30 second intervals

[RipVanCommittee]

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.

I think that Warren is suggesting that it's the strength part of this equation that results in the VO2 gains...not Anderson. And I'd have to say I disagree with strength gains being responsible for improvement, since, as you state and as is certainly the case for me (and everyone I know) strength and performance have little to do with each other.

I do think it's curious that these do seem to work, both in the study and for me.

 

[acoggan]

I think that Warren is suggesting that it's the strength part of this equation that results in the VO2 gains...not Anderson.

No, Anderson implies that muscular strength - or really, muscular power - somehow limits VO2max before training, but not after training:

"...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."

This hypothesis is obviously flawed, however, since you don't have to activate all that much muscle to achieve maximal cardiac output (meaning that there's no benefit to being able to activate more after training), and a plateau in VO2 can be demonstrated in the untrained state (meaning that muscular ATP demand isn't limiting, because if it were, VO2 would continue to increase in parallel to power all the way to the end of the test).

 

[RipVanCommittee]

No, Anderson implies that muscular strength - or really, muscular power - somehow limits VO2max before training, but not after training:



This hypothesis is obviously flawed, however, since you don't have to activate all that much muscle to achieve maximal cardiac output (meaning that there's no benefit to being able to activate more after training), and a plateau in VO2 can be demonstrated in the untrained state (meaning that muscular ATP demand isn't limiting, because if it were, VO2 would continue to increase in parallel to power all the way to the end of the test).

You're right...I was engaging in selective reading--still, even if his logic is flawed, I still don't think I'd completely discount the study's results (I'm not sure if you're suggesting that or not), even if the mechanism by which the gains occur is in question.

I was reading more into his comment later regarding 'intramuscular buffering capacity'.

I think at the very least this is a protocol worth looking at a little more.

 

[WarrenG]

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.

Tough to believe your idea in light of all the training for strength being done by the best riders, e.g. SFR training. Did you ever ask your friends at Quick-Step and Mapei why SFR/SE training is so popular among their riders? I asked Max about this again the other day. I asked who he knew of that was doing SFR. He listed off guys like Bettini, Boonen, Armstrong, Ullrich-"all those guys". He said he actually didn't know of anyone who was NOT doing SFR training. Apparently they don't have the same "take" on SFR/SE training as you do.

 

[acoggan]

I still don't think I'd completely discount the study's results

I'm not - just discounting Anderson's attempt to provide a cogent mechanistic explanation.

 

[acoggan]

Tough to believe your idea in light of all the training for strength being done by the best riders, e.g. SFR training.

Right: the fact that some pro cyclists reportedly train at abnormally low cadences and reportedly achieve performance benefits as a result disproves all the scientific evidence that strength training doesn't improve VO2max.

 

[WarrenG]

... I was reading more into his comment later regarding 'intramuscular buffering capacity'.

I think at the very least this is a protocol worth looking at a little more.

Close to what you're talking about, the other day in the "training arsenal" thread I mentioned a session I do ocassionally. In the last hour of a three hour ride that includes other intervals I do 4' intervals uphill at threshold power and the last 30" is a sprint. 4' rest. Repeat for a total of 4.

 

[acoggan]

Close to what you're talking about, the other day in the "training arsenal" thread I mentioned a session I do ocassionally. In the last hour of a three hour ride that includes other intervals I do 4' intervals uphill at threshold power and the last 30" is a sprint. 4' rest. Repeat for a total of 4.

You'd be far more likely to achieve an increase in muscle buffering capacity if you did these intervals in the first hour of your ride.

 

[WarrenG]

Right: the fact that some pro cyclists reportedly train at abnormally low cadences and reportedly achieve performance benefits as a result disproves all the scientific evidence that strength training doesn't improve VO2max.

I'm not surprised you're confused. Apparently you did not ask your friends at QS nor Mapei. It is not "some" pros. Not "reportedly" either. And much of the benefit shows in performances where the power is at, above, or near VO2max. The SFR training has helped me a lot and some of the improvements are a big reason why we've increased the intensity and load for my VO2max intervals for mid-January and now February.


Show me these studies you refer to with highly-trained cyclists that showed no improvement in their power at VO2max after doing SFR training.

 

[acoggan]

BTW, how the heck did this study (which is the one Anderson was referring to):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=12439086&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum

end up being discussed as evidence in favor of 30 s intervals? The 'G2' group in this study, which is the group that demonstrated the largest increase in VO2max (but not performance), was doing 8 x ~2.5 min on, whereas group 'G3', which is the group doing 30 s intervals, experienced the smallest increase in VO2max of all.

 

[acoggan]

Show me these studies you refer to with highly-trained cyclists that showed no improvement in their power at VO2max after doing SFR training.

I never said anything at all about research showing that low cadence training wouldn't increase power at VO2max. What I said was that there are literally hundreds of studies showing that strength training doesn't increase VO2max.

 

[WarrenG]

You'd be far more likely to achieve an increase in muscle buffering capacity if you did these intervals in the first hour of your ride.

Is that the main reason for doing these? I do them last because they are the hardest part of the ride and there is value in choosing to do certain intervals at the end of a strenuous ride. The sprints end up being in many ways similar to the end of a criterium and a points race sprint.

