Will endurance training reduce your VO2max?

Aaberg said:

As far as I know the best way to increase your VO2max is to do workouts with high intensity, maybe from around your AT and up.

So, what happens during the off-season and during transition and foundation phases of your training. When I do e.g. 3 months of base training, how will that affect my VO2max? Will it increase, decrease, stay the same, or...?

I find plenty of information in this CTS-article:
http://www.trainright.com/page.asp?page_id=content&page_content=A-8&CategoryID=66&ArticleID=27#article

Aaberg said:

As far as I know the best way to increase your VO2max is to do workouts with high intensity, maybe from around your AT and up.

So, what happens during the off-season and during transition and foundation phases of your training. When I do e.g. 3 months of base training, how will that affect my VO2max? Will it increase, decrease, stay the same, or...?

____________________________________________________________
Aaberg - "Four out of three cyclists have problems with statistics..."

It will decrease. Take a look at the 'how not to lose fitness...' thread.

Aaberg said:

As far as I know the best way to increase your VO2max is to do workouts with high intensity, maybe from around your AT and up.

So, what happens during the off-season and during transition and foundation phases of your training. When I do e.g. 3 months of base training, how will that affect my VO2max? Will it increase, decrease, stay the same, or...?

Your VO2max won't decrease with endurance training, you will probably see a modest increase. Obviously it will drop during transition, from a peak seen during race season or after a period of high-intensity training. After 3 months of base training I would expect to have seen it slowly increase, although obviously not to the heights acheivable by higher-intensity training that maximally stresses those systems.
Bear in mind that VO2max is only one aspect of your aerobic fitness. Power at LT is a far more potent indicator of performance than VO2max.

Lindsay

DavidM said:

It will decrease. Take a look at the 'how not to lose fitness...' thread.

Why? Quite the contrary, long slow rides increase VO2max, as they increase heart stroke volume (and therefore cardiovascular capacity).
VO2max intervals are something different.
They do two things. First, it makes heart muscle stronger (not bigger ventricle volume as LSDs do) and second, it stimulates increase in the muscle mass, invovled in cycling movement.

To increase heart stroke volume short intervals with high intensity have the best effect. Long slow rides would also improve the heart stroke volume, but not as much as short high intensity intervals.

Normal and trained people have a heart stroke volume of around 80-100 mL (per stroke) at 30% of max HR. The heart stroke volume increase linearly up to around 120-140mL at 55-60% of max HR.

At 55-60% of max HR the stroke volume flattens off and stays at 120-140mL up to around 70-75% of max HR. Early research concluded that this meant that the most effective way to increase heart stroke volume would be to train at intensities around 60-75% of max HR because thats when the stroke volume peaks.

However, newer research shows that for normal people and athletes, this is only a temporarily flatting, the stroke volume increases again at around 70-70% of max HR. At 90% of max HR the stroke volume is around 160 mL. And the stroke volume contiues to increase up to around 180-200 mL as you approach max HR.

_______
Aaberg

dot said:

Why? Quite the contrary, long slow rides increase VO2max, as they increase heart stroke volume (and therefore cardiovascular capacity).
VO2max intervals are something different.
They do two things. First, it makes heart muscle stronger (not bigger ventricle volume as LSDs do) and second, it stimulates increase in the muscle mass, invovled in cycling movement.

Whilst quality endurance training (what i term zone 2) *will* increase stroke volume, it doesn't do so very effectively. Stroke volume is best increased at far higher, sustainable intensities such as those around TT power and zone 5. This is where the biggest increases in stroke volume occur.

Ric

ric_stern/RST said:

Whilst quality endurance training (what i term zone 2) *will* increase stroke volume, it doesn't do so very effectively. Stroke volume is best increased at far higher, sustainable intensities such as those around TT power and zone 5. This is where the biggest increases in stroke volume occur.

Ric

Please, can you both (I mean Aaberg too) give me some links to read on increased stroke volume (not cardiac output) after VO2max intervals. I've just been taught a little different.

biker-linz said:

After 3 months of base training I would expect to have seen it slowly increase, although obviously not to the heights acheivable by higher-intensity training that maximally stresses those systems.
Lindsay

After a flurry of off-list correspondence with Ric, I feel I ought to qualify this statement by saying that I consider base training to include all intensities up to threshold, including variable 'fartlek'-type efforts (what some of us term L3). I started 'serious' base training in January and include long intervals at TT pace from then onwards.

