30sec/30sec vo2 max efforts


Would it be possible to get a few no vid sessions with 30sec/30sec vo2 max efforts?

No Vid variations such as

30sec/30sec x 6 x 2 sets

30sec/30sec x 7 x 2 sets

30sec/30sec x 6 x 3 sets

30sec/30sec x 7 x 3 sets



I thought there were Tabata type workouts, but I looked and there aren’t. Really need to add these. The only current workout of this type is Half Is Easy.

1 Like

I did the same last night, and there are a few Tabata style workouts apart from HIE, e g. Micro Ranger, Micro Intervals, MAP Progression. They are nearly all asymmetric AFAICS though, 30-15s, 20-10s, so perhaps there’s room for some dedicated 30-30s no-vids.
There’s also Rue The Day, although that’s getting into the fight longer ‘hard’ phase…


It’s a short one, but I just rode The Cure yesterday and it’s a Tabata workout.

1 Like

Ah yes, of course, love that ! Also The Chores for the 40-20s, I forgot that one too.

Hey @PeterEire, can I ask why you want these specifically? I mean, there are lots of no-vids in that style.

I am wondering, genuinely, what you feel you are missing here or more accurately, what you feel you’d gain with a set of 30/30s vs the range of others on offer. Is there a physiological benefit you’d get with the longer recoveries?

I ask these questions from the perspective of a rank amateur, non-coach, non-sport scientist.

Like these progressions:

or these Micro Intervals:

1 Like

The implication of this excerpt from the description of The Cure is that true Tabata intervals should be 20s/10s:

1 Like

Can’t speak for the OP, but I’d quite fancy some Tabata-esque equal work/rest workouts for a couple of reasons - firstly, just something a little different but secondly as equal work/rest is at the more aerobic end of aerobic interval ratio, with traditional Tabata at the other (2:1). As someone with not brilliant oxygen intake, i’d be interested to see the difference (if any) and what effects it may have.
Traditional Tabata would also be around 170% of VO2 max, so not really suitable for longer efforts (certainly not for this fella anyway… :grin:)


Hey @Glen.Coutts ,

thanks for that, I’m familiar with all the MAP sessions in the library. I’m a bit of a data science and sports science nerd and all the recent podcasts I listened to claim that the 30/30 is the optimal interval duration when it comes to return on the effort without over-taxing the body.

some good listening here

Fast Talk: Not All VO2max Intervals Are Made the Same – A Physiology Deep Dive on Apple Podcasts with the ex wahoo legend Neil Henderson as guest

one of the studies Intermittent runs at the velocity associated with maximal oxygen uptake enables subjects to remain at maximal oxygen uptake for a longer time than intense but submaximal runs - PubMed more out there just don’t have them to hand.



Now i want some 30/30s too!

Edit: I saw that Sir Neal was on this a few days ago, but I tend not to listen to podcasts unless I’m on a road trip. I never know what to do with my eyes otherwise :stuck_out_tongue:


Here you go


Such a classic!!! NEVER gets old!!!

1 Like

I suggest that this podcast episode mentioned in this thread would be worthwhile to listen to:

It discusses the various types of VO2 max intervals, and the pros and cons of each type of session.

The OP mentioned 30/30 which are very different from 30/15 or longer VO2 max intervals. This is all discussed the aforementioned podcast.


It was the OP who shared it. :innocent:

1 Like

I thought @Namaku was the OP for that podcast, and @PeterEire is the OP on this thread.

In any case, the OP for this thread specifically wanted 30/30s. There were suggestions for some things such as MAP Progressions which are 30/15s. The podcast made clear that those were entirely different efforts, with different effects.


Nope, it was PeterEire who, in responding to my questions, posted the podcast link.

I also listened to the FastTalk podcast (thanks to @Sir_Brian_M for giving me something to do with my eyes :wink: ) I agree with you, @Heretic, that that the FastTalk podcast was not coming out in favour of 30/30s over other interval lengths. If anything, the key, to my amateur ears, was the overall time spent at V02 max over the course of the session rather than the length of interval. They also, amusingly referenced the 15 (cough) intervals of Revolver.

To be fair, Peter also posted another podcast (that I hadn’t listened to) and a study that seemed supportive of 30/30s, though the study referenced runners (and I only read the abstract cuz I’m lazy :slight_smile: )

What got me kinda excited was Sir Neal’s reference to a new testing protocol he’s been working on that isn’t as hideous as FF. Maybe Wahoo can licence it once he’s got it all validated and stuff :pray:


I too got the impression that they did not like 30/30s. When they mentioned Revolver, I immediately thought of you.

Not only is it the amount of time spent over VO2 max that matters, it is also the amount of (or lack of adequate) recovery, as well as developing the discomfort tolerance of the rider.

As far as other studies are concerned, they did talk about the difference between laboratory conditions, and riding in a race.


Maybe, just maybe, one day in the future, wahoo will have a custom workout builder.

Fwiw, they’ve already integrated pushing workouts from other platforms to their ELEMNT head units so maybe the next step is also pushing those to no-vids in SYSTM.


yeah as with all training, the key is variance and I’m sure doing different variations of Vo2 intervals can only be beneficial.


Exactly this, and why i’d like to play with 30-30s within Systm. What’s sometimes called the “aerobic interval ratio” is roughly 1:1 to 2:1 work/rest - with 30-30s at one end, and a more Tabata style effort at the other.

I’m curious about what the relative effort levels would be for the work portions at either end of that range, and how I feel during the recovery (especially how breathing changes), rather than which one is seen as “more optimal” for metric X in paper Y. Analyzing ones suffering can be eminently satisfying** :grin:

** Type 2 satisfying obviously…