acastell

Well, I am new to this road biking and this forum.

As I begin my journey to build up my strength and endurance, I want to make sure I am making the right decisions. While I have a ton of questions, the "search" feature will help me answer most.

There is one answer I cannot find. I just started cycling a 2 months ago. I am 35 and resonalble fit. I rode 33 miles, gentle elevation changes, with an avg speed of 16.3 so, I am not exactly at square one, but compared to the talent on this forum, I am a novice.

I ride every Sat am (30-40 miles) and once during the week (20 miles). My work schedule and kids prevent me from riding more during the week. But, I do have a gym at the office that has some high end equipment, stairmasters, bikes etc...

Finally, my question. Will I doing myself any good by getting on the excercise bike at work for 30-35 (gives me time to shower and get back to my desk in side of an hour) min a few times/week. I know from an excercise standpoint, there is not downside. But, my Saturday rides are obviously longer that 35 min and I do not want my body to get used to a false ceiling.

I am guessing that this is not the case, but some reassurance from the experts never hurts.

AC

forum*rider

No it won't hurt. If anything, it should help a bit.

TheRCF

Another thread I just read (title starts: "Three 2-minute burts....") that refers to a study where riding all out for 30 seconds, cruising easily for 4 minutes, and repeating 3 more times - doing this 3 days a week - does as much good as riding for two hours three days a week at a moderate pace.

You could fit this in your time range and since you will be able to shower afterwards, it shouldn't be as big a deal working up a sweat.

Of course, you might want to consider your setup. Since you will be stationary, you will sweat like a pig so I guess you'll want a good fan or something to help.

Anyway, it sounded interesting.

roadbuzz

Absolutely. Especially if you're still pretty new to cycling. Being able to get on the bike consistantly, i.e. 4 or 5 times a week will do a lot more good that twice a week. I wouldn't worry about the "false ceiling" effect. The other thing is, you don't have to bust your hump on the exercise bike to benefit. If you just get on, stay aerobic, but not just "noodling," you'll be developing the muscular and cardiovascular foundation for ongoing development. This is where you have to start, and even racers typically spend 4+ weeks a year re-developing that foundation (albeit they're doing more than 35 minutes a day ).

Guest

Referring to that crackpot study with plenty of flaws to council someone ain't kosher, man. Did you even read all those posts under the crackpot study that blew through all the flaws in the study?

Anyway, since you are new at exercise, the amount you're doing now is sufficient. As your cardiovascular conditioning increases and you find more time to ride, you will definitely have to pick up the pace. For now, though, this will be fine for you until your conditioning increases.

Koffee

Doctor Morbius

Agreed. Crackpot indeed.

Ignore TheRCF's suggestion.

CyniQ

I'm going to have to read that thread. But since I'm here I'll throw in my assumptions. The problem with studies is that the vast majority of them are conducted on "untrained" subjects. This is done for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that untrained subjects provide a common baseline. Athletes are all in various stages of trained fitness. If you are not accustomed to exercise. You WILL experience results from virtually any stimulus. It's the same problem as the Arthur Jones HIT stuff. Bottom line. If you train like a wimp... You'll be a wimp.

TheRCF

I read every post and while legitimate questions were raised, not one "blew it out of the water".

You mentioned, for example, that the study had been circulated for years, yet every reference I looked at for it were from this month. Also, that it hadn't even been submitted until well under a year ago!

That the articles - at least that I've seen - don't deal with every question possible does not negate what it does address. It doesn't even say it is a substitute for the longer exercise since it keeps saying it may help people who claim not to have time for longer exercise anyway - and that is the matter brought up in this thread.

It also says you should already be reasonably fit or check with your doctor.

Besides, the drill isn't that much different from advice I've gotten on doing intervals or sprints. For example, I've been told to push really hard for a minute and then cool down for a minute, then repeat - typically doing that three times on a ride. Well, this study has you pushing really hard for just 30 seconds and then resting 4 minutes and doing it 4-7 times during a ride (18 - 31.5 minutes total plus whatever warmup time one uses).

Now, I can think of all kinds of questions, many which probably can't be answered YET. So what? Things that aren't answered don't invalidate what can be answered.

I mean, is 30 seconds best? Would 3 minutes in between be better? Does it help with weight loss? Does it affect chloresterol? Exactly what do they mean when they say endurance went up from 26 to 51 minutes? How well does it work if someone is already at an exceptional level?

It is also possible that some of your questions are answered by the full study anyway.

TheRCF

Well, as I recall, the study wasn't done on "untrained" subjects - at least not in the sense that they were senditary. Not saying they were highly trained athletes, but one of the comments was that people who are not already reasonably active shouldn't be doing these maximum effort drills.

I don't even see how "untrained" would provide a common level anyway. There are wide differences among the untrained.

CyniQ

Of course there are differences among the "untrained". That's why a "research study" done on ONE person would never get published. I haven't even read your study and I can practically guarantee you that it was done on average joe's and not elite athletes. Most of these studies are done at universities. Many subjects are merely undergrad's or grad's in the department who don't mind being subjected to all sorts of hideous tests for a little extra cash. They're easy to find, willing, and able. Also, whomever conducts these studies wants to get paid for them. Right? So it is to their advantage to use untrained subjects so that the results are more dramatic. That's why so many people still cite decades old Soviet studies done on elite athletes. Because there are SO FEW STUDIES DONE ON ELITE ATHLETES.

In general, the research studies are interesting reading. But don't disregard the anecdotal evidence you read on this forum. We're all guinea pigs trying out various systems and programs in search of better performance.