L.

dot said:

Why? Quite the contrary, long slow rides increase VO2max, as they increase heart stroke volume (and therefore cardiovascular capacity).
VO2max intervals are something different.
They do two things. First, it makes heart muscle stronger (not bigger ventricle volume as LSDs do) and second, it stimulates increase in the muscle mass, invovled in cycling movement.

There are so many supposed 'truths' about training which turn out to be historical, and misguided BS. Witness the massive 'base' overtraining that swimmers and rowers historically undertook before very recent times. So much advice, so much anecdotal opinion. Whatever you are training for, remember the three principals - Overload, Specificity, and Rest. Once up to basic fitness, no individual indicator (AT, VO2max, or more relevently sustainable road speed) will improve unless you train at or beyond the level where that indicator limits your performance. (Overload). If you don't ride at the relevent level some some time, that indicator will de-train. Another quite distinct form of adaptation is neuromuscular co-ordination, which is very intensity specific, and only trained at race pace, or when performing the specific sporting action, at competition intensity. (Specificity). Endless gentle miles concentrating on your pedalling style will benefit you nothing, and will not transfer into competition efforts. Finally, (Rest). It seems there is evidence slow rides can speed recovery, and generally, it is far easier for athetes to overtrain than undertrain. You might add in progression and periodicity in training scheduals to the 'big three' training principles.

Anything that doesn't fit into the above is probably predjudiced, evidence-free, innacurate BS. This of course includes cross training, gym work, one legged cycling etc, regardless of how many pages you training manual might have.

DavidM said:

There are so many supposed 'truths' about training which turn out to be historical, and misguided BS. Witness the massive 'base' overtraining that swimmers and rowers historically undertook before very recent times. So much advice, so much anecdotal opinion. Whatever you are training for, remember the three principals - Overload, Specificity, and Rest. Once up to basic fitness, no individual indicator (AT, VO2max, or more relevently sustainable road speed) will improve unless you train at or beyond the level where that indicator limits your performance. (Overload). If you don't ride at the relevent level some some time, that indicator will de-train. Another quite distinct form of adaptation is neuromuscular co-ordination, which is very intensity specific, and only trained at race pace, or when performing the specific sporting action, at competition intensity. (Specificity). Endless gentle miles concentrating on your pedalling style will benefit you nothing, and will not transfer into competition efforts. Finally, (Rest). It seems there is evidence slow rides can speed recovery, and generally, it is far easier for athetes to overtrain than undertrain. You might add in progression and periodicity in training scheduals to the 'big three' training principles.

Anything that doesn't fit into the above is probably predjudiced, evidence-free, innacurate BS. This of course includes cross training, gym work, one legged cycling etc, regardless of how many pages you training manual might have.

It's all quite well known. I don't know why you're writing it. Base is just key component for every other work. No one advocates only endless slow miles.

dot said:

It's all quite well known. I don't know why you're writing it. Base is just key component for every other work. No one advocates only endless slow miles.

Because there is a deluge of BS out there about training. I dispute that 'its all quite well known'. You just have to read some of the posts on this and any forum. And it wasn't 'well known' to me for many years, when I wasted time on unproductive training, and there was nobody to tell me otherwise. So, I'm sorry if its all very familiar.

DavidM said:

Because there is a deluge of BS out there about training. I dispute that 'its all quite well known'. You just have to read some of the posts on this and any forum. And it wasn't 'well known' to me for many years, when I wasted time on unproductive training, and there was nobody to tell me otherwise. So, I'm sorry if its all very familiar.

It seems our experiences are a bit different. But take a look at this:
http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?p=1673973#post1673973

dot said:

Please, can you both (I mean Aaberg too) give me some links to read on increased stroke volume (not cardiac output) after VO2max intervals. I've just been taught a little different.

Sorry for the late response.

I'm from Norway, and here's a doctor (Ulrik Wisløff) who is a specialist in cardiology and has done some research on heart stroke volume at different HR. There has been quite a bit of debate regarding his findings and training recommendations here in Norway.

