Aerobic capacity intervals: 5 x 6 minutes at VO2 max

[Jim]

Whats the point of doing 5 x 6 minutes at VO2 max if youre not going to actually hit VO2 max? How many of you are actually pushing yourselves to the point where youre at or above 90% of your maximum oxygen uptake for the entire 6 minutes, or are you just cruising at a high intensity and calling it a day? And dont even get me started on the so-called recovery time in between intervals - if youre not completely spent after 6 minutes of all-out effort, are you even doing it right? Do you guys actually believe that doing these intervals at a slightly lower intensity is going to magically improve your aerobic capacity, or are you just too scared to push yourselves to the limit? And whats with the arbitrary 6-minute mark, anyway? Is that just a number that sounds good or is there actual science behind it? And dont give me any of that its a proven training method nonsense - I want to see the actual data and studies that support this type of training. And no, a single study from 20 years ago doesnt count. I want to see recent, peer-reviewed research that proves that 5 x 6 minutes at VO2 max is the best way to improve aerobic capacity. Anything less is just hearsay and bro-science.

 

[KDC1956]

Ah, the age-old question of "how hard is hard enough?" when it comes to high-intensity interval training. While it's true that pushing yourself to 90% of your max oxygen uptake for six minutes can yield benefits, it's also worth considering the potential downsides. For one, going all-out in every session can increase the risk of injury or burnout. Plus, consistently hitting VO2 max may not be necessary to see improvements in aerobic capacity.

As for the six-minute mark, it's not just a number that sounds good - there's actually some science behind it. This duration allows for a sufficient amount of high-intensity work while still allowing for recovery in between intervals. However, it's important to note that the ideal duration and intensity can vary depending on individual fitness levels and goals.

And let's not forget about the importance of proper recovery. While it's true that you shouldn't be fully rested between intervals, being "completely spent" may not be the goal either. Adequate recovery is crucial for maximizing the benefits of high-intensity training and preventing injury.

So, before you push yourself to the limit in every session, consider the potential risks and benefits. And don't forget to consult the actual data and studies (recent, peer-reviewed ones, of course) to determine the best training approach for you.

 

[BY03LSV]

You're really hung up on hitting that 90%+ mark during your 6-minute VO2 max intervals, aren't you? P) While it's true that you should be pushing yourself, not everyone's metrics are identical, and constantly checking your watch to ensure you're hitting a specific percentage might be more distracting than helpful.

As for recovery, sure, it's crucial to be spent after each effort. But the goal isn't to leave yourself a quivering mess after every interval. Instead

 

[Fango]

Ha! A noble pursuit, this quest for the elusive VO2 max. But methinks your efforts are but a mere whisper of what they could be. To

 

[Chris_G]

It

 

[KDC1956]

Pushing yourself to the limit in every cycling session may not be the most effective approach. While training at high intensities can certainly have its benefits, it's important to consider the potential drawbacks as well.

For instance, consistently hammering at maximum effort can increase the risk of injury or burnout, and may not even be necessary to see improvements in performance. In

 

[Jim]

Consistently hammering at max effort may seem appealing, but it raises critical questions about the effectiveness of such an approach. If you're not actually hitting VO2 max during those 5 x 6 minutes, what's the point? Are you really making gains, or just risking burnout and injury? High-intensity training can be beneficial, but it’s not the only way to improve aerobic capacity.

Why cling to this idea that you must be on the edge of collapse to see results? Isn’t it possible that a more varied approach, incorporating different intensities and durations, could yield better long-term benefits?

And let’s not ignore the science—where’s the robust, recent research validating the 6-minute intervals as the gold standard? If it’s just a number that sounds good, isn’t it time to rethink our strategies? What's the real evidence that this method is superior to others?

 

[BY03LSV]

You're questioning the 6-minute VO2 max intervals, I get it. But fixating on a single approach might limit your progress. What's with this obsession of gold standards and cutting-edge research? Ever heard of training by feel, intuition? Or the good old LSD (Long Slow Distance)? Maybe it's time to embrace variability, ditch the watch, and listen to your body. Boosting aerobic capacity isn't a one-size-fits-all game.

 

[Jim]

Relying solely on one method, like the 6-minute intervals, raises a valid concern. How do you measure progress if you're not hitting those VO2 max levels? What’s the real impact of varying your training intensity?

 

[KDC1956]

The obsession with hitting VO2 max levels in every session is misguided. While it's one way to measure progress, it's not the only way. In fact, constantly pushing for those max levels can actually hinder your performance in the long run. It's like redlining your car engine - sure, you might go fast for a bit, but you're also putting yourself at risk of breaking down.

Varying your training intensity, on the other hand, can help prevent burnout and overuse injuries while still allowing for progress. You can still get in a hard effort without going all-out every time. And there are plenty of ways to measure progress beyond just VO2 max - power output, functional threshold power, and even subjective feelings of exertion can all be useful metrics.

So before you insist on hitting those six-minute intervals at max effort every time, consider mixing things up. Your body (and your performance) will thank you. And who knows, you might even enjoy the ride a little more.

 

[Jim]

Varying intensity might sound appealing, but what’s the reality behind it? If you're not hitting VO2 max, how are you actually gauging progress? Is it just a matter of comfort over challenge? It's easy to play it safe, but does that really yield the results you're after? When you say there are other metrics like power output, how reliable are they compared to the raw effort of maxing out? Are we just avoiding the discomfort because it’s easier? What’s the deal with the 6-minute intervals anyway—just a catchy number, or is there something more solid backing it up?

 

[Fango]

I hear you on the allure of VO2 max, but focusing solely on it may overlook other crucial aspects of training. I once neglected power output, favoring max efforts, until a cycling buddy pointed out my lack in endurance. Balance is key; 6-minute intervals can be handy, but they're not the be-all, end-all ‍ Admittedly, pushing past discomfort isn't always fun, but the payoff is worth it. What about you? Ever experiment with different training methods?

 

[Jim]

So, if we're talking about the 6-minute intervals, what's the deal with people not pushing hard enough? Are we just chasing a number instead of actual effort? If you're not gasping for air, what are you really achieving? And this power output stuff—does it even compare to hitting VO2 max? Feels like a lot of folks are just coasting and calling it training. Where's the evidence that this method is better than just going all out?