What this interval might be for?

for sprinting, in fact they are sprints and not intervals IMO

They might target some L7 neuromuscular power, but probably miss the mark since they're not done full out but rather with the intention of hitting the shut down 'burn' marker at around 20 seconds.

They might target some L6 AWC work, but again probably miss the mark since you've defined the somewhat arbitrary 'burn' trigger to stop them instead of best effort for a known duration and the rest intervals are pretty long for AWC work.

I'm sure there's some benefit in the L6/L7 range and some spillover to more sustainable power generation as anything is better than nothing but IMO this exactly opposite of the way intervals should be designed.

Instead of crafting an interval routine that seems interesting and then trying to figure out what physiological processes the routine targets it's traditional to start from the other end. Target a physiological process that you'd like to work on that relates to your goals, target events, strengths or particularly weaknesses. Then build an interval routine or training method that targets that process based on interval duration, intensity, recovery duration and overall session duration/workload.

So you may have found an interesting routine, but it doesn't seem to target anything directly and sort of falls into the 'neither here nor there' camp, sort of like 5 minute efforts at Threshold pace or forty five second efforts performed in L5 power range. Sure all of that may lead to progress in a beginner who hasn't done much if any structured training but in general it's best to avoid work that feels hard yet doesn't really target a specific fitness goal.

Since ya asked,

-Dave

actually these are recommended by a sport scientist. Just wanted to know what other people think of them. Probably too old a link to mention: http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0101/cf.htm

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Instead of crafting an interval routine that seems interesting and then trying to figure out what physiological processes the routine targets it's traditional to start from the other end.

too scientific for you to learn...
1.- first define training areas: endurance, sprints, climbing (short - long), time trailing, anaerobic efforts (attacks - respond to attacks), breakway effort, others.
2.- Do your club weekend rides or racing and mentally discover where you are weak among these parameters,
3.- Add specific training you may need to your normal training schedule to get better overall

The answer is in the article you linked. The folk's at McMaster structured a study to see if interval training yeilds benefits. They did not claim to invent an ideal interval protocol nor did they suggest that anyone should necessarily use this to target specific events. They did discuss the possible implications to time trials.

There are literally thousands of studies that are structured to test some hypothesis or another, the protocols used in those studies are typically debated after the fact in peer review and often shown to be poorly structured in terms of hypothesis testing but rarely do the specific test protocols survive to become standard training methods. Exceptions include Tabata intervals and some of the classic VO2 Max intervals. But in general if you're going to take a study protocol and adopt it as a training method then read the study carefully and ask yourself what they were trying to prove, whether they structured and ran the study well including controls and population and whether the outcome is relevant to your goals.

Personally I don't see the application of the intervals you've described in my training or that of the folks I work with. I'd tend to either do more classic interval or sprint training or something like Tabatas for high end work. I still think they fall into the neither here nor there category of anaerobic intervals.

-Dave

I don't want to be impolite but I really wonder why I ask a question and some people ignore the question and start teaching me other stuff they think I don't know. Have you anything on the matter of the question?

The link I (necro)posted is not related to the scientist who recommends the intervals and he also suggeest some different explanation than the article. I only want forum users' ideas what these intervals might be good for, a bit if theory only.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by vspa [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

too scientific for you to learn...
1.- first define training areas: endurance, sprints, climbing (short - long), time trailing, anaerobic efforts (attacks - respond to attacks), breakway effort, others.
2.- Do your club weekend rides or racing and mentally discover where you are weak among these parameters,
3.- Add specific training you may need to your normal training schedule to get better overall

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by dot [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

The intervals lasts 25-30 seconds and is done at steady level oat such intensity that one feels legs starting burn after about 20-25 seconds. The interval has to be stopped after 3-5 seconds of burning. The interval is repeated multiple times (10-20) every 3-5 minutes to full recover. My heart rate jumps over 90% of MHR and ocassionally might hit 95% by the of interval. I can't say power numbers since I don't know them I only know about the feeling of burning.

I'm interested in your opinions what this interval might be good for.

A race where everyone goes hard for 25-30sec then all ease up and allow for full recovery. Only thing that comes close is a Points Race but even these events vary in the peaks and just how much recovery you may get. Maybe a crit with big money primes and a field full of sprinters although you would expect someone would try and jump away or counter attack after one sprint as they do in points races. On the track I do motorpaced points race simulations where the riders perform a progressive sprint every 5th lap for a full 400m lap. This is to simulate the move into position and getting the pacing of the sprint right so they gain points but don't burn too many matches in the process.

