30 second intervals

frenchyge said:

4-6 minutes of 30sec intervals provides the same benefits as 4 hours of LT training? Wow! Tell me more! (with a reference, too, of course)

I would be surprised myself. It would mean that any track sprinter, who generally clock up 4-6 mins of total efforts would make great road riders.

That being said we used to have a lot of sprinters who if given the chance and a flat enough course could stay with the roadies and win road races. Top track sprinter Fiona Carswell has won the NZ Road Title as U17, U19 and Senior and our Women's road riders are no slugs.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

It's really surprising that this information I'm providing seems new to you guys. It's not a new concept. I will however try to find the articles that relate to this issue, I'm working through my stash now. Went through this during the exercise prescription subjects in my undergrad degree which was a couple of years ago, so bear with me. I may have lost my copy and need to find and reprint it. Keep in mind, like i said in a previous post, that the greatest benefit is for amateurs. There are no huge gains to be made at elite level, but this is just another effective another technique to add to the training arsenal.

And frenchyge, i'm pretty sure you posted a similar stir in another post, which makes me think you have something to share that might back me up, which would be helpful.

FORDGT40 said:

It's really surprising that this information I'm providing seems new to you guys.

The claim seems new. I haven't seen any 'information' yet.

FORDGT40 said:

And frenchyge, i'm pretty sure you posted a similar stur in another post, which makes me think you have something to share that might back me up, which would be helpful.

Not sure what a stur is, but the link I posted in post #3 of this thread showed that 30sec intervals were *less* effective than even a typical HIT program. Of course, that doesn't even begin to touch your claim that 4-6 minutes of 30sec interval work is of equal benefit to 4 hours of LT training, which shocked me somewhat. A finding that dramatic might be enough to change the face of cycling training.

FORDGT40 said:

Lets face it, doing 30/30's it works out to only 4-6 minutes of actual work, and will give the same benefits as up to 4 hours of LT training.

Couple more questions to clear this up

1. How are you defining LT training? Training at LT?

2. How are you defining benefits? Increase in v02max? If that were the case, I wouldn't be surprised.

Just found one article related to this issue [Skeletal muscle buffering capacity and endurance performance after high-intensity training by well trained cyclists; Adele R. et al - Eur J Appl Physiol 1997 75; 7 - 13]. I was mistaken in that the training was not found to improve VO2max, but improved proton buffering capacity [lactate etc], and other physiological attributes to improve overall performance, measured by 40k TT, time-to-fatigue and incremental exercise test. This was conducted on cyclists, six sessions over 28 day period, 6-8 repetitions of 5-minute durations were performed at 80% PPO, with 1-min recovery at 100W. During this training equalled 14km per week. "Four weeks of HIT significantly improved performance in all three of the laboratory tests."

"The results indicate that a high-intensity, but sub-maximal, interval training intervention of just 6 days over 1 month was sufficient to significantly improve buffering capacity, PPO, TF150, TT40 from the baseline control period."

This article/experiment was to determine if HIT that was succesful for running endurance athletes, would be succesful for cyclists, and what physiological adaptations occurred that resulted in improved performance. While the bout durations are higher than for running, the principle was the same. The session durations that I quoted were for running sprints not for cycling, as i have stated previously.

PS. LT is training at Lactate Threshold. benefits can be improved VO2max, improved TT40, PPO, incremental exercise test. Most of what i am reading now suggests improved TT40 and endurance performance, rather than VO2max.

FORDGT40 said:

Just found one article related to this issue [Skeletal muscle buffering capacity and endurance performance after high-intensity training by well trained cyclists; Adele R. et al - Eur J Appl Physiol 1997 75; 7 - 13]. I was mistaken in that the training was not found to improve VO2max, but improved proton buffering capacity [lactate etc], and other physiological attributes to improve overall performance, measured by 40k TT, time-to-fatigue and incremental exercise test. This was conducted on cyclists, six sessions over 28 day period, 6-8 repetitions of 5-minute durations were performed at 80% PPO, with 1-min recovery at 100W. During this training equalled 14km per week. "Four weeks of HIT significantly improved performance in all three of the laboratory tests."

