30 second intervals

[dot]

I can tell you from experience that there is not strong acidosis when I do these intervals. Lots of heavy breathing and some fatigue in the last few intervals but virtually no pain from low ph.

As for your comment about destruction of mitochondrial structures, I've discussed this a few times with my coach and he says there isn't strong evidence available to support this, but it _might_ be possible. He says that a bigger concern would be the enzymes being produced during aerobic vs. anaerobic training and that these may be the concern to at least keep an eye on.

Since it is so early in the season we have kind of a limit to the intensity of near 150% of power at 4mmo/l, and HR shouldn't go much above the rate near 4mmol/l. We also look at how quickly HR is recovering between intervals to ensure that there isn't overdue stress for this early in the season.

FWIW, many racers and pros choose to begin racing in January and February (some high intensity and low ph) and can still show significant improvement for their aerobic ability.



These wouldn't elicit an environment similar to that around VO2max intensity so I think you're training something else-I'm not sure what.



We are cautious with them (see above) until later in the season.

Yes, it all depends on the intensity with which intervals are done.
But almost all out effort should lower Ph to a very low value.

added:
I remembered that there was a famous link that showed 30 sec intervals with 4 min rest was one of the two best patterns for 40 TT that is for improving aerobic power along with the 4 min on/1. min off pattern. That's what I train with my 30 sec intervals (If I did them). If you are willing to train for track sprints then such a training is not for you.

 

[WarrenG]

Yes, it all depends on the intensity with which intervals are done.
But almost all out effort should lower Ph to a very low value.

added:
I remembered that there was a famous link that showed 30 sec intervals with 4 min rest was one of the two best patterns for 40 TT that is for improving aerobic power along with the 4 min on/1. min off pattern. That's what I train with my 30 sec intervals (If I did them). If you are willing to train for track sprints then such a training is not for you.

I'm not sure what intensity you're using for the "rest", but if it's just rolling easy, I think that a 30 second almost all out effort with 4 minutes rest would be more appropriate for a track sprinter than a person interested in 40k TT's-the opposite of what you wrote.

4' rest between efforts means the 30" intervals will use a relatively small amount of energy from aerobic sources for the 30" effort, and somewhere near 60-80% from anaerobic sources. For a 40kTT the energy sources will be almost entirely aerobic so the training should reflect that, yes?

 

[Roadie_scum]

I'm not sure what intensity you're using for the "rest", but if it's just rolling easy, I think that a 30 second almost all out effort with 4 minutes rest would be more appropriate for a track sprinter than a person interested in 40k TT's-the opposite of what you wrote.

4' rest between efforts means the 30" intervals will use a relatively small amount of energy from aerobic sources for the 30" effort, and somewhere near 60-80% from anaerobic sources. For a 40kTT the energy sources will be almost entirely aerobic so the training should reflect that, yes?

There's a study where this exact protocol (30s on, 4:30 rest) gains a statistically significant improvement in 40km TT performance. I think it's already been linked to in this thread. The group doing training more like VO2max work got a bigger benefit than the 30s interval group, but there's no reason not to do both since both yielded improvements. The reason for the improvement is probably something to do with neuromuscular recruitment, I think, maybe an ex phys person could chip in and correct me though.

So I think you're right in saying the bulk of 40km TT training should be aerobic (LT + 40km TT power + VO2max focus), but that doesn't mean there's no place for shorter intervals. The other caveat is that in this study 30s intervals were done at 175% of the power that elicited VO2max in a VO2max test. It may not be possible for everyone to duplicate this as some people simply can't do that power for 30s.

Finally, certain pacing strategies in undulating TTs call for neuromuscular power or anaerobic capacity, so that's another reason to train them.

 

[acoggan]

Hey Acoggan,

Just out of curiosity, what is your area of study, particularly for your PhD? And what does FACSM stand for?

I'm an exercise physiologist by training, and a Fellow of the American College of Sports Medicine.

 

[WarrenG]

There's a study where this exact protocol (30s on, 4:30 rest) gains a statistically significant improvement in 40km TT performance. I think it's already been linked to in this thread. The group doing training more like VO2max work got a bigger benefit than the 30s interval group, but there's no reason not to do both since both yielded improvements. The reason for the improvement is probably something to do with neuromuscular recruitment, I think, maybe an ex phys person could chip in and correct me though.