I would consider these efforts a mix of repeated sprint performance and one off sprint performance and my take is mixed training = mixed results. Either you train for a 500m or Kilo with maximal efforts and full recovery or you do intervals at a percentage of max power or FTP with incomplete recovery.

you are not being impolite, i see your point, daveryan's and fergie's answers might be what you are looking for.

Dot - it is unfortunate if you perceive Dave & Fergie's comments as pedantic. They refer to ideas other than the ones noted in your link because these other ideas are more optimal ways to improve your (40k) performance. It doesn't seem overbearing, to me at least, for them to direct you towards other techniques that will provide better results.

FWIW, I agree completely with Dave.....the intervals as you described them are basically 'tweeners'....not hard enough to count as true sprint training but not long enough to provide a true stimulus for vo2max improvements much less for metabolic fitness.

You might point to the studies and mention how 30 second sprints improved 40k times....well, in untrained or newer athletes, almost anything will improve 40k times, even lifting weights actually. So if you are newer to riding or just returning from a layoff, then sure, you'll probably see some improvement. If you aren't though then you might just be subjecting yourself to a great deal of pain without much return for your effort.

Moreover, what these studies have failed to do is show a comparison whereby one group did the short (e.g., 30 second intervals) while another did classic 'continuous' intervals (15-30 minutes long). I'd bet more than a few quid that the latter would be superior as such intervals are especially useful at improving sustainable power and metabolic fitness....both of which are key determinants of 40k TT performance.

Mind you, there is a definite place for "on/off" type intervals as part of training as shown by micro-intervals and/or Billat's 30/30's. For instance, if you pedal continuously 15s on @ 150% FT & 15s off @ 50% FT for 20 minutes, you'd be performing training that's likely more useful for improving your sustainable power. Although to be fair, the exact effects of micro-intervals have not been studied in detail.

no no, it was me he was refering to

Quote:Originally Posted by dot [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

The intervals lasts 25-30 seconds and is done at steady level oat such intensity that one feels legs starting burn after about 20-25 seconds. The interval has to be stopped after 3-5 seconds of burning. The interval is repeated multiple times (10-20) every 3-5 minutes to full recover. My heart rate jumps over 90% of MHR and ocassionally might hit 95% by the of interval. I can't say power numbers since I don't know them I only know about the feeling of burning.

I'm interested in your opinions what this interval might be good for.

It's the 'I'm thinking that I'm training really hard for something but I'm not sure what that something is but it sounds great when chatting with the lads' interval.

I'd stick a name to it though "the quitters interval" - when it starts to get hard... You quit! Could also be called "impotent intervals" because it never gets hard...

I better stop before I get more posts deleted by the mods...

I'm gonna point out two things. There were 8 min intervals in the study (well, just half of 15 mins), and 4 min and 30 sec produced better results.
The second thing: why does no one question how a 30 sec interval is able to produce some good results (ok, let's admit here 20x2 are far more superior)? I only notice that everyone says that these're weenies' intervals, not enough suffering involved.

I didn't ask the question because there are "cheater" intervals. I asked because I've got two independent sources, the first one suggests that 30 sec intervals are good for 40k TT and the other one is a local sport scientist, who proposes these are aerobic intervals and has his own explanation. He's been published but not in English. But Fergie (and i'm not a track racer) and Davie know better for sure without any explanation while I expected something else from the pros: analysis. I was wrong, again.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by DancenMacabre [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

You might point to the studies and mention how 30 second sprints improved 40k times....well, in untrained or newer athletes, almost anything will improve 40k times, even lifting weights actually. So if you are newer to riding or just returning from a layoff, then sure, you'll probably see some improvement. If you aren't though then you might just be subjecting yourself to a great deal of pain without much return for your effort.
Moreover, what these studies have failed to do is show a comparison whereby one group did the short (e.g., 30 second intervals) while another did classic 'continuous' intervals (15-30 minutes long). I'd bet more than a few quid that the latter would be superior as such intervals are especially useful at improving sustainable power and metabolic fitness....both of which are key determinants of 40k TT performance.

As I recall Stepto etal who did a study that found that 30sec intervals were as effective for improving 40km TT performance as 4min efforts did not offer a reason why the 30sec efforts had such an effect but did suggest that it would involve two different physiological mechanisms.