An hour at zone 3, is it useful?

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:48 am
But yeah keep peddling VO2max based workouts as the magic mushroom to people who aren’t even going to get their VO2max tested. That’ll help. That’ll keep people in the right headspace and they won’t burn out...
I meant to reply to this - this is a really good and important point, and I think a good place to move the discussion.

You're right, most people will never get their Vo2Max tested. Fortunately, this isn't necessary. In training, we aren't so concerned with the actual, stating value of an individual's Vo2Max itself. Even with elite athletes, we don't test Vo2Max for the sake of getting the Vo2Max. This is all done to determine race pace at Vo2Max, and time to exhaustion at Vo2Max.

What the amateur running community has been doing with success:

-One, recognize that Vo2Max is linearily correlated to HR (and will be between 88-95% of HRMax for most people).
-Recognize that an individual can perform work at Vo2Max for between 5 to 8 minutes (the point at which you reach Vo2Max will of course differ based on fitness levels).

So, we know that your Vo2Max will be essentially your maximal pace for 5 to 8 minutes. It's an unfortunately long gap, acknowledged. But it's a starting point, short of getting tested.

So we have you do a 5 minute time trial to approximate your Vo2Max pace (a 12-13 minute time trial would probably be more useful, since that gets you closer to 95% of Vo2max, but when dealing with amateurs this is too subject to variability from blood lactate, biomechanical efficiency and willpower). So we set Vo2Max zones based on this 5 minute time trial, keeping into account your HRMax and what percentage of HRMax this is. Then, we adjust as appropriate. If you are consistently failing the intervals despite being fit, your Vo2Max setting is probably set too high. If you are consistently breezing through your intervals, your Vo2Max setting is probably set too low. This is the trial and error portion, and it will take a few months for you to get your setting dialed-in. (Some people just recommend skipping the time trial and multypying HRmax by .9-.95, but I think this is flawed because it also assumes you have an accurate HRMax figure, adding additional variability to an already variable determination).

The time trial is not perfect. It has flaws, since it's not 100% precise. But you can gain some comfort to mitigate these concerns, by the fact that we are merely targetting 95% of Vo2Max for most of our intervals. It's OK to be off by a few percentages, as long as you don't get too close to 90%, and you don't get too close to 100%. (word of caution: reying on perceived exertion is very inaccurate because this takes into account muscular fatigue and blood lactate levels, which have nothing to do with maximal aerobic power.)

If you don't think the above is worth it, this is fine. Intervals and Vo2max work isn't for everyone. Personally I haven't done proper intervals in years. Not worth it for my goals in cycling. A cycling race may help you, although I think this works you at LT intensities far more than Vo2max, and thus comes at greater cost.

I do think working on Vo2Max is important even for amateurs. This is because 95% of maximal aerobic power is 10-14 minutes of exertion, which coincides perfectly with many climbs, time trials and breakways, not to mention other shorter riding scenarios. Work specific to the task at hand, and all that jazz.

Whatever you decide, we really need to understand our goals and the rationale (and flaws) for the various options to achieve those goals.
Last edited by iheartbianchi on Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

Andrew69
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:52 am
Location: ɹǝpunuʍop

by Andrew69

AeroObsessive wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:36 am
Which training methodology do I prescribe to?
Thats my point, since you havent actually posted anything other than criticism, who the hell knows?
AeroObsessive wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:36 am
My contribution is: don't take training advice from forums, as you get what you pay for.
Noted.
But hang on a second. I havent paid for this advice, so how do I know it is valid?

The biggest problem I see in taking advice from people on forums, is as I said in my previous post, how many people are "fast" despite what they are doing, rather than because of what theyre doing?
Combine that with the fact you never can really tell who is trying to sell you something, then you have to take every bit of advice with a grain of salt.