I found the link-thanks. The group doing 30" sprints had the lowest amount of improvement of the 3 groups. I believe that variety in training is useful but based on what the study found you'd want to consider doing the other two types of training before the 30" sprint approach. Why do what simply works? Do what works best.

Finally, certain pacing strategies in undulating TTs call for neuromuscular power or anaerobic capacity, so that's another reason to train them.

Good point. Too bad there aren't more of those kind of TT's. The first bike race I ever did was a 16 mile TT with no flat sections.

 

[VeloFlash]

......<snip>In order to elicit improvements in VO2max, the exercise protocol must provide an overload to the relevant physiological systems, which in the case of VO2max primarily means stressing the cardiovascular system. To do that means exercising at a sufficiently high intensity for a sufficiently long period of time for heart rate, stroke volume, VO2, etc., to reach high values relative to the person's maximums. How high the intensity must be will vary with someone's initial fitness, but for somebody already performing many hours of submaximal training, the intensity must obviously be quite high for further improvements to occur (which is why we all do intervals in the first place). In terms of how long is long enough, either the work period must be of sufficient duration for physiological responses to "catch up" to the increase in demand (which is why intervals aimed at raising VO2max are generally at least 3 min long), or you have to manipulate the work:rest period to "trick" the body into behaving as if it were performing continuous exercise. Once/provided that these requirements are met, though, how long you actually spend at/near VO2max hasn't been shown to be an important determinant of the magnitude of the training response (it also hasn't been shown not to be - we simply don't know)....<snip>

There was a study carried out by Tabata et Al where they used a 20 seconds on 10 seconds off ultra short intervals regime. These intervals over 6 weeks provided a 15% increase in V02max and a bonus 28% increase in anaerobic capacity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8897392&dopt=Abstract

A commentary on the results:

Exercise physiology textbooks tell us that work interval duration and intensity, and the length of the rest periods - the variables studied by Dr. Tabata - must be carefully adjusted to meet the specific requirements for different performances. As indicated above, adaptations are specific to the speed and duration of workout. Generally, short hard intervals with long rest periods are recommended to improve anaerobic capacity; and many sets and repetitions of longer less intense intervals with short rest periods are suggested to overload the aerobic system.

In other words, the interval protocols traditionally prescribed to engage the aerobic system are usually quite different from those suggested for anaerobic training. This is simply an application of the specificity principle, with little or no interchange predicted between the two types of training.

That, of course, is why it was a surprise when Dr. Tabata's earlier study found that the 1E1 protocol (20-second bouts with 10 seconds rest) "may be optimal with respect to improving both the aerobic and anaerobic energy release systems." As readers of my earlier article will remember, Dr. Tabata told **** Winett in a personal communication "that the rate of increase in VO2max [14% in only 6 weeks] is one of the highest ever reported in exercise science." Recall also that anaerobic capacity increased by a whopping 28%.

The Key Factor

Like Goldilock's porridge, it seems that Dr. Tabata has come upon an interval protocol that is "just right." As shown in the follow-up study, 1E1 overloads both aerobic and anaerobic capacity maximally - with the predictable result that both systems benefit optimally. As the original research report stated: "1E1 may be one of the best possible training protocols...."

But why? Why did the 1E1 protocol stress both aerobic and anaerobic capacity maximally, when the more intense (200% Vo2max vs. 170%) and longer (30 seconds vs. 20-s) bouts of the 1E2 protocol did not? The researchers believe the key factor was the difference in the rest periods.

The relatively long 2-minute rest periods in 1E2 allowed oxygen uptake to fall considerably and, therefore, when the next exercise bout started there was a delay before the oxygen uptake increased and began again to approach maximum. On the other hand, the short 10-second rest periods in 1E1 allowed only slight recovery, and therefore oxygen uptake increased in each succeeding bout, reaching maximum capacity in the final seconds of the last bout. The same was true for anaerobic energy release. The long rest periods in 1E2 stopped the buildup of lactate and allowed the resynthesis of phosphocreatine (see creatine article on this website) to occur. Again, the short rest periods in 1E1 caused the oxygen deficit to continue building from rep to rep, reaching maximum anaerobic capacity at the end of the exercise.

Did the shorter rest period "trick" the system?

