Yes, these are hard as hell. Extreme suffering. Hopefully they will pay off in the summer

Those are pretty much what Hunter Allen prescribes here (one of the workouts, at least).

http://www.hunterallenpowerblog.com/2014/04/what-to-do-next-v02max-intensive-plan.html

I don't think they're that bad, but I do them on a nice 3-4 min hill, so that helps. I try to only do 2.5 min recoveries as well.

I'm interested in the replies to this because I've been hitting these 3 min VO2Max intervals regularly on the TrainerRoad plan I'm following.

Personally I find a huge difference between hitting them at 115 vs 120%. At 115% they are tough but doable and I often find that with a good hard effort I'll come in a few Watts over target, more like 117-118%. At 120% they are absolute torture and require a lot of willpower and determination to just barely gut them out. Those extra 10-15 Watts are very hard earnt for me!

Having said that, I think they really are as mental as physical. If I've had a bad day at work or something and go into a workout like this with a bad attitude, I know inside that I've failed before I've even started.

If I could complete 7 of those without fading then I wouldn't be going hard enough on the first 5 or my rest is too long.

For me 3 min of 120% on the road is definitely tough, but doable.
Like Op the rest feels slightly long if 1:1 Int:Rest.
On the trainer I doubt I would survive even one ...

Make them longer for greater benefit. You're only getting about 90 seconds of VO2 effect on each. For myself, when I do a VO2 block I start with 6x3 but add 30 seconds to each interval every week.

6x4" @ 115% FTP with 2 minutes rest between is what I do one day per week. You are not suffering enough because three min is too short.

I'm curious about interval length- I have often done 1min on/off x 30 at 120% and seen good results for sprint tris. I know some coaches even start out at 10x 1mins etc. with equal rest.

When I look at my HR curve each interval I see an inflection point at about 1.5". I think I will try and extend to 4" @115% keeping the (3"). I may also try to drop the RBI, then work back up to 120%.

This should increase the workload. I hope there is a positive adaptation.

In my view these are too hard. Object of VO2 max interval is to use as much aerobic capacity as possible and train heart and stroke volume. Going at 120% you're probably using way too high a proportion of anaerobic work. Too much acidosis as well - that kills training effect.

Do these at 110-112% and you'll get just as much training effect without the extra strain on the body. You can shorten the recover period a bit as well. Leave the very hard intervals to tuning up for a peak. In my case hammering my VO2max intervals brings on asthma. Knocked the level down to something sustainable and I got faster. I coach a couple of people every year and the biggest problem I saw was training too hard and a fetish for suffering. Changed up the levels to something more sensible and aerobic capacity improved.

The worst advice I have ever seen is to do your VO2max intervals as hard as possible.

Suffering is overrated. Train smart and leave the suffering for the last laps of a crit or that nasty crosswind section of a RR when everyone is getting guttered.

Sure. I train to get faster, but secretly the suffering is why I cycle.

I love that feeling and mentally pushing through it. Have to think others are similar to me, and it sounds like OP

Interesting point of view

Anything to back this up? Because some of the top coaches in the world suggest otherwise.

Coggan and others have 106-120 pct of ftp so dialing it down to 110-112 doesn't seem wrong at all especially if it means you can get more work done

I believe 110 at 4 mins w 3 mins rest is better than 120 at 3 mins w 3 mins rest and I'm not sure 120 at 3/3 will add anything beyond fatigue and mental toughness

Granted, people have different abilities (hence optimized intervals and such), but there's a huge difference between 3 mins at 120% and 4 mins at 110%. For 110% I'd expect something quite a bit longer, like in the 7-10 min range.

Shortening to half rest would help, but I still haven't seen anything suggesting 110% at 4 mins is more beneficial/better than either longer or harder.

None of the above is really correct. Only if you can't complete the workout as prescribed might it be argued that you are going too hard during VO2max intervals. Far more common, in my experience anyway, is people not going hard enough. For example, if you're not driving your heart rate to within ~10 beats/min of maximum during the earlier efforts, you're not pushing things as much as you think (hard to get heart rate that high during the first interval, whereas due to cardiac drift you may end still end up in that region despite the intensity not being all that high).

I would generally lean that direction as well, for both theoretical as well as empirical reasons.

Alternatively, you could shorten the rest interval down to 1 min or so, to try to maximize the stress on the cardiovascular system. That would require dialing back the intensity of the work intervals a bit, though.

The scientific literature does as well:

http://journals.plos.org/...journal.pone.0073182

(BTW, anecdotally I think that part of the reason that Hickson et al. *might* have seen such a large increase in VO2max is because they *apparently* increased the intensity during each 5 min interval. IOW, instead of doing them isopower fashion, each interval was like a mini-VO2max test, finishing at/above a power that would elicit VO2max.)

I think the issue between 110% and 120% is to different people they may feel the same. What I mean is VO2 Max is very trainable. If you haven't done any in a long time your ceiling may be at 110% for the duration, within say 6 weeks the same pain and suffering may have you at 120%. I gave this example as I recollect reading that you can get a ~10% bump in 6 weeks or so...
Ymmv

Oh, no question there, that's why iLevels were developed:

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/...he-new-wko4-ilevels/

Such individual differences are also why I haven't stated any guidelines for 3 min in intervals in terms of % of FTP. Rather, if you're going to pick that duration, then the intensity simply follows from that (and the number of intervals and the rest between them, of course).

