Post Number: 406
|Posted on Friday, January 09, 2009 - 02:50 pm: |
On one of the many forums I visit I came across a person asking about Vo2max training.
The question asked was :-
"I just started Vo2max training after a winter focusing on FTP, my idea was to start with 5x5'@116%FTP, but during my first workout I realised I couldn't sustain that effort so I did 4x4'.
Reviewing my training log I've seen that I haven't done any Vo2max training in more than a year (I guess I did a bit in races).
So my question is: should I focus in shorter intervals @116% FTP and increase duration over time (begin with 4x4', then 5x4', 6x4', 7x4', 4x5', 5x5') or should I decrease intensity a little bit so I can complete a 5x5'?
Any other Vo2 max workout ideas are wellcome!"
Some replies :-
1. In a recient cycling weekly (UK) mag. Chris Hoy, GB track squad rider suggested V02 training could be carried out in 3 minute blocks.
He commented that 3 minutes is as long as could be tollerated at V02 max power. I am aware that 3 minutes efforts may only contain 1.5min @ V02 max and 5 min efferts would contain alot more ,
but there is a risk of doing the 5min @ an effert that will never reach v02
Simon Jones has also commented that the GB Track squad have moved away from 4min efferts as they are not specific enough. & instead are using more specific 2min efferts., perhaps 2on /2off,
There is a University study investigating different training paths for a 4km IP .
I guess this if for pure track, but there is some good ideas.
2. Sorry bro but that dude is not correct. 3 minutes repeats cannot be tolerated at VO2 max power.....true VO2 max repeats that is.
The dude is NOT reaching true VO2 max power if he is doing more than one 3 minute interval..
Let me explain...
First of all you don't need to be at 100% VO2 max to get a VO2 max benefit. In fact nobody can hold true VO2 max for more than a short period of time. In fact most guys cannot hold VO2 MAX for more than a few minutes. The heart rate will stay at max but the stroke volume will drop and thus VO2 max will drop. The heart can hold a VO2 heart rate but not a VO2 stroke volume....the heart muscle fatigues and the force of each beat drops off.
Best to do 5 minute sets for sure...at 95% VO2 max
Running Guru Jack Daniels agrees and there is nobody in running that is as respected as this man.
If you are going to do 3 minute intervals then you should shorten the rest periods at least for the first 3 to 2 minutes. That way you will reach 95% VO2 max sooner and get more time at this intensity and that is better training.
The real reason they like 3 minute intervals is because they are easier bro.....7 X 3 minutes is easier than 4 X 5 minutes even with a higher power.
5 minute intervals will make you mentally tough as hell...try them on a trainer. Mosty guys cannot do 5 because they start making "deals" with themselves...their minds start to play games....ie: saying this is way too F-ing hard...just finish the third one and you'll be good. HA!
Try this one too.....
Do a REAL VO2 max set once a week for your VO2 max training.
Just do one interval of 6 minutes... after a 10 minute build up in intensity....standing up and hammering as hard as hell for the last 90 seconds...then sprinting for the last 15 seconds. That's a REAL VO2 max interval. DONE! Go lay on the sofa!
Then do some threshold 20's later.
THAT will grow some new mitochondria(O2 power houses) and the micro vasculature to feed them AND it will force the heart to increase stroke volume(amount of blood that can be pumped out of the Lt. Ventricle in one beat).
The harder you train the less you CAN do...and the stronger you get. Total volume doesn't need to be that high at all.
Don't tell your competiton this....let them JRA(just ride around) for their 20 plus hour weeks.
Post Number: 407
|Posted on Friday, January 09, 2009 - 02:54 pm: |
I'm wondering in the 2nd reply how this person is convinced stroke volume will be increased? I'm sure he's not measuring it and from the work you have been doing Juerg you have found stroke volume can be increased at a much lower intensity?
Post Number: 408
|Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 02:37 am: |
Some info from Andy C about recovery for level 4 (threshold),5 (V02) & 6 (Anaerobic capacity) intervals :-
""Traditionally, recovery time between work and rest intervals has been a function of heart rate, but HR does little to indicate if you are ready to go again, and sometimes a complete recovery is not desired anyway. A better way of determining recovery is by muscle energetics. For both Level 4 and 5 intervals, all that really counts is what you do during the work interval; you are only trying to keep the intensity up, and not manipulating the work:recovery ratio to alter metabolism. No more than a brief mental break is really necessary for Level 4 intervals, and taking more than the minimal amount of rest really serves only to prolong the workout. Use whatever is convenient, such as how long it takes to turn around on an out-and-back course and take a brief drink. With Level 5 efforts, given that the half-life for phosphocreatine resynthesis is about 20-30 seconds, muscle energetics should be almost completely recovered in 2.5 minutes, or ~5-6
half-lives. Other factors, of course, contribute to fatigue, and it may eventually accumulate, such that stretching recovery to 5 minutes will allow power levels to be maintained in later efforts, but using longer rest periods throughout the entire workout will not allow overall intensity to be raised significantly.
