Fldaves

Just wondering is it better for overall conditioning to do a twenty mile solo ride near my maximum(20mph) speed or a longer 35 mile ride at a more "comfortable"(16mph) speed?

RISKDR1

It is not as simple as that. Personally I favor longer distance at lower intensity for overall conditioning. It allows you to ride more often without burnout and burns fat better than a max state ride. There is a place for a max effort ride maybe once a week. It adds to your ability to hold a pace but done too often I think it creates burnout and dread of riding. I have to confess I am 70 and have been through the whole racing gig when I was in my 40's and just want to have fun now. Fun is not always going all out. I love the easy sissy la la rides especially when they have a social aspect to them. Your goal may be different. From a cardiac health standpoint I think more frequent long slow distance is better than less frequent hard efforts.

fietsbob

Motor pacing?

Garfield Cat

Its not what "better", its going to be the balance between the two for overall conditioning. And I have to remember that conditioning can mean different things. Mostly its the end goal which isn't addressed here, or there.

hueyhoolihan

generally, i find the more miserable the ride the better, WRT conditioning. too bad isn't it?

exmechanic89

I prefer distance. I also do a lot of steep hills for conditioning. I'm sure high speed works well too, though.

caloso

Neither. Do intervals. You could try 5 minutes at 24mph, then 5 minutes at 16mph. Repeat 5 times.

jfowler85

What are you, overall, conditioning for?

chasm54

Neither. Both.

It's far more complicated than that. The most effective training is polarised, with the bulk of the time spent at low intensities but some - probably no more than 20% - spent going very hard.

digibud

There's a book titled "the first 20 minutes" that makes the case for high intensity interval training. Worth reading. IMHO, any rounded cyclist will want to ride long distances with friends so that's one thing to work on. Training to allow yourself to ride 60, 80, 100 or more miles is a thing in itself. You can't do that full tilt boogie, but full tilt boogie is where you develop serious cardio. If your 60/80mi or whatever long distance rides include hills, you can do interval training on them or even on flats, but anaerