30 second intervals

[Roadie_scum]

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!

Yep. I think aerobic endurance --> LT --> steady state style style training forms the backbone for road and TT riders, but variety is clearly crucial and many different things need to be trained.

As far as SFR being beneficial, I would be interested to know why Testa advocates it rather than having a list of people he says do it. What is his rationale? Particularly if "everyone" does it, it's hard to say its beneficial - it would be much easier to say it was beneficial if some did it and others didn't, and the ones that did it rode better. Finally, I think it's worth noting that I wouldn't say it was of no or negative benefit (and I don't think many of the anti-SFR types would say that), just that it would be no more effective than doing equivalent power intervals at a normal cadence, and that normal cadence is more specific to racing, may allow higher powers to be attained and therefore might lead to faster adaptation. That is, training with long moderate-high power at a normal cadence may be more effective than SFR, even though both improve fitness.

Thoughts?

 

[frenchyge]

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!

There are so many other things at work here that I don't even know where to start. I guess the bottom line is: what makes you attribute those riders' success to their training *variety*?

 

[WarrenG]

There are so many other things at work here that I don't even know where to start. I guess the bottom line is: what makes you attribute those riders' success to their training *variety*?

Training is what leads to your race performances. They have all improved significantly. They are very succesful with this approach. They would not have improved as much as they did and race as well as they do if their training was not excellent. I can provide many more examples like them.

 

[SolarEnergy]

All the athletes carried out their special high-intensity-interval workouts twice a week for four weeks, along with their usual training, and were reassessed physiologically after two and four weeks of the programme

Is this usual procedure to allow subject to interfeer with the effect of the protocol, by letting them train "business as usual" during the whole study?

That is bull sh.. in my opinion. Or at least, it is not very rigorous.

 

[WarrenG]

Yep. I think aerobic endurance --> LT --> steady state style style training forms the backbone for road and TT riders, but variety is clearly crucial and many different things need to be trained.

As far as SFR being beneficial, I would be interested to know why Testa advocates it rather than having a list of people he says do it. What is his rationale? Particularly if "everyone" does it, it's hard to say its beneficial - it would be much easier to say it was beneficial if some did it and others didn't, and the ones that did it rode better. Finally, I think it's worth noting that I wouldn't say it was of no or negative benefit (and I don't think many of the anti-SFR types would say that), just that it would be no more effective than doing equivalent power intervals at a normal cadence, and that normal cadence is more specific to racing, may allow higher powers to be attained and therefore might lead to faster adaptation. That is, training with long moderate-high power at a normal cadence may be more effective than SFR, even though both improve fitness.

Thoughts?

I think our posts overlapped. See my post in reply to Fergie above.

As for specificity, if you only have 5-7 hours a week to train, yeah I don't know if you'd fit in SFR instead of something else. This year I'm doing SFR in the same session as uphill sprints and some short sprints, so the SFR doesn't realy reduce the amounts of other training I can do.

 

[WarrenG]

Is this usual procedure to allow subject to interfeer with the effect of the protocol, by letting them train "business as usual" during the whole study?

That is bull sh.. in my opinion.

Interesting huh? It occurred to me that maybe the other groups were more tired so their test results didn't improve as much. It even mentioned in the article that the average person in the 3 group study couldn't even do all the intervals. Maybe they should have looked at each subject's TSS to find out how tired each group was?

 

[frenchyge]

Training is what leads to your race performances. They have all improved significantly. They are very succesful with this approach. They would not have improved as much as they did and race as well as they do if their training was not excellent. I can provide many more examples like them.

Sure, but they train with variety because they race with variety, right? They have personal goals and commitments with teams and sponsors to do those races - they don't pick the crits and stage races in order to help improve their TT performances. And since they will be racing crits and stage races in addition to TTs, it only makes sense to have some variety in their training program.

Just because they train with variety, and are good at TT's, doesn't mean that one is the cause of the other as your post seems to suggest. Lots of people train with variety, and are *not* good at TT's, so what does that tell us?

 

[dot]

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.

It's obvious why strength training doesn't help VO2max. According to the recruitment theory it doesn't develop aerobic capacity. Stregth training build excessive absolute type IIb fibers with very small capillar density, which cannot contribute to VO2max just because they consume little part of total VO2.
Again 30" intervals with 4' rest conform easily with my standpoint on aerobic training via fiber recruitment. 30" intervals make high threshold fibers to work, which cause them to turn more aerobic.

 

[Roadie_scum]

Sure, but they train with variety because they race with variety, right? They have personal goals and commitments with teams and sponsors to do those races - they don't pick the crits and stage races in order to help improve their TT performances. And since they will be racing crits and stage races in addition to TTs, it only makes sense to have some variety in their training program.

Just because they train with variety, and are good at TT's, doesn't mean that one is the cause of the other as your post seems to suggest. Lots of people train with variety, and are *not* good at TT's, so what does that tell us?

I wouldn't reject Warren's post out of hand, Frenchy. Training with some variety is important even for a pure TTer. This is because even in TT's, different abilities are important and need to be trained different ways. For example, while LT/steady state power needs to be the focus and is obviously targeted with tempo and 2X20 sessions, you also need to train VO2max at various times, and, as the study shows, training 30s intervals may help with TT power too. So it's not so simple as doing an approximation of your race as your main form of training. You need variety to train all the important energy systems. Obviously you need the right mix of variety - I think this is what's really important and this is what will change between riders with different focuses - say between a TTer, crit rider and stage racer.

 

[RapDaddyo]

I wouldn't reject Warren's post out of hand, Frenchy correct.

I didn't read frenchy's post as a rejection of Warren's post but rather questioning the cause/effect conclusion.

 

[dot]

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?

To force glycolitic fiber to grow some more aerobic structures you should make it work but how to make it work and develop properly? Each fiber has both aerobic and anaerobic energy sources. But in a completely aerobic fiber aerobic structures prevail significantly so the anaerobic process can't even start because aerobic enzymes inhibit it. In a completely glycolitic fiber amount of aerobic structures is very small but still present. If this fiber works a lot then the aerobic process will be inhibited by anaerobic enzymes. So to develop aerobic structures in this fiber you have to make this fiber work but not too much to avoid prohibition of the aerobic process. And short intervals do this task as we can see it from 30"/4' study.
An anecdotic evidence:
During last season I sort of trained my wife for an MTB marathon. She had a little time to train, only 13 weeks from June to min-September (she last rode bike in autumn), also having some aerobic base from running and xc skiing. We also had no place close to our flat to do longer intervals safely and comfortably so on weekdays she did only 30 second intervals on short road section in series of 3 with 30" rest (the scheme I mentioned earlier). On weekends she ride off-road to simulate marathon workload. She was very comfortable with intervals because she likes to do scheduled work.
After three months with average volume about 6-7 hrs/week she shaved 12 minutes from 1:05 per training lap down to 0:53 per lap. She has never progressed so well through the season before. Her terminal speed for these intervals increased from 34-35 km/h up to 37-38 km/h (intervals were done on an MTB with knobbies).

 

[WarrenG]

Sure, but they train with variety because they race with variety, right? They have personal goals and commitments with teams and sponsors to do those races - they don't pick the crits and stage races in order to help improve their TT performances. And since they will be racing crits and stage races in addition to TTs, it only makes sense to have some variety in their training program.

Just because they train with variety, and are good at TT's, doesn't mean that one is the cause of the other as your post seems to suggest. Lots of people train with variety, and are *not* good at TT's, so what does that tell us?

...That you can be a national champion in the TT and still train and race with variety. If variety was bad for a TT'er like them, or endless 2x20's were the key for good TT performance then they would not be the best at the TT. You also wouldn't see them as key players in road races just days away from their best TT performances.

 

[WarrenG]

In a completely glycolitic fiber amount of aerobic structures is very small but still present. If this fiber works a lot then the aerobic process will be inhibited by anaerobic enzymes.

I agree and made this point yesterday, but Andy disagreed.

So to develop aerobic structures in this fiber you have to make this fiber work but not too much to avoid prohibition of the aerobic process. And short intervals do this task as we can see it from 30"/4' study.

I agree that the short interval will make the impact of anaerobic enzymes minimal, but if the 30" intervals were spaced by much shorter rests the work would become even more aerobic. Like in your example of 3 x 30" with 30" rest. Maybe we both agree that while 30"/4' was effective, a shorter amount of rest would have been more effective?

