VO2 focus before threshold focus

Quadsweep said:

This sound logical so why isn't it all "the rage" with the pro's, physiologist/coaches?

One possible reason is that they prefer their training season to progress from more general training to more specific (aka periodization). VO2max level interval training tends to be more specific to the surges and efforts seen during racing than the much longer threshold efforts.

frenchyge said:

One possible reason is that they prefer their training season to progress from more general training to more specific (aka periodization). VO2max level interval training tends to be more specific to the surges and efforts seen during racing than the much longer threshold efforts.

Thanx and that is logical too....but is not sustainable threshold power the most important physiological element in road racing ? Since it is, then should not threshold power be the last thing focused upon before a big race?

Quadsweep said:

Since it is, then should not threshold power be the last thing focused upon before a big race?

This came up somewhat indirectly on the topica wattage list recently. For an opposing viewpoint, have a gander at this:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/wattage/read/message.html?mid=913346382&sort=d&start=43850

To summarize badly, doing quality L5 work requires good metabolic fitness. Having a higher threshold will mean you can spend more time near VO2Max.

There is a view that speed workouts should be introduced earlier in the season with the reason that speed should not be the limiting factor in an athlete's training. I don't think that has to anything to do with VO2max though.

While most top athletes have a high VO2max, it's efficiency that plays the biggest part in their ability to run, ride, or ski faster than the rest. Frank Shorter, for example, had a VO2max of 71.3, lower than some of the top women athletes. Lance Armstrong had a VO2max of 83, [censored] poor compared to Lemond's 92.

Espen Harald Bjerke holds the record at 96, but he's never won anything major. Thor Hushovd's best is 86, yet he's never won a single mountain stage.

VO2max is like penis size. Doesn't matter how big it is, what matters is how it performs.

kuan said:

VO2max is like penis size. Doesn't matter how big it is, what matters is how it performs.

But size AND knowing how to us it surely trumps you here[img]cyclingforums.comrolleyes.gifOpen ↗[/img], especially after she has had a kid or two[img]cyclingforums.comtongue.gifOpen ↗[/img]
So a high VO2 max will potentially allow for a greater threshold, providing you have decent cycling economy, which is not as difficult/genetic as running economy

Quadsweep said:

But size AND knowing how to us it surely trumps you here[img]cyclingforums.comrolleyes.gifOpen ↗[/img], especially after she has had a kid or two[img]cyclingforums.comtongue.gifOpen ↗[/img]
So a high VO2 max will potentially allow for a greater threshold, providing you have decent cycling economy, which is not as difficult/genetic as running economy

Well to be absolutely blunt, lose the excess fat. 😄

kuan said:

Well to be absolutely blunt, lose the excess fat. 😄

Good counter he he he[img]cyclingforums.comtongue.gifOpen ↗[/img]
Good point...that is the best way to boost VO2 anyway.[img]cyclingforums.comredface.gifOpen ↗[/img]

kuan said:

While most top athletes have a high VO2max, it's efficiency that plays the biggest part in their ability to run, ride, or ski faster than the rest. Frank Shorter, for example, had a VO2max of 71.3, lower than some of the top women athletes. Lance Armstrong had a VO2max of 83, [censored] poor compared to Lemond's 92.

No it's not. In endurance exercise, it's power at LT (or sustainable TTpower aka FTP) or VO2max/MAP, which is the rate limiting mechanism in endurance sport.

While efficiency (and economy) may play a bigger role in (e.g.) running compared to cycling (where cycling you're constrained by the pedals in the sagittal plane, and thus efficiency varies little between cyclists compared to runners) i'm thinking that the Shorter thing is some sort of urban myth or that he was tested for VO2max (badly) or off-season.

And, hasn't someone worked out that LA had to have had a higher VO2max than 83 mL/kg/min to have done the performances he did?

ric

Quadsweep said:

Good counter he he he[img]cyclingforums.comtongue.gifOpen ↗[/img]
Good point...that is the best way to boost VO2 anyway.[img]cyclingforums.comredface.gifOpen ↗[/img]

Why raise the ceiling until your near it because otherwise it's not the limiting issue? Plus trying to do Vo2 work before your FTP is well developed (as in well developed compared with your lifetime FTP potential not your previous fitness) is not very productive. Afterall just because your working at 106-120% of FTP doesn't mean that your properly stressing adaptations to raise V02max. There are some adaptations that you can reap from L5 work without a fully developed FTP but that might not be the best use of training time.

