# Lots of 3 minute intervals...why?



## Rugergundog

In my Carmichael workouts the majority of my interval work is a combination of 3 minute intervals.

Anyone have any insight into this? 

Is it purely a physiological thing....or does it have to do with the typical acceleration within a race or pull while in the group?

That said.......when a surge takes place is there a pretty frequent duration in many cases.........maybe 3 minutes?


Having been doing combination after combination of 3 minute intervals for the past several weeks i can really churn the pedals and rip it up for 3 min or a little longer.......but much longer i fizzle out quick if pushing at 95%+


----------



## pretender

VO2max


----------



## stevesbike

it's pretty close to a 'T max' intervals: peak power as intensity and a percentage of Tmax (the amount of time you can sustain that output). 60 percent of Tmax is the target Paul Laursen studied. That's a bit shorter than 3 minutes for most (about 2:30) so extending them a bit and reducing their intensity is probably based what people can actually complete as a set.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

It takes about that long to reach your VO2max. I would guess the theory is that by doing so you induce significant changes.


----------



## rockdude

The two - three min power is what wins races or puts you in the break. Threshold keeps you in the race, anaerobic capacity puts you on the podium.


----------



## Poncharelli

rockdude said:


> The two - three min power is what wins races or puts you in the break. Threshold keeps you in the race, anaerobic capacity puts you on the podium.


Good summary there.

But my opinion is a little different. Good VO2max is what puts you in the break, or the lead group. 

AC and sprinting is what puts you on the podium or winning races. 


This is coming from a guy with great VO2max power, and not much of anything else. (according to a power profile test). I've only podiumed on courses with a short to medium length uphill finishes.


----------



## iliveonnitro

I'm still not sure of the 3min interval. It's intended to be VO2max, but it's too short and too anaerobic. It's too long to be a good anaerobic workout, though.

I'd typically only prescribe these if a particular A-race is known for these sorts of efforts.


----------



## pretender

iliveonnitro said:


> I'm still not sure of the 3min interval. It's intended to be VO2max, but it's too short and too anaerobic.


Depends on the rest interval, right? Jack Daniels uses intervals from 1 to 5 minutes, with an equal or slightly shorter rest interval.


----------



## JohnStonebarger

iliveonnitro said:


> ...it's too short and too anaerobic...


Why do you say that?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

iliveonnitro said:


> I'm still not sure of the 3min interval. It's intended to be VO2max, but it's too short and too anaerobic. It's too long to be a good anaerobic workout, though.


It typically takes the body about 2 to 3 minutes to reach a steady-state condition. However, if you're producing enough power to reach your VO2 max you're not going to be able to sustain it for much more than 3 minutes (without looking it up I would guess 5 minutes would be about as long as folks can sustain a given power that will produce their VO2 max?). I think that's the sense in which 3 min. intervals are often called "VO2 max".


----------



## pretender

Dwayne Barry said:


> It typically takes the body about 2 to 3 minutes to reach a steady-state condition. However, if you're producing enough power to reach your VO2 max you're not going to be able to sustain it for much more than 3 minutes (without looking it up I would guess 5 minutes would be about as long as folks can sustain a given power that will produce their VO2 max?). I think that's the sense in which 3 min. intervals are often called "VO2 max".


Not to mention that you aren't fully recovering in the rest interval.


----------



## Rugergundog

in the case of the carmichael intervals rest is generally equal 3:3 Many workouts have 3 intevals with equal rest followed by extended rest of 6-8 min and then repeat of the 3min intervals.


So being able to sustain a nice hard pull for 3 minutes is good preparation for attacks and surges in pace?


----------



## Max09

*Intervals*

Ok maybe I got some bad info. I found this workout in a cycling mag. 45 sec. all out sprint, 15 sec. slow pedal then a 20 sec. sprint then medium pedal for 2 min 40 sec. every fourth min. you start again, 10 reps. Prior to this I was doing 1/2 mile all out with a 1/2 mile rest 6 reps...