 

[WarrenG]

So it's not so simple as doing an approximation of your race as your main form of training. You need variety to train all the important energy systems.

So true, if optimal performance is the objective.

Break down the event into it's little components and train those components, and sometimes the components of those components, with the most attention given towards your weakest, or limiting components.

 

[dot]

I agree that the short interval will make the impact of anaerobic enzymes minimal, but if the 30" intervals were spaced by much shorter rests the work would become even more aerobic. Like in your example of 3 x 30" with 30" rest. Maybe we both agree that while 30"/4' was effective, a shorter amount of rest would have been more effective?

The series should not be long because acidosis is still on the way. Lactic acid production is low but it still need to be removed from fibers and it takes time. To reduce the increasing amount of lactic acid you should to decrease the level of power being produced during an interval which excludes high threshold fibers from work and you lose all advantages of these intervals.
I think longer rest is always safer in the case of aerobic develompent.

I just wonder is there anyone who really did Tabata(20" work/10" rest to exhaustion) intervals. They must be real killers.

 

[SolarEnergy]

"All the athletes carried out their special high-intensity-interval workouts twice a week for four weeks, along with their usual training, and were reassessed physiologically after two and four weeks of the programme

Is this usual procedure to allow subject to interfeer with the effect of the protocol, by letting them train "business as usual" during the whole study?

That is bull sh.. in my opinion. Or at least, it is not very rigorous.

Interesting huh? It occurred to me that maybe the other groups were more tired so their test results didn't improve as much. It even mentioned in the article that the average person in the 3 group study couldn't even do all the intervals. Maybe they should have looked at each subject's TSS to find out how tired each group was?

I'm not sure, maybe.

Personnally, I would have insist to control the whole program. Anyone on this site believe that few 30s is all it takes to improve VO2Max power? Of course not. All the other stuff of one's program is important too. But in the case of this study, we don't know what the rest of the program is made of.

I am willing to believe that these short intervals are magical. But every single study I have read on the subject so far, has flaws in the protocol, or in the interpretation, or use untrained subjects and so on...

 

[frenchyge]

...That you can be a national champion in the TT and still train and race with variety. If variety was bad for a TT'er like them, or endless 2x20's were the key for good TT performance then they would not be the best at the TT. You also wouldn't see them as key players in road races just days away from their best TT performances.

2x20's *are* good for TT performance, and I doubt anyone here is doing them 'endlessly'. I should have seen this strawman argument for what it is and ignored it from the start.

 

[frenchyge]

I wouldn't reject Warren's post out of hand, Frenchy. Training with some variety is important even for a pure TTer.

I wasn't rejecting the idea that having some variety in one's training is beneficial (well, assuming that one's goals include performance in a variety of conditions), and I'd be willing to bet that even those of us who have TT's as the main focus of our training program or have identified 20-min power as a key limiter in our performance still have quite a bit of variety in our training. I was challenging the notion that because Pro's X, Y & Z train in a certain manner, the rest of us should too. WarrenG's narrowing the field down to the most elite athletes, and *then* pointing to the one's that are good at TT's among that select group and their training routine. That muddies up the water with genetics, training volume, available time, coaching, equipment, budget, and demands of the pro racing circuit.

Obviously you need the right mix of variety - I think this is what's really important and this is what will change between riders with different focuses - say between a TTer, crit rider and stage racer.

Obviously. That mix is going to be determined for each individual by their own physiology and the goals they are training for. If you think that's what WarrenG was suggesting in this quoted text, then I guess I shouldn't have challenged it.

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!

 

[acoggan]

I agree and made this point yesterday, but Andy disagreed.

'dot' appears to be saying that the interval intensity can't be too high or else you'll fatigue too rapidly to create a significant stimulus for mitochondrial biogenesis. This is different from your bogus claim that anaerobic metabolism somehow inhibits the formation of new mitochondria.

 

[acoggan]

What benefits or reasons do you think the SFR training could offer for improving power at intensities around Vo2max?

I can't really think of any. Of course, we don't actually know that training at an abnormally low cadence actually does increase power at intensities around VO2max, but that's a different issue.