Ok, there's a study that doesn't have anything to do with 30/30 intervals. 😕

Look, I'm not trying to bust your balls if you made an honest mistake, but there are quite a few posters here who know a lot about what they're saying, and many more that have been around long enough to have absorbed quite a bit themselves (personally, I count myself in the latter category). You shouldn't expect to be able to make baseless statements and gross exaggerations here without being asked to back them up in some way. With your background in exercise science, I hope you'll understand the need for that in order to keep the information and advice on this forum useful.

frenchyge said:

Ok, there's a study that doesn't have anything to do with 30/30 intervals. 😕

Look, I'm not trying to bust your balls if you made an honest mistake, but there are quite a few posters here who know a lot about what they're saying, and many more that have been around long enough to have absorbed quite a bit themselves (personally, I count myself in the latter category). You shouldn't expect to be able to make baseless statements and gross exaggerations here without being asked to back them up in some way. With your background in exercise science, I hope you'll understand the need for that in order to keep the information and advice on this forum useful.

Aside from the specific issue of relevance to 30/30 intervals, are any of these small-sample studies really rigorous enough to prove anything? The fact that you can take a few subjects, put them through some specific training for 4 weeks, and see improvement really doesn't tell me much.

Specifically in this study, had these subjects never trained like this before? Did the subjects do only this training, 14 km/ week, and not any other mileage? If so, the study could just be measuring the effects of a good taper, rather than specific improvements from the intervals. Would 10 or 20 minute intervals be better than 5 minute, and is 6-8 repetitions really necessary?

Further, even if they are scientifically valid and significant for the test group, why would the results apply to me, or anyone else who doesn't match the test subjects fairly closely in age, experience, ability, etc.

Note, I may be showing my lack of formal training here. Perhaps you guys with the sports physiology degrees gain more insights from these papers.

dhk said:

Further, even if they are scientifically valid and significant for the test group, why would the results apply to me, or anyone else who doesn't match the test subjects fairly closely in age, experience, ability, etc.

I'm still waiting for the study that shows a decline in performance. It would appear that any training methodology results in a nice percentage increase in perfomance.😕 Where do they get these test subjects -- from the local mission?

dhk said:

Aside from the specific issue of relevance to 30/30 intervals, are any of these small-sample studies really rigorous enough to prove anything?

All valid points, no argument there. Unfortunately, it may be that those low-budget studies are the closest to real science that we're going to get here, and I'm certainly not qualified to do a peer review on them. If a poster uses one as the basis for their statements here, then we can argue the relevance or point to another study that shows a different result, but I certainly wouldn't hold that against the poster in any way. In such a case, at least they *have* a basis for their discussion.

Hey guys,

I've been through all the waterlogged articles that i kept from uni today, and can unfortunately not find the ones that apply to the statement i made. I stnad by it, and I know its not baseless, but i understand you all wanting a reference for it. Suffice it to say that even with a bunch of "googling", and searching through my notes and articles i havent been able to find a reference, or the articles specific to this topic. I dont have the resources i used to have at uni, nor the time to research it from scratch again. Sorry! Funny thing is i came here to LEARN more about cycling specific training, not try and revolutionize the doctrine of cycling training. The topic i brought up is just an area we studied, that i remembered when i came on here. Unfortunately i can't remember the specifics, and dont have the materials i used then. Again, i apologise for that and will be more careful in future.

PS. For dhk, i gave the reference for the study, which will answer all your questions, but it is too large to put into a post, and i dont have it in PDF form to email it.

FORDGT40 said:

Hey guys,

I've been through all the waterlogged articles that i kept from uni today, and can unfortunately not find the ones that apply to the statement i made. I stnad by it, and I know its not baseless, but i understand you all wanting a reference for it. Suffice it to say that even with a bunch of "googling", and searching through my notes and articles i havent been able to find a reference, or the articles specific to this topic. I dont have the resources i used to have at uni, nor the time to research it from scratch again. Sorry! Funny thing is i came here to LEARN more about cycling specific training, not try and revolutionize the doctrine of cycling training. The topic i brought up is just an area we studied, that i remembered when i came on here. Unfortunately i can't remember the specifics, and dont have the materials i used then. Again, i apologise for that and will be more careful in future.

