAL and hence the other intervals all start with a lower and lower W'. My guess is that if you monitored the power output and PE for all of the intervals the quality got lower and lower as the rider moved in. At a point if rest is not long enough one will not sufficiently reach or spend time at vo2 max. This could be a good session for someone with a lot of short hills in their racing or someone seeking a workout that provides incomplete recovery from race-winning attacks, bridges, etc.

The short protocol was only 30s in length. For the first few repetitions one is not even at vo2 max yet and there is a slight difference in the energy systems used. Even though work:rest is the same ratio, this would allow the rider to deplete W' in a slower manner and more than likely spend more time at relative vo2 max. This would be a great session for someone building towards longer L5 intervals, racing criteriums, practicing rapid surges/attacks, or for riders that do not yet have a firm grasp on pacing. Also great to do indoors as concentration required is lower.

This is the whole idea between alternating from a traditional vo2 protocol such as a 5x5 or 8x3 and the popular 40/20 and 30/30.

Unless a 3x3 is 100% all out for each effort with long recovery periods, 9 min is a very short time for a vo2 max workout especially considering it would take around 60s-90s to even reach vo2 max. That would provide 4.5min at vo2 max vs a 3x10 of 30/30, which would provide roughly 15 total minutes depending on individual energy kinetics. Its a no brainer as to why one of those is more powerful than another. 4x4 would be better I guess depending on the work to recovery, but that's on the low end for a L5 workout for the same reason unless they are done maximal with complete rest so as to spend as much W' as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I use low volume L5 work sometimes, but its generally completely maximal intervals with long (3:1) rest done a few weeks out from a peak period. I don't see such workouts as too useful for building capacity.
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

User avatar
Tapeworm
Posts: 2585
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 am

by Tapeworm

+1.

I think the fact that it shows that's it's not, "not effective", simply allows it, or formats similar to be part of the "tool box" of various intervals construction, especially if the intervals lend themselves to "race specificity" as you mentioned.
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

11.4
Posts: 1095
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 4:33 am

by 11.4

As a training method, it pushes the body a little harder towards the limits of its fitness, so not scaling harder intervals accurately can overstress the body and lead to deteriorating performance. Hence some of the skeptical responses among some cyclists to these strategies.

Another issue has to do with its effect on power versus its effect on endurance or aerobic capability. The evolution curves for these two separate phenomena are different under almost any circumstances. The evidence for this methodology is most substantiated in power development, among competitors in the track power events and in powerlifting.

olebole
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:42 pm

by olebole

You didn't read the paper, right?

User avatar
Tapeworm
Posts: 2585
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 am

by Tapeworm

@11.4 I thought a 40min test was a rather decent test of improvements to aerobic power and "surprising" in the sense that usually vo2 max style interventions are great at raising vo2max, but not necessarily longer durations. Or did I miss something?
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

User avatar
devinci
Posts: 2904
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:43 pm
Location: Canada

by devinci

Im not sure I understand your point 11.4. The short intervals in the study were done at VO2max power so approx maximal aerobic power, which if my memory is right, was 360W +- 40W, which is not a supramaximal effort. The accumulation of high VO2 consumption seems the key in this sort of workout.

KWalker
Posts: 5722
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

11.4 wrote:As a training method, it pushes the body a little harder towards the limits of its fitness, so not scaling harder intervals accurately can overstress the body and lead to deteriorating performance. Hence some of the skeptical responses among some cyclists to these strategies.

Another issue has to do with its effect on power versus its effect on endurance or aerobic capability. The evolution curves for these two separate phenomena are different under almost any circumstances. The evidence for this methodology is most substantiated in power development, among competitors in the track power events and in powerlifting.

Worst post in this sub-forum ever.

Provide your evidence. Nothing done on the bike is close to an effort done in weightlifting. Although in a completely rested state you would, theoretically derive energy from CP stores and along the same pathways as lifting a weight, the same ain't true for a vo2 max level effort. Different fiber recruitment, energy systems, metabolic pathways, etc. There are only a few energy systems and almost anything you do on the bike builds off of two of them.

Interval difficulty matters in relation to the rest of the microcycle. You can do many maximal intervals during a microcycle. The Tabata study is perhaps the most famous for such a method as is the ever popular Norwegian vo2 max overload study. Versions of similar intervals have been used to extremely long periods of time purposely (training) and accidentally (training races that place one on their limit).
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

Citizenfox
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 1:22 pm

by Citizenfox

Consistent with Friel's Fast After 50 and Carmichael's "time Crunched cyclist". I'll be posting my recent 90 day results in another thread.

HillRPete
Posts: 2284
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:08 am
Location: Pedal Square

by HillRPete

Here's another, older, interval study, that might be relevant in this context http://www.runnersworld.com/workouts/sh ... -intervals
Don't be confused by the fact that it's discussed on a running site.

natefontaine
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:37 am

by natefontaine

TW, don't you find their data highly variable with the small sample size and rather high deviations. I'm sure you'll remember the Pmax/Tmax study.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/11029192_Interval_training_program_optimization_in_highly_trained_endurance_cyclists
Showing that longer > shorter, albeit different methodology for the shorter. 30s/15s vs 30s/4.5min. Also compare the time of the study, 4wks vs 10wks. Who does 10wks of v02 max training? After 5 most will lost focus and want something else to do.

User avatar
Tapeworm
Posts: 2585
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 am

by Tapeworm

If you read further into the study there is a breakdown of how individual riders progressed, or regressed in the circumstances.

This study does not mean that every one should start to preform this exact type of protocol over the exact same period. What is does show is that this particular type of "on/off" protocol (similar to the Tabata protocol) *can* yield results for sustained power applications.

For simplicity I prefer either 15 sec on/off or 30sec on/off because it's "neater".

Just another data point for interval structure, not an absolute. An "and" not a "or".
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Citizenfox
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 1:22 pm

by Citizenfox

Tapeworm wrote:If you read further into the study there is a breakdown of how individual riders progressed, or regressed in the circumstances.

This study does not mean that every one should start to preform this exact type of protocol over the exact same period. What is does show is that this particular type of "on/off" protocol (similar to the Tabata protocol) *can* yield results for sustained power applications.

For simplicity I prefer either 15 sec on/off or 30sec on/off because it's "neater".

Just another data point for interval structure, not an absolute. An "and" not a "or".


This ^^^

If you read this study, the studies Freil sites in "Fast after 50" etc..... It just means don't stop doing really hard intervals ever, no matter long your races are or how old you are. If you do you're not maximizing your training time.

Post Reply