Intensity vs Duration - Training question

[Bhe]

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).

[John Forrest To]

On 23 Apr 2004 11:51:07 -0700, usawargamer@yahoo.com (BHE) wrote:

>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

[Warren]

In article <cs5j809nmkr9cpfm6g014867mrviq2hdjq@4ax.com>, John Forrest
Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

> On 23 Apr 2004 11:51:07 -0700, usawargamer@yahoo.com
> (BHE) wrote:
>
> >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?

[Bhe]

John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message news:<cs5j809nmkr9cpfm6g014867mrviq2hdjq@4ax.com>...
> On 23 Apr 2004 11:51:07 -0700, usawargamer@yahoo.com
> (BHE) wrote:
>
> >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?

[Warren]

In article <8580b02e.0404231855.20baf8e7@posting.google.com>, BHE
<usawargamer@yahoo.com> wrote:

> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in
> message
> news:<cs5j809nmkr9cpfm6g014867mrviq2hdjq@4ax.com>...
> > On 23 Apr 2004 11:51:07 -0700, usawargamer@yahoo.com
> > (BHE) wrote:
> >
> > >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

[Stansd]

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" <usawargamer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8580b02e.0404231051.15cfda2f@posting.google.com...
> 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).

[Warren]

In article <mEmic.444$LC.168@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>, StanSD
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> 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.

> 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

> "BHE" <usawargamer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8580b02e.0404231051.15cfda2f@posting.google.com...
> > 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).

[John Forrest To]

On 23 Apr 2004 19:55:13 -0700, usawargamer@yahoo.com (BHE) wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in
>message
>news:<cs5j809nmkr9cpfm6g014867mrviq2hdjq@4ax.com>...
>> On 23 Apr 2004 11:51:07 -0700, usawargamer@yahoo.com
>> (BHE) wrote:
>>
>> >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

[John Forrest To]

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 05:09:38 GMT, "StanSD" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>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

[Andy Coggan]

"StanSD" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mEmic.444$LC.168@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> 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" <usawargamer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8580b02e.0404231051.15cfda2f@posting.google.com...
> > 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

[Tm]

"BHE" <usawargamer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8580b02e.0404231855.20baf8e7@posting.google.com...
> 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!

[Remove The Poli]

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?