 

[WarrenG]

There was a study carried out by Tabata et Al where they used a 20 seconds on 10 seconds off ultra short intervals regime. These intervals over 6 weeks provided a 15% increase in V02max and a bonus 28% increase in anaerobic capacity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8897392&dopt=Abstract

I can only read the abstract. In the study, where the subjects untrained, well-trained cyclists or other athletes, or highly-trained?

I ask because training that will help untrained people achieve these results may not help well-trained athletes to anywhere near the same degree. For well-trained athletes, training other than what was used in the study might be more effective for improving power at VO2max and aerobic ability and anaerobic capacity, etc.

 

[acoggan]

(snip)

Did the shorter rest period "trick" the system?

Obviously the answer is yes, since you wouldn't expect much increase in VO2max to result from 20 s intervals performed with long rest periods in between.

BTW, a 14% increase in VO2max in 6 wk really isn't all that impressive...in the Hickson study I mentioned previously VO2max increased at an average rate of 4%/wk (or 24% in 6 wk), whereas previously we've observed an increase of 10% in just 10 d. (Of course, all of these studies entailed untrained individuals, so extrapolating the results to how athletes should best train for competition really isn't warranted, at least in a quantitative sense.)

 

[bikeguy]

There was a study carried out by Tabata et Al where they used a 20 seconds on 10 seconds off ultra short intervals regime. These intervals over 6 weeks provided a 15% increase in V02max and a bonus 28% increase in anaerobic capacity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8897392&dopt=Abstract

A commentary on the results:

Exercise physiology textbooks tell us that work interval duration and intensity, and the length of the rest periods - the variables studied by Dr. Tabata - must be carefully adjusted to meet the specific requirements for different performances. As indicated above, adaptations are specific to the speed and duration of workout. Generally, short hard intervals with long rest periods are recommended to improve anaerobic capacity; and many sets and repetitions of longer less intense intervals with short rest periods are suggested to overload the aerobic system.

In other words, the interval protocols traditionally prescribed to engage the aerobic system are usually quite different from those suggested for anaerobic training. This is simply an application of the specificity principle, with little or no interchange predicted between the two types of training.

That, of course, is why it was a surprise when Dr. Tabata's earlier study found that the 1E1 protocol (20-second bouts with 10 seconds rest) "may be optimal with respect to improving both the aerobic and anaerobic energy release systems." As readers of my earlier article will remember, Dr. Tabata told **** Winett in a personal communication "that the rate of increase in VO2max [14% in only 6 weeks] is one of the highest ever reported in exercise science." Recall also that anaerobic capacity increased by a whopping 28%.

The Key Factor

Like Goldilock's porridge, it seems that Dr. Tabata has come upon an interval protocol that is "just right." As shown in the follow-up study, 1E1 overloads both aerobic and anaerobic capacity maximally - with the predictable result that both systems benefit optimally. As the original research report stated: "1E1 may be one of the best possible training protocols...."

But why? Why did the 1E1 protocol stress both aerobic and anaerobic capacity maximally, when the more intense (200% Vo2max vs. 170%) and longer (30 seconds vs. 20-s) bouts of the 1E2 protocol did not? The researchers believe the key factor was the difference in the rest periods.

The relatively long 2-minute rest periods in 1E2 allowed oxygen uptake to fall considerably and, therefore, when the next exercise bout started there was a delay before the oxygen uptake increased and began again to approach maximum. On the other hand, the short 10-second rest periods in 1E1 allowed only slight recovery, and therefore oxygen uptake increased in each succeeding bout, reaching maximum capacity in the final seconds of the last bout. The same was true for anaerobic energy release. The long rest periods in 1E2 stopped the buildup of lactate and allowed the resynthesis of phosphocreatine (see creatine article on this website) to occur. Again, the short rest periods in 1E1 caused the oxygen deficit to continue building from rep to rep, reaching maximum anaerobic capacity at the end of the exercise.

Did the shorter rest period "trick" the system?