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



kaptanpedal
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:10 pm

by kaptanpedal

iheartbianchi wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:29 am
kaptanpedal wrote:
Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:56 pm
Coggan Zone Premise 1: FTP = Lactate Theshold
Coggan Zone Premise 2: 120% FTP = 100% Vo2Max

150% FTP = ?% Vo2Max?
1 pedal stroke at 120% FTP = ? time at 100% Vo2max
1 pedal stroke at FTP = ? time at LT?
Boy, if Coggan was frequenting this forum there would be blood. He hates words to be put into his mouth and then criticized.
Maybe one should invest more time into learning what they want to bury first.
Coggan is not a fool you know. He knows and can figure out the same stuff you are talking about.
Anyway, not a Coggan fun but as a long time member of wattage group I read a lot of Coggan for more than 15 years.
If you have been reading a lot about Coggan for 15 years, you'd know that none of what I'm saying is new. A lot of what I said was in fact also discussed on the TrainingPeaks forums for years.

I discussed these matters with Hunter Allen several years ago. I pointed out these issues to Coggan as well (he never got back to me for whatever reason). Here is a quote from Coggan:

"FTP is a performance-based (functional) surrogate marker of an individual’s muscular metabolic fitness, i.e, his or her Lactate Threshold (LT), as the term is used conceptually by exercise physiologists." - I don't see how I am mischaracterizing Coggan's views at all.

Ultimately, Coggan decided that his 7 Zone system doesn't work, and replaced it with iLevels. I agree with you - he is not a fool, and his willingness to accept the flaws of his prior system shows he has intellectual integrity. Good on him, and good on TrainingPeaks. I mean that.
You are not reading are you? The post you half quoted answers the very questions you are asking.
For people getting confused and thinking iheartbianchi has good points, clearly this Coggan guy is wrong there are the news for you:

Coggan never had a training system. He is not a coach, he is a scientist doing another job. He came up with metrics life ftp, ctl, tss and so on. There is NO Coggan training system. He trains odd people here and there and does seminars and such but that is it.
iheartbianchi is criticizing a non-existing system he made up.

What you do with Coggan metrics is your problem. Companies like Training Peaks and coaches -including Hunter as iheartbianchi mentions him- all over the world created systems and software on these ideas and metrics. Some are wrong, some are ok, some are excellent.
Your mileage varied based on how you used these.
If you have been reading a lot about Coggan for 15 years, you'd know that none of what I'm saying is new. A lot of what I said was in fact also discussed on the TrainingPeaks forums for years.
They are not new because they have been addressed from the beginning. People like you beat this drum for years in forums to confuse people and make a name for themselfs and get more business. The coach who destroyed so called Coggan System!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
iheartbianchi goes on half a page explaining why Coggan Zones suck because 1 sec at 400w does not do anything but counted towards lets say vo2max work.
Which is ridicilous because Coggan himself has been saying from the beginning (for nearly 20 years):
Time in zone metrics are useless.

Just see the drama in that. Any coach looking into TIZ metrics has to be fired asap. Then why are there these charts etc in TP software? Dunno. Ask them.

And for some miracle when he reads Coggan he misunderstands or misquotes. Example:
"FTP is a performance-based (functional) surrogate marker of an individual’s muscular metabolic fitness, i.e, his or her Lactate Threshold (LT), as the term is used conceptually by exercise physiologists." - I don't see how I am mischaracterizing Coggan's views at all.
You get it completely wrong or purpusefully misquote.
FTP is a surrogate marker of the performance level conceptually defined by sport scientists as LT. They, sport scientists that is, defined a concept for a performance level. Then Sport Scientists created the term LT and and use it to conceptualize this performance level. They call that performance level LT.
Now, FTP is a power number marking THAT performance level.

FTP ------------------------> That important performance level <------------------- LT according to Sport Scientists

The reason for Coggan to use the phrase "as the term is used conceptually by exercise physiologists" is there are million different ways to define and measure LT. There is no consensus and results change wildly based on the metadology.
So it is more like:
FTP ------------------------>That important performance level <------------------- LT according to me
FTP ------------------------>That important performance level <------------------- LT according to you
FTP ------------------------> That important performance level <------------------- LT according to him
FTP ------------------------>That important performance level <------------------- LT according to 4mmol/l camp
FTP ------------------------>That important performance level <-------------------LT according to my uncle

now anyone can say ftp is useless and never use it. So be it. I do not use it either.
But don't muddy the waters with these cheap shots.