PPP: The training levels are descriptive, not prescriptive.

I've never seen a VO2 max interval prescribed above 4'. You also get an extra ~30" of VO2 max benefit each interval as the heart recovers from the high zone.

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

Seriously?

The classic go-to VO2max interval for runners has been mile repeats since at least the 1970s, and it takes most people a lot longer than 4 min to run a mile. :)

The classic Hickson protocol of 6 x 5 min (which coincidentally was what I started doing back when I transitioned from running to cycling in 1975) was also first published in 1977.

As for heart rate remaining high during recovery, that alone doesn't guarantee that you're still stressing the cardiovascular system as much as you were during the work period, since stroke volume could be declining rapidly - note the dip in estimated SV immediately after each interval in the image below.

To also add some perspective, think of how hard swimmers can do 200m - 400m intervals vs how hard then can go for a full hour. Both swimming and biking are non weight bearing too. Running it is going to be harder to sustain, but runners can pull it off too.

I think this 10 beats of max type comment is why I wonder if my intervals are hard enough.

I have hit 174 on a longish hill during a trail race. When I do mile repeats while running I will likely see 169. But on the bike during these intervals it top out around 158. This gap was larger last year and is finally closing up after years of haphazard bike training now becoming more regimented.

Does this imply my leg strength has some catching up to do before I am really taxing my cardiovascular system?

It sounds like it but....has it been working?

Why sell yourself short. For years I've been doing up to 6' in duration based in large part to your early definition of zones from the wattage forums, and in "modern" web times such as https://www.trainingpeaks.com/...wer-training-levels/

My FTP is steadily rising, still not spectacular w/kg , but I think my question really stems from how I feel doing a bike interval vs a running interval.

After a running / track interval I am spent in a way that is different than after a bike / trainer interval. Maybe it is full body when running vs legs when biking.

My HR graphs show a similar curve and peak (bike is ~15 bpm below run).

I am happy to keep following the structured workouts, but would love to get more bang for my training buck. Maybe restructure the training time at load: 5 x 3:00 to become 4 x 3:45 or 4 x 4:00 as others have suggested.

I cannot shake the feeling that the first 30 sec of a 3 min interval shouldn't really count towards the 3 min VO2 max intervals suggested by the literature as a minimum recommended interval length.

No, this aspect waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay predates me.

Not strength, but muscular metabolic fitness. Simply put, your heart can only work as hard as your muscles can push it. This is why I tend to subscribe to the classic Lydiard-esque periodization (i.e., threshold work first, then VO2max intervals), vs. what, e.g., Dean Golich (of CTS fame) has described, i.e., a block of VO2max intervals to "build the motor", followed by threshold training to "tune it up."

PPP: Alls you can do is alls you can do.

I think the 3' VO2 intervals have their place but for me, the intensity needs to be higher than 115% on those. I guess with short enough rest periods maybe that would change things, but my approach has been the shorter the VO2Max interval, the longer the rest period (relatively speaking). Eg my "go to" VO2Max workouts are the following:


4 x 8' @ 110%, 3' rest
6 x 5' @ 115%, 5' rest
6-7 x 3' @ 120-125%, 5-6' rest


When I do the 3' intervals, they're pretty much maximal efforts. They're brutally hard and take quite a bit recovery (usually a rest day then an easy day). I don't do them often, usually the last week of build before tapering for a race. I start my VO2max blocks with the longer intervals and gradually progress to the shorter/more intense over a period of a few weeks.


As much as they hurt (mentally and physically), I like the VO2Max training. I seem to be pretty good at those efforts and I definitely get results from them.

I think that makes sense and is consistent with what Andrew Coggan is driving at with his commmens around periodization.

Now to do some research on strength vs muscular metabolic fitness...

The workout that my coach has me do that is similar to this is:

6x 2 minutes high z5, 2 minutes rest

7x 1 minutes high z5, 2 minutes rest

8x 30 seconds high z5, 1 minute rest.

By the end of each group i'm thinking I probably won't get through the whole next set of shorter intervals, but then somehow I always do.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Yes, I suppose those would fall into a VO2 max zone. Too rich for my blood though.

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

I would consider all of those sub-optimal as VO2max intervals.

Now you tell me. Wrote up an. Erg program for my Computrainer that was 30 watts above my ftp. Second rep of the session pedals ztopped turning. Minor heart damage and developed a facial twitch for three days. I go back to the doctor for more tests next week.

---

http://www.fitspeek.com the Fraser Valley's fitness, wellness, and endurance sports podcast

I only hope you are joking. If not serious commiserations

---

My foray into time trialling at the age of 60
https://sixtyplustimetrialling.wordpress.com/

I would think so. If your FTP is set properly that is probably right at the edge of what is possible physiologically.

Nah. My supra-FTP performance is nothing to brag about, but I used to routinely do 10 x 3:00/1:30 at ~120% of FTP. While challenging, it certainly didn't cost me two days of training afterwards!

I see that you are 60? I'm 53. And not joking. Thankfully, the facial twitch is done. Until the stress test is done, there won't be any hard miles.

---

http://www.fitspeek.com the Fraser Valley's fitness, wellness, and endurance sports podcast