Level 6 sessions are more complex. If the purpose is to work on both musculoskeletal power and anaerobic metabolism simultaneously, or if you are in a peaking phase, then longer recovery periods may be useful, as they will allow you to maintain the highest overall power. What is long enough is a matter of feel, developed through experience, and will vary with the individual, as well as practical considerations such as route characteristics (e.g., how long it takes to get back down and turned around during hill repeats.) On the other hand, if you are trying train anaerobic capacity alone, then incomplete recovery may be the way to go, so as to “stack up” the metabolic stress, but with too short a recovery, the average power may be too low, and it ends up being a quasi-aerobic effort. So the test of whether recovery is sufficient is simple . . . if it is hard, but still possible, to complete the last repetition within ~10% of the third rep or so,
then wattage was correct, and recovery was adequate. If average power falls significantly before the last effort, then either it was too high, or recovery was too short, or perhaps some of both. Lastly, if you can complete the workout too easily, then the wattage was probably too low. Thus, pacing is important throughout the full workout (just as within a single effort), so for instance, if you feel strong in the first interval of a workout, stay at the planned wattage and save a little for later on, trying to finish strongly, rather than fade in the last repetition. The exception is Level 6 intervals, when done only to increase anaerobic capacity, which suggests they be done “all out,” so that power is very high initially, then is allowed to decline during the interval."
Post Number: 409
|Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 03:14 am: |
Some inside views from power meter users on Vo2 max intervals :-
"My other recollections are that it takes about 3 minutes for the left
ventricle to achieve maximum output. I believe it was Andy who said, "For
level 5 training, 3 min is a little on the short side for my tastes, since
you'll likely only be approaching VO2max/maximal cardiac output towards the
end of the interval. OTOH, you still aren't likely to see a
large improvement in anaerobic capacity unless you indeed do them "flat out"
(which is how Dean Golich coaches people to do them). Either way, though, when in
your training program and how often you do such workouts is likely far more
important than the precise duration of the efforts (in that 3-8 min window,
There was a study (of runners I believe) suggesting that 4 minutes was
ideal, but as the other posters stated, there are many ways to impact VO2.
I can dig up the abstract if anyone wants to see it.
Andy's chart suggests that training in levels 2 through 6 can improve
VO2max, but most bang for your buck occurs when you train VO2Max by training
at VO2Max intensity (Level 5).
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/powe r411/levels.asp "
"FWIW: my Vo2 workouts are simple, 6x5' at 120% of FTP (+/-). 5' rest
between. Do them on a hill. It ain't rocket science. "
"It's very, very, very hard to achieve 100% of VO2max during each and
every effort, regardless of your training status. Then again, nobody
said you had to get to 100% of VO2max to achieve a training effect.
Or you could just reduce the power to where they can do intervals that
are 3-8 min in duration.
The half-life for changes in whole-body VO2 are on the order of 30 s or
so - this means that it takes 1.5-2 min for your VO2 (and HR, cardiac
output, muscle blood flow, etc.) to rise to >90% of that required.
Hence, unless you keep the rest period sufficiently short, intervals
that are less than about 3 min in length place more emphasis on
anaerobic capacity, not aerobic power.
Remember Eddie Burke recommending 30 s on, 30 s off intervals back in the
1970's (and now the "magic bullet" among pro cyclists seems to be 40 s
on, 20 s off). Be that as it may, I doubt it really makes any difference. One way or another which way you do them - as long as you actually DO do them".
"At the USA Cycling coaching summit in CO Springs last fall, a professor from, I beileve, Eastern Michigan (don't have his name in front of me - sorry) presented a session on intervals.
He presented a couple options for VO2 max intervals -
option 1 was, IIRC - 3-8 minutes at approx VO2 max power
option 2 was what he termed 30-30's - 30 seconds at 120% of VO2max power, followed by 30 sec at 70% of VO2 (someone who has the powerpoints handy could confirm the numbers for me).
