RChung wrote:
Here's another. BTW, note that the subjects doing what would be closest to the Tabata protocol improved the least of the three groups. Those doing intervals ~2.5 min in length at a lower intensity improved more.
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Tabata Protocol... [RChung]
[ In reply to ]
BTW, note that the subjects doing what would be closest to the Tabata protocol improved the least of the three groups. Those doing intervals ~2.5 min in length at a lower intensity improved more.
Re: Tabata Protocol... [fredly]
[ In reply to ]
fredly wrote:
Which really underlines the key to the protocol; intensity.
FWIW, in terms of driving improvements I think that intensity is more important than "dwell time" at/near VO2max. However, to maximize the cardiovascular training effect you still need go hard long enough, or go hard often enough. The latter effect shows up in the paper Robert posted, in which the group that recovered for 120% of Tmax (total 2028 s per workout) improved less than the group that only recovered to 65% of HRmax (total 1248 s per workout), even though the work intervals (of only ~2.5 min) were identical.
Fortunately, if you have a powermeter there are analytical approaches that allow you to estimate with reasonable accuracy just how much strain you're placing on the cardiovascular system. (In fact, with the right devices you can estimate all of the components of the Fick equation.)
Last edited by:
Andrew Coggan: Apr 9, 17 4:06
Re: Tabata Protocol... [Andrew Coggan]
[ In reply to ]
Thanks for weighing in. I never stated that TABATA intervals would not increase VO2max. I stated that their cost benefit ratio was not very good for non-drafting triathletes. Furthermore, I think that for most triathletes, improving vo2max is less important than improving muscular endurance. Being able to put out 400+ Watts at vo2max power is useless if you can't run well off the bike.
Re: Tabata Protocol... [Thebigturtle]
[ In reply to ]
Sometimes some people have a hard time figuring out when to stop digging so they can use a little help: now. Now is the time to stop digging.
Re: Tabata Protocol... [RChung]
[ In reply to ]
Thanks to you, Coggan, Maurice et al, for being my defacto search engine. Why spend hours sifting through search results and trying to find the magic combination of keywords when you have world class-grade experts to be your personal search-biatches? It is a bit difficult because some of the research isn't branded as "Tabata" and there is some fluidity in the space between "high intensity intervals" and Tabata-grade intervals.
Re: Tabata Protocol... [RChung]
[ In reply to ]
RChung wrote:
Sometimes some people have a hard time figuring out when to stop digging so they can use a little help: now. Now is the time to stop digging.
LOL.
I always enjoy when people who *think* they know what they are talking about, argue with people who actually *know* what they are talking about.
Those in the former group, never seem to understand that they are indeed in that former group, and not the latter.
float , hammer , and jog
Re: Tabata Protocol... [RChung]
[ In reply to ]
RChung wrote:
Sometimes some people have a hard time figuring out when to stop digging so they can use a little help: now. Now is the time to stop digging.These are my absolute favourite threads, thanks for contributing.
http://www.sweat7.com
Facebook Page: Sweat7
Twitter: @sweat7coaching
Re: Tabata Protocol... [Thebigturtle]
[ In reply to ]
Thebigturtle wrote:
Tabata intervals are not useful for non-drafting triathletes of any distance. I actually can't think of a workout that has a worse cost/benefit ratio. Lets start with physiology. We have two energy systems
aerobic
anaerobic
the aerobic system is more efficient. As endurance athletes, we want to train the aerobic metabolic system to produce most of our ATP throughout our event, because it is more efficient and will get us across the finish line faster.
the anaerobic system is less efficient. athletes who perform shorter events rely on this system to help produce power/speeds beyond what the aerobic system is capable of. The problem with this is that you will fatigue much more quickly once activating the anaerobic system due to its inefficiency.
Improving our aerobic system can be done by pushing up the aerobic ceiling (vo2max intervals) or by improving aerobic efficiency (endurance and threshold training)
When you do short explosive intervals you are activating the anaerobic system, prematurely fatiguing your body and thus not taxing the aerobic system for nearly as long longer sustained interval.
vo2max intervals should be done at your 8-10 minute power/pace
ideal lengths are 2-5 minutes, with equal rests.
