I’m a bit confused now. If the goal is highest VO2max + lowest VLAmax, how are you accomplishing that with this example (which would only be lowering VLAmax)? VO2max work off-season?
Going back to the OP, if the point is to increase his Ceiling (VO2max), I was just wondering if there also needs to be a focus on the right intensity and quantity of low-intensity volume to do just that? Since he didn’t share his VO2max/weight, I was just a bit curious if it was also possible that he just wasn’t doing enough easy volume to bring his ceiling up any more (since he did mention ~9hr week at one point).
I will do 2-3 week blocks of vo2 max when the vo2 max or higher intensity plateaus from the endurance/tempo training.
So I have most of my athletes on this type of plan which is focus on endurance and tempo until vo2 or higher plateaus. Then I do a 2-3 week block of training to try and raise those ceilings, then go back to the other training.
Not sure if that answers the questions but just an example of how I go about things.
This is a really interesting digression from the original post, which leads me to another question, which is partly triggered by relistening to Episode 68 (The 3 types of rides you should do).
As @smashsquatch pointed out, I was capped at a maximum of 11 hours per week, with 7-9 hours being more realistic, particularly during the summer when work is busiest for me.
Is this just too few hours a week to effectively use polarised?
20% of 9 hours is only around 90 minutes of intervals a week, with the remaining ~7 hours being Z2. I’m not sure I’ll hit a high enough TSS to improve at that? Or am I completely missing the mark here and my body is likely governing my ability to progress from doing closer to 4 hours of intervals and 4 hours of Z2 (give or take!).
In response to the question regarding weight/VO2, I’ve not lab tested VO2 but weight is ~83kg and FTP is around 320w, with a best 5 minute effort of ~400w (4.75wkg). On a ramp test (20w, 1min steps) I usually pop somewhere around the 420-440w interval. If anyone can estimate based on any of that?
@stuarthardy would you mind telling me a little bit about the 80% training breakdown, just a few months of example? It looks like you are using intervals.icu could you screenshot like the one below of your totals and power zones over a recent time period.
Both blocks of work left me pretty fried at the end, however, I was definitely at my strongest (numbers wise) following these two periods. I definitely overdid the sweetspot volume around Xmas time as I was shot in January this year.
Since this date, work has very much affected consistency so I’ve just been trying to hold whatever fitness I can. I’m hoping to hit my first road race at the end of the month, but not expecting miracles due to the lack of volume the past 6 weeks.
without testing info of any kind, in comparing you to someone I work with that has mFTP around 315-330 I would do a lot of work between 175-200w (or a little higher with an accurate LT1 of Moxy data), Tempo/Sweetspot to me are the same thing I would use 230-245w a lot (once again without testing data) a lot less threshold, and 1 hard session every other week.
If I focus on pushing LT1 up, it is only that training for a block, 1.5 to 3h rides right under (I mean right under) so if LT1 is 225w athlete would ride super steady 215-220w.
If I was going to focus on maintaining the LT1 and doing tempo work, then endurance would be 175 norm power for someone at your level with a 200w ceiling, and then push a lot of tempo in my example in previous post (you must find your own ceiling) in the range of 235-250w.
Like @trevor has mentioned a few times, blocking work together can also work really well. So once you think you know how much aerobic work you can handle, then you could start 2 days in a row to add aerobic stress.
Thanks, that’s really interesting… particularly your estimated targets for endurance effort being in the 175-200w region. I’d been targetting ~230w for my Seiler Z1 stuff (using the usual top of the zone must be better than bottom of the zone irrational logic). Therefore I might have been going too hard on the easy rides (AGAIN!).
This leads me to another “deviation from the programme” I’ve previously made (and this possibly ought to be a thread on its own, or a Q&A question for the podcast if you think it’s interesting @trevor?), are there any detrimental effects to dropping Seiler Z3 efforts into the long slow rides (2-3 hrs for me)? Essentially this means riding easy on the flat and hitting the short punchy hills (1-5 minute) we have around me hard.