In any case - one of his comments was that the steady intervals seemed to "work better" for time trialist types, where the 30-30's seemed to work better for sprinters. I'd have to go back to my notes - I think "work better" meant better tolerance for the workout, not necessarily better adaptation.
Again - this is all from memory. Hopefully somebody can fill in more details, but the pattern was interesting given what The Dude was saying about his experiences. "
>steady intervals seemed to "work better" for time trialist types, where the 30-30's seemed to work better for sprinters<.
"Or so it has been claimed.
One factor that I believe is important to keep in mind is that it is
possible to achieve maximal cardiac output, and hence VO2max, using
different combinations of heart rate and stroke volume, and that
drifting up to VO2max during training with a higher heart rate and
lower stroke volume *might* not result in the same physiological
adaptations as when VO2max is achieved at a lower heart rate and
higher stroke volume."
> So shorter intervals is associated with larger strong volume?<
"If by shorter you mean, say, 3-5 min vs. 6-8 min, then yes. However,
if by shorter you mean only 30 s (with VO2max eventually achieved due
to short rest periods between efforts), the answer would be no.
Let me again emphasize that I'm simply putting forth a hypothesis,
i.e., I am not aware of any data directly demonstrating that achieving
maximal stroke volume (vs. maximal cardiac output and/or VO2max) is somehow key..."
Post Number: 410
|Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 03:20 am: |
Here's a study on short V02 type intervals :-
Very short (15s-15s) interval-training around the critical velocity allows middle-aged runners to maintain VO2 max for 14 minutes.
Billat VL, Slawinksi J, Bocquet V, Chassaing P, Demarle A, Koralsztein JP.
Laboratoire d'étude de la motricité humaine, Université de Lille II, Faculté des Sciences du Sport, Ronchin, France. email@example.com
The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of three very short interval training sessions (15-15 s of hard and easier runs) run at an average velocity equal to the critical velocity to elicit VO2 max for more than 10 minutes. We hypothesized that the interval with the smallest amplitude (defined as the ratio between the difference in velocity between the hard and the easy run divided by the average velocity and multiplied by 100) would be the most efficient to elicit VO2 max for the longer time. The subjects were middle-aged runners (52 +/- 5 yr, VO2 max of 52.1 +/- 6 mL x min(-1) x kg(-1), vVO2 max of 15.9 +/- 1.8 km x h(-1), critical velocity of 85.6 +/- 1.2% vVO2 max) who were used to long slow distance-training rather than interval training. They performed three interval-training (IT) sessions on a synthetic track (400 m) whilst breathing through the COSMED K4b2 portable metabolic analyser. These three IT sessions were: A) 90-80% vVO2 max (for hard bouts and active recovery periods, respectively), the amplitude= (90-80/85) 100=11%, B) 100-70% vVO2 max amplitude=35%, and C) 60 x 110% vVO2 max amplitude = 59%. Interval training A and B allowed the athlete to spend twice the time at VO2 max (14 min vs. 7 min) compared to interval training C. Moreover, at the end of interval training A and B the runners had a lower blood lactate than after the procedure C (9 vs. 11 mmol x l(-1)). In conclusion, short interval-training of 15s-15s at 90-80 and 100-70% of vVO2 max proved to be the most efficient in stimulating the oxygen consumption to its highest level in healthy middle-aged long-distance runners used to doing only long slow distance-training.
Post Number: 411
|Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 03:23 am: |
New vVO2max workouts lead to impressive gains in fitness
Veronique Billat is at it again. The French scientist who brought that proud old physiological variable VO2max to its knees, replacing it with the much more valuable and predictive vVO2max, and who was the first scientist to show endurance athletes exactly how to optimize vVO2max, has now developed two new vVO2max-expanding workouts which can produce huge improvements in performance.
The concept of vVO2max can be simply defined as the velocity which produces the highest-possible rate of oxygen consumption. The classic Billat strategem for hoisting vVO2max, as well as lactate threshold and efficiency of movement (economy), was a workout consisting of five three-minute intervals at vVO2max, with three-minute 'float' recoveries after the intervals. The diminutive genius from the University of Lille was able to show experimentally that this simple workout, carried out on a weekly basis, could upgrade vVO2max and lactate threshold by 3% and economy by 6% in as short a time as nine weeks (1).
