Just 30 mins a day?

aussieluke · Post by **aussieluke** » November 5th, 2016, 5:24 am

Just an idea I've been thinking about for when I want to move on from the Pete Plan, and as I am about to go through some busy times, job changes etc...
I enjoy doing lots of long steady state work, but I just don't/won't have time to do enough volume to make it worthwhile.
I love doing hard intervals, but they can take a lot of mental prep and nervous energy, plus recovery etc

I'm thinking of making my next block of training super simple: Just do 30 minutes a day.

No fuss, no stress, no racing... as my favourite strength coach, Dan John, would say: no screaming, no eating chalk, no pounding on walls. Just do the work and get out of there.

Some days it may be a slow cruise (for me 2:08-2:10 at a low rate), some days a bit faster and higher rate (2:00 - 2:05 at r22) and some days I might feel like pushing harder at around 1:55ish. Will probably be a case of getting on and seeing what happens.

I will try to continue to run at least a couple of days a week too, plus some pushups and kettlebell strength work etc.

I'm sure there are more optimal ways to train - in fact I know there are many, but it makes sense to me as far as simple plans go.

Has anyone tried something similar?

MarkEg · Post by **MarkEg** » November 5th, 2016, 6:50 am

Yes, tried this. It makes sense if you're trying to fit training around other lifestyle changes. Generally found that in order to stay where I am, I need these shorter workouts to be at around 5K pace : 1:50 ish.

Cyclingman1 · Post by **Cyclingman1** » November 5th, 2016, 7:45 am

30 min a day, 3.5 hours a week? There are plenty of people who do quite well on that and even much less.
Presumably you know best how to utilize your time regarding distances and pace. I do know that nobody has ever gotten good at endurance athletic endeavors without a certain amount of intensity. For athletic types in their 30's and 40s, just under 7 min 2K is an OK place to be, not great but good. From that point anyone will have decide if they want to put in smart training to get really good. A lot of people just don't want to. 30 mins a day is enough time to get really good if one so desires.

MarkEg · Post by **MarkEg** » November 5th, 2016, 8:20 am

Cyclingman1 wrote:30 min a day, 3.5 hours a week? There are plenty of people who do quite well on that and even much less.
Presumably you know best how to utilize your time regarding distances and pace. I do know that nobody has ever gotten good at endurance athletic endeavors without a certain amount of intensity. For athletic types in their 30's and 40s, just under 7 min 2K is an OK place to be, not great but good. From that point anyone will have decide if they want to put in smart training to get really good. A lot of people just don't want to. 30 mins a day is enough time to get really good if one so desires.

Define 'really good'?

Gammmmo · Post by **Gammmmo** » November 5th, 2016, 8:23 am

3.5hrs/week is roughly 50-55km which for me would be quite solid right now. One thing I have learnt though is if your base is already good, irrespective of the sport, make sure 2+ of those sessions are hard ones. My body seems to forget how to erg near my PB potential if I do lots of slower meters. Still feeling my way with erging so....

Gammmmo · Post by **Gammmmo** » November 5th, 2016, 8:25 am

Cyclingman1 wrote:30 min a day, 3.5 hours a week? There are plenty of people who do quite well on that and even much less.
Presumably you know best how to utilize your time regarding distances and pace. I do know that nobody has ever gotten good at endurance athletic endeavors without a certain amount of intensity. For athletic types in their 30's and 40s, just under 7 min 2K is an OK place to be, not great but good. From that point anyone will have decide if they want to put in smart training to get really good. A lot of people just don't want to. 30 mins a day is enough time to get really good if one so desires.

Yes, even a polarized regime which emaphasises lots and lots of slow volume still needs some really HIT.

Anth_F · Post by **Anth_F** » November 5th, 2016, 8:38 am

MarkEg wrote:
Cyclingman1 wrote:30 min a day, 3.5 hours a week? There are plenty of people who do quite well on that and even much less.
Presumably you know best how to utilize your time regarding distances and pace. I do know that nobody has ever gotten good at endurance athletic endeavors without a certain amount of intensity. For athletic types in their 30's and 40s, just under 7 min 2K is an OK place to be, not great but good. From that point anyone will have decide if they want to put in smart training to get really good. A lot of people just don't want to. 30 mins a day is enough time to get really good if one so desires.
Define 'really good'?

Someone who could pull a sub 6:15 2k

Thats my definition of really good.

