20 minute cycle

Tombo2001

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You don't need a 10 minute warm up. 5 is plenty. And you certainly can do interval runs for more than 10 minutes.

5 minute warm up is not plenty.

Second, of course you can do an interval run for more than ten minutes, but it wont be high intensity.

Macy0161

jive wrote: »

20 mins daily is nearly 2 and a half hours of activity a week, it all adds up.

It adds up, but it's not going to fix a bad diet. Weight loss appears to be the goal, I don't see this making a significant difference to that goal tbh.

Alf Veedersane

Tombo2001 wrote: »

5 minute warm up is not plenty.

Why?

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Second, of course you can do an interval run for more than ten minutes, but it wont be high intensity

Why?

Tombo2001

Mellor wrote: »

It's only easier if you are going easier.

Calories burned are proportional to intensity. Cycling hard will burn at a higher rate than moderate running, and visa versa.

I suppose my point is, you can be cycling fast and not cycling hard.....on a good surface, with a tailwind for example.

That's not the case with running.

As such, I'd really only see cycling being high intensity if you are on a decent uphill. Otherwise, its difficult.

Tombo2001

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Why?

quote="Tombo2001;104147478"]Second, of course you can do an interval run for more than ten minutes, but it wont be high intensity

Why?[/QUOTE]

Because by definition, high intensity cant be sustained for a long time.

The program you outlined is 90 seconds, break, 90 seconds, break, 90 seconds break.

I agree, this is high intensity.

15 minutes, break, 15 minutes, break is not high intensity. Its tempo.

Transform

We do not do any more than one higher intensity session per week with our clients

I feel its very abused, misapplied and id far prefer training and coaching a man or woman to be capable of performing push ups, pull ups, squats, lunges etc well than encouraging the idea that sweating = progress.

Almost All the clients we initially work with have come from trainers that were kicking the stuffing out of them all the time and ended up making very little progress physically, were constantly tired and were carrying injuries from being encouraged to perform movements far too quickly with terrible form.

IMO the best use of 20-30mins is -

I feel good on the day = 5-10mins mobility work, 10mins - strength work, remaining time = conditioning at high(er) intensity

Im defo not 100% = 5-10mins mobility work, 10mins strength work, remaining time = low intensity conditioning or more mobility work

Mobility work = this

Strength work = to be performed every 2mins x 5 - pick one day

Day 1 - Squats + one arm rows
Day 2 - Single leg deadlifts or deadlifts + push ups
Day 3 - Step ups or Lunges + chin ups or ring rows or band pull apart
Day 4 - Leg curls on Swiss ball or single leg hip lifts off a bench + seated dumbbell overhead press

Reps would depend on load being used but generally more than 4 or more reps and no more than 10reps

Conditioning can be performed on a single piece of equipment or using a variety of movements such as box jumps, kettlebell swings, burpees, skipping, rowing, running etc it just depends on whats programmed that day.

some things to consider

Alf Veedersane

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Because by definition, high intensity cant be sustained for a long time.

The program you outlined is 90 seconds, break, 90 seconds, break, 90 seconds break.

I agree, this is high intensity.

15 minutes, break, 15 minutes, break is not high intensity. Its tempo.

No one suggested 15 minutes though. You can manipulate the sprint and rest periods so that you're operating at high intensity for 20 minutes.

There was a loop I used to run that would take 20/21 minutes. Started with a 3-min warm up and then started into it. It was high intensity.

Depending on your fitness, you need to adjust sprint and rest times to your level to maintain high intensity.

Transform

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You're basically looking at intervals of all out and rest so you can manipulate those two variables.

For example, you could do 60s hard, then 90s rest. Repeat x 8

If you tried that and found it too hard, shorten the sprint time or lengthen the rest time (or both).

As it gets easier, make sprint longer or shorten rest (or both).

There is no exact formula but you ideally want to be increasing the 'sprint' time you do in your 20 mins.

which is ok if the person in question has an existing decent aerobic base but its a terrible idea for the average person starting out as it wont develop the aerobic base

Alf Veedersane

Transform wrote: »

which is ok if the person in question has an existing decent aerobic base but its a terrible idea for the average person starting out as it wont develop the aerobic base

Not disagreeing but the OP didn't suggest they had no aerobic base so just suggested a routine.

Edit: looking back at OP, I wouldn't be doing it repeatedly all week.

Transform

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Not disagreeing but the OP didn't suggest they had no aerobic base so just suggested a routine.

Edit: looking back at OP, I wouldn't be doing it repeatedly all week.

Id just like to see a heart rate reading first, its what we do as we find most cant perform simple work at a modest heart rate so higher intensity stuff aint going to help but yes i know you're just answering the question

Alf Veedersane

Transform wrote: »

Id just like to see a heart rate reading first, its what we do as we find most cant perform simple work at a modest heart rate so higher intensity stuff aint going to help but yes i know you're just answering the question

Agreed and probably should have added the caveat.

Mars Bar

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Because by definition, high intensity cant be sustained for a long time.

