diff --git a/references/citations.md b/references/citations.md index cbf0dc0..e83372a 100644 --- a/references/citations.md +++ b/references/citations.md @@ -152,6 +152,19 @@ Rønnestad BR, Øfsteng SJ, Zambolin F, Raastad T, Hammarström D. *Superior Phy After a Microcycle of Short Intervals Versus Long Intervals in Cyclists.* Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021;16(10):1432–1438. **PMID 33735833 · DOI 10.1123/ijspp.2020-0647.** +> **Caveat on the cycling short-interval body of work (Rønnestad 2016/2020/2021 + Almquist 2020):** +> the short-interval superiority comes chiefly from a **single research group**, and its adaptation +> claims are challenged by effort-matched work: when **total work duration** is matched, the +> advantage reportedly disappears (attributed to a Seiler-group study — **unpublished / +> secondary-source, low evidence tier, not cited as fact**). Present short-interval superiority as a +> *lab-consistent but not independently settled* finding, not a cycling consensus. See +> `vo2max-intervals.md`. + +**❌ "Effort-matched cycling replication, no difference" (Seiler group)** — **NOT VERIFIABLE as a +primary source.** Referenced only via secondary/coaching sources as an unpublished master's thesis +(~30 cyclists, VO2max ~64, total-work-matched, no short-vs-long difference). Used only to *temper* +overconfidence in the short-interval side; **do not cite as established evidence.** + --- ## Distribution / periodization philosophy diff --git a/references/vo2max-intervals.md b/references/vo2max-intervals.md index 9a414d5..b95dd15 100644 --- a/references/vo2max-intervals.md +++ b/references/vo2max-intervals.md @@ -22,43 +22,63 @@ a **work-to-recovery ratio of ~0.85**, with ~3×/week over 3–6 weeks as an eff Wang & Guan 2025, *BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil* 17(1):156; PMID 40605061; DOI 10.1186/s13102-025-01191-6). -> **Caveat — modality.** This meta-analysis is weighted toward **running-based** HIIT. The ~140 s / -> 0.85 optimum is a strong starting anchor, but see the cycling-specific conflict below before -> treating "longer is better" as settled *for cyclists*. +> **Caveat — modality.** Yang 2025 describes its *optimal protocol* as running-based; the abstract +> does not give a cycling-vs-running breakdown across the 51 studies. Treat ~140 s / 0.85 as a +> cross-modal anchor, not a cycling-specific verdict — and note that **~140 s is a *medium* rep +> (~2.3 min): longer than 30s, shorter than the classic 5-min "long" interval.** The pooled optimum +> sits *between* the two poles people usually argue about. -## ⚠️ Genuine conflict: rep length in cycling vs running +## ⚠️ Rep length is unsettled and protocol-sensitive — not a solved short-vs-long question -The claim that **longer reps (3–5 min) accumulate more time ≥90% VO2max than 30/30s** is -**supported in running but contradicted in cycling.** Do not present it as settled. +A common coaching claim is that **longer reps (3–5 min) accumulate more time ≥90% VO2max than short +(30s) intervals.** The evidence does not settle this cleanly: it flips by modality, depends heavily +on how the protocols are built, and can wash out when total work is matched. Do **not** present +either "go long" or "go short" as established. + +**The direct time-at-VO2max studies disagree by modality:** | Modality | Finding | Source | |---|---|---| -| **Running** | 3-min intervals accumulated **more** time >90% VO2max (~328 s) than intensified 30-s intervals (~201 s), even with 30-s intensity raised | Fleckenstein, Braunstein & Walter 2025, *Front Sports Act Living* 6:1507957; PMID 39835194; DOI 10.3389/fspor.2024.1507957 | -| **Cycling (acute)** | **30-s** work intervals induced **more** total time ≥90% VO2peak than longer intervals in well-trained cyclists — the opposite result | Rønnestad & Hansen 2016, *J Strength Cond Res* 30(4):999–1006; PMID 23942167; DOI 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182a73e8a | -| **Cycling (adaptation)** | Over 3 weeks, effort-matched **short** intervals (30/15 s) beat long (5-min) intervals — e.g. +4.7% 20-min power — in elite cyclists | Rønnestad, Hansen, Nygaard & Lundby 2020, *Scand J Med Sci Sports* 30(5):849–857; PMID 31977120; DOI 10.1111/sms.13627 | +| **Running (acute)** | 3-min intervals accumulated **more** time >90% VO2max (~328 s) than intensified 30-s intervals (~201 s), even with 30-s intensity raised | Fleckenstein, Braunstein & Walter 2025, *Front Sports Act Living* 6:1507957; PMID 39835194; DOI 10.3389/fspor.2024.1507957 | +| **Cycling (acute)** | **30-s** work intervals induced **more** time ≥90% VO2peak than longer