Minimum & Maximum Aerobic Times..?

SimonClarke

Hey all, what is the minimum time required exercising "in the aerobic heart rate zone" (65% to 85% of max heart rate) before the heart & lungs will benefit from it? (i.e be stressed enough that when they recover they will be slightly stronger & more efficient)

Also, is there a cut-off point where more time spent in the aerobic zone will not equal better results? (eg. Is 3 hours in the aerobic zone greater than or equal to 2 hours in the aerobic zone [ad infinitum] with regards to the general % increase of efficiency of heart & lungs after recovery?)

The sole reason for me exercising in the aerobic zone is to strengthen my heart and lungs. Calories and weight-loss are not a concern of mine.

I do hope you can provide some information regarding this because I bike 3 times per week on an indoor stationary bike (Mon, Wed & Fri) and I would like to maximise the availability of the extra days rest after Friday's session by going for longer than my usual 60 - 90 minutes.

I am a 29 year old male, good physical health, resting heart rate & blood pressure are average for healthy male my age, same with weight/height ratio.

Hope someone can help.

ray jay

for running, long and easy sessions are used to improve the cardiovascular system. The majority of the weekly mileage runners clock up will be accounted for by these easy runs. The difficulty of the run isn't as important as the time spent running as far as improving your CV performance is concerned. Shorter, higher intensity work is reserved to improve other factors like VO2max and lactate threshold


however for a biker the story is probably different since you don't have to worry about injuring yourself by doing too much mileage too intensely the same way a long distance runner would. Judging by the cyclists I know, you should be able to train for as long as you like at whatever pace you can manage without trouble

SanoVitae

SimonClarke wrote: »

The sole reason for me exercising in the aerobic zone is to strengthen my heart and lungs.

You might be interested in reading this (page 2 especially) ->

http://www.seriousstrength.com/pdf/AerobicsRationalAnalysis.pdf

SimonClarke

SanoVitae wrote: »

You might be interested in reading this (page 2 especially) ->

http://www.seriousstrength.com/pdf/AerobicsRationalAnalysis.pdf

Thanks but the report is too biased for me to gain anything from it and the most recent scientific reference the author made in the first 2 pages was almost 20 years ago.

When i say strengthen i mean improve the efficiency, make better.

Appreciate the link and effort though, thanks :-)

Giggipaws

Hi there,

Very interesting approach, I must say You made me think for quite a while and I am afraid that I never came across of any study that would prove clearly and beyond any doubt the existence of any specific breakpoint after which your heart and lungs are stronger and stronger each time you pass it.

You body changes overall when you exercise, and it is very difficult to pick up only one single benefit of regular training and focus only on that. But OK, I respect that that's what you try. I am just trying to say that it might be little bit similar situation that the one I have with my clients who want to 'lose the fat from that or the other particular part' of their body, being it belly, thighs, etc. It is impossible to tell to your body from where to use the fat - your body will just simply decide and that's it.

Yes, it is good to have a goal - but I prefer to have them measurable, and I am afraid that the one you set up for yourself is not measurable yet. Or - better said - not in regular conditions. If you would go to special sports centers, like the one in Limerick University, I am sure they would be able to measure your progress .... They certainly measure lungs capacity...etc. Probably try to get in contact with those specialists - and based on measurements of your progress you would be able to determine your own 'breakpoint'... That's what my best thinking is at the moment anyway

Good luck in your search and all the best
Giggi

EileenG

The whole "fat burning zone" thing makes me want to spit. It's based on a mathematical fallacy. Yes, it's true that at low intensity, your body will burn a greater proportion of calories as fat. But you'll burn very few calories overall. At higher intensities, you'll burn more calories, including more fat calories.

For for how long you need to do it to get an effect, it's all up to you. It's exactly like lifting weights, you need to push beyond your comfort zone in order to improve. So if you normally cycle for two hours at 70% heart rate, you either need to cycle for two and a hour hours, or else do two hours at 85% intensity.

Since no-one has unlimited time (and I can't think of anything more boring than hours on an indoor bike), it makes sense to increase the speed, or cycle up more hills, or try some sprints. in order to get fitter.