You are missing an energy system there. Creatine phosphate, I think? Too lazy to google, but I think that's a third.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Training/Racing Log - http://www.earthdaykid.com/blog --- Old Training/Racing Log - http://colinlaughery.blogspot.com
Re: Tabata Protocol... [Andrew Coggan]
[ In reply to ]
Andrew Coggan wrote:
Another paper worth reading: http://journals.plos.org/...journal.pone.0073182Wow, the Hickson study from 40 years back with 6 hard sessions a week for 10 weeks looked absolutely brutal. I bet those college students never signed up for another study again looking for easy money.
Re: Tabata Protocol... [fredly]
[ In reply to ]
fredly wrote:
170% of VO2Max in the original study. Which means that almost none of the people doing "Tabata" intervals are actually doing Tabata intervals.When I've done them ... per the "proper" protocol ... I've had difficulty riding the 15-20 minutes back home.
Re: Tabata Protocol... [BrianB]
[ In reply to ]
BrianB wrote:
fredly wrote:
170% of VO2Max in the original study. Which means that almost none of the people doing "Tabata" intervals are actually doing Tabata intervals.
When I've done them ... per the "proper" protocol ... I've had difficulty riding the 15-20 minutes back home.
I don't know if it's the "proper" protocol but the original protocol was 7-8 sets of 20 secs @ 170% of VO2Max power with 10 seconds of recovery between bouts, for a total of 4 minutes for the workout (ignoring warm-up and cool-down). This was done 5x per week, for 6 weeks.
Every one is different but as a rough rule of thumb for most people 170% of VO2Max power is likely to be around 200% of FTP. That's just to put them in the right ballpark: 20 secs @ twice FTP.
I find them unpleasant but not debilitating, so I usually do them only when I'm short on time.
Re: Tabata Protocol... [RChung]
[ In reply to ]
RChung wrote:
Every one is different but as a rough rule of thumb for most people 170% of VO2Max power is likely to be around 200% of FTP. That's just to put them in the right ballpark: 20 secs @ twice FTP.I'm curious how they worked out VO2max power because, from what I've read, there is no such thing as "VO2Max power". Basically, there's a minimum power that will eventually elicit VO2Max, and then a range above that that will also elicit VO2Max, but requiring less time. However, even if they used 170% of the minimum power to elicit VO2Max, I'm pretty sure I couldn't do it. I'm not even sure I could do it at 170% of FTP. In fact I'm pretty sure I can't.
Re: Tabata Protocol... [dangle]
[ In reply to ]
dangle wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
Another paper worth reading: http://journals.plos.org/...journal.pone.0073182Wow, the Hickson study from 40 years back with 6 hard sessions a week for 10 weeks looked absolutely brutal. I bet those college students never signed up for another study again looking for easy money.
Random trivia: the subjects were actually mostly Holloszy and his post -docs. Some of them continued for a few more weeks (and continued to improve) before they said "no mas." Hickson had been a football coach before going back to school to study ex phys (and later was an early leader in applying molecular biological techniques to study exercise, until he passed away at an early age). The protocol became the standard used in numerous subsequent studies from Holloszy's group, although no one was ever quite able to match the improvement reported in the original study (although the group that I trained at OSU came close).
Last edited by:
Andrew Coggan: Apr 11, 17 17:39
Re: Tabata Protocol... [lanierb]
[ In reply to ]
lanierb wrote:
I'm curious how they worked out VO2max power because, from what I've read, there is no such thing as "VO2Max power". Basically, there's a minimum power that will eventually elicit VO2Max, and then a range above that that will also elicit VO2Max, but requiring less time. However, even if they used 170% of the minimum power to elicit VO2Max, I'm pretty sure I couldn't do it. I'm not even sure I could do it at 170% of FTP. In fact I'm pretty sure I can't.Hmmm. Now you've got me wondering, too. I always presumed they did it by back-solving from VO2 in liters to get the power.