Please allow me to attempt to help you out here. Perhaps, what your reading said was that some number of 30/30 intervals per week at some intensity (could have been 100% of VO2max power, or 120% , or...) resulted in an improvement in VO2max power (a common measure of performance in studies) that was greater than the improvement gained with 4 hours per week of L4 training.

5 minutes > 30 seconds

And the thing, anyway, is that 30/30 aren't 30 seconds true "intervals". That's a broken interval of the sum of all 30/30, followed by a rest.

For what it is worth in the discussion, swimmers train almost exclusively like that. All possible combinaisons, but a lot of very short rest broken distances. Such as 3X(10X 30sec, with 10sec rest. Performed all out.) This is a VO2Max set.

So to figure out the benefits, you need to take into account the incomplete recovery, raising average power of the whole interval.

Thanks guys for trying to help out. The principle is the same, but the training i was referring to was very short duration, short rests between bouts, with say 2-3 min rest between sets. As part of study for the subject, each group had to try variations on the same principle, that is, 30/30, 30/45, 30/60, 60/60, 60/30 etc etc. It was mainly just to get an understanding of interval training. As i said, it's all moot anyway as i dont have the literature to back it up. What everyone else has spoken about follows the same principle and is well established in the world of training, it just varies in duration of bout vs. rest to what i was suggesting. It's all good though, and i wholeheartedly support nearly everything that has been said by others. Any of the information shared here would be of benefit the average/amateur cyclist, but as the level of the athlete increases, so does the need to be more specific in training regime.

WarrenG said:

The 30/30's should probably be repeated more than 3 times. More like 5-9 times. If you were to do them for 15 times without a break your intensity will end up much lower than around your VO2max.

I tend to agree with you. I tried to do similar patterns with slight changes. I found out that this sheme with 5 min rest between the sets of 3 intervals works fine in the first half of the season. By the end of the season I can do 4-5 sets each consisting of 4-5 intervals and only if I do not any other work during particular training session.
Also I never thought of these intervals as of VO2max intervals. I consider 30 second interval as a workout targeted on highthreshold type IIb fibers.

FORDGT40 said:

Without wanting to sound like WarrenG's lap dog, i gotta agree with him again. My uni professor (that is actually an professor of physiology, not just lecturer] loved high intensity training, and made us read a couple of one inch thick note books chock full of articles for and against interval training, and overwhelmingly it was in favour of interval training improving VO2max. As i stated in a previous post though, this is no guarantee of improved endurance performance. It must be done as part of a portfolio of training that will realise long term benefits for endurance performance, in the long term. There is no quick way, but this method will optimise your training. It should be noted though, that amateurs and those new to training derive the most benefit, most rapidly. Also, like Waren said, I would be doing more like 4-6 reps, 3 sets of high intensity bursts per session. You want to be able to maintain your target power level through all reps, there is no advantage to fatiguing early, especially within the first set. Thats why the session is so short. Lets face it, doing 30/30's it works out to only 4-6 minutes of actual work, and will give the same benefits as up to 4 hours of LT training. I would not recommend any interval shorter than this though. Some studies that i have read tested between varying intervals, and any intervals less than 30s of exertion showed no significant improvement in VO2max, it just doesnt stress the biochemical systems enough to elicit a cellular response, particularly in relation to gene expression [long term cellular changes].

I have never considered 30-sec intervals as VO2max training. These intervals activate high-threshold type IIb fibers. I can't bring you any links in English on this matter backing up my belief because I only have some printed info in my native language that implementing such intervals 2-3 times a week (repeated ~20 times with 2.5-3 min rest after each interval) lead to lower blood lactate levels, which means that high threshold type IIb fibers turn into more aerobic consequently increasing MLSS power or LT threshold or whatever you call it.

dot said:

I have never considered 30-sec intervals as VO2max training. These intervals activate high-threshold type IIb fibers. I can't bring you any links in English on this matter backing up my belief because I only have some printed info in my native language that implementing such intervals 2-3 times a week (repeated ~20 times with 2.5-3 min rest after each interval) lead to lower blood lactate levels, which means that high threshold type IIb fibers turn into more aerobic consequently increasing MLSS power or LT threshold or whatever you call it.