 

[acoggan]

Is that the main reason for doing these?

I don't know why you do them, but since you brought them up in response to a comment about intramuscular buffering capacity I thought I'd simply point out the obvious, i.e., if you wait until late in a ride when your glycogen stores are reduced, you won't drive pH as low during each interval, and hence are less likely to induce an improvement in buffering capacity.

 

[WarrenG]

I never said anything at all about research showing that low cadence training wouldn't increase power at VO2max. What I said was that there are literally hundreds of studies showing that strength training doesn't increase VO2max.

Doesn't seem to correlate with what you said in the "My take on SE intervals" thread, but we can pass that by for now. What benefits or reasons do you think the SFR training could offer for improving power at intensities around Vo2max?

 

[WarrenG]

I don't know why you do them, but since you brought them up in response to a comment about intramuscular buffering capacity I thought I'd simply point out the obvious, i.e., if you wait until late in a ride when your glycogen stores are reduced, you won't drive pH as low during each interval, and hence are less likely to induce an improvement in buffering capacity.

Okay, thanks. I didn't know about that. The most strenuous intervals I do where buffering is part of the objective are done near the end of the first hour of the ride.

 

[RipVanCommittee]

BTW, how the heck did this study (which is the one Anderson was referring to):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12439086&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum

end up being discussed as evidence in favor of 30 s intervals? The 'G2' group in this study, which is the group that demonstrated the largest increase in VO2max (but not performance), was doing 8 x ~2.5 min on, whereas group 'G3', which is the group doing 30 s intervals, experienced the smallest increase in VO2max of all.

Trust me...that didn't escape notice for me. However, as someone with relatively high 5MP (>6W/kg) and horrible 1MP (<8.3), it's appealing to do a workout that should help my anaerobic capacity, yet still have *some* benefit for other energy systems. I'm guessing that there are some other guys like me with a sloping to the right TT power profile that could be helped by this protocol.

Also, I have to wonder if those with lower anaerobic capacity may be the most helped be this protocol--and I apologize in advance for speculating when I have a sample size of ONE...still, I wonder.

 

[Roadie_scum]

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/1030/htm

That's just a summary. The PPonline stuff is OK but you'll do better at the original source, or failing that pubmed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=10331896&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum

WarrenG: The group doing 12X30s @ 175%PPO w 4:30 rest do better than anyone except the 8X4 minute at 85%PPO. There are also two groups that don't respond to the training withn improvements in TT performance.

 

[fergie]

Doesn't seem to correlate with what you said in the "My take on SE intervals" thread, but we can pass that by for now. What benefits or reasons do you think the SFR training could offer for improving power at intensities around Vo2max?

A simple answer is that a lot of Pros do SFR, SE or Low Freq training on hills or on ergs with high resistance and have to work at vO2max to keep some momentum going on the bike. I need to see some real evidence that this is of any greater advantage than doing similar efforts at a normal cadence.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

 

[WarrenG]

That's just a summary. The PPonline stuff is OK but you'll do better at the original source, or failing that pubmed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=10331896&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum

WarrenG: The group doing 12X30s @ 175%PPO w 4:30 rest do better than anyone except the 8X4 minute at 85%PPO. There are also two groups that don't respond to the training withn improvements in TT performance.

It's very interesting. One of the things I've learned from my coach in the last three years is about using variety in training. I think the body responds better to a variety of stimulii better than just giving it the same type of stimulii week after week after week. I think that's why this training with 30" sprints was fairly effective-because it introduced some new stimulii, and even though it doesn't sound perfectly appropriate on the surface, it appears to have helped.

I see these people who say they want to be good at TT's so they go out and do 2x20 and 3x20 2-3 times a week for week after week after week. They say they want to train "specific" for their event. My coach works with some excellent TT riders, like Chris Baldwin and Christine Thorburn who have both won US Elite TT Nat's, and previously Karen Kurreck (Brems) who won the Worlds TT, and a bunch of pros who can/could TT pretty well too. They do not go out and do 2x20 or 3x20 over and over again, especially not before they are close to peaking for a TT. They use a wide variety of stimulii in training and in racing by doing everything from criteriums to stage races. Variety, it's the spice of life!

 

[WarrenG]

A simple answer is that a lot of Pros do SFR, SE or Low Freq training on hills or on ergs with high resistance and have to work at vO2max to keep some momentum going on the bike. I need to see some real evidence that this is of any greater advantage than doing similar efforts at a normal cadence.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

I don't have concrete evidence for you except that year after year riders and their coaches choose to do it because it helps. For the reasons, maybe this will help. A key element is the _time in tension_ during these intervals. Think about what that does to the muscle fibers and their blood/oxygen supply.

Think also about the pedaling motion that must be maintained in order to overcome the lack of momentum (on a hill).

Consider also the amount of force with each pedal stroke. While it may not be really high, I think it's similar to that occuring when power is very high, and it is possible to do the SFR for 30+ minutes, but you can't do 30+ minutes at 500+ watts.

At the end of a race when power is short little bursts at 500+ watts, similar to some of the things occuring during the SFR interval. Other ancillary benefits are the strengthening of the lower back and glutes, and tendons and ligaments that need to be prepared for hard sprint training.