Originally Posted by
ldesfor1@ithaca
so, why not shorter intervals? 4' @ slightly higher power?
(part of why I ask is that I'm doing 2:30 hill intervals with 75" RI's @ 110%... this gets me something like 50' @ VO2max wattages.... this seems "imposible". But your 8x5' intervals get you a similar amount of time @ 105%-110%.... I understand that the protocol is VERY different, but for both workouts, one is accumulating a ton of time at Supra-Threshold intensity.)
I was under the impression that in order for an interval to truly target LT improvement it had to be 8' or longer... something about gene expression that only gets realized once VO2max systems are "over-ridden".
If any of this made sense, let me know. I just got back from ride and I'm a bit fried.
-L
Power is not up into the VO2 zone, it's a hint above threshold. You are getting 90% of the benefit from the last 3-4 intervals, as you fatigue. Like everything in training, it's about a balance - maximal fiber recruitment for as long as possible in this case. You're getting 40 minutes at threshold, just like a 2x20, but the intensity (and thus fiber recruitment) is just a bit higher, closer "maximum." Higher intensity would drop the total time, lower intensity would decrease recruitment, more time would force lower intensity... etc.
I suppose a shorter interval at the same intensity with shorter recovery would probably work as well, but I haven't seen any data so I'm not going to go messing with the protocol.
Hope that makes sense
I'm just the middle man here, not the PhD student doing the research