Utimate Intervals ...
I came across this article "The Ulimate Interval" sounded like our OS VO2 block, did some further search and found this "Interval training program optimization in highly trained endurance cyclists" and found some subtle differences, which might be nice.
If we take the 5'/20' Test protocol sound like to there is chance optimize VO2 block the study shows
a.) 5-6% Effects on FTP are visibel already after 4 week work (well the test are hard trainings by themselfs),
b.) The bouts are on the longer side e.g. 3min, the ON time as well, e.g. 18min
c.) The Group with a Rest protocol based on HR , did very well (less injuries / best results)
All togehter that would give an oppertunity for a "low/derailling" week in between 2 VO2 weeks hence the better ROI.
What you think, can one apply the results to triathlon AG groupers?
*** rewrote my previouse rather long thing ***
Comments
In the case of this article, max effort for 2 1/2 or 3 min. doesn't seem that bad as long as you're able to rest for double that work interval. Sounds like this may be something I need to try in the coming weeks. I'll keep you posted.
1. A key point is this study was done in eltie athletes, where a superb base of speed and fitness already existed. The goal was to maximize performance knowing that small increments make a critical difference at that level. Kai's question about whether this would apply to the average, or even an "elite" AG triathlete (especially @) Ironman distance) is a good one. Specifically, IMO, this type of training should be viewed by us as a sharpening tool, not a be all and end all. We need the lower effort and long distance work as well.
2. While there was a trend for the recovery (NOT rest) interval based on HR to show a better end result in VO2max and TT performance, it was not significantly different. The HR group started from a slightly lower fitness base, it appeared, which might account for most of their seeming superior improvement.
3. Even though, I like the idea of a recovery interval based on HR; it's what I do in run intervals to some exent, and makes a bit of empiric sense. The fitter one gets, the closer the work intervals become, and the opportunity for continued improvement persists. When the recovery intervals (based on HR) become static, maybe that's a sign it's time to move on to a different focus for training.
4. In the end, I don't think this provides us with a reason to significantly alter our training program. The study can guide us in applying slight hacks to the general OS plan, based on continuous (weekly) feedback. But it may point out the possible need to test separately for VO2 max wattage for workouts, as some of us already do using the 5/10/20 protocol.
@Patrick, since my bike career as such is rather young (12m) I am more on the lower end, nevertheless I alter a bit the VO2 sessions on Saturdays by getting each week on more 3min bout in and recover by HR (to keep the overall WO time as short as possible) until I can do 6 of them. Last 2 weeks that 3min blocks work very well for me and the Z3 stuff feels actually easy.
) to get a confirmation on my FTP and also on VO2. What is a 5/10/20 test?
@Al, i agree with your remarks.
re. Point 1, I agree the point is only "optimize" the high-end VO2 stuff, do not see any hint that this applies to other type of intervals.
Re: Point 2, yes the Group2 did not significantly better, never the less the tone was on the optimistic side.
More important to me is that the HR recovery protocol is actually for me rather a timesaver, i recover in the first 6-9 ON min with equal or less OFF time but after that it goes up to by factor 2. e.g My Intervals yesterday were 3'(108''), 3' (135''), 3' (176'') , 2' (166''), 1.5'(180'').
Re: Point 4. I did do a 5'/20' test ina few days after 2x20' test (attempt - failed due to setup issue after 35min
If you apply Daniels Reptition training principles (which is VO2 max enhancing stuff)...this makes complete sense (as does your recovery protocol Coach P)...you are to do a full recovery...ie. the interval between is not as important as the ON/Work phase......as opposed to Theshold work like tempo/cruise intervals where the recovery time phase is extremely important to control..
@Al Great critical review of the article. Thx for your insights!
Al,
Do you have any of your own data or other's that shows a direct comparison of FTPs derived via the 2x20(2) and 5/10/20? How closely do the numbers match up?
I've been struggling with pushing myself in testing and while I like the idea of a shorter test (mentally more doable) I'm curious as to whether it's just a cop out for me to do it this way vs learning to suck it up and learn to suffer more.
I can crush the VO2s based on FTP tests, frankly way more than I should expect, given what I read other's responses to this type of interval. So I'm suspicious I haven't learned how to suffer appropriately.
Even the 2X20 (2) is a cop-out but it's something the average person can mentally handle and better than a single 20' because the longer test minimizes the AWC contribution that may or may not be significant with the 20' test. The real deal is 60' max effort. That's the definition of FTP, everything else is just an estimate.
It sounds like the worry might be that an FTP estimate off of the 5/10/20 minute test would be too high. The theory being that one can mentally push oneself more "easily" over 20 minutes than over 2 x 20'. While I haven't compared my trainer-based FTP on the 5/10/20 to a 2 x 20' result, I think the real check would be: can I handle the workouts based on my resulting FTP, and can I race well off of it?
As to the former, I find the FTP workouts to be very very hard, but doable, which is the idea I think. As to racing, I do outdoor FTP testing before I get into racing season, and I do that as 2 x 20'. Two years ago, my outdoor FTP was 10% higher than indoors; last year, it was marginally higher.
I use the "shorter" test indoors for two reasons: I can focus on it better while on the trainer, and it has become my standard, so I don't want to switch.
I have assumed that the 5' all out effort to start the test is supposed to drain away the possibility of anaerobic effort being a significant contributor to power generation during the 20' segment.
In my mind, I don't really care what my absolute or "real" FTP is. What I care about is getting good information which helps guide my training and race pacing. I have no worries about not being able to push myself to very very hard levels of effort. I could probably do fairly well without any wattage or HR guide at all, I think, but that's mainly cause I've been doing structured bike training like this for over a decade.
Much to consider as I go along.
2X20' (2') over-estimates for most of us. Our 2X20 FTP sessions should not be "very very hard" when you consider that you should be capable of 60' straight at that same intensity. Sure, that's max effort but an extra 20' and no recovery intervals should put a pretty big gap between 2X20' hard and 60' hard. The risk is in doing those 2X20' at something closer to 105% of your real FTP which is unnecessarily over-reaching for the intent of the workout. I actually haven't done a 2X20 FTP test since last year, and then only once I think. I prefer to gauge my FTP based on my training. If I can manage a 2X20 session without struggling then I know I'm in the right place.
Where I think the 2 x 20 FTP protocol is very important to determine your target watts for an HIM or IM, based on the Haus long course execution guidance.
FWIW, I always do 2 x 20s for testing because I think it helps build my ability to suffer (metal 6 pack).
As for the Ultimate Interval and its benefit to VO2 work ... this week is testing week for me .. i will actually do both tests, 2x20' (Test and Training