Never one to rest on her laurels, Billat has now developed a pair of vVO2max sessions which can lead to impressive gains in fitness. In one of the new workouts, the idea is to warm up thoroughly and then alternate just 30 seconds of moving along at vVO2max (instead of the classic but agonising three minutes) with 30 seconds of 'floating' at 50% of vVO2max (2). In her new research, Billat studied eight well-trained male endurance runners, with an average age of 34, who were running about 35-40 miles per week. Their average VO2max was a pretty decent 60 ml/min.kg-1, their mean vVO2max was 18.5 km/hr (a pace of 5:13 per mile) and their lactate-threshold velocity was 82% of vVO2max, or 15.2 km/hr (6:21 per mile).
After these runners were evaluated for VO2max, vVO2max, and lactate-threshold running speed, they carried out two different workouts, as follows:
1. After warming up with 15 minutes of easy jogging, they alternated 30-second work intervals at 100% of vVO2max with 30-second recoveries at 50% of vVO2max, sustaining this pattern for as long as possible. For example, a runner who had a vVO2max of 20 km/hr (5.55m per second) would run 166 metres during the 30-second work intervals and about half that distance (83m) during the 30-second recoveries, thus achieving 50% of vVO2max. If you are worrying about the exactness of the recovery interval, let me reassure you that hitting 50% of vVO2max 'right on the head' during recovery intervals is not that important; the gains in fitness associated with the workout come from the vVO2max work, not specifically from the recovery effort. It is important, however, for the recoveries to be run slowly - at some speed reasonably close to 50% vVO2max - so that you can sustain 100% of vVO2max, and not some lower percentage, during the work intervals.
2. The second workout was a continuous run (no work intervals, no rest intervals - just hard, sustained running) in which the athletes warmed up and then ran for as long as possible at a speed exactly halfway between their lactate-threshold velocity and vVO2max. In practice, this turned out to be an average of about 91% of vVO2max, or approximately 16.9 km/hr (5:43 per mile).
Thus, during the at-vVO2max interval workout, the athletes were running at an average tempo of 78 seconds per 400m, but in 30-second 'chunks', while in the continuous session the runners scampered along at 85 seconds per 400m without stopping. In both cases, Billat's athletes kept working as long as they possibly could. The athletes conducted both sessions on a synthetic track while breathing through a portable telemetric metabolic analyser, which allowed Billat to determine their actual rates of oxygen consumption.
Is this strange, or what?
Strangely enough, when the athletes carried out the continuous workout at a speed halfway between lactate threshold and vVO2max (ie at a velocity lower than vVO2max), more than half of the runners (five out of eight) actually reached their maximum rate of oxygen consumption!
Hold on, you must be saying! Isn't vVO2max the running speed which elicits VO2max? How could five of the runners move along at an intensity halfway between lactate threshold and vVO2max - ie 9-% slower than vVO2max - and still pull good-old VO2max out of the hat?
If that question troubles you, bear in mind that 'Veronique's vVO2max' is reached in the laboratory during a treadmill test in which running speed is steadily and progressively increased in an effort to make the rate of oxygen consumption rise as high as possible. Each specific velocity utilised in this test is sustained for a relatively short period of time, and the first velocity which corresponds with VO2max is chosen as vVO2max.
Now you see it! Since each velocity in Veronique's test is 'touched on' for a relatively brief period, it is quite possible that a speed slower than Veronique's vVO2max could actually elicit VO2max - if it were given enough time to do so! Veronique's test, however, does not permit dawdling at various speeds, so vVO2max is reached at a rather high speed (that is to say, a higher speed than the minimal velocity which would provoke VO2max).
Although that makes the 'halfway-between lactate threshold and vVO2max' workout seem pretty good (since it could call up VO2max in more than 50% of the runners), the trouble with the halfway workout was that it actually produced VO2max for a very short duration of time within the workout. In fact, VO2max was sustained for an average of only two minutes and 42 seconds during the halfway session, even though runners were able to keep going at the halfway pace for an average of eight minutes and 20 seconds (the rest of the time, of course, being spent below VO2max). Thus, just 32% of total running time was performed at VO2max.
Now is not the time to think: 'So what?' Remember that time spent at VO2max is a critically important variable during training. Many experts believe (with backing from research) that time passed at VO2max during training is a much more potent fitness expander for endurance athletes than time spent at 80, 90 or even 95% VO2max. The reason for this is clear: if you are forcing your heart to send as much oxygen as possible to your muscles and also forcing your muscles to use the incoming oxygen at the highest-possible rate, that creates a maximal stimulus for the heart and muscles to adapt by enhancing the body's capacity to process oxygen. If you use a less intense stimulus, the muscles and heart will 'believe' they are meeting the demands of training quite well (since you haven't tried to push through the upper limit of O2 utilisation) and you will thus generate a smaller adaptive response to the training.