I don't think this study means much. I can tell you one thing, if my training consisted of 5 days a week of 1 hr at 70% VO2 max, I would experience a decrease in VO2 max and a substantial decrease in endurance capacity. The study subjects saw an increase in VO2 max from that kind of training. Also 8 intervals of 20 sec at 175% of PPO and 10 sec rest would again cause a decrease in VO2 max for me. Good training for surging, but **** for VO2 max development. This leads me to two conclusions 1) my training intensity is far beyond those in this study 2) almost any kind of training will improve the VO2 max of moderately trained subjects (that being what I'd describe those in that study). Of course, a major complaint of many studies like this is exactly that the subjects are not trained enough for the study to meaningfully differentiate between training methods. Perhaps if this study had a third group that did 3-5 x 3 minute intervals at 90-100% of VO2 max, then it would have been more interesting.

-Bikeguy

 

[VeloFlash]

I can only read the abstract. In the study, where the subjects untrained, well-trained cyclists or other athletes, or highly-trained?

I ask because training that will help untrained people achieve these results may not help well-trained athletes to anywhere near the same degree. For well-trained athletes, training other than what was used in the study might be more effective for improving power at VO2max and aerobic ability and anaerobic capacity, etc.

From what I recall, Tabata and colleagues carried out two studies and one of those studies used as subjects elite Japanese speed skaters.

Edit - my recollection supported -

Progress by this method, of course, comes at a price. Tabata's 1E1 protocol is physically and psychologically taxing. It requires considerable motivation. Dr. Tabata, in a personal communication, warned **** Winett: "This protocol [was] invented to stress the cardiovascular systems of top Japanese [speed] skaters who got medals in the Olympic games. Therefore, the protocol is very tough. The subjects lay down on the floor after the training." Tabata wondered how many people would "feel eager to do this type of exercise."

Still, for those who are fit and healthy (if you have questions about your health by all means check with your doctor) and up to the challenge, Tabata offered this encouragement: "From the theoretical point of view, the higher the oxygen uptake obtained in a specific training protocol, the higher the improvement of VO2max."

 

[acoggan]

From what I recall, Tabata and colleagues carried out two studies and one of those studies used as subjects elite Japanese speed skaters.

No, the subjects in both were physical education students.

 

[VeloFlash]

No, the subjects in both were physical education students.

If you have the full text of the studies and this is stated then I withdraw my deduction from the comment the subjects were speed skaters.

 

[acoggan]

If you have the full text of the studies

One of the benefits of working at a medical school is having access to a library that subscribes to numerous journals.

and this is stated then I withdraw my deduction from the comment the subjects were speed skaters.

Given what you quoted, your deduction was reasonable. As is often the case, however, they apparently couldn't get the athletes to actually participate in a study, so had to rely on those who would volunteer, i.e., PE students.

 

[RipVanCommittee]

I'm not sure what intensity you're using for the "rest", but if it's just rolling easy, I think that a 30 second almost all out effort with 4 minutes rest would be more appropriate for a track sprinter than a person interested in 40k TT's-the opposite of what you wrote.

4' rest between efforts means the 30" intervals will use a relatively small amount of energy from aerobic sources for the 30" effort, and somewhere near 60-80% from anaerobic sources. For a 40kTT the energy sources will be almost entirely aerobic so the training should reflect that, yes?

Here's the link to the study to which this person is referring, which does indeed demonstrate the efficacy of this protocol. It's a limited study in which I'm sure folks could find holes. However, I've been doing these for the last year (once a week, when I add them in) and have found them really effective. Strangely, they seem to both boost my 20minute power, and also make long (say 90-120 minutes at .8 of my 20MP) feel easier--strictly anecdotal, of course, but that's my experience.

Lastly, I've found that shorter rest periods make hitting 1.75x my pVo2 nearly impossible....so I wouldn't discount this sort of interval. I apologize if this link has been already posted, but I didn't see it: http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/1030/htm

 

[Spunout]

Y
added:
I remembered that there was a famous link that showed 30 sec intervals with 4 min rest was one of the two best patterns for 40 TT that is for improving aerobic power along with the 4 min on/1. min off pattern.

Asker Jeukendrup's High Performance Cycling, I think page 3. I don't know to which study (or if it is published) he refers to.

 

[WarrenG]

Here's the link to the study to which this person is referring, which does indeed demonstrate the efficacy of this protocol. It's a limited study in which I'm sure folks could find holes. However, I've been doing these for the last year (once a week, when I add them in) and have found them really effective. Strangely, they seem to both boost my 20minute power, and also make long (say 90-120 minutes at .8 of my 20MP) feel easier--strictly anecdotal, of course, but that's my experience.