Well, as is typical for a thread that revolves for nearly 3 months, the discussion is losing the relevant comments that were made when it was fresh on people's minds. In summary, the OP asked about whether sets of very short interval were more effective than typical interval durations at improving VO2max. In the first 15 posts are links to over half a dozen studies relating to that issue if people are interested in the possible answers to that question.

dot said:

I have never considered 30-sec intervals as VO2max training. These intervals activate high-threshold type IIb fibers. I can't bring you any links in English on this matter backing up my belief because I only have some printed info in my native language that implementing such intervals 2-3 times a week (repeated ~20 times with 2.5-3 min rest after each interval) lead to lower blood lactate levels, which means that high threshold type IIb fibers turn into more aerobic consequently increasing MLSS power or LT threshold or whatever you call it.

The rest period between the 30" intervals is typically 30" or less for training aimed at VO2max. A block could be 5-10', then a 3-5' rest. Personally, I don't do each 30" interval with a sprint to start, but with a rapid ramping up to the power target. I doubt that 2b's would be needed for that but I guess it's possible they become more aerobic. Other training could address the peak power objectives.

Just found all the articles related to short interval, interval training that I was referring to. Here's the guff. Some of the studies were performed on Young male kinesiology students [20-22years old], who engaged in regular sporting activities, but none at varsity level. The HIT involved 7 weeks interval training on a Monarch electronically braked cycle ergometer, performing 4 reps per session in the first week of Wingate maximal power tests, with 4 minutes rest between each rep, one set only per session, 3 sessions per week [total 6 minutes work per week!]. Adding two reps each week to a total of 10 reps per session [15 minutes per week]. From weeks 5-7 recovery periods were reduced by 30sec each week. Results were VO2max increase from 3.73 L/min to 4.01 L/min.[51.0ml/kg/min - 54.5ml/kg/min]. Most important changes occured to glycolytic and oxidative marker enzymes . The results were al statistically significant.

Another article specific to highly trainied cyclists demonstrated longer intervals [5-minutes] and more reps, which correltates with other articles i found on the web while trying to find these ones. Basically, the principles i stated do work in the general population as i stated, but are not relevant without modification to trained athletes. Guys like Frenchyge and WarrenG were correct in all of their statements in relation to trained cyclists, 30/30's, and longer intervals etc, but at least this hopefully clears up any confusion as to the statements i made. Poor memory I guess. Sorry again.

The articles are "Muscle performance and enzymatic adaptations to sprint interval training: J. Duncan MacDougal et al. J. Appl Physiol 84[6]; 2138-3142

"Metabolic and performance adaptations to interval training in endurance-trained cyclists: Christopher Westgarth Taylor et al; Eur J Appl Physiol [1997] 75: 298-304

I stay open minded in front of these new theories.

I had a phone chat with Guy Thibault earlier today, and he is studying the impact of these short intervals on endurance. He had already published papers on this topic.

You have definitely raised a good point in my opinon FordGT40

I didn't ask for recovery between the reps, but given the high power numbers at which they are performed, I'd guess it's about 1:4 ratio. I am guessing here.

FORDGT40 said:

Just found all the articles related to short interval, interval training that I was referring to.

Glad you found your info, and thanks for clearing all that up. Certainly there are studies that show 30/30 intervals can improve VO2max even in trained cyclists. The question in my mind (and the OP's) is whether we should really care. IOW, is there any reason to do a 30/30 interval routine over a typical 5-min interval, for example? The 'study' (if you could call it that) that I linked in post #3 showed that significantly more VO2max benefit was gained from the typical duration intervals.

Intervals with very short rest periods evoke a physiological response similar to a continuous work period, so are 30/30 sets just a trendy new way to do interval work?