Much better results for 30-30
While the continuous running at a pace halfway between lactate-threshold speed and vVO2max led to a paltry total of less than three minutes at VO2max and 8:20 of overall running, the somewhat unusual strategy of alternating 30 seconds at vVO2max with 30 seconds of floating produced an average of 19 intervals at vVO2max before exhaustion set in, 9:30 of high-quality running, and a grand average of seven minutes and 51 seconds at VO2max (83% of the total). In other words it produced 19% more VO2max running than the continuous run! An additional 309 seconds were spent at VO2max during the 30-30 workout compared with the continuous run, yet blood-lactate levels were similar in the two efforts!
Interestingly, three individuals were able to complete between 22 and 27 intervals during the 30-30 workout, with as many as 18.5 minutes completed at actual VO2max. By contrast, the most expansive time spent at VO2max during the continuous run was seven minutes. If you are wondering how 27 30-second work intervals can lead to 18.5 minutes at VO2max (instead of, say, 13.5 minutes or less), bear in mind that runners often sustained VO2max during the 30-second recovery intervals too, even though they were running at only half of vVO2max! Obviously, there was a 'physiological lag' occurring, with the runners' bodies taking longer than 30 seconds to downshift oxygen usage as running pace slowed.
When the three subjects who hit 22-27 intervals during the 30-30 run tried the continuous exertion, one runner did not even reach VO2max, despite lasting seven minutes at the continuous pace! Another runner ran at VO2max for just 5:45, and the athlete who crested at VO2max for 18:30 during the 30-30 workout logged his max oxygen-burning rate for only 4:30 during the continuous run. These are huge differences!
he 30-30 workout is a powerhouse and, even though heart rate soars to near maximal near the end of the session, it is tolerated well, even by rather inexperienced runners, who tend to struggle with the more-challenging (5 x 3 minutes @ vVO2max) 'classic.' Indeed, Veronique has carried out new experimental work with modestly fit physical education students (VO2max = 54 ml/ min.kg-1) showing that a twice-weekly regimen of 30-30 workouts can boost VO2max by a whopping 10% in just 8-10 weeks!
Veronique recommends using the 30-30 session early in the season as an excellent, easily-tolerated way to kick-start improvements in VO2max, vVO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy. Anecdotally, 30-30, even when carried out to the point of exhaustion (ie the point at which vVO2max can no longer be sustained for a 30-second work interval) appears to be a little easier on runners' muscles and tendons than the crueller '3-3' session (5 x 3 minutes at vVO2max, with 3-minute recoveries).
After a month or so, you can progress from 30-30 to another Billat workout, the '60-60' (60 seconds at vVO2max alternating with 60 seconds of floats, again until exhaustion calls your name). Once you have become a master of 60-60, you can begin the classic (and much tougher) three-minute-interval-at-vVO2max workout to further improve vVO2max, VO2max, lactate threshold, and economy - and also broaden something called tlimvVO2max (the amount of time you can run continuously at vVO2max before stopping from fatigue). It so happens that tlimvVO2max is an excellent predictor of endurance performance in its own right.
Rating the workouts
Will 5 x 3 minutes improve VO2max, vVO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy more effectively than 30-30 and 60-60? In many cases, the answer is yes: the average time at VO2max during the 5 x 3 is around 10 minutes, about 25% more high-octane time than during the 30-30. Thus, moving from 30-30 to 5 x 3 is a beautiful progression, both in terms of the ease with which the workout can be accomplished and also the magnitude of the stimulus for physiological improvement.
Note, though, that individual variations might make the 30-30 better than 5 x 3 for some athletes. This is probably true of the athlete mentioned above, who lasted for 27 intervals during 30-30, totalling up 18:30 at VO2max; even if this runner spent all of 5 x 3 at VO2max, which is most unlikely, he would not be able to amass as much time at VO2max as he had done with the 30-30 effort. If you are the kind of runner who can handle more than 20 work intervals with the 30-30 session, you may want to think about alternating 30-30 with 5 x 3, even during the later stages of your overall training progression. Taking another course - shifting to 6 x 3 or even 7 x 3 - is not recommended, as the basic 5 x 3 appears to be quite challenging to the musculoskeletal system, even for experienced runners.
