Cycling Training · Public discussion

20min vs 10min TT intervals

Started by TTer · · Last activity · 8 posts · 1,676 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Training
Published
15 July 2004
Last activity
21 July 2004
Original author
TTer
Posts
8
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,676
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–8 of 8
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Is there a benefit to doing 2 x 20mins at, say, 300W, vs. doing 2-3 x 10mins at 320W? I'm focussing on shorter time trials at the moment, 10miles, 22minutes.

    Is it better to perform shorter, higher intensity intervals, which are more specific to the TTs I am riding. Or is it better to spend more time, albeit at a slightly lower intensity, as this will 'push up' my sustainable pace in the long run? Is the 20minute interval better as it exposes the body to lacate for longer periods?

  2. I don't know if this helps, but Charmichael recommends LT-type intervals in the 8-12 min range. The intensity level is about 84% of MHR. If done climbing, then more like 87% MHR.

    His coaches typically suggest 3 'reps' of 8-12 mins, with 8 mins easy spin between. I find that level of exertion so easy, though, that I sometimes chop down the rest time, or at least keep the intensity up nearer the 80% MHR during the 8 mins.

    Can't say I've had great results -- it's my first season back after seemingly forever off.

  3. Aztec said:

    I don't know if this helps, but Charmichael recommends LT-type intervals in the 8-12 min range. The intensity level is about 84% of MHR. If done climbing, then more like 87% MHR.

    I'm doing the 10 minute intervals nearer 94% MHR and the 20 minute ones at 92% MHR, though HR only reaches those levels towards the end of the intervals. I race a 10mile TT at nearly 97% MHR though 😄

  4. i assume you've got a power meter, and thus i'd prescribe training by power rather than HR, which is a better metric, especially for such shirt intervals.

    you may also want to try short 4-min intervals to increase your MAP, as well as keeping going with the 20-min ints. see http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/trainingstern.shtml

    ric

  5. Aztec said:

    I don't know if this helps, but Charmichael recommends LT-type intervals in the 8-12 min range. The intensity level is about 84% of MHR. If done climbing, then more like 87% MHR.

    His coaches typically suggest 3 'reps' of 8-12 mins, with 8 mins easy spin between. I find that level of exertion so easy, though, that I sometimes chop down the rest time, or at least keep the intensity up nearer the 80% MHR during the 8 mins.

    Can't say I've had great results -- it's my first season back after seemingly forever off.

    Indeed that doesn't sound like it's very high considering the short duration. on July 7th I had a 3 hour ride where my average HR for the duration was 86% (165 BPM) of my max of 191 BPM. I can't do that very often though as it pretty much wipes me out for a couple days.

  6. If it wipes you out for a couple of days is it the most efficient way of training?
    If you know that you are going to be unable to train for some reason(work commitments etc.) then I can understaand that it may be worthwhile doing a session that takes this length of time to recover from.
    OTHERWISE
    Why not train for a slightly shorter period of time at this intensity and then be able to train the following days?
    There is a level exertion at which what you get out of the training starts to be outweighed by the negative effects of the training (like risk of illness and overtraiining).
    It must be a mental boost to know that you can complete a session like this, but if a training session wipes you out for a couple of days it is possibly not a training session that many people could, or would want to do.

    Gargantuan effort though!

  7. the brother said:

    If it wipes you out for a couple of days is it the most efficient way of training?
    If you know that you are going to be unable to train for some reason(work commitments etc.) then I can understaand that it may be worthwhile doing a session that takes this length of time to recover from.
    OTHERWISE
    Why not train for a slightly shorter period of time at this intensity and then be able to train the following days?
    There is a level exertion at which what you get out of the training starts to be outweighed by the negative effects of the training (like risk of illness and overtraiining).
    It must be a mental boost to know that you can complete a session like this, but if a training session wipes you out for a couple of days it is possibly not a training session that many people could, or would want to do.

    Gargantuan effort though!

    Thanks. Like I said though, I don't do it very often. In fact I can't do it very often. At 44 years of age I just find a certain satisfaction knowing I can still push myself pretty hard now and again.

    Most of my rides are between approx. 65% - 75% of MaxHR and are pretty easy.

  8. Doctor Morbius said:

    Thanks. Like I said though, I don't do it very often. In fact I can't do it very often. At 44 years of age I just find a certain satisfaction knowing I can still push myself pretty hard now and again.

    Most of my rides are between approx. 65% - 75% of MaxHR and are pretty easy.

    I totally understand. It's often v. satisfying to oush yourself right to your limit. Just to remind yourself that you can. Stops us all from getting limited by what we THINK we can do, rather than what we actually are capable of!

    Good on you

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.