Re: Tabata Protocol... [RChung]
[ In reply to ]
"VO2max power", "power at VO2max" generally means one of two things:
1. The power at which somebody ultimately fails during an incremental exercise test to determine VO2max, or
2. more commonly, the minimal power theoretically required to elicit VO2max, based on measurement of the power-VO2 relationship during submaximal exercise.
Depending on the rate of increase in power during the test as well as the person's resistance to fatigue during supra-threshold exercise, the value you get for #1 can be greater than, equal to, or sometimes even less than #2.
To illustrate using my own data: WKO4 currently estimates my current VO2max as being 3.67 L/min, and my power-VO2 relationship based on previous testing is:
VO2 (L/min) = 0.0104 * power (W) + 0.4
In theory, then, it should require a power of (3.67-0.4)/0.0104 = 314 W to elicit my VO2max.
1. The power at which somebody ultimately fails during an incremental exercise test to determine VO2max, or
2. more commonly, the minimal power theoretically required to elicit VO2max, based on measurement of the power-VO2 relationship during submaximal exercise.
Depending on the rate of increase in power during the test as well as the person's resistance to fatigue during supra-threshold exercise, the value you get for #1 can be greater than, equal to, or sometimes even less than #2.
To illustrate using my own data: WKO4 currently estimates my current VO2max as being 3.67 L/min, and my power-VO2 relationship based on previous testing is:
VO2 (L/min) = 0.0104 * power (W) + 0.4
In theory, then, it should require a power of (3.67-0.4)/0.0104 = 314 W to elicit my VO2max.
Re: Tabata Protocol... [Andrew Coggan]
[ In reply to ]
Andrew Coggan wrote:
dangle wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
Another paper worth reading: http://journals.plos.org/...journal.pone.0073182Wow, the Hickson study from 40 years back with 6 hard sessions a week for 10 weeks looked absolutely brutal. I bet those college students never signed up for another study again looking for easy money.
Random trivia: the subjects were actually mostly Holloszy and his post -docs. Some of them continued for a few more weeks (and continued to improve) before they said "no mas." Hickson had been a football coach before going back to school to study ex phys (and later was an early leader in applying molecular biological techniques to study exercise, until he passed away at an early age). The protocol became the standard used in numerous subsequent studies from Holloszy's group, although no one was ever quite able to match the improvement reported in the original study (although the group that I trained at OSU came close).
That's really interesting stuff! Good thing they pay post-docs slightly better these days.
Looking at a couple other Hickson projects, it's really apparent he was into athletic performance. Definitely a coach. Then seeing names like Holloszy, Coyle and some Andy guy and you're in the middle of the heavy hitters. Such cool stuff. I always appreciate your literature shares. I really wish I had appreciated this stuff more in school instead of just trying to get my research done and get out of there.
Re: Tabata Protocol... [dangle]
[ In reply to ]
For all of you who do these tabatas, when, within the yearly macro cycle, do you incorporate them? Winter? Base? Does it depend on the discipline?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Re: Tabata Protocol... [devolikewhoa83]
[ In reply to ]
I do use them, mainly over the winter when I want to get in a good hard effort but not take much time. Endurance comes easily, and it's enjoyable. Power is painful to get. I find these to be highly productive even in the "off season" while not having the cumulative fatigue of a long workout.
Most of my races are long and I've found these to help with surges when I want to reel somebody in who is up the road.
Plus, the mental fortitude it develops if phenomenal. By #3 I wonder if I can finish the set. The last few are brutal. When I'm finished, I am so glad I did it!
Ray
Most of my races are long and I've found these to help with surges when I want to reel somebody in who is up the road.
Plus, the mental fortitude it develops if phenomenal. By #3 I wonder if I can finish the set. The last few are brutal. When I'm finished, I am so glad I did it!
