Skip to content

Forum Archives

📣 Our community has moved!

After several years of incredible discussions, we've moved our community to a new home on Reddit where we can better serve our growing family of mountain and endurance athletes.

Join us at our new subreddit forum /r/evokeendurance for:

  • Training advice from our coaching team
  • Peer support and motivation
  • Gear discussions and recommendations
  • Trip reports and inspiration

This forum will remain archived so you can still access all the valuable content and conversations from over the years. However, all new discussions and coaching support now happen on Reddit.

Join us on Reddit
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #127692
    Nathan
    Participant

    TLDR: Is 45 min sufficient for a “dose” of aerobic training, or should I just stick with an hour?

     

    Hi all! I recently sprained my ankle running back to a trailhead (fortunately dodged the bullet of a worse injury) and am likely going to be spending a lot of time on the bike over the next few weeks. I had been planning to start my first 50-K training period in two weeks (using Evoke’s training plan) so keeping aerobic fitness is a must, but ideally, I’d like to continue my efforts to fix my ADS before/as early into the training period as possible. Given the low impact of cycling, and thinking about how the biogenesis response by the mitochondria starts ceases within 12 hours, I was thinking I’d try to do AM/PM doubles (something I’ve done well with in past marathon/run training) while I’m out of weight-bearing commission.

     

    Considering the different modality (cycling vs. running), any general/useful rules of thumbs (e.g. 90 min on the bike = 60 min running), and my goal of fixing ADS as opposed to training for peak cycling performance, I wanted to see what an ideal and/or efficient and effective length of Z2 cycling would be. Ideally, I’d like to do an hour each but, especially early on, I think 45 minutes would be a safe bet to ensure I can keep up this routine. I looked to see what research might be out there (not that I know how to find it very well), but the studies I saw on aerobic development seemed to focus on 30-minute vs. 60-minute periods, which unsurprisingly, showed a preference for the longer 60-minute period.

     

    I was a little hesitant to post the question because I’m mentally already telling myself “anything is better than nothing”, but I would be curious anyone’s thoughts. Personally, I’m thinking:

    1. 60min/60min splits would be best case and what I should aim for as soon or as much as possible;
    2. 60min/30-45min (full hour priority, then anything over 30 min for the second session is good) would be second best;
    3. and then shortened sessions (e.g. 45min/45min) would be the last option if I needed to back off some but still wanted “decent” adaptions.

     

    Thanks to anyone who reads this and feels like giving any thoughts!

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • The forum ‘Training Theory/Methodology’ is closed to new topics and replies.