Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Tabata Protocol... [Thorax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sometimes some people have a hard time figuring out when to stop digging.
Quote Reply
Re: Tabata Protocol... [NUFCrichard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
NUFCrichard wrote:
How are people doing Tabatas on a smart trainer?
I have a kickr snap, ergo mode would be no good, it sometimes has a few seconds delay in adjusting to the interval. Do you turn the resistance up high and slow pedal the short rest periods?

Snap here, too. I do them but 40/20 vs 20/10. High cadence ==> Up power ==> Hit lap timer once trainer catches up ==> 40 seconds ==> drop power ==> vomit ==> repeat

Interval Design Studio
YouTube | SoundCloud
Quote Reply
Re: Tabata Protocol... [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slightly off topic, but perhaps related,

Are you aware of evidence that doing very short, MAX effort intervals at low cadence with a lot of rest in between for the purpose of developing neuromuscular pathways to increase muscle recruitment when cycling at more reasonable race powers - i.e. it makes it easier for your body to get more muscles involved in cycling at efforts from 70%-100% of FTP.

The protocol would be something like 8-10 of maximum effort for 12-15 pedal strokes (a stroke being 360 degrees), starting out at around 50 rpm, then 5 minutes rest. When I do these, it's around 750 watts, FTP is 275.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
VeloVetta is developing AERO cycling shoes with CFD and wind tunnel testing.
InstagramFacebook
Quote Reply
Re: Tabata Protocol... [Pyrenean Wolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Got it, didn't realize you were referring to studies already linked, thought you were talking about something new.

Okay, so I've read these all, and they are good reads. However, I am not convinced you can draw unqualified conclusions from any of these materials and the reason for that is the power duration curve.

Remember when there was that whole debate about caffeine, and there were studies that were like "too much caffeine is bad definitely limit it," other studies that said "lol no caffeine is fine have as much as you want" and then there were still others that were like "caffeine is great drink as much coffee as you POSSIBLY CAN"? It was hard to make sense of it, but then finally it was discovered that there's a gene that determines how fast you metabolize caffeine: if you're a fast metabolizer caffeine will basically never have a negative impact on you, but if you're a slow metabolizer then it really can negatively affect you. But bottom line is, all those prior studies were confounded by the fact that there was a big variable that was not accounted for.

So, how does this relate to endurance training? If i understand one of the lessons of the PDC, it is that each athlete reacts differently to training stimulus in a reasonably systematic way, hence the concept of athlete "phenotypes". Say for simplicity you separate them into two groups, high-end punchers vs. diesel roleurs, tabatas might be very beneficial for the high end punchers, but so taxing for the diesel roleurs that each of these study protocols might actually have set them back rather than advancing them. If you have a study of only a small number of people, there's a very good chance that one type or the other might predominate (just like how your coin flip can turn up "heads" 8 out of 10 times), which would goof with your results.

it's probably the same kind of thing for sweet spot training, but reversed. For the high-end punchers it's too taxing and they're in the black hole, but for the roleurs it's just right.

Assuming people naturally gravitate towards disciplines that complement their abilities, then it's probably correct to say that these are good for track athletes etc., but I would guess there's actually plenty of variation within each discipline, especially given how with, say, road racing, there are all sorts of race strategies people can use to play to their respective strengths.

My takeaway here is that you have to figure out whether they work for you, in other words they are beneficial (except to the extent they're not) / they are not beneficial (unless they are).

So, i am going to give them a shot, but cautiously. My (relatively) strongest durations have always been the 5 to 30 minute range, and going above that has always been very taxing on me; i don't recover easily from VO2 max intervals on up, and never have. This winter, therefor, i am going to "train my weaknesses" so to speak, but sparingly, with VO2 max (or higher) intervals about once a week, with every other week being a tabata week. Meanwhile, i'll be slow-building the zone 2, 3, sweetspot and 4. And i'll reevaluate after i do it a little while and see how it goes! I expect the lactate clearance aspect will be very beneficial for my discipline, but we'll see I guess.