----------



## pretender

Rugergundog said:


> So being able to sustain a nice hard pull for 3 minutes is good preparation for attacks and surges in pace?


http://freewebs.com/velodynamics2/traininglevels.pdf

In Coggan's terminology, VO2max training is Level 5 training, and in his table, you see that it gives best "bang for buck" (timewise) for several important physiological adaptations.

Any "time-crunched" training program will probably focus on VO2max intervals. Jesper Medhus does the same thing:
http://www.training4cyclists.com/how-to-increase-your-vo2-max-in-14-days-vo2-max-test/

The problem is that such training is really demanding, both physically and psychologically, so if you keep hammering away multiple times per week on these intervals for a long time, it generally leads to burnout.


----------



## iliveonnitro

Dwayne Barry said:


> It typically takes the body about 2 to 3 minutes to reach a steady-state condition. However, if you're producing enough power to reach your VO2 max you're not going to be able to sustain it for much more than 3 minutes (without looking it up I would guess 5 minutes would be about as long as folks can sustain a given power that will produce their VO2 max?). I think that's the sense in which 3 min. intervals are often called "VO2 max".


Please do not guess. If you have sources for your information, post them.

There are a couple flaws in your reasoning. "VO2max" is not an on/off switch. To develop your power at VO2max, you do not need to physically be at your VO2 limit. Your power at VO2max can be developed with L2 rides or L6 rides (and even, to a very small extent, L1 and L7). The "power that will produce VO2max," which is technically incorrect terminology, can be very low. The idea of 5-6min intervals (and upwards of 8min, though I feel that is also pushing it) is to hit the "sweet spot" for training time vs physiological benefit. Sure, you can do a 2min interval and work your VO2max, but it's not nearly as useful as, say, a 5min interval. Ditto for a 20min power test.



pretender said:


> http://freewebs.com/velodynamics2/traininglevels.pdf
> 
> In Coggan's terminology, VO2max training is Level 5 training, and in his table, you see that it gives best "bang for buck" (timewise) for several important physiological adaptations.
> 
> Any "time-crunched" training program will probably focus on VO2max intervals. Jesper Medhus does the same thing:
> http://www.training4cyclists.com/how-to-increase-your-vo2-max-in-14-days-vo2-max-test/
> 
> The problem is that such training is really demanding, both physically and psychologically, so if you keep hammering away multiple times per week on these intervals for a long time, it generally leads to burnout.


For clarification to anyone else reading this, when pretender is linking to Coggan's chart, he is not implying a 3min interval "gives the best 'bang for your buck';" he is implying that VO2max intervals (3-8min) give the best "bang for your buck."

The validity of that statement, however, is up for debate. VO2max intervals can be worthless to some people and a Godsend to others. More simply put, "it depends."


----------



## AdamM

I don't get targeting VO2max if that's what Carmichael is doing, because I think it's questionable for folks already in good condition how "trainable" VO2max is anyway. 

FWIW, I think the Carmichael Program focus on short, high intensity intervals runs counter to the best studies I've seen that show power is developed best by longer duration, moderate intensity training. The pattern I've seen is that the high intensity intervals produce some quick gains, but then the input of training stress quickly gets way ahead of the bodies ability to adapt and the result is burn out, plateau or regression. I can understand using 1 minute intervals or similar to goose anerobic power before a key race, but a program designed mainly around short intervals all the time, I don't get. Of course YMMV.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

iliveonnitro said:


> Please do not guess. If you have sources for your information, post them.
> 
> There are a couple flaws in your reasoning. "VO2max" is not an on/off switch. To develop your power at VO2max, you do not need to physically be at your VO2 limit. Your power at VO2max can be developed with L2 rides or L6 rides (and even, to a very small extent, L1 and L7). The "power that will produce VO2max," which is technically incorrect terminology, can be very low. The idea of 5-6min intervals (and upwards of 8min, though I feel that is also pushing it) is to hit the "sweet spot" for training time vs physiological benefit. Sure, you can do a 2min interval and work your VO2max, but it's not nearly as useful as, say, a 5min interval. Ditto for a 20min power test.


I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote. I'm not reasoning anything. I'm well aware you never have to train at your VO2max to increase it.