If you are new to PP and are not sure how to calculate your vVO2max, simply go to the track on a day when you are feeling great, the wind is a non-factor, the temperature and humidity are salubrious and your mental stress levels are low. After a great warm-up, set sail on the track at the fastest speed you can sustain for six minutes. After six minutes, mark where you are on the track and compute your vVO2max. For example, if you have travelled 1800 metres, your vVO2max would be 1800/6 = 300m/minute, or 5m per second. This, of course, would be a tempo of 80 seconds per 400m.
Your classic workout would then be 5 x 900m in three minutes each, with three-minute jog recoveries. The new 30-30 workout would be alternations of 30 seconds at 5m per second pace with 30 seconds of float - until you could go no more. That, of course, means that you would cover 150m in 30 seconds, about 75m in the next 30 seconds, 150m in the next half-minute, and so on - until your legs feel like stones. The 60-60 would entail 300m in one minute, 150m in the next minute, 300m in the following minute, etc.
It may be a good idea to get hold of a set of orange, plastic cones, which can be placed around the track at strategic locations, corresponding to the distances you need to run for your 30-, 60-, or even 180-second intervals. Since your actual pace during the recovery intervals is not critically important (as long as the pace is easy), your best bet will be to mark off your work-interval distance with great accuracy. You can then simply jog easily during your recovery interval, making sure that you are at one end of your work-interval arc when the next work interval begins.
Incidentally, if you are a cyclist (or triathlete) and want to know your vVO2max on the bike, you can perform exactly the same test as I have described for runners: on a day when you are feeling terrific, warm up and then ride as far as possible in six minutes. Figure out your distance covered and thus your vVO2max. You are then ready for some great vVO2max-enhancing workouts, namely:
1. Cycle 1/12 of your vVO2max test distance in 30 seconds, easy pedal for 30 seconds, 1/12 of the distance in 30 seconds etc until exhaustion;
2. Cover 1/6 of your vVO2max test distance in 60 seconds, easy pedal for 60 seconds, and so on;
3. Cycle 5 x 3 minutes at vVO2max, with 3-minute recoveries. Experienced bikers can complete more than five three-minute intervals if they wish, since the impact forces associated with biking are much lower than for running.
Swimmers and rowers can, of course, follow exactly the same protocol for vVO2max testing and training. Naturally, runners, cyclists, swimmers, and rowers will want to re-check their vVO2max, using the six-minute test, every 4-6 weeks or so, then use the new vVO2max as the appropriate training speed.
Background and summary information
1. In a paper published in 1984, which still makes good reading, the famed coach Jack Daniels was the first scientist to describe the importance of a runner's actual running speed at VO2max (maximal aerobic capacity), which he termed vVO2max (3).
2. vVO2max is generally defined as the minimal velocity which elicits VO2max in an incremental exercise protocol (ie a test in which a runner's rate of oxygen consumption is assessed while running speed is increased in specific increments - often 1 km/hr - with each speed sustained for a relatively short period of time - usually two minutes).
3. Although runners and exercise physiologists refer to vVO2max as though it were a single entity, there are actually many vVO2maxs, ie many speeds which would cause a runner to 'hit' VO2max before reaching exhaustion. If this seems incredibly confusing, remember that the incremental exercise test used to determine vVO2max allows runners to remain at each speed for only a short period of time (often two minutes). As a result, a runner might be very close to VO2max but not actually reach it while running at 17 km/hr, for example, but then 'strike VO2max gold' while sizzling along at the next test speed of 18 km/hr. According to the test, the runner's vVO2max would thus be 18 km/hr, but in truth if the runner had been allowed to keep running for longer at 17 km/hr, he might well have been able to 'hit' VO2max at the slower speed; at high-quality running speeds, oxygen-consumption rate tends to climb even when speed is absolutely constant, an effect which is often called the 'slow component of oxygen uptake'. To make matters even more interesting, many runners can run about 40% faster than vVO2max and still stir up VO2max for a brief period before falling prostrate on the track. While this '140% of vVO2max' might be sustained for only 70 seconds or so and VO2max itself might be reached for only the last 15-18 seconds of the brief effort, nonetheless VO2max is attained and 140% of vVO2max would also qualify as a 'vVO2max'.
4. With so many vVO2maxs to choose from, Veronique Billat has made a serious and elegant effort to find the vVO2max which, when used in training, would produce the greatest gain in performance. Ingeniously, Billat has developed her six-minute test (an all-out effort lasting six minutes, with vVO2max calculated as average velocity) and has also shown that a workout consisting of 5 x 3 minutes at vVO2max, with three-minute recoveries, is an incredible booster of vVO2max, lactate threshold, running economy, and performance.