Ray
Re: Tabata Protocol... [toj]
[ In reply to ]
Thanks for the response. I do competitive MTB, and even for long races you need allllll the power levels, even if the average overall is 2/3/4. So, similar in that respect.
I’m building some workouts for 2019 and want to give these a shot, probavly just start in the winter to see how it goes!
I’m building some workouts for 2019 and want to give these a shot, probavly just start in the winter to see how it goes!
Re: Tabata Protocol... [Andrew Coggan]
[ In reply to ]
So how is the "all out" effort paced?
By definition I would of thought "all out" is just that, so a 20s sprint.
For my feeble abilities that would be around 1000w with a bit of a fade before the end.
That is significantly more than 170% of my VO2 max and also with only 10s to recover I would be on a pretty quick downhill spiral as far as watts for subsequent reps.
By definition I would of thought "all out" is just that, so a 20s sprint.
For my feeble abilities that would be around 1000w with a bit of a fade before the end.
That is significantly more than 170% of my VO2 max and also with only 10s to recover I would be on a pretty quick downhill spiral as far as watts for subsequent reps.
Re: Tabata Protocol... [DeanV]
[ In reply to ]
I don't use watts or anything fancy, but "all out" means exactly that... it's not "hard," and it's not "really hard." It is AS HARD AS YOU CAN POSSIBLY GO. 20 seconds. 8 times through.
Re: Tabata Protocol... [toj]
[ In reply to ]
I tend to find 1:1 work ratio more applicable to my riding and racing than a pretty crit specific workout.
Not even crit, it’s probably a carryover workout from the elimination race in track racing. About 10 sec a lap with a sprint every other lap.
I like the 3x3min for two sets at 120 to 130%. Or pursuit intervals (about 4min). Much closer in time to a RR attack (for local racing to me).
Not even crit, it’s probably a carryover workout from the elimination race in track racing. About 10 sec a lap with a sprint every other lap.
I like the 3x3min for two sets at 120 to 130%. Or pursuit intervals (about 4min). Much closer in time to a RR attack (for local racing to me).
Re: Tabata Protocol... [mauricemaher]
[ In reply to ]
mauricemaher wrote:
There was a thread a few years ago re "the death of 2X20" I don't know if the study they referenced is publicly available, but I paid the 20$ for it.
In summary it was 3 sets of 13X30 sec with 15sec "float" or soft pedal/rest. vs 5X6 or something like that.
These guys weren't your average couch potatoes, IE VO2 from 4L to 6L IIRC.
Anyways even in highly trained (talking AG highly trained) VO2 increased for the majority.
Also power was low for that VO2 but increased quite a bit across the board (In Norway so I speculate that maybe these guys were Xskiers)
Would have to re-read to get exact details but that is the gist as I remember it.
Cheers,
Maurice
Not having seen it discussed, I created a thread about that protocol:
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...._P5668479/#p5668479
Re: Tabata Protocol... [TOMOP]
[ In reply to ]
TOMOP wrote:
mauricemaher wrote:
There was a thread a few years ago re "the death of 2X20" I don't know if the study they referenced is publicly available, but I paid the 20$ for it.
In summary it was 3 sets of 13X30 sec with 15sec "float" or soft pedal/rest. vs 5X6 or something like that.
These guys weren't your average couch potatoes, IE VO2 from 4L to 6L IIRC.
Anyways even in highly trained (talking AG highly trained) VO2 increased for the majority.
Also power was low for that VO2 but increased quite a bit across the board (In Norway so I speculate that maybe these guys were Xskiers)
Would have to re-read to get exact details but that is the gist as I remember it.
Cheers,
Maurice
Not having seen it discussed, I created a thread about that protocol:
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...._P5668479/#p5668479
Haha,
We had a chat in that thread.
Cheers,
Maurice
I use these (40/20) in close proximity to an event that requires similar ability but I also generally respond to them well so I use them year round. I also use the format but with a lower power for lactate clearing.
Interval Design Studio
YouTube | SoundCloud
Interval Design Studio
YouTube | SoundCloud