
Marcel Kittel undergoes a VO2max test at the Bakala Academy. (Photo: Tim De Waele/Getty Images)
Do you have a question on training, nutrition, or sport science that you’d like answered? Please email us to be included in Training FAQ.
Dear Chris,
How does one go about raising VO2max, which we always want to be higher, while targeting a specific direction of VLamax. Physiologist Sebastian Weber said in episode 73 of the Fast Talk podcast that the perfect way to lower VLamax is to do lots of sub-threshold intervals, at a low cadence. This sounds a lot like a sweet-spot based training model versus a polarized model. But I have always thought that to raise your VO2max, you have to work over threshold, using your glycolytic metabolism. Wouldn’t that in turn raise your VLamax?
— Stephen Herman
Dear Stephen,
Before we dive into the science, it’s helpful to start by pointing out how critical it is to be careful with the terms we’re using. VO2max is a term that gets used a lot, and I’ve seen it get used to mean a lot of different things. For example, we talk about “VO2max intervals” and think they are great at raising VO2max, but that’s not necessarily the case. They’re called that because they’re done at VO2max power. The fact is, for a lot of athletes, doing that type of interval work trains their anaerobic system a lot more than their aerobic system.
We recently published an episode of Fast Talk with Dr. Stephen Seiler in which we discussed just that. Dr. Seiler has done a classic study where athletes performed 4×4, 4×8, and 4×16-minute intervals. He found that the 4x4s were performed right around VO2max power, while the 4x16s were closer to Sebastian Weber’s TT work (just without the low cadence prescription.) Dr. Seiler drew two conclusions in his study. First, the belief that training at specific intensities to train specific energy systems doesn’t really pan out. Second, that said, he did find that when the athletes did the 4x4s, their lactate concentrations would get up around 13 mmol/L and those athletes saw more improvement in anaerobic power (i.e. 30-second power) than aerobic power (i.e. power at 4mM)
Now let’s dive deeper into the science. For that, I’ll turn to my Fast Talk co-host and our resident physiologist, Trevor Connor. Here’s what he had to say:
Seiler’s research is getting backed by other research which shows that adaptation from most training ultimately channels through the PGC-1alpha pathway, so ultimately the adaptations are going to be similar and somewhat complementary. Yes, there is a distinction between anaerobically focused work and aerobically focused work, but it’s blurry and focusing on 86 percent vs 90 percent of max is really getting into the weeds. In fact, one of the primary conclusions of a previous study by Dr. Seiler, using the same three types of intervals, was that backing down 4-5 percent of max heart rate and accumulating more time at a slightly lower intensity had much greater gains. Hence, Sebastian’s recommendation to have his time trialists do lots of work just sub-threshold.
Coach Connor also reminds us there are a few other things to keep in mind:
For more training advice, check out the VeloNews Fast Talk podcast, your source for the best training advice and most compelling insight on what it takes to become a better cyclist. Listen in as VeloNews managing editor Chris Case and our resident physiologist and coach, Trevor Connor, discuss a range of topics, including sport science, training, physiology, technology, nutrition, and more.