Source :- http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0896.htm
Post Number: 1137
|Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 02:17 pm: |
Hallo Rob . Great summaries and I was reading the research done from France before.
They are very intriguing and great .
Nevertheless there is one big challange , where interestingly nobody every asks for:
There was one nice short comment up on the top ' Quote :
" Let me again emphasize that I'm simply putting forth a hypothesis,
i.e., I am not aware of any data directly demonstrating that achieving
maximal stroke volume (vs. maximal cardiac output and/or VO2max) is somehow key..."
That is, what may be some ground for a more in depth discussion with the vVO2 and the overall idea on VO2 max testing.
Here just a short start to show where I like to try to initiate the discussion:
Remeber it is always going back to the basic :
VO2 max ( and with it the vVO2Max ) is by definition :
VO2 max = CO ( cardiac output x (a-V ) O2 difference.
So here a very simple question to all readers.
To change VO2 I can change both sides of the multiplication :
CO ( Stroke volume x HR )
or I can change A-v O2 difference.
Now just make a simple critical thought :
1. Do we know , or measure ,how the Stroke volume and the heart rate will change in short intervalls versus long intervalls?.
All this "wish lists" of increased SV and other hemodynamic changes are mainly still based on theroy , and we see very little reseaerch on this on people .
Is not one of the argumentation , that in short intervalls the HR may lag behind ( how is your HR reacting in 30 seconds compared to your friends HR )
So if your HR is lagging behind , than the CO ( HR x SV ) may be different from intervall to intervall.
2. How about the Stroke volume , which is dependent on blood return tio the heart ( EDV ) and or the elasticity ( EF % ) .
Do we know , whether the EDV in the first 30 seconds is the same as in the 5 th 30 second.
Now how about the breathing .
Do you breath the same in a 30 seconds intervall sprint , than in a 3 min intervall sprint ?
TV / RF / VE ?
True the classical school will deny us the ability we see to change FeO2 with different breathing intervention.
Nevertheless we have in tghe meantime far above 150 tests where we see that in each single one.
Yes true no publicathion , but as well no public funding as a Ph.D studiy often has, so we wait for somebody , who can get some tax payers money to do , what we did already, and than publishes it for all the users of VO2 testing .
So if we can change FeO2 , than this is the first step in changing as well ( a-V _ O2 difference indirectly , as more or less O2 is extracted from teh lungs to teh blood ) and this than will change as well the VO2 readings as we showed as well in many prints in our Forum.
4. Energy supply and ATP production :
Are we sure , tayt we deliver the same energy to the demanding area in the first and 5 th intervall.
Just because ( Coggan ) the CP is refuelled in 20 - 30 seconds for the ATP replenishment does not take in account the ability to activate the glucose oxygen dependent and independent energy suply and for sure not takes into account the potential involvement of lactate as an energy supplier.
VO2 or vVO2 is a nice way to see, the O2 demand in an overall picture.
But it does not tell us at all who uses the O2.
There is a shift in O2 ( heart . respiratory system. workinmg muscles and potentially brain , see latest study from Calgary published yesterday ) users during different intervalls, but it may be on the same level of VO2 or vVO2.
If you do 30 seconds intervalls, than most of the energy production will go initially over O2 independent supply and during the rest period it will replenish over the known mechanisme.
So we will get ride of CO2 by breathing potentially faster and harder, but perhaps not deeper.
So O2 is used by the pulmonary system , the working leg msucles and somewhat from the cardiac system ( But the cardiac system may not demand as much O2 yet, so the O2 can easier be distrinuted to the legs.
With increased time , the hearts demand for O2 goes up , but if we have already reached the VO2 max or VVO2 max, than there will be a shift based on CGM and ECGM.
The now available VO2 will be used more from teh heart and the pulmonary system and therefor reduced O2 for the legs, but overall still VO2 max.
If we keep going and there is an even bigger O2 shortage the CGM will kick in with all the known consequences for the legs.
.So in very short intervalls there may be never really that high of an demand in VO2 compared to non stop workouts over longer time.
Cardiac , pulmonary and working muscels at the same time.
So in short intervalls the CGM or ECGM may not kick in and the so much discussed peripheral governing model ( Brain McIntosh ) will work and this are nice examples , how both are helping to survive , with the CGM ( T. Noakes CGM on the top of the survival control )
If we now go longer ( 3 min ) we use lot's of O2 in the working leg muscles ( as more oxygen dependent energy production kicks in:
and we use more in the pulmonary system , as we may breath deeper and extract more O2. The Co2 will go up , and as well the pH may drop ( shift of the O2 diss curve ).