The program you outlined is 90 seconds, break, 90 seconds, break, 90 seconds break.

I agree, this is high intensity.

15 minutes, break, 15 minutes, break is not high intensity. Its tempo.

You didn't answer why a 5 minute warm up isn't plenty?

Tombo2001

Mars Bar wrote: »

You didn't answer why a 5 minute warm up isn't plenty?

http://running.competitor.com/2015/08/training/the-perfect-warmup-for-speed-workouts_132831

Tombo2001

Mars Bar wrote: »

You didn't answer why a 5 minute warm up isn't plenty?

Because your muscles will still be cold and you would be prone to injury.

Minimum warm imho for the session outlined above is 2k run followed by 3-4 minutes of strides.

That's minimum. If it was me, I would do 2 miles rather than 2k.

Its my opinion. Obviously you could do no warm up if you want.

Mellor

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I suppose my point is, you can be cycling fast and not cycling hard.....on a good surface, with a tailwind for example.

That's not the case with running.

How do you figure that?
Of course you can run without running hard. Somebody running at 10km/h is burning less cals than someone running at 15kk/h.

As such, I'd really only see cycling being high intensity if you are on a decent uphill. Otherwise, its difficult.

That makes no sense either. Going uphill makes a given speed harder (as with running). But there's no reason you can't put that same intensity into a sprint on the flat.
Look at lads in the velodrome. Much harder intensity than the Tour de France for example.
Same deal with running. Marathon intensity vrs 5km.

Tombo2001

Mellor wrote: »

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I suppose my point is, you can be cycling fast and not cycling hard.....on a good surface, with a tailwind for example.

That's not the case with running.

How do you figure that?
Of course you can run without running hard. Somebody running at 10km/h is burning less cals than someone running at 15kk/h.


That makes no sense either. Going uphill makes a given speed harder (as with running). But there's no reason you can't put that same intensity into a sprint on the flat.
Look at lads in the velodrome. Much harder intensity than the Tour de France for example.
Same deal with running. Marathon intensity vrs 5km.

Well the most obvious reason is that you need a stretch of good quality road with not many people or cars on it.

I'm speaking from personal experience to be honest. I've done a lot of interval training in running. I've never worked as hard in a cycling work out as I have in running work outs; however particularly not cycling on the flat.

Mellor

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Well the most obvious reason is that you need a stretch of good quality road with not many people or cars on it.

The higher the intensity, the shorter distance you'll be able to go. You're also moving the goalposts quite a bit there.

FWIW, if somebody wanted to go balls out. I'd say an airdyne type bike is best for obvious reasons.

I'm speaking from personal experience to be honest. I've done a lot of interval training in running. I've never worked as hard in a cycling work out as I have in running work outs; however particularly not cycling on the flat.

Are you possibly letting your own training history influence what you think is possible. I'd imagine that an avid cyclist has had more intense sessions on the bike.
Personally, I rather run hard and fast for a short distance. No intervals. Go until you stop.

Tombo2001

Mellor wrote: »

The higher the intensity, the shorter distance you'll be able to go. You're also moving the goalposts quite a bit there.

FWIW, if somebody wanted to go balls out. I'd say an airdyne type bike is best for obvious reasons.


Are you possibly letting your own training history influence what you think is possible. I'd imagine that an avid cyclist has had more intense sessions on the bike.
Personally, I rather run hard and fast for a short distance. No intervals. Go until you stop.

No I am not.

You can do high intensity running....400m running say.....on the footpath, or on the grass in a park....

An equivalent distance on a bike at really high speed is more like a kilometer.....so you need a kilometer of flat road, good quality surface, no traffic lights, don't need to be worrying about traffic getting in your way or other cyclists.... I think that's valid. I have a road bike, I use it a lot. However I'm not in a cycling club, but I've never heard from a cyclist about doing a high intensity work out......pls share if you have.....

ford2600

Tombo2001 wrote: »

No I am not.

You can do high intensity running....400m running say.....on the footpath, or on the grass in a park....

An equivalent distance on a bike at really high speed is more like a kilometer.....so you need a kilometer of flat road, good quality surface, no traffic lights, don't need to be worrying about traffic getting in your way or other cyclists.... I think that's valid. I have a road bike, I use it a lot. However I'm not in a cycling club, but I've never heard from a cyclist about doing a high intensity work out......pls share if you have.....

When doing HIIT on bike I use a steep/very steep quite road for two reasons
*it's easy to get intensity up
*if I do fall over in a heap I'll do so slowly without having to worry about traffic.

I wouldn't consider doing HIIT on a flat road and certainly not one with any regular traffic, street furniture.

The intensity of track riders would be on a par with a GT sprint finish or the finish of this stage
http://www.letour.fr/le-tour/2017/us/stage-12.html

That's Bardet on ground I don't think he had much more in him with that lovely ramp to finish

meeeeh

I have no interest going into technical stuff because I do exercise just to wake up and do it the way I like it or is convenient. Just under 22 min of running outside, distance 4.2 km uses 285 calories according to Garmin. 10km (I had to pick a distance) cycle on room bike in just under 21 min uses 275 kcal according to same Garmin.