He argues that the single most important factor for endurance athletes is a high VO2max. Based on his reasearch you get the most VO2max benefits from training at high intensities. However, he also argues that low intensity training is of little or no benefit for endurance athletes (many, including me do not agree with him on this ponit). See the following article:

fasterskier.comtraining.phpOpen ↗

You can also have a look at the following (norwegian) article. Even though it's in Norwegian, there's a couple of graphs that illustrates the findings of his research. The horisontal axis is "% of max HR", and the vertical axis is "Heart stroke volume in mL per kg".

stud.ntnu.noSkisport 6 2003.htmOpen ↗

I did a search on google on the string "ulrik wisloff heart and circulatory physiology" and came up with some of the research he has done in English, primarily on rats(!).

For example, this article:

ajpheart.physiology.orgH1301Open ↗

Maybe there are some other articles that are more relevant, I haven't read all of them...

________
Aaberg

Aaberg said:

Sorry for the late response.

I'm from Norway, and here's a doctor (Ulrik Wisløff) who is a specialist in cardiology and has done some research on heart stroke volume at different HR. There has been quite a bit of debate regarding his findings and training recommendations here in Norway.

He argues that the single most important factor for endurance athletes is a high VO2max. Based on his reasearch you get the most VO2max benefits from training at high intensities. However, he also argues that low intensity training is of little or no benefit for endurance athletes (many, including me do not agree with him on this ponit). See the following article:

fasterskier.comtraining.phpOpen ↗

You can also have a look at the following (norwegian) article. Even though it's in Norwegian, there's a couple of graphs that illustrates the findings of his research. The horisontal axis is "% of max HR", and the vertical axis is "Heart stroke volume in mL per kg".

stud.ntnu.noSkisport 6 2003.htmOpen ↗

I did a search on google on the string "ulrik wisloff heart and circulatory physiology" and came up with some of the research he has done in English, primarily on rats(!).

For example, this article:

ajpheart.physiology.orgH1301Open ↗

Maybe there are some other articles that are more relevant, I haven't read all of them...

________
Aaberg

The fasterskier article was interesting. That seems to make sense. But what about the weights? Does lifting heavy weights at few reps decrease mithochondrial density? Because that seems to be the principal argument against weight training for cycling.

Aaberg said:

Sorry for the late response.

I'm from Norway, and here's a doctor (Ulrik Wisløff) who is a specialist in cardiology and has done some research on heart stroke volume at different HR. There has been quite a bit of debate regarding his findings and training recommendations here in Norway.

He argues that the single most important factor for endurance athletes is a high VO2max. Based on his reasearch you get the most VO2max benefits from training at high intensities. However, he also argues that low intensity training is of little or no benefit for endurance athletes (many, including me do not agree with him on this ponit). See the following article:

fasterskier.comtraining.phpOpen ↗

You can also have a look at the following (norwegian) article. Even though it's in Norwegian, there's a couple of graphs that illustrates the findings of his research. The horisontal axis is "% of max HR", and the vertical axis is "Heart stroke volume in mL per kg".

stud.ntnu.noSkisport 6 2003.htmOpen ↗

I did a search on google on the string "ulrik wisloff heart and circulatory physiology" and came up with some of the research he has done in English, primarily on rats(!).

For example, this article:

ajpheart.physiology.orgH1301Open ↗

Maybe there are some other articles that are more relevant, I haven't read all of them...

________
Aaberg

Very interesting links. Have no background at all in lab testing, but it's fascinating to read about how research is done on rats, and learn that their V02 max and lactate levels are similar to humans.

So, I want to trade in my Boblemotor for a Mercedesmotor. Mein norwegian ist nicht gut, but it looks like the most effective training to raise V02 max would be 4X4 minute intervals at 90-95% max HR, with 3 minutes in between. Is this a correct conclusion?

whoawhoa said:

The fasterskier article was interesting. That seems to make sense. But what about the weights? Does lifting heavy weights at few reps decrease mithochondrial density? Because that seems to be the principal argument against weight training for cycling.

The 'reasoning' behind using the heavier weights in the 3-6 rep range is that this range elicits more strength gain than muscle size (hypertrophy) gain. Hypertrophy will decrease mithochondrial density since there will be an increase in muscle cross-sectional area with little if any increase in the number of mithochondria.

dhk said:

Very interesting links. Have no background at all in lab testing, but it's fascinating to read about how research is done on rats, and learn that their V02 max and lactate levels are similar to humans.