The heart will work more intense. and there may just be a sudden problem to deliver to all the demanding area enough O2 and the ECGM may kick in.
So the intervall will actually target ( depending on the limitation and duration different system differently .
So just because we reach VO2 max or vVO2 max does not tell us , what system got the most stimmulation.
Before we can predict this we have to test all factores involved in increasing VO2 max and with it vVO2 max.
As we see in the above discussion : Quote
"Is this strange, or what?
Strangely enough, when the athletes carried out the continuous workout at a speed halfway between lactate threshold and vVO2max (ie at a velocity lower than vVO2max), more than half of the runners (five out of eight) actually reached their maximum rate of oxygen consumption!"
Now read my explanation above and most of the Forum readers will smile and say :
Why does O.A think it is strange.
Well they don't take into account the above part of the CO involvment in the measurments of VO2 .
The other interesting part is :
" five out of eight)" woww what a statistical convincing result.
How about some pure luck . What if it would be 4 : 4 with the whole research.
Would you take a drug where 5 of eight survived , but 3 got killed. I mean we are talking here of 62.5 % had a "beneficial" result.
woww what about the statistical results of classical Placebo studies :
60 % ).
Not to diminish the research at all ,as it is incredible interesting , but it is what it is :
A sponsored case study on 8 people with some very interesting trends, which miss one big part :
The reality , that by measuring VO2 information we still have no clue who uses the O2 at all.
This and exactly this is the reason why we work for us at least on FaCT CLR :
Summary FaCT CLR will help to get a better understanding , as we not just use VO2 testing , but combine it with Cardiac information and with metabolic information.
In one part above they showed ,that lactate was lower but forgot to explain why . The reason is we may not know why .
It could be, that the extremity muscles starting to produce more lactate, and the VO2 and vVO2 would potentially plateau or even drop.
But in the meantime the Strokevlome actually started to go up due to increase of EF % and reduction of LVET.
This allows the heart to give itself more blood.
The heart uses or extracts much more O2 % than the extremity muscles.
( Up to 4 - 5 x ) more, so the VO2 will go up at that moment , as the legs may not drop O2 usage by 4 - 5 times.
Due to the shortening on the LVET the heart muscele contraction time / min ) will be in a better ratio and the heart can work better, supplying more Blood to the working muscles and the respiratory system.
So depending where the limitation is , that's where you stress the system , which may be by a high VO2 or a high vVO2 , but it has not to be by a high VO2.
Again you see, that the VO2 max stimmulation was better in the nonstop duration work , compared to the 30 sec. intervall.
So what was the better workout.
Non of them was better, just different stimmuly to different systems .
So a VO2 max or a vVO2 max workout can have in different people completely different results. Even in one and the same person this can happen , whebn we not take into account some control with Bio markers.
After a long 4 hour workout on the optimal stroke volume on day one the stimmulation was done for the heart muscles.
Now the next day you decide , ( based on classical logic ) du rest the body before doing another long workout ? )
So you decide to do a VO2 max workout.
You may not know , that yesterday teh long "slow " one was already a SV stress.
Now a VO2 max intervall today may be a SV stress, if the hear would be recovered.
Now it may be not recovered, and the VO2 never will reach close to the max value.
So if you do the intervall with assessing VO2 you may see that you never go up and will ask yourself way.
If you use watts on the VO2 testing done in a recovered pahse of your training you will experience the situation , that you can't sustain the wattage levels or you see much higher lactate values. So you will ask why.
The fact is , that you may overload the cardiac system . Or you may shift the stimmulation more to a metabolic stress due to the different lactate trends and may stimmulate MCT 1 and MCT 4 reactions ?
So as we see incrdible interesting and no clear answers at all but the ongoing risk , that we take a very nice and smart reseaerch paper and "abuse " it so long , till it fits into our hypothetical believes.
If we do that , than we loose the idea of research adn move into "religion " , which we often see in sport and traiing , as we believ in wattage or HR or lactate or FaCT.
We have to stay open and have fun finding weaknesses and work positive on trying to get further with our knowlledge.
That is , why people who use FaCT are welcome to try and read our Forum and may have to leanr to accept , that the test ( assessment ) we explained 1/2 year ago is actually from our point of view already outdated and we already test different by now.
So have fun and come back with many more ideas and critical views.