TheRCF

> Of course there are differences among the "untrained". <

Maybe I'm missing your point or you didn't word it clearly. You talk about testing "untrained" to get a common baseline - because trained athletes are at various stages of training. Yet the untrained vary wildly too. In fact, I can see how there could be a bigger difference.

> I haven't even read your study and I can practically guarantee you that it was done on average joe's and not elite athletes. <

Don't know if they were average, but they weren't elite athletes. Still don't see the point. They ran tests and compared results and those results were pretty interesting.

> it is to their advantage to use untrained subjects so that the results are more dramatic. <

Sure, but most of us are untrained - not many of us would be classified as "elite" for sure! So I have no problem with that aspect.

> In general, the research studies are interesting reading. But don't disregard the anecdotal evidence you read on this forum. We're all guinea pigs trying out various systems and programs in search of better performance. <

But I didn't disregard anything. Some have disregarded the study though, with no good reasons to do so.

CyniQ

I'm certainly not an elite athlete. But I can benchpress almost 1.5x my bodyweight, squat 2x my bodyweight, DL a little more than that, and run a mile in 5 minutes. I definitely think I qualify as "trained". If they took a bunch of guys just like me and ran the same tests on US. They would get much less in the way of results. Maybe nothing conclusive at all. No one will pay or grant money for inconclusive results. So they typically avoid "trained" subjects.

As far as a baseline. I've done a lot of strength training. You may have done alot of cardio training. We're both "trained", but at highly different levels. A great deal of testing would be required to determine whether or not each of us qualifies for a specific study. A couple of hundred grad students who are "untrained" but fit enough to participate are going to provide a much more common baseline. Plus, they are easier to find.

TheRCF

> If they took a bunch of guys just like me and ran the same tests on US. They would get much less in the way of results. <

But remember the guy who started this thread said he was 35 and had only cycled for 2 months and "reasonably fit" - which may well fit the people the mold of those in the testing.

He also was referring to only having about 30 minutes to ride at work - again fitting the test situation pretty well.

He wanted to know if that 30 minute time could be used to help his endurance - the test improved endurance.

It seems to me that he would the kind of person who should follow-up on this study - actually buying it. You can read the abstract and, of course, the news articles.

If he doesn't have medical issues, the max efforts shouldn't be a problem - he can certainly check with his doctor. I'm 56 and I go all-out sometimes longer than that and with less recovery time in between.

In summary, as long as he isn't a health risk, what harm is there in trying the approach in the study since it fits his situation pretty well?

Guest

I misspoke when I said "that study", when I should have clarified and said "that type of study" or "that exercise concept", because I've been hearing about this whole "you only need a few minutes a day to see max results" type of study since the late 90s. I've never heard of any athlete or person out there that uses this concept and had success with it. If you know better, name the athlete.

The questions you bring up are the reasons why so many people say the study has no legitimacy. There are too many flaws with the study to take it seriously. I think it's erronous to counsel someone who's new to exercise with such a crackpot, flawed study.

Koffee

CyniQ

You're absolutely correct on that point. Like I said, just about anything will work for an untrained person. We are all guinea pigs. This particular program is merely HIT in a different incarnation. That is what Koffee is talking about. When you see someone claim more results with less work... run.

TheRCF

> I should have clarified and said "that type of study" or "that exercise concept", because I've been hearing about this whole "you only need a few minutes a day to see max results" type of study since the late 90s. <

I did some quick research on Lawrence More - who was mentioned in a post. Apparently this goes back to the 60's and is, to at least some degree, legit The problem, in my opinion, is that too much is being read into it - not necessarily things the study actually claims. I'm not going to pay to see the whole study report, but the abstract is at:

https://jap.physiology.org/cgi/conten...spec=relevance

The concluding sentence is key: "We conclude that short sprint interval training (~15 min of intense exercise over 2 wk) increased muscle oxidative potential and doubled endurance capacity during intense aerobic cycling in recreationally active individuals."

So articles about it, which pretty strongly imply that this can replace longer exercise in all areas are inaccurate. But what it does cover seems to apply well to the person who started the thread. After all, he wasn't talking about losing weight or cutting chloresterol, etc. He was interested in endurance when he had little time most days to train.

Personally, I like it because it seems pretty close in some ways to sprint or interval training that people tell me I should do for getting faster - the main difference being how long the cool down time is each time.

> I've never heard of any athlete or person out there that uses this concept and had success with it. If you know better, name the athlete. <

Heck, this is the first I even heard about it and as you can see from what I quoted above, they are not saying this is for top athletes (or not) - but it may be quite useful for many of us ordinary folks.

> The questions you bring up are the reasons why so many people say the study has no legitimacy. <

But how can it have "no legitimacy" simply because we have questions - questions which may be answered in the full study or which may be things the study isn't claiming? If it increases endurance, but doesn't help with weight loss, then it would be legitimate in one area, but not the other (which it doesn't claim to be anyway).

> There are too many flaws with the study to take it seriously. <

What flaws? You want a test with more people over a longer period? Fine. But most studies start small since it costs more money to do large studies. If the results are promising, other studies may go further. While a small study may not be conclusive, that is not the same thing as saying it is "flawed"!

TheRCF

Oh I agree that a full program takes work and there are no shortcuts any more than there is for losing weight. But the study doesn't claim to accomplish everything other exercise does. It is actually very limited in what it does. But since that is something the original poster wants to accomplish, it may fit his needs. Remember, he is ALSO doing longer rides on weekends.