Quadsweep said:

There are some trainers/physiologists(ieDavid Morris) that believe that it is best to focus on VO2 max before threshold in the training year. I think the rationale is that since threshold power is a fraction of VO2 max that a person should try to increase VO2 max before trying to increase threshold power. A higher VO2 max means, in theory at least, that you could develope a higher lactate threshold.

This sound logical so why isn't it all "the rage" with the pro's, physiologist/coaches?

it's often called reverse periodisation, and i've been using it for years especially with time limited people (e.g., you ride a trainer during the winter weekdays for an hour tops). but who i use it with and when, if at all, will depend on each athletes circumstances, that are individual to them

ric

Quadsweep said:

There are some trainers/physiologists(ieDavid Morris) that believe that it is best to focus on VO2 max before threshold in the training year. I think the rationale is that since threshold power is a fraction of VO2 max that a person should try to increase VO2 max before trying to increase threshold power. A higher VO2 max means, in theory at least, that you could develope a higher lactate threshold.

This sound logical so why isn't it all "the rage" with the pro's, physiologist/coaches?

Threshold before, or VO2Max before. This sounds like a Black or White question to me. I like shades of gray better.

For instance, nothing should stop one to mix the two concepts or 'school of thoughts' together. If the idea (for you) is that you want to make sure you have plenty of room for LT development (by addressing VO2Max first), then you may include a 3-5x5min workout without pushing at 100% of your MMP for this duration. For instance, if you've managed to generate 350w on avg during your 5x5 workouts last summer. You could start early in the season at 320 5x5. That would give one a workout over 100% FTP, if he thinks that's what it takes to insure proper FTP development.

An other approach could be, as a second threshold workout in the week, to try 10min intervals. They'd be done as 5min FTP (easy) followed by the best ramp up you can output, ending at 100% pVO2Max. This one would be an hybrid you see? Again not black or white.

These days I'm working on the following:
30-15-10-5 minutes. Of course the intensity is greater from one interval to the other. If I want nothing stops me from taking a long break after the 10min one, in order to attack the 5min near pVO2Max. That's an other example.

One may want to work ont the 3min MMP off season, if this aspect is neglected during the racing season. The possibilities are endless.

Quadsweep said:

There are some trainers/physiologists(ieDavid Morris) that believe that it is best to focus on VO2 max before threshold in the training year. I think the rationale is that since threshold power is a fraction of VO2 max that a person should try to increase VO2 max before trying to increase threshold power. A higher VO2 max means, in theory at least, that you could develope a higher lactate threshold.

This sound logical so why isn't it all "the rage" with the pro's, physiologist/coaches?

This is why.
VO2 training is very intense so if you focus on it before you do a good deal of threshold training you will probably peak at the wrong time and since we cannot hold a peak for more than roughly 4 weeks, or perhaps 6-8 weeks with drugs, then it makes no sense to be doing much VO2 work before working on your power at threshold.
Also, VO2max is easily maxed out (a high VO2max is mostly genetic) through training whereas boosting that percentage of it (threshold) is much more trainable.

My .02

TiMan said:

This is why.
VO2 training is very intense so if you focus on it before you do a good deal of threshold training you will probably peak at the wrong time

if perhaps, you don't know what you're doing

Quoted post said:

and since we cannot hold a peak for more than roughly 4 weeks, or perhaps 6-8 weeks with drugs, then it makes no sense to be doing much VO2 work before working on your power at threshold.
Also, VO2max is easily maxed out (a high VO2max is mostly genetic) through training whereas boosting that percentage of it (threshold) is much more trainable.