Basically either being easy or all out in the same ride. I suppose the question is: Does going into VO2/Anaerobic during a long aerobic ride cause the body to change its mode of operation and shift energy systems thus negating the benefits we’re striving for by riding for longer (i.e. FatMax/aerobic capacity)? Does it shift the body towards glycolysis and it doesn’t revert back between the efforts?
Thanks again for all the time and knowledge you guys put in here, it really helps us mere mortals see the woods for the trees.
There is a time for both of these at least the way I use the endurance (below LT1 no muscular fatigue), steady endurance (right below LT1), and Tempo (usually 10-15 watts above LT1 but I like to actually measure this and make sure the lactate is stable or the muscle oxygen is stable - lactate not rising, smo2 not declining)
I would do some steady riding near your LT1 for sure, but would also do some longer riding at an easier pace as I mentioned.
I will let some others take this one on as I don’t really use this. I do efforts above threshold in longer rides, but they are usually just one interval at the end. I would likely use group riding or weekly racing to take care of this, which has not been possible for obvious reasons for a while.
Should we start a separate topic for “Raising the floor”?
I’m interested in learning about the nuances:
When to apply which strategy, when to transition to the next phase, how to determine the correct intensity, what else to pay attention to …
@stuarthardy That would make a good episode! Thanks for the suggestion. Short version of my answer…
This falls into the “not ideal, but sometimes you have to do good enough” category. Case in point, I did a ride on Saturday that started with intervals and then two hours of zone 1 work. Only way I could fit it.
There is evidence that high intensity work (i.e. anaerobic capacity work and sprints) will negate the effects of endurance work. So, the harder your interval work, the more you just want to get it done and go home. When I do sprints, I pick a road within 10 minutes of my house, so I can finish and get home fast.
If you’re doing threshold work, since that still focuses on mostly aerobic energy systems, it can be combined with longer rides and I personally do that often.
But, I will say that structured work is still better than the “just hit some hills hard” approach. You’ll certainly get gains, but I’d personally pick a hill, do structured repeats, and then go on with my ride.
I think the app is only $10 and seems reasonably accurate if you do longer steps of small increments (warm up, do 6-10min steps starting at 190w 10w steps). Note, having a good HR strap seems to affect the quality of the test (polar). If you have a Garmin, consider doing the test a second time.
I have a question regarding HR when it comes to VO2 max. I recently performed a block of VO2 max training, and noticed that when I performed a “Ronnestad” style workout, I had significantly more time with my HR at 85-90%. A few days later, I performed a classic 5x5 workout and had significantly less time in the 85-90% range. However, one key difference between the Ronnestad and 5x5 workout was the weather. When I performed the Ronnestad style workout it was over 80 degrees in the middle of the afternoon, with no clouds in sight. Meanwhile the 5x5 workout was performed indoors and on the trainer. Thus, my question is what impact does the environment play on trying to achieve these VO2 max adaptations (also what about caffeine which also can increase HR). All things being equal, would it be better to perform these types of intervals outside to increase the heart rate, as opposed to on the trainer in a room set at 65 degrees with three fans blowing?
My understanding is that HR is a very broad indicator for proximity to Vo2 max but is too variable to be an exact indicator. It changes with fatigue, hydration, temperature ect. so you can reach vo2 max at different heart rates on different days/environments.
A better indicator is breathing rate, and RPE. Assuming you have very laboured breathing, and RPE is 9-10/10 I think you have performed a good vo2 max effort.
I think both intermittent and classic Vo2 max intervals can be good stimulus (although this depends on execution and potentially the athlete’s anaerobic capacity). I think that you can perform either sessions in hot, cool, indoor, or outdoor settings and still achieve Vo2 max (or close to it). Just make sure you go flat out for the intervals!