Gammmmo · Post by **Gammmmo** » November 5th, 2016, 8:43 am

Anth_F wrote:
MarkEg wrote:
Cyclingman1 wrote:30 min a day, 3.5 hours a week? There are plenty of people who do quite well on that and even much less.
Presumably you know best how to utilize your time regarding distances and pace. I do know that nobody has ever gotten good at endurance athletic endeavors without a certain amount of intensity. For athletic types in their 30's and 40s, just under 7 min 2K is an OK place to be, not great but good. From that point anyone will have decide if they want to put in smart training to get really good. A lot of people just don't want to. 30 mins a day is enough time to get really good if one so desires.
Define 'really good'?
Someone who could pull a sub 6:15 2k

Actually I'd say for a HWT that's better than "really good". Sub6 is elite. For a LWT I'd say sub 6:40 is "really good" (John Steventon is in that sort of area and nationally he's really good) - there aren't THAT many people in that range, but there are plenty of outliers that go alot lower internationally like that guy who can go sub6.

I think there's another thread here..........

Anth_F · Post by **Anth_F** » November 5th, 2016, 8:51 am

Suppose everyone has their own opinions on what "really good" is. That was mine.

Now, someone who could pull a sub 6 2k i would consider as being excellent

MarkEg · Post by **MarkEg** » November 5th, 2016, 9:20 am

Sub 6:15 is a different planet -- and I'd be astounded if it can be done with just 30 mins a day. Happy to be proven wrong though

G-dub · Post by **G-dub** » November 5th, 2016, 9:38 am

Steve who uses the Maestoke handle (or something like that) would say it works. And he does (or did) it all at pretty much hard r 20. Has some good times to show for it. I think it depends on goals. Like it seems like you want to stay fit, enjoy your life, and push yourself a little. 30 quality minutes should provide that. There is a book that I'd for read for running that uses a 3 quality session format with cross training thrown in and it has one HIIT session for speed, one hard r20 type session for strength and one long session for aerobics. That would seem to cover the systems well. Throw in a run or two and weights and you should do great.

Anth_F · Post by **Anth_F** » November 5th, 2016, 10:09 am

MarkEg wrote:Sub 6:15 is a different planet -- and I'd be astounded if it can be done with just 30 mins a day. Happy to be proven wrong though

Fair point!!! It would take considerably more work than 30 mins a day. Probably more like 3 hours a day

aussieluke · Post by **aussieluke** » November 5th, 2016, 10:13 am

MarkEg wrote:Yes, tried this. It makes sense if you're trying to fit training around other lifestyle changes. Generally found that in order to stay where I am, I need these shorter workouts to be at around 5K pace : 1:50 ish.

Yeah the idea would be that at least a couple of sessions are around 5k pace. For me 1:55 is 5k +2 so that would probably be hard enough... with the hope that over time the pace would start creeping up little by little.

I feel like I should be able to pull 200w or so at 20spm for 30' quite comfortably, and the last time I tried that the other day it was a bit of an effort so I think working on that would help.

aussieluke · Post by **aussieluke** » November 5th, 2016, 10:15 am

Cyclingman1 wrote:30 min a day, 3.5 hours a week? There are plenty of people who do quite well on that and even much less.
Presumably you know best how to utilize your time regarding distances and pace. I do know that nobody has ever gotten good at endurance athletic endeavors without a certain amount of intensity. For athletic types in their 30's and 40s, just under 7 min 2K is an OK place to be, not great but good. From that point anyone will have decide if they want to put in smart training to get really good. A lot of people just don't want to. 30 mins a day is enough time to get really good if one so desires.

Also this for me is just an 'inbetween' plan ...probably a month or two then no doubt I'll get the bug and went to jump back on be Pete Plan and bump my numbers up again.

hjs · Post by **hjs** » November 5th, 2016, 11:15 am

Gammmmo wrote: Actually I'd say for a HWT that's better than "really good". Sub6 is elite. For a LWT I'd say sub 6:40 is "really good" (John Steventon is in that sort of area and nationally he's really good) - there aren't THAT many people in that range, but there are plenty of outliers that go alot lower internationally like that guy who can go sub6. I think there's another thread here..........

Heavy record is 5.36, lightweight 5.56. 20 seconds, why could lightweightrowers be so much slower to be good?

For me elite is sub 5.50, and sub 6.10 for lightweights.

Concept2 Forum

Just 30 mins a day?

Just 30 mins a day?

Re: Just 30 mins a day?

Re: Just 30 mins a day?

Re: Just 30 mins a day?

Re: Just 30 mins a day?

Re: Just 30 mins a day?

Re: Just 30 mins a day?

Re: Just 30 mins a day?

Re: Just 30 mins a day?

Re: Just 30 mins a day?

Re: Just 30 mins a day?

Re: Just 30 mins a day?

Re: Just 30 mins a day?

Re: Just 30 mins a day?

Re: Just 30 mins a day?