Lastly, I've found that shorter rest periods make hitting 1.75x my pVo2 nearly impossible....so I wouldn't discount this sort of interval. I apologize if this link has been already posted, but I didn't see it: http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/1030.htm

Here's a quote from that article...

It might seem surprising that members of Group 3 (30" sprint, 4' rest) were able to boost VO2max significantly, since their intervals were short and ‘anaerobic’ and their recovery durations long, leading to a situation in which average oxygen-consumption rates during the workouts were extremely modest.

Fast adaptation to training

However, bear in mind that the highest rate of oxygen consumption recorded during an incremental VO2max test is a function not just of the heart’s ability to work as a pump and the muscles’ ability to extract oxygen from the blood; it also reflects the ability of the neuromuscular system to generate high levels of muscular force in short periods of time – a process which can create an incredible demand for oxygen. If this concept is difficult to grasp, simply think of the heart and muscles as having reserve potential; in some cases, they may be waiting for an athlete to develop the capacity to generate unusually high muscular forces on a more-than-momentary basis, so that they can really ‘strut their stuff’ when it comes to oxygen consumption. Of course, this ability to reach very high levels of force production was enhanced by the type of supra-maximal training carried out by Group 3. "

Interesting that they conclude that the improvement in muscular force from doing the sprints was a contributing (or the main) factor for their improvement in an incremental VO2max test. Since the subjects were "endurance-trained cyclists and duathletes and triathletes" I wonder if they were relatively weak in this area and that's why they showed so much improvement. If they were not weak then these results would indicate some usefullness for some neuromuscular training, e.g. long sprints like in the study, SFR training (low cadence, big gear on hills), etc.

 

[acoggan]

Here's a quote from that article...

It might seem surprising that members of Group 3 (30" sprint, 4' rest) were able to boost VO2max significantly, since their intervals were short and ‘anaerobic’ and their recovery durations long, leading to a situation in which average oxygen-consumption rates during the workouts were extremely modest.

Fast adaptation to training

However, bear in mind that the highest rate of oxygen consumption recorded during an incremental VO2max test is a function not just of the heart’s ability to work as a pump and the muscles’ ability to extract oxygen from the blood; it also reflects the ability of the neuromuscular system to generate high levels of muscular force in short periods of time – a process which can create an incredible demand for oxygen. If this concept is difficult to grasp, simply think of the heart and muscles as having reserve potential; in some cases, they may be waiting for an athlete to develop the capacity to generate unusually high muscular forces on a more-than-momentary basis, so that they can really ‘strut their stuff’ when it comes to oxygen consumption. Of course, this ability to reach very high levels of force production was enhanced by the type of supra-maximal training carried out by Group 3. "

Interesting that they conclude that the improvement in muscular force from doing the sprints was a contributing (or the main) factor for their improvement in an incremental VO2max test. Since the subjects were "endurance-trained cyclists and duathletes and triathletes" I wonder if they were relatively weak in this area and that's why they showed so much improvement. If they were not weak then these results would indicate some usefullness for some neuromuscular training, e.g. long sprints like in the study, SFR training (low cadence, big gear on hills), etc.

If what Anderson suggests were true, then strength training would increase VO2max in any untrained person (since untrained individuals and endurance-trained cyclists are comparable in strength). However, it is well established that it does not, thus demonstrating that his hypothesis is off the mark.

As I said before: don't trust a science writer to do a scientist's job.

 

[acoggan]

Asker Jeukendrup's High Performance Cycling, I think page 3. I don't know to which study (or if it is published) he refers to.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=10331896&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum

 

[WarrenG]

If what Anderson suggests were true, then strength training would increase VO2max in any untrained person (since untrained individuals and endurance-trained cyclists are comparable in strength). However, it is well established that it does not, thus demonstrating that his hypothesis is off the mark.

As I said before: don't trust a science writer to do a scientist's job.

Then how do YOU explain the improved performance in VO2max and 40K TT for the group that only added the 30" sprint with 4' rest to their usual training?

 

[acoggan]

Then how do YOU explain the improved performance in VO2max and 40K TT for the group that only added the 30" sprint with 4' rest to their usual training?

Without additional measurements beyond what were performed in the original study, it is impossible to say. However, since strength/muscle mass is not in any way a limiting factor to VO2max, we can essentially rule out Anderson's explanation right from the get-go.