I think a great fast talk episode would be all about vo2max, and (i) how trainable is it (or rather, under what circumstances is it probably trainable vs. not trainable anymore**) and (ii) what are the considerations when selecting an interval format.
**I think part of the debate about, is vo2max trainable or not, is not really about objective facts but rather perspective. Like you often hear pro athletes and coaches say it’s not trainable, whereas studies have demonstrated that it definitely is. Well, this makes sense, right? For the elite athlete it probably (in most cases) doesn’t have much more room to grow (so for them and people like them, they’re really saying “it’s not trainable [all that much anymore]”), but there are exceptions and for amateur athletes it very well may not be the case.
I’d second this. It sounds like you just need to go all out for 4 x 4, 4 x 8, 4 x 16 and be focused on finishing the last interval as strong as you did the first, but knowing you had little left in the tank… Although I think depending on the length of the interval the RPE changes… ?
Could be good to see what your 20s, 3min power is. A heavily anerobic rider will have 20s @3* their ftp, and 3min @ nearly 2*. Vs a rider with a low anerobic will more like 20s <200% ftp, 3min ~120%.
A more anerobic rider may be better off doing longer intervals vs a more aerobic could get away with shorter?
I’ll second this and add that for amateur athletes, particularly the more recreational focused athletes, are they actually doing enough work to improve that parameter? If you look at a Peloton-style class or maybe Zwift workouts that you can drop into, they might spend a couple minutes in that “VO2 max range” in addition to spending a large % of time in other zones as well. So they aren’t necessarily getting enough stimulus to cause a change.
I completely agree, @jimmy. When I’m explaining this type of training to an athlete, we rarely talk about a power number or HR target without talking about RPE and breathing. I think of VO2 max training in an overly-simplistic way in that if you’re breathing heavily and RPE is near maximum, you’ve got it worked out. Power and HR now become indicators of your performance and recovery (e.g., if you can’t hit the same power, are you still fatigued, etc.?) to support the ongoing decisions associated with the work:recovery ratio in that block of training. Since it’s so easy to over-do it with that training, I think it’s important to hit those workouts, but always consider what they are doing for your overall training load - are they still contributing to it, or are they taking you a little too deep?
HI @steveneal - can I ask a couple of questions? One… when you talk about plateaus - what are you using to determine/ analyse these plateaus? Is it the same framework for Fatmax v Vo2Max for example. Also when you talk about training around LT1 and LT2 are you deriving these points from the INSCYD test (if so, how?) - or by separate blood lactate testing? Many thanks!
If I am doing a focus on aerobic block, say tempo and under, I would be testing 3m and 6m critical power alternating throughout the block. If there is a plateau in the improvement of this higher intensity power, then I would switch and do a few weeks of training at or near this level. This would be an athlete who has vlamax where I like it.
If the athlete needs to have vlamax lower, then I would repeat Inscyd test after a few months to make sure we are making good progress.
I think the question here is when raising the higher end of an athlete do I test the opposite end intensity? Yes, sort of. I would actually look at watching their aerobic threshold and tempo abilities every so often to see what effect the high-intensity training is having on those systems.
I would use either lactate or moxy muscle oxygen saturation depending on what the athlete has. Many of my athletes have one or both of these devices.
I can determine the AeT with moxy or lactate as well as this ideal tempo zone. I find using the moxy works well as it doesn’t interfere with training, less chance of error (if any).
I would use the Inscyd zones, and then have the athlete use the moxy daily so that we can watch the fluctuations and train at the right level. I find this works really well and helps that athlete pinpoint where in the zone to train on a daily basis with confidence.
So when I have an ahlete vlamax where I need for their type of competition, I am pretty good at keeping it there through training.
Use the Inscyd test before competition to dial in nutrition.
For the athlete really trying to move the vlamax up or down, I repeat the Inscyd to make sure the training is working the way we hope.
Let me know if I didn’t cover any of the questions correctly.