PS, i doubt these really fall into the "zone 7" category of adaptations despite the power level of the intervals. Maybe the first 20s does, but after that, it's going to be something else, because think about it: after a certain point you're no longer being limited solely by, for example, neuromuscular coordination
Quote Reply
Re: Tabata Protocol... [devolikewhoa83] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, you are right, 170% of Max VO2 power is zone 6 (anaerobic glycolysis), not zone 7.

My good friends track sprinters working 5s or 10s or 15s then resting 15mn are working zone 7.

Here it is clearly a long / splitted zone 6 training.
Quote Reply
Re: Tabata Protocol... [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
Slightly off topic, but perhaps related,


Are you aware of evidence that doing very short, MAX effort intervals at low cadence with a lot of rest in between for the purpose of developing neuromuscular pathways to increase muscle recruitment when cycling at more reasonable race powers - i.e. it makes it easier for your body to get more muscles involved in cycling at efforts from 70%-100% of FTP.

The protocol would be something like 8-10 of maximum effort for 12-15 pedal strokes (a stroke being 360 degrees), starting out at around 50 rpm, then 5 minutes rest. When I do these, it's around 750 watts, FTP is 275.


I'm far from AC, but I'm not sure 'why' this would be desired. When you say muscle recruitment, are you talking about motor unit recruitment? The amount of muscle fibers contracting is not a limiter during aerobic exercise like your 70-100% FTP example.

You're correct in thinking that high force is a way to recruit more motor units. Or low resistance and high velocity. Or simply fatiguing some fibers so that others have to jump in.

I would refer you back to the post already above that demonstrates how a level 7 (or even 6) benefits your aerobic performance. I think that actually came from AC himself in his (and Hunter Allen's) Training and Racing with a Power Meter book. I have it somewhere so maybe I can look and see where that figure was sourced. I don't think increased ATP/PCr Stores, increased lactate tolerance, hypertrophy of fast twitch fibers, and/or neuromuscular power contribute significantly for the cycling effort you're describing.
Quote Reply
Re: Tabata Protocol... [dangle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The reason is for when muscle fatigue, not aerobic capacity, is the limiter as I believe it often is for me in longer distance events. The idea is that if I can get more muscles involved, then they can each work a little bit easier to produce the same power. I would assume the aerobic stress would be equivalent.

In 70.3 and 140.3 races I never feel aerobically stressed, but my legs can certainly get fried. If I want to run well in a 140.3 I have to ride no harder than 68% to70% of FTP. If I can get more muscles involved, then the hope is muscle fatigue will be reduced and either I can run even faster, OR I could get that power up to 72%-73% at the same fatigue level.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
VeloVetta is developing AERO cycling shoes with CFD and wind tunnel testing.
InstagramFacebook
Quote Reply
Re: Tabata Protocol... [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The same AC would say, "Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical."

It's not easy to study ironman type performances in a lab. There's no evidence that high resistance, low velocity cycling sprints a couple seconds long improve 70.3 or 140.6 performance. These are probably things you're aware of and I'm not trying to be argumentative or condescending.

This might be an interesting read, but further discussion merits its own thread or a continuation of another.
Quote Reply
Re: Tabata Protocol... [dangle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm not taking you as being argumentative or condescending - this is how interesting conversations are had!

So if fatigue is not well understood and impossible to measure other than with self reported perceived fatigue, it's not surprising that there has not been a study that shows very short intervals to increase muscle recruitment improves Ironman performance. But the lack of evidence does not mean it is not helpful.

So far, logically it seems to me like for someone who experiences muscle fatigue as a limiting factor, this kind of thing could help (just as a small part of more "traditional" IM preparation of course).

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
VeloVetta is developing AERO cycling shoes with CFD and wind tunnel testing.
InstagramFacebook
Quote Reply

Prev Next