Athlete summary
When your block focus (race-demand limiter) says what to develop, M5 picks how the quality day is built — not a generic VO2 template for every punchy goal.
| Focus | Protocol key | Shape |
|---|---|---|
ftp / time_trial | threshold_long_blocks | Long near-FTP blocks (prefer 2×20) |
five_min | vo2_five_min | ~5-minute severe VO2 (± W′bal when CP/W′ set) — long-interval family |
| (default VO2 role) | role_default | Long self-paced / severe intervals (classic ~4×4 @ ~115% FTP; 5×5 / 5×8-style also first-class when ridden hard) |
sprint | sprint_neuromuscular | 10–30 s all-out + long easy recovery |
attacking / short_climbs | ronnestad_30_15 | Optional fixed-%MAP 30 s hard / 15 s easy series — one way to accumulate T@90%, not the default “best VO2 session” |
endurance / long_mountains | (role demotion) | Prefer endurance days; no invented climb-repeat set |
Sprint focus must not become default 4×4 @ 115% FTP — that is a VO2 recipe, not neuromuscular work.
HIT quality = T@90% VO2max (cited mapping — not a composite score)
Adaptation tracks time ≥90% VO2max during work intervals (T@90% VO2max), not whether the session was labelled 30/15 vs 4×4 / 5×5 / 5×8.
Guardrail: T@90% VO2max is a cited literature mapping to Odden 2024, Appelhans 2025, and Held 2026. The engine does not invent a composite HIT quality score, a %HRmax→%VO2max formula, or a “best HIT” structure ranking beyond what those papers support (Held’s P-scores are exploratory only).
- Field proxy (labeled): ride long VO2 intervals self-paced / hard (RPE / all-out sustainable) in the literature long-interval family (~3–8 min work bouts: 4×4 / 5×5 / 5×8-style). This is a proxy, not a lab VO2max measurement. Odden et al. 2024: gains scaled with %VO2max during the work intervals; %HRmax was a worse, less repeatable proxy — do not invent a VO2max-fraction formula from HR alone.
- Appelhans et al. 2025: 30/15 short intervals beat long 5-min intervals for T@90% only when both are fixed %MAP. Under self-paced maximal effort, T@90% is not different (short ≈ long); both jump vs fixed intensity. Classic Rønnestad 2020 30/15 superiority is fixed-intensity / effort-matched data — keep that recipe in the catalog as the fixed-%MAP way to accumulate T@90%, not as the crowned default VO2 day.
- Held et al. 2026 (NMA): no HIIT structure beat even-long intervals on accumulated T@90% (all CIs cross zero; exploratory ranks only). Do not crown 30/15; keep long even intervals (4×4 / 5×5 / 5×8 family) first-class. Exploratory note: 1:1 blocks ranked lowest — context only, not an engine ranking or hard ban.
W′ sustainability of the power target remains (wprime_design refuse/demote). This article owns HIT quality language and protocol framing, not W′bal math.
Why these recipes
- Allen & Coggan separate neuromuscular / sprint openers (short maximal, long rest) from VO2max intervals (3–5+ min severe). Strength / peak power is not a 4-minute effort.
- Rønnestad et al. 2020 remains the fixed-%MAP 30/15 prescription family for attacking / short-climb surge repeatability — not a claim that 30/15 is physiologically superior to hard long VO2 intervals on T@90%. Ride/race repeatability measurement is High-intensity repeatability after work.
Citations
| Key | Paper / source | Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
allen-coggan-ftp-20min | Allen & Coggan — Training and Racing with a Power Meter | Long near-FTP blocks (2×20-style) for threshold / TT. |
allen-coggan-neuromuscular | Allen & Coggan — neuromuscular / sprint openers | Short all-out (10–30 s) with long recovery; not VO2 3–5 min. |
ronnestad-2020-30-15 | Rønnestad BR, Hansen J, Nygaard H, Lundby C. Superior performance improvements in elite cyclists following short-interval vs effort-matched long-interval training. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020;30(5):849–857. doi 10.1111/sms.13627 | Fixed-intensity / effort-matched 30/15 SI vs long VO2 — catalog surge recipe, not T@90% crown. |
odden-2024-vo2max-fraction | Odden I, Nymoen M, Urianstad T, Kristoffersen M, Hammarström D, Hansen J, Mølmen KS, Rønnestad BR. The higher the fraction of maximal oxygen uptake is during interval training, the greater is the cycling performance gain. Eur J Sport Sci. 2024;24(11):1583–1596. doi 10.1002/ejsc.12202 | Adaptation scales with %VO2max during work intervals; %HRmax is a poor proxy — no HR→VO2max-fraction formula. |
appelhans-2025-t90-self-paced | Appelhans D, Rønnestad BR, Skovereng K. Self-paced short- and long-interval training produce similar time at ≥90% VO2max in well-trained cyclists. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2025;20(6):848–855. doi 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0115 | 30/15 wins T@90% only vs fixed-%MAP long intervals; self-paced long ≈ short on T@90%. |
held-2026-hiit-t90-nma | Held S, Rappelt L, Micke F, Wiedenmann T, Donath L. Network meta-analysis of HIIT structures on accumulated time ≥90% VO2max. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2026;18:336. doi 10.1186/s13102-026-01891-7 | No HIIT structure beat even-long intervals on T@90%; do not crown 30/15; 1:1 blocks lowest exploratory rank. |
jones-vanhatalo-cp | Jones / Vanhatalo CP literature | CP anchors for severe-domain 5-min design. |
skiba-2012-wbal | Skiba et al. 2012 | W′bal shaping when CP/W′ present on the 5-min path (owns refuse/demote). |