So, I want to trade in my Boblemotor for a Mercedesmotor. Mein norwegian ist nicht gut, but it looks like the most effective training to raise V02 max would be 4X4 minute intervals at 90-95% max HR, with 3 minutes in between. Is this a correct conclusion?

hey

i'm a exercise student, hopefully i can help a little and also hinder you with other info.

i definatly agree that high intensity exercise is the prime stimulis for increases in vo2 max and am sure many studies have indicated this. but depending on what distance race your competing in vo2max may not be the be all and end all.
high intensity training to is a large stimulis for increasing vo2max which is primarimy a central adaption ie to do with the heart and stroke volume as you were talking about. the low intensity training produces other peripheral adaptions (these are muscular) such as more capilaries, and very importantly more enzymes (mitochondrial). having these peripheral adaptions is important for reducing fatigue as you will find if you ever do a vo2max test maintaining vo2max is next to impossible. this is why there is great importance placed on the percentage of the vo2max you can maintain and how long you can maintain it for which is very; important for the cyclist among us.

a little interesting thing to provoke some discussion, strength athletes with large muscle mass do actually have high vo2max in absolute terms which means their bodies at say 110 kgs do use alot of oxygen but compaired to their body weight their vo2 is low making them bad endurance athletes.

cheers guys

ben

bfra6229 said:

hey

i'm a exercise student, hopefully i can help a little and also hinder you with other info.

high intensity training to is a large stimulis for increasing vo2max which is primarimy a central adaption ie to do with the heart and stroke volume as you were talking about. the low intensity training produces other peripheral adaptions (these are muscular) such as more capilaries, and very importantly more enzymes (mitochondrial). having these peripheral adaptions is important for reducing fatigue as you will find if you ever do a vo2max test maintaining vo2max is next to impossible. this is why there is great importance placed on the percentage of the vo2max you can maintain and how long you can maintain it for which is very; important for the cyclist among us.

cheers guys

ben

Just to clarify: training at an intensity which is primarily designed to increase VO2max will cause several adaptations

Increase in plasma volume

Increase in muscle mitochonodria (albeit at a lesser rate than training at TT power)

Greatest increases in capillarisation

Greatest increase in stroke volume/cardiac output

Other benefits too

ric

Aaberg said:

Sorry for the late response.

I'm from Norway, and here's a doctor (Ulrik Wisløff) who is a specialist in cardiology and has done some research on heart stroke volume at different HR. There has been quite a bit of debate regarding his findings and training recommendations here in Norway.

He argues that the single most important factor for endurance athletes is a high VO2max. Based on his reasearch you get the most VO2max benefits from training at high intensities. However, he also argues that low intensity training is of little or no benefit for endurance athletes (many, including me do not agree with him on this ponit). See the following article:

fasterskier.comtraining.phpOpen ↗

You can also have a look at the following (norwegian) article. Even though it's in Norwegian, there's a couple of graphs that illustrates the findings of his research. The horisontal axis is "% of max HR", and the vertical axis is "Heart stroke volume in mL per kg".

stud.ntnu.noSkisport 6 2003.htmOpen ↗

I did a search on google on the string "ulrik wisloff heart and circulatory physiology" and came up with some of the research he has done in English, primarily on rats(!).

For example, this article:

ajpheart.physiology.orgH1301Open ↗

Maybe there are some other articles that are more relevant, I haven't read all of them...

________
Aaberg

Thank you for response. I remember I read first mentioned article about a year ago. www.pponline.co.uk promotes the same training principles. No doubt, they work. But it's also very controversal. And it's not what I asked for. I just asked about how the VO2max interval training affects the size of a left ventricle and i'm also wondering why and how a VO2max value grows with such interval training. What happens to our body?

PS We've just got a reply from Ric, it clarifies some my questions but not at all.

PPS just have read the article at physiology.org. it's intervesting. Intensity was about 85-90% of VO2max. This is just below the level of 1h TT-power, I believe.
There were not maximal intensity workouts at 95-100% of VO2max for 60-90 seconds. I'm interested in complete understanding of this type of intervals. I believe shorter and more intense intervals stimulate muscle mass growth, make heart stronger not bigger and train anaerobic energy production pathways. Both increased muscle mass and stronger heart can contribute to higher VO2max values. Am I right?