I mean we spent what 10 pages arguing over whether or not it is reasonable to rely on Coggan's 7 zone system for Vo2Max work....and not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU actually addressed this question once. Do you realize how utterly absurd that is?
I did in the post you half quoted. Nobody with the right mind relies on zones -Coggan or another- for vo2max work. They rely on vo2max itself. Any coach prescribing vo2 work based on zones has to be fired on the spot.
Coggan himself said 20 years ago:
If you base your supra ftp training on ftp you have been a fool.
Your insistence on this is absurd.

btw: I do not know or communicate with anyone here. I just like talking on training and physiology in general. Bu if we are to talk on advanced topics first we have to clear up very simple misunderstandings and pity misinformation.

iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

I think you are kind of dancing around the point. The point is, whether it makes sense for that other guy to post times in Coggnas Zones 5-7, to say he did Vo2max work. So you do agree that that was an absurd position? You seem to think time spent in power zone is also absurd for vo2max, which I agree with.If so, where was your reply to that guy calling him out on the absurdity of posting time spent in Zones 5-7 to say he did vo2max work?

Also, I think you misspoke. LT as a concept has been around for decades before power meters, FTP and TrainingPeaks. FTP was an attempt to quantity LT (essentially 1 hour race pace in running) into a usable form for power meter based training (hence, FTP was introduced in a book called "Training and Racing with a Power Meter").

Regarding Coggan and TP - really off topic now aren't we. You cannot treat Coggan and TP As independent, unrelated entities. Whether or not Coggan directly coached is irrelevant to the fact that TrainingPeaks sold training based on 7 Zones, including Vo2max workouts specifically based on these 7 Zones. Which is what we are talking about - vo2max work vased on Coggan's zones, not Coggan or TP itself.

As a result, many people relied on these 7 Zones for their Vo2Max work, including that poster here who created this entire discussion. Actually, how do you do vo2max work based on zones or power? Tough question huh.

Eventually enough questions were asked that Coggan and TrainingPeaks had to revise the entire Zone system and eliminate the old 7 Zone system completely.

Regarding the equating of FTP to LT - Coggan probably didn't mean it in the same way TP sold it (which directly called it a proxy for LT). But Zone 5 remained as Vo2max, and Zone 6 continued to begin precisely at 100% Vo2max. Nothing changed, until last year when this system was finally scuttled. If there is ANY causal relationship between FTP and LT, then numbers like 150% FTP cannot possibly exist. FTP math only works if yoy assume there is no connection with LT at all. This by definition means FTP cannot be either a proxy or a surrogate for LT. This is more of an academic point that wasn't really the point of this discussion. LT should never come up in the discussion of FTP, and neither should Vo2Max.

I think this new iLevels Zone largely addresses the above issues. It was good for the community.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

kaptanpedal
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:10 pm

by kaptanpedal

iheartbianchi wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:34 am
I think you are kind of dancing around the point. The point is, whether it makes sense for that other guy to post times in Zones, to say he did Vo2max work. So you do agree that that was an absurd position?
yes. he is wrong and it is his fault. Not a training systems or Coggan's or someone else.
Also, I think you misspoke. LT as a concept has been around for decades before power meters, FTP and TrainingPeaks. FTP was an attempt to quantity LT (essentially 1 hour race pace in running) into a usable form for power meter based training (hence, FTP was introduced in a book called "Training and Racing with a Power Meter").
How exactly? Nobody is saying LT is new or invented by Coggan. And by now even aliens know why ftp is invented and its story.
I think you take others knowledge and intellectual capacity very lightly. Basing this on your mention of a very old book like it is introduced last month.
Yes, many people have read the TARWAPM. Long time ago.