What I was trying to convey was not what sort of training will increase one's VO2max, but the conditions that will produce one's VO2max, i.e. roughly a very hard effort for about 3 minutes is what you need to do to reach your VO2max (and hence why these sort of efforts are often called VO2max intervals or something similar), and if you're working that hard you're not going to be able to sustain it for very much longer, although I don't know the typical time and I'm unwilling to take the the time to go and look it up.

What do you mean by the "power that will produce VO2max" being technically incorrect terminology? There is always some work rate that the body's systems are responding to that produces one's VO2max.


----------



## JohnStonebarger

iliveonnitro said:


> Please do not guess. If you have sources for your information, post them.


Yes. Please do.



iliveonnitro said:


> ..."VO2max" is not an on/off switch...Sure, you can do a 2min interval and work your VO2max, but it's not nearly as useful as, say, a 5min interval. Ditto for a 20min power test...VO2max intervals can be worthless to some people and a Godsend to others... "it depends."


So again, what's wrong with three minute intervals? If VO2max isn't an on/off switch, what's wrong with three minute intervals being "too anaerobic"?




AdamM said:


> ...power is developed best by longer duration, moderate intensity training...


Which studies show that?


----------



## iliveonnitro

Dwayne Barry said:


> I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote. I'm not reasoning anything. I'm well aware you never have to train at your VO2max to increase it.
> 
> What I was trying to convey was not what sort of training will increase one's VO2max, but the conditions that will produce one's VO2max, i.e. roughly a very hard effort for about 3 minutes is what you need to do to reach your VO2max (and hence why these sort of efforts are often called VO2max intervals or something similar), and if you're working that hard you're not going to be able to sustain it for very much longer, although I don't know the typical time and I'm unwilling to take the the time to go and look it up.
> 
> What do you mean by the "power that will produce VO2max" being technically incorrect terminology? There is always some work rate that the body's systems are responding to that produces one's VO2max.


This explanation makes sense. Sorry that's not what I read initially. It sounded as if you were implying you needed minimum power output to reach a state where your VO2max is being stressed and this power output was equivalent to the power you would only be able to sustain for 2-3 minutes. IOW, your "power that will produce VO2max" statement was referencing your absolute power at VO2max, not the power that will in some way utilize VO2max...and that makes sense.


----------



## iliveonnitro

JohnStonebarger said:


> So again, what's wrong with three minute intervals? If VO2max isn't an on/off switch, what's wrong with three minute intervals being "too anaerobic"?


I'll be a bit higher level with this.

If VO2max is what you are ultimately trying to condition, how is a 3min interval better than a 4-6min interval?


----------



## kbiker3111

iliveonnitro said:


> I'll be a bit higher level with this.
> 
> If VO2max is what you are ultimately trying to condition, how is a 3min interval better than a 4-6min interval?


It doesn't hurt as much.


----------



## stevesbike

iliveonnitro said:


> I'll be a bit higher level with this.
> 
> If VO2max is what you are ultimately trying to condition, how is a 3min interval better than a 4-6min interval?


the thinking is to use the minimum intensity necessary to reach VO2max (based on studies from running using Vmax for intensity) and the minimal time necessary to reach it (.6 of Tmax). I've seen Tmax reported for elite cyclists average 222s, so .6Tmax is only a bit over 2 minutes (133s). So, this is supposed to optimize intensity/duration for a HIT protocol, which would not be reached in a 4-6 minute interval. Laursen has shown significant improvements in 40km TT times based on such a protocol.


----------



## iliveonnitro

kbiker3111 said:


> It doesn't hurt as much.


Then you aren't doing them hard enough


----------



## iliveonnitro

stevesbike said:


> the thinking is to use the minimum intensity necessary to reach VO2max (based on studies from running using Vmax for intensity) and the minimal time necessary to reach it (.6 of Tmax). I've seen Tmax reported for elite cyclists average 222s, so .6Tmax is only a bit over 2 minutes (133s). So, this is supposed to optimize intensity/duration for a HIT protocol, which would not be reached in a 4-6 minute interval. Laursen has shown significant improvements in 40km TT times based on such a protocol.