I have no idea how accurate calorie counting is in Garmin but for me it's much of a muchness what you pick.

Mellor

Tombo2001 wrote: »

No I am not.

You can do high intensity running....400m running say.....on the footpath, or on the grass in a park....

An equivalent distance on a bike at really high speed is more like a kilometer.....so you need a kilometer of flat road, good quality surface, no traffic lights, don't need to be worrying about traffic getting in your way or other cyclists.... I think that's valid. I have a road bike, I use it a lot. However I'm not in a cycling club, but I've never heard from a cyclist about doing a high intensity work out......pls share if you have.....

I wouldn't be doing a 400m sprint on the footpath tbh.
Running at 20+km/h, if somebody steps in front of you it could go tits up quickly. Just like cycling a high intensity.

But regardless, you are talking about logistics above. That's a different point enritrely. What I actually disagreed with was;

Tombo2001 wrote:

Well its easier.....because it requires less energy......hence it burns less calories.....

My point is that neither is magically higher, it comes down to intensity. And as I said above, if you want to go balls out, something like an airdyne bike makes a lot more sense for high intensity work imo.

eeeee

Tombo2001 wrote: »

No I am not.

You can do high intensity running....400m running say.....on the footpath, or on the grass in a park....

An equivalent distance on a bike at really high speed is more like a kilometer.....so you need a kilometer of flat road, good quality surface, no traffic lights, don't need to be worrying about traffic getting in your way or other cyclists.... I think that's valid. I have a road bike, I use it a lot. However I'm not in a cycling club, but I've never heard from a cyclist about doing a high intensity work out......pls share if you have.....

I'm a track (velodrome) rider and I also race on the road, most of my track training is hiit stuff, I train 4 days a week and race 2, 1 evening weights in the gym with my team, I'm in a club and I can categorically tell you I do plenty, oh so many high intensity work outs on the bike. They don't all make me sick, but they all get be close!

OP you can do plenty in 20 mins on the bike, think about gear selection if you bike has gears, you can work on power, vo2 max stuff, there are almost infinite hiit options! there are plenty of 20 min hiit videos on YouTube if you buy a cheap turbo you can be done, dusted and in a sick, sweaty heap in 20 mins. The weight will fall off you if you get two hiit sessions per week, and use the other days to work on power (take off from lights in a high gear and sprint), recover, spin the legs out.
Warning though-If you get into it you will want an infinite number of bikes and things to go with them!

gramar

I know watches and calorie calculators aren't known for their precision accuracy but I noticed this earlier:
Doing 6x400m repeats with 80secs walking rest burned 182cal of which 17% were calculated as fat.

The point is that the other day a fairly easy 8km at 5min/km the percentage of calories burned calculated
to be fat was only 8% of the overall 675cal burned. In a 5km on Sunday at 4:20min/km the fat percentage was only 4%.
Looking back at 500m repeats a week or two ago the fat percentage was 17%.

According to the people at Polar at least shorter higher intensity training burns a significantly higher percentage
of calories from stored fat than lower intensity longer activity. The other side of the coin is that these sessions
may well be shorter and there is an overall lower calorie burn at least according to the data.

Mellor

gramar wrote: »

According to the people at Polar at least shorter higher intensity training burns a significantly higher percentage
of calories from stored fat than lower intensity longer activity.

It's the other way around. Higher intensity burns a lower percent from fat.
The times/calories above suggest the longer runs were actually a higher intensity overall. So makes sense fat % was lower. The time spent recovering makes up around half the repeat session. That's drags the intensity down.

What were the average heartrates?

gramar

Mellor wrote: »

It's the other way around. Higher intensity burns a lower percent from fat.
The times/calories above suggest the longer runs were actually a higher intensity overall. So makes sense fat % was lower. The time spent recovering makes up around half the repeat session. That's drags the intensity down.

What were the average heartrates?

I thought that too. The body would burn from fat stores the longer the activity continued.

I rarely used the heart monitor so I've no data on that.

Mellor

gramar wrote: »

[
I thought that too. The body would burn from fat stores the longer the activity continued.

I don't think the length of activity has any impact. It's based on energy demands. As you work harder fat burning can't supply enough energy alone.

I rarely used the heart monitor so I've no data on that.

Where did you get the cake burned, fat % from? Does it not also tell you HR?

gramar

Mellor wrote: »

I don't think the length of activity has any impact. It's based on energy demands. As you work harder fat burning can't supply enough energy alone.


Where did you get the cake burned, fat % from? Does it not also tell you HR?

I'll get a HR read if I wear the chest band which I rarely do.
I don't know what the cals burned and % of fat data is based on but
I'd imagine my age/weight/the profile of the run/intensity thresholds all come into in.

nice_guy80

better than sitting on the couch
start at 20mins
build it up to an hour