Subject: RE: Minimum Bike Duration To Show Benefitlouiskie - 2009-07-21 3:03 PM
A large percentage of my bike training is short (30 or so mins) because it is my commute. I try to push hard and attack the hills and think I get a lot out of these. I treat them like a regular workout. Sure, I would like to ride more/longer, but with these with an occassional longer ride thrown in I get in some miles while keeping peace at home (car commute takes 20 mins, bike takes 30...so everyone is happy because I am not off training all the time :-)) Having said that, I ride 2X/day on days when I ride to work (to work and from work), so it adds up to an hour+ on those days so not exactly an apples to apples comparison with your scenario but I would say that if you did 7X30 min rides a week, you would get faster than if you didn't. And if your choice is to not ride because you can't do more than 30 mins, or do the 30 min ride, do the ride! I think 40-60 mins can be a very good bike workout if you push hard. Lots of people seem to think that it is not somehow and I saw in Triathlete magazine in a recent issue that a lot of triathletes think bike workouts less than 90 mins in duration are worthless, but I beg to differ. This sounds literally exactly like me. Well over half of my bike miles are accumulated in ~30 minute chunks commuting either to/from work or the pool. I haven't done a continuous ride over one hour since my last half-iron race in mid-June (raced Olympic distance and shorter every weekend since then so there's been no time for longer rides ). I routinely do 26+ mph in short course races and have split well under an hour in Olympic distance races on this program so the short rides must be worth something. That being said, since I'm not racing the next two weekends so I'll for sure get in a couple 4+ hour rides, but whenever I hear someone try to argue that any workout has to be a certain duration to be effective I have to try really hard not to fall over laughing. |