intervals (50%/80% of Tmax) at matched 2:1 work:rest, in 13 well-trained cyclists — the opposite result | Rønnestad & Hansen 2016, *J Strength Cond Res* 30(4):999–1006; PMID 23942167; DOI 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182a73e8a | +| **Cycling (adaptation)** | Over 3 weeks, "effort-matched" **short** intervals (30/15 s) beat long (5-min) intervals — e.g. +4.7% 20-min power — in elite cyclists | Rønnestad, Hansen, Nygaard & Lundby 2020, *Scand J Med Sci Sports* 30(5):849–857; PMID 31977120; DOI 10.1111/sms.13627 | -Reinforcing the cycling short-interval side: effort-matched acute responses (Almquist et al. 2020, -PMID 32267032) and a microcycle shock-block (Rønnestad et al. 2021, PMID 33735833). +**The pooled meta-analysis puts the optimum in the *middle* (~140 s / ~2.3 min)** — see the caveat +above. So the honest shape is an **inverted-U whose peak location shifts with modality and protocol**, +not a binary short-vs-long contest. -**Why they might differ:** protocol construction differs (cycling short-interval work is typically -30/15 s series to exhaustion; the running comparison used fixed-volume intensified 30-s reps), -so part of the divergence may be design, not pure modality. Either way, **for cyclists the -best-controlled evidence favors short 30/15-style intervals for accumulating time ≥90% VO2max**, -which cuts against a blanket "bias toward longer reps." +**Two reasons not to over-trust the "cycling favors short" side:** +1. **It's largely one research group.** The cycling short-interval superiority comes chiefly from + Rønnestad and colleagues (2016 / 2020 / 2021; Almquist 2020, PMID 32267032; Rønnestad 2021, + PMID 33735833). Internally consistent, but independent replication is limited. +2. **Effort-matching is the crux.** When independent cycling work matched **total work duration** + across formats, the short-interval *adaptation* advantage reportedly disappeared (attributed to a + Seiler-group study; **unpublished / secondary-source — low evidence tier, do not cite as fact**). + Much of the apparent edge may be that 30/15 sessions simply pack more total high-intensity work, + not rep length per se. + +**Bottom line:** acute time ≥90% VO2max favors short intervals *in the Rønnestad cycling protocols* +and long intervals in the one running study; the pooled optimum is *medium* (~140 s); and +effort-matched adaptation data are equivocal. Treat rep length as a lever to **individualize**, not +a solved problem. > ⚠️ **Under-researched — track individual response.** Optimal rep length for a *given cyclist* is -> not resolved. Use the MCP interval/stream data to verify what actually keeps power ≥90%-effort -> band across reps for this athlete, and let that — not a rule — drive the choice. +> not resolved. Use the MCP interval/stream data to verify what actually keeps power in the +> ≥90%-effort band across reps for this athlete, and let that — not a rule — drive the choice. ## Practical prescription -- **Default menu for cyclists** (bias to what the cycling evidence supports, then verify per rider): - - **Short intervals:** 30/15 s (≈13 reps × 2–3 series) — strong for time ≥90% VO2max and - adaptation in cyclists (Rønnestad 2020/2021). - - **Longer intervals:** ~3–5 min reps at ~0.85 work:rest — the meta-analytic optimum region - (Yang 2025); useful for **sustained** aerobic power and for riders who tolerate short intervals - poorly. If rebuilding sustained power specifically, longer reps have a rationale — but this is - a reasoned choice, not a proven superiority in cycling. +- **Menu for cyclists** (no format is proven superior — pick by athlete and goal, then verify per + rider with the MCP data): + - **Medium intervals (~2–4 min, work:rest ~0.85):** closest to the pooled meta-analytic optimum + (~140 s; Yang 2025) and a sensible **default** for most riders — long enough to bank time + ≥90% VO2max, short enough to hold power across reps. + - **Short intervals:** 30/15 s (≈13 reps × 2–3 series) — banks time ≥90% VO2max well in the + Rønnestad protocols (2016/2020/2021); good for riders who fade on long reps or want more total + high-intensity work per session. Not proven superior once total work is matched. + - **Long intervals (~4–5 min):** favored by the running time-at-VO2max data (Fleckenstein 2025) + and useful for **sustained** aerobic power and race-specific steady demands; a reasoned choice, + not a cycling-proven one. - **Prescribe from power.** For MTB especially, HR lags and misleads (`mtb-xco-demands.md`, `data-confounds.md`). - **Verify the session worked:** pull the interval stats/streams from MCP and check power held near