My .02

VO2max is only ~50% genetic. It's a myth to think that it isn't trainable

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

if perhaps, you don't know what you're doing

VO2max is only ~50% genetic. It's a myth to think that it isn't trainable

ric

What's with the wise crack? I was just answering the dudes question from 13 "practical" years of national level Cat 1 experience.

And, show me the data that says VO2 potential is only 50% genetic. Your comment is not true. Sure you can train VO2 but it isn't nearly as trainable as threshold.

ric_stern/RST said:

No it's not. In endurance exercise, it's power at LT (or sustainable TTpower aka FTP) or VO2max/MAP, which is the rate limiting mechanism in endurance sport.

While efficiency (and economy) may play a bigger role in (e.g.) running compared to cycling (where cycling you're constrained by the pedals in the sagittal plane, and thus efficiency varies little between cyclists compared to runners) i'm thinking that the Shorter thing is some sort of urban myth or that he was tested for VO2max (badly) or off-season.

And, hasn't someone worked out that LA had to have had a higher VO2max than 83 mL/kg/min to have done the performances he did?

ric

Armstrong facts off his web site.

Max power at VO2 was 600watts!!!!
VO2ml/kg 83.8

TiMan said:

And, show me the data that says VO2 potential is only 50% genetic. Your comment is not true.

yes it is (true)

Quoted post said:

Sure you can train VO2 but it isn't nearly as trainable as threshold.

i never said otherwise

TiMan said:

And, show me the data that says VO2 potential is only 50% genetic.

Try this for starters:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9372481&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

Or, do a PubMed search using the terms "HERITAGE" and "VO2max" (the data to which Ric alludes came from the HERITAGE study headed up by Dr. Claude Bouchard).

TiMan said:

Your comment is not true.

Ric said (w/ regards to VO2max) "it's a myth to think that it isn't trainable" - do you disagree?

TiMan said:

Sure you can train VO2 but it isn't nearly as trainable as threshold.

On this I think we would all agree (indeed, one must, since 1) VO2max is clearly trainable, but 2) LT increases even when expressed as a percentage of VO2max...ergo, the potential scope or magnitude of increase in LT must be greater than the potential scope or magnitude of increase in VO2max).

acoggan said:

Try this for starters:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9372481&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

Or, do a PubMed search using the terms "HERITAGE" and "VO2max" (the data to which Ric alludes came from the HERITAGE study headed up by Dr. Claude Bouchard).

Ric said (w/ regards to VO2max) "it's a myth to think that it isn't trainable" - do you disagree?

On this I think we would all agree (indeed, one must, since 1) VO2max is clearly trainable, but 2) LT increases even when expressed as a percentage of VO2max...ergo, the potential scope or magnitude of increase in LT must be greater than the potential scope or magnitude of increase in VO2max).

Okay, What about coming to my rescue too Andrew? What do you think about the "other" part of my original comment.
VO2 training is very intense so if you focus on it before you do a good deal of threshold training you will probably peak at the wrong time

Quadsweep said:

There are some trainers/physiologists(ieDavid Morris) that believe that it is best to focus on VO2 max before threshold in the training year. I think the rationale is that since threshold power is a fraction of VO2 max that a person should try to increase VO2 max before trying to increase threshold power. A higher VO2 max means, in theory at least, that you could develope a higher lactate threshold.

This sound logical so why isn't it all "the rage" with the pro's, physiologist/coaches?

Even as one who both uses and prescribes this method, I think the answer in when to use it is "it depends".

One of the big factors on which it depends, IMHO, is the starting point in training.

For an athlete who has raced a very full season, then takes off a good chuck of time (say 3-4 weeks almost completely off, or off entirely), often FTP will have degraded significantly (15-20% in some cases). A 6-8 week block empasizing L2-L4 (particularly 3 and 4), can provide a pretty good boost, to get back to within 5-7% of FTP. That way, your Vo2 workouts can begin (and end!) at higher absolute values.

If one ends the season fit, but not too burnt, and doesn't really want/require much time off (say 7-10 days of just light riding), I still schedule a bit (but shorter 3-4 wks) at L2-L4, for the same reasons.

Typically, I would try to schedule things so that another 2-4 week period of Vo2 focus can be done just prior to the first period of racing.