Intensity vs Duration - Training question

(BHE) said:

Would training 5 times a week at 30 minutes per session at 80% - 85%
of max heart rate be less effective than replacing some of the 30
minute sessions with 45-60 minute sessions at 60-70% max heart rate?

Effective for what event?

JT

In article <[email hidden]>, John Forrest

Tomlinson said:

(BHE) said:

Would training 5 times a week at 30 minutes per session at 80% - 85%
of max heart rate be less effective than replacing some of the 30
minute sessions with 45-60 minute sessions at 60-70% max heart rate?

Effective for what event?

The Meet and Greet at the squat rack?

John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(BHE) said:

Would training 5 times a week at 30 minutes per session at 80% - 85%
of max heart rate be less effective than replacing some of the 30
minute sessions with 45-60 minute sessions at 60-70% max heart rate?

Effective for what event?

As a conditioning / training program, for fitness.

Can you replace longer lower intensity sessions with shorter more intense sessions?

In article <[email hidden]>, BHE

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(BHE) said:

Would training 5 times a week at 30 minutes per session at 80% - 85%
of max heart rate be less effective than replacing some of the 30
minute sessions with 45-60 minute sessions at 60-70% max heart rate?

Effective for what event?

As a conditioning / training program, for fitness.

Can you replace longer lower intensity sessions with shorter more intense sessions?

Those two types of training provide slightly different results so it
would be helpful to hear more detail about what you actually want to
accomplish.

-WG

No one seems to want to give you a straight answer. I'd say that regardless
of what you are trying to accomplish, you should do both. The main way to
improve fitness is to shock your system in some way. Going longer will
build endurance, going shorter and harder will build power and speed. Pro's
often spend days riding for seven hours at a very low level of intensity,
while on other days, they have much shorter all out sessions. The best way
to improve fitness is to mix it up.

Stan

"BHE" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Would training 5 times a week at 30 minutes per session at 80% - 85%
of max heart rate be less effective than replacing some of the 30
minute sessions with 45-60 minute sessions at 60-70% max heart rate?

There seem to be two scools of thought - "more (and slower) is better"
vs "shorter and more intense is better". In addition, a weekly
interval session (or maybe two?) seems beneficial.

One of my concerns is I dont want to over do cardio if it will consume
the muscle mass Ive put on (both from cycling and weight training).

In article <[email hidden]>, StanSD

Quoted message said:

No one seems to want to give you a straight answer. I'd say that regardless
of what you are trying to accomplish, you should do both.

So he should just do training like this regardless of what he wants to
accomplish? Could result in wasted training time and effort and lost
opportunity too.

Okay Stan, give us a straight answer about what he'll accomplish by
doing 45-50 minutes at 60-70% of MHR.

Quoted message said:

Pro's
often spend days riding for seven hours at a very low level of intensity,
while on other days, they have much shorter all out sessions.

What do the training methods of pros have to do with what BHE wants?

-WG

Quoted message said:

"BHE" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Would training 5 times a week at 30 minutes per session at 80% - 85%
of max heart rate be less effective than replacing some of the 30
minute sessions with 45-60 minute sessions at 60-70% max heart rate?

There seem to be two scools of thought - "more (and slower) is better"
vs "shorter and more intense is better". In addition, a weekly
interval session (or maybe two?) seems beneficial.

One of my concerns is I dont want to over do cardio if it will consume
the muscle mass Ive put on (both from cycling and weight training).

(BHE) said:

John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(BHE) said:

Would training 5 times a week at 30 minutes per session at 80% - 85%
of max heart rate be less effective than replacing some of the 30
minute sessions with 45-60 minute sessions at 60-70% max heart rate?

Effective for what event?

As a conditioning / training program, for fitness.

Then you're asking in the wrong newsgroup -- this one is about bike
racing.

JT

StanSD said:

No one seems to want to give you a straight answer.

Because there is no "straight answer" -- a training question can only
be addressed knowing the goals and current situation of the rider.

JT

"StanSD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No one seems to want to give you a straight answer. I'd say that

regardless

Quoted message said:

of what you are trying to accomplish, you should do both. The main way to
improve fitness is to shock your system in some way. Going longer will
build endurance, going shorter and harder will build power and speed.

Pro's

Quoted message said:

often spend days riding for seven hours at a very low level of intensity,
while on other days, they have much shorter all out sessions. The best

way

Quoted message said:

to improve fitness is to mix it up.

Stan

"BHE" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Would training 5 times a week at 30 minutes per session at 80% - 85%
of max heart rate be less effective than replacing some of the 30
minute sessions with 45-60 minute sessions at 60-70% max heart rate?

There seem to be two scools of thought - "more (and slower) is better"
vs "shorter and more intense is better". In addition, a weekly
interval session (or maybe two?) seems beneficial.

One of my concerns is I dont want to over do cardio if it will consume
the muscle mass Ive put on (both from cycling and weight training).

The reason that no one seems to want to give him a straight answer is that
he's posed his question in the wrong newsgroup.

Andy Coggan

"BHE" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As a conditioning / training program, for fitness.

Can you replace longer lower intensity sessions with shorter more intense

sessions?

I'll try and throw you a line. I think I hear you saying that you are
interested in general fitness. If that is true, don't worry about intensity
or time. Do what you can at a comfortable pace and don't try and
compensate for a tight schedule by ramping up the effort.

In my opinion, most people fail to get into shape because they make it too
difficult, don't rest enough and then become so miserable that only a fool
wouldn't quit. Therefore, unless you're a fool, don't put yourself in that
position.

Have fun and ride your bike. I hope it works as well for you as it does for
me!

A poster's report that pro's train seven hour low intensity days
brings up a point that I don't understand:

Since they never ride at very low intensity, how does this help them,
if the rule of training is "specificity, specificity, specificity?"

In fact, if NO races are held at low intensity, how does it ever help
to train at low intensity?