Using this protocol, you're still looking at closer to 3min 45s. 4min is a pretty good VO2max interval time. With 8 intervals prescribed in his study, you're looking at a total of 30min of VO2max workouts.

Laursen's study compared two groups using the 60% of Tmax at Pmax (so closer to 8x3min45s), an 8x30s group, and a control group without the intervals. There was no comparison to a 5 or 6min interval at, say, 90% of their CP5/6. Whose to say 30min using 6min intervals is worse than 30min using 3-4min intervals?


----------



## stevesbike

The average Tmax reported in Laursen 2002 was about 245 seconds, so .6 Tmax for duration results in intervals of about 2.5 minutes. By saying intervals should be longer, do you mean longer while keeping the same intensity (which is defined to be the minimum intensity necessary to elicit VO2max) or longer duration at lower intensity? The first would be too hard to complete (e.g., doing repeated bouts with a duration equal to Tmax) while lower intensity would not be sufficient stimulus. The thinking of Laursen and Jenkins, 2002 indicates that in already well-trained athletes the intensity of the interval needs to elicit VO2max.


----------



## AdamM

> Which studies show that?


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1748098

Road cycling is an aerobic sport.


----------



## Rugergundog

Carmichael does a good job of explaining the risks and realistic gains from his program.

I understand most of what you guys have provided regarding physiological theory; however remember the Carmichael routine has a focus of only 6-8 hours a week of riding.

And yes...as someone pointed out; the interval work may consume 30 minues of a 120 minute workout.

I just finished week 5 of the carmichael routine and though i feel whooped following a workout and a little the first part of the next day..i feel recovered in general.

But it does seem you all answered my question as the "3 min" is more a physiological thing.


----------



## hozzerr1

If indeed Carmichael knows his stuff (and there's alot of proof to say he does) then the answer is very simple: *periodization of energy system*

Understanding the energy systems and how they apply to sports training is vital for all trainers who design and implement programs.

The anaerobic lactic system provides energy after the first 10sec of high intensity and up to approximately 70sec after that the aerobic system kicks in

Workouts of 3 minutes at intensities of zone 1,2,and 3 are designed to hit three of the major eneergy systems that operate on cycling: 

1. Alactic system 4- 12s rep
2. Lactic acid tolerance 20 - 90s rep
3. Maximum oxigen consumption 3- 5 min rep

The last one is responsible for increasing efficiency in oxigen transportation and usage.

Improved oxygen transportation to the muscle cell level, and especially increased efficiency in oxygen use are important factors for improved performance in sports in which the aerobic system is dominant, or very important.

The above knowledge has been around since the 60's and was brought forth by one of the pioneers and authorities in periodization of strenght, Tudor O. Bompa, PhD


----------



## hozzerr1

BTW, 

Intensity zone 1 workouts are done at >95% max intensity 

Intensity zone 2 workouts are done at 85 - 95% 

Intensity zone 3 workouts are done at 80 - 85% with 8 - 12 reps and 2 - 3min rest intervals.

IMHO in every level and phaset of any sport you will find the influence of Tudor Bompa's revolutionary training methods. Most "good" books out there contain his name in their bibliography. Look him up.


----------



## JohnStonebarger

AdamM said:


> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1748098
> 
> Road cycling is an aerobic sport.


I'm embarrassed to ask you to dumb that down for me, but how is the conclusion that "power is developed best by longer duration, moderate intensity training?"

Meanwhile, in the study it's pretty much either/or, isn't it? While in real life even the "time-crunched" training plans include a fair dose of CT.


----------



## Rugergundog

I do recall a major portion of the CTS book is dedicated to what hozz is talking about.

Carmichael illustrates that when done properly you can place stress to change on more than one of the physiological systems at a time...........hence is philosophy (maybe not his originally) of working the body without a heavy base load and going right into the intensity stuff.........as the intense workloads and intervals impact all levels of the muscle/cardio physiology......however with a cost; it can only be done for a brief period before the stress out does the gain.

Thanks for the input guys.


----------