Regarding Coggan and TP. Coggan invented the 7 Zone System. Coggan works or consults for TrainingPeaks (maybe he is a shareholder I don't know), the latter which developed entire training programs and zones based on this 7 Zone System. Whether or not Coggan directly coached is irrelevant to the fact that TrainingPeaks sold training based on 7 Zones, including Vo2max workouts specifically based on these 7 Zones. Ever wonder why Allen isn't involved?
if you don't know, look for the information first. It is out there. Coggan never worked for TP. Like never. Training zones was not new as well. He created his zones based on ftp naturally. He did not "invent" zones or the 7 zone training system. They are just zones, not a training system. TP or anyone else can create and sell programs based on these zones.
This is very relevant, I would say this fact is the essence of the subject.
As a result, many people relied on these 7 Zones for their Vo2Max work, including that poster here who created this entire discussion. Eventually enough questions were asked that Coggan and TrainingPeaks had to revise the entire Zone system and eliminate the old 7 Zone system completely.
As a result many people were wrong. They should have paid more attention.
Your second sentence is plain insult. You are making stories and then piling on baseless claims on top. Coggan bowing to people misusing his ideas and asking questions!! What is stopping these fools from misusing new ilevels or any other system?
Regarding the equating of FTP to LT - plenty of statements by both Coggan and TP that there is a direct and causal relationship between FTP to LT. Coggan probably didn't mean it in the same way TP sold it (which directly called it a proxy for LT). This supposed relationship was criticized within a year of its publication by the scientific community. Lots of backtracking and clarifications ensued. But Zone 5 remained as Vo2max, and Zone 6 continued to begin precisely at 100% Vo2max. Nothing changed, until last year when this system was finally scuttled.
There is a relationship pointed out by my arrows above. If x->y<-z there is some kind of x<->z. question is which z? You can ehem call x a proxy for z or say it is a surrogate marker for what z is trying to point to. They are not measured, tested or calculated in the same ways but they all point to a very important performance metric.
there is no confusion or argument around these. You are stuck in 2003.
scientific community
hah. you mean the sorry state of sports science.
here is an advice for people looking for answers in forums. Many many of the papers created by sports scientist are useless and misleading. Sad but true. So do not take it granted when someone is talking with science(!) behind them.
If there is ANY causal relationship between FTP and LT, then numbers like 150% FTP cannot possibly exist. FTP math only works if yoy assume there is no connection with LT at all. This by definition means FTP cannot be either a proxy or a surrogate for LT. This is more of an academic point that wasn't really the point of this discussion. LT should never come up in the discussion of FTP, and neither should Vo2Max.
wut? This must be the word salad people were mentioning. None of this makes sense.
There is no ftp math to begin with. No training based on 1xx% of ftp. None.
And LT and vo2max are core parts of any discussion around performance markers like ftp. How can you say they never should come up? Why exactly not?

AeroObsessive
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

Andrew69 wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:16 am
AeroObsessive wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:36 am
Which training methodology do I prescribe to?
Thats my point, since you havent actually posted anything other than criticism, who the hell knows?

That's because, generally "It Depends" is the golden truth for all things training, unless it's fundamentally incorrect or misleading, which is when I bother to comment.

Noted.
But hang on a second. I havent paid for this advice, so how do I know it is valid?

Assume it is not valid. Especially when it's accompanied by long, rambling paragraphs which are largely incoherent and or inconsistent.

AeroObsessive
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

iheartbianchi wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:37 am

SNIP....

My question is, and has been, how do you know you ticked the Vo2 box? How do you know, those efforts were "vo2 all the way up?" How do you know, there were two very distinct vo2 bouts?
By maybe looking at the race file and the reported RPE at the time perhaps?

When you account for the fact that there is lag leading up to Vo2Max, when Vo2Max efforts are limited by fatigue, blood lactate levels, availability of muscle fibers for recruitment into exertion, how can you possibly count the number of minutes you have spent at an appropriate intensity to stimulate Vo2Max gain, by just going out and racing?


By maybe looking at the race file and the reported RPE at the time perhaps?
You only know this if you somehow assume that Zone 5-6 are somehow linked to Vo2Max. In the old Coggan 7 Zone system you could possibly make this argument (but the math doesn't work out, and of course the old Zone system was abandoned). Now the iLevels removes Vo2Max from the equiation, how can you possibly know you spent ANY time at Vo2Max intensities?

Huh, here's a shock, the effort occurs irrelevant of whatever nomenclature is used. Call it zone 3 in Seiler's model if that floats your boat, and then you....

Look at the race file and the reported RPE at the time perhaps?

