TinyBear

So I want to slowly ramp up my training for next summer to prevent failing.

Whats better for burning calories. Adding longer time in the saddle as I can or adding harder resistance in a shorter time span. Obviously the goal is to eventually increase both but I’m very early on starting again a planned 5 days on two days off the bike.

I have been adding 5mins one day and then next day doing 5mins less but increasing the resistance a couple notches.

My my heart rate seems to sit around the 110-120bpm either way but the higher resistance is most definitely harder on my weaker left leg.

brawlo

Either or. Calories burned is a function of the watts you are putting out over the time. Higher watts over a short period can be the same outcome as a longer period with a lower output.

I would work towards the goal that fits within your aspirations. If say you aspire to ride centuries, then work on increasing your output over longer time periods. If say you wanted to have a go at crit racing, then work on putting out more watts over short periods.

Unless you have age or heart/health issues, then 110-120bpm is fairly low. Work towards getting that heart rate up for extended periods. Provided your health, aside from your weight, is good, push your limits to see where the top might be for your heart rate. That can be used for you to put yourself in a harder working mode if it's what you desire, and working in the higher regions on a trainer over winter will mean that cruising along in summer and "smelling the roses" will become that much easier and all the more enjoyable. For example, when I'm fit (not me ATM ) I max out in the mid 180s bpm. I race and I know I can operate in the 160-170bpm range for a good 15min. If I spend much time over 170bpm I know I'll be out the back door faster than last night's vindaloo. I can sit in the 140-160 range for our whole longer 90min rides and when I'm that fit, I can come down from 180bpm to 110bpm in about 2 min on a downhill recovery. I wish I was still that fit, but I'm back to working towards it again which is the main thing

TinyBear

Great info thank you. Then for my purpose sounds like I may be best to continue switching it up. One day harder resistance shorter time next longer time lower resistance. And increase both as I get stronger.

I will push for a slightly higher heart rate as well. As other than some muscular and bone injuries and managed diabetes (pills, diet, and exercise) I’m heart healthy.

Before i I had gotten hurt I increased time on the bike and then when I went to the real bike. It was harder but my legs were strong and I could suffice with better cardio. And I lost 100lbs over the course of a couple years. This is possibly why I struggling to start again as I trying to do things the way I have before but I’m facing issues I never had before.


Today im not nearly as heavy as I was but I want and need to continue the journey to a healthy weight. But today it’s my strength that’s my limiting factor it seems. But sadly my cardio is in need of work again as well.

expatbrit

If you are time-crunched, there may be significant advantages to a HIIT regime, depending on your end-goals. There's research around the Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption (EPOC) and it gets more into less time. You'll definitely want to be massively over that 110-120, however, to realise the benefits there. You'll want to be 90% YOUR max HR in the intervals -- so you better be heart healthy. What HR Max is is going to be pretty dependent on you, though there's a number of formulae that should be able to get you in the ballpark. (For reference, I can get to about 185 or so and I'm in my late-40s; that's fairly high for my age, I'm told, and 180+ is no fun at all. 2 years ago, I could get over 190 but that was genuinely less than fun. )

There's also little concept on the long-term benefit or harm to health from that sort of training, so YMMV. If you want to get stronger, faster -- it's the way. It may or may not do good long term; do the research and check it out. I've a few acquaintances who've had good results with the Tabata protocol, but I personally seem to do better at weight loss from longer, steadier exercise at a lower HR.

jsigone

variety is the spice of life and will burn more cals than doing the same thing over and over again.

zjrog

If I might share my experience in weight loss and a cardiology scare. At my heaviest weight, my cardiologist introduced me to her cardiac rehab gym. At first, every workout was with a heart rate monitor. Medical grade. And defibrilator on site and techs that are nurses. Prescribed exercise levels at first, based on what I could do within a given heart rate. Which, was included time on the exercise bike with no resistance. Later, as I lost weight and my heart rate and blood pressure came down, I increased time and started adding resistance. Having been an avid cyclist 25 years prior, I understood where this was headed and welcomed the work. It was a good day when I was no longer monitored during the workout. Just BP before and after. The last 2 months I was in the gym, I was also riding outdoors, and had received the all clear from my cardiologist to for any and all workouts and exercise.

I agree, time on the bike is more important than no time on the bike. More time at low resistance is every bit as good as short time at higher resistance. Unless you have a heart condition. Then more time at lower resistance is probably better for longer... Good luck. And that reminds me, to get on my bike tonight...