I mean we spent what 10 pages arguing over whether or not it is reasonable to rely on Coggan's 7 zone system for Vo2Max work....and not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU actually addressed this question once. Do you realize how utterly absurd that is?
Oh, there's absurdity going on alright 🙄

iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

kaptanpedal wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:44 am

if you don't know, look for the information first. It is out there. Coggan never worked for TP. Like never. Training zones was not new as well. He created his zones based on ftp naturally. He did not "invent" zones or the 7 zone training system. They are just zones, not a training system. TP or anyone else can create and sell programs based on these zones.
This is very relevant, I would say this fact is the essence of the subject.
This is factually incorrect. TrainingPeaks has stated numerous times it works with Dr. Andy Coggan. At the very least, Coggan licenses his reserach and power zones to TrainingPeaks, and consults for TrainingPeaks "university."
kaptanpedal wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:44 am

wut? This must be the word salad people were mentioning. None of this makes sense.
There is no ftp math to begin with. No training based on 1xx% of ftp. None.
I'm not sure I misunderstand. I also thin no training should be based on 1xx% of FTP. I was highlighting the flaws of training programs based on Coggan Zones which were constructed based on a 1xx% of FTP. This is a moot point now, as it's gone. Whether or not Coggan disavowed this system is irrelevant to the fact that TP utilized Coggan's Zones to develop training programs based on a hypothetical 1xx% of FTP.
kaptanpedal wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:44 am
And LT and vo2max are core parts of any discussion around performance markers like ftp. How can you say they never should come up? Why exactly not?
Because the math doesn't work out. FTP can never equal X percentage of LT or Vo2Max. To establush a causal relationship, you need a reference point where X = Y. This is not possible, because FTP as a percentage can always be higher than LT or Vo2Max as a percentage. This is a very tricky conceptual problem for power-based training, and frankly I don't know what hte right answer is. Because quite obviously it is possible to put out power that is 200% or higher of FTP. This requires a re-thinking of what FTP means at its core.

LT or Vo2Max can be viewed, conceptually, as a measure of intensity. That's why we never discuss LT in terms of 1xx% or Vo2Max in terms of 1xx% Vo2Max - it alwys stops at 100%. FTP is different because you CAN go 1xx% of FTP - it's not necessarily wrong, but different. If FTP then is not a measure of intensity (in spite of its posited, "maximal intensity for 1 hour"), then what is it? Perhaps, rather than a measure of intensity, it should merely be viewed as a measure of power (i.e., pure output to your pedals).
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

AeroObsessive wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:21 am

By maybe looking at the race file and the reported RPE at the time perhaps?


Wow. Now you're telling people to rely on RPE to guage Vo2Max efforts during a race? Wow. I mean, really. You're done here.
Last edited by iheartbianchi on Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

User avatar
Tinea Pedis
Posts: 8599
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Contact:

by Tinea Pedis

kaptanpedal wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:44 am
wut? This must be the word salad people were mentioning. None of this makes sense.
Just for context, IHB (who by now as you evidenced is just making stuff up as part of his axe to grind) may not have provided the context. I feel the frustration.


At no point did I present the 7-zone metrics and say that this was a 'cast in stone' time in zone workout or any words to that effect.

Quite simply, that a well chosen (and raced) Zwift race could be used as an alternative to a prescribed vo2 workout. Alternative due to motivation. Due to head space. Due to wanting to smash some segments on Zwift. Whatever. If an athlete of mine had vo2 on a day and said "not up for staring at the wall" (seen as weak by our resident expert) then I would find a Zwift (or FulGaz or any other online riding sim program) to replace it.

My screen cap was presented as a descriptive - not prescriptive - look at how I did precisely the above (which was a vo2 max workout).
kaptanpedal wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:44 am
iheartbianchi wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:34 am
I think you are kind of dancing around the point. The point is, whether it makes sense for that other guy to post times in Zones, to say he did Vo2max work. So you do agree that that was an absurd position?
yes. he is wrong and it is his fault. Not a training systems or Coggan's or someone else.
Totally open to hearing how this was not the case. What was seen in the screen cap did indeed show the collective TIZ for the ride. However that time in z5 (and above) was nearly all collected within the two vo2 max intervals (seen below). Rest of the race was taken easily enough, with the intent to again hit the 'climbs' again at full vo2. Race specificity of this kind of work also a consideration (but not main goal of the workout).

If I was not doing two continuious and (what I felt) totally specific vo2 max intervals...what were they? Genuinely curious to how else I should be looking at this.

This is the kind of discussion I (and I am sure others) are very much open to having on here with members like yourself. Only, as you've experienced, it's impossible with IHB. As no sooner does more than one person disagree then it's suddenly some sort of secret kabal mobilising against him. But certainly like to hear more of your thoughts.

Breakdown of said race. Two vo2 intervals were

6:58 @ 441w and 6:38 @ 446w

Image

and in terms of aforementioned RPE, they were a 19/20. I was nearly falling off the bike after the end of the second one.

iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

The question isn't whether or how much time you spent at an average number of X watts. You're still framing it in terms of Zones.

It's how much time you spent specifically at Vo2max intensities. Power is output. Intensity is a measure of physiological factors. You need both to approximate maximal aerobic power.

RPE may or may not predict Vo2max intensities. People use RPE tests from a rested starting position to estimate Vo2max, with varying degrees of success and accuracy, which vary widely once we get to higher levels of RPE. Thats different from applying RPE during a race, since obviously you are not starting from rest.

Ok, then let's look at HR. Looks pretty high in those screenshots. But is that by itself accurate? There is something called HR lag. Is this crippling? Not by itself no, since HR lag (on the way up at least) is quick to adjust. So that depends on the specific effort. Look at your power. It decreases throught the "interval" (10% difference between 1 minute and 5 minute) but your HR stays high - are you operating at maximal aerobic power throughout the 5 minutes then? Why does your HR stay high despite power going down? Is this HR lag? The answer is this has nothing to do with aerobic power. Interesting isn't it, that HR stays high while power goes down...but it's similar to how HR stays high while you are resting after an interval or lifting weights. Youre not doing work but it stays high...which is why we don't count rest as Vo2max work during intervals although HR and RPE remain high during rest.

So what then is the representation of Vo2max intensity level? This is the question. And after you have figured this out, then we can determine whether or not any of those numbers actually represent any work done at maximal aerobic power.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

AeroObsessive
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

iheartbianchi wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:23 am
AeroObsessive wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:21 am

By maybe looking at the race file and the reported RPE at the time perhaps?


Wow. Now you're telling people to rely on RPE to guage Vo2Max efforts during a race? Wow. I mean, really. You're done here.
Your selective reading skills up to par, as usual.

AeroObsessive
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

iheartbianchi wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:54 am
The question isn't whether or how much time you spent at an average number of X watts. You're still framing it in terms of Zones.

It's how much time you spent specifically at Vo2max intensities. Power is output. Intensity is a measure of physiological factors. You need both to approximate maximal aerobic power.

RPE may or may not predict Vo2max intensities. People use RPE tests from a rested starting position to estimate Vo2max, with varying degrees of success and accuracy, which vary widely once we get to higher levels of RPE. Thats different from applying RPE during a race, since obviously you are not starting from rest.

Ok, then let's look at HR. Looks pretty high in those screenshots. But is that by itself accurate? There is something called HR lag. Is this crippling? Not by itself no, since HR lag (on the way up at least) is quick to adjust. So that depends on the specific effort. Look at your power. It decreases throught the "interval" (10% difference between 1 minute and 5 minute) but your HR stays high - are you operating at maximal aerobic power throughout the 5 minutes then? Why does your HR stay high despite power going down? Is this HR lag? The answer is this has nothing to do with aerobic power. Interesting isn't it, that HR stays high while power goes down...but it's similar to how HR stays high while you are resting after an interval or lifting weights. Youre not doing work but it stays high...which is why we don't count rest as Vo2max work during intervals although HR and RPE remain high during rest.

So what then is the representation of Vo2max intensity level? This is the question. And after you have figured this out, then we can determine whether or not any of those numbers actually represent any work done at maximal aerobic power.
Oh please illuminate us all how *you* assess work done at vo2max when not in a lab. This will be *very* informative to all.

iheartbianchi
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:17 am

by iheartbianchi

? We do intervals at Vo2max intensities.
Bianchi Oltre XR4
Celeste Matte
Campy SR 11spd mechanical
Bora Ultra 50 tubs
Viseon 5D / stock bits and parts

Bianchi Specialissima Pantani Edition
Campy R 12spd mechanical
Fulcrum Racing Speed 35 tubs
FSA / Deda bits and parts

AeroObsessive
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

iheartbianchi wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 10:23 am
? We do intervals at Vo2max intensities.
*Golf clap*
Oh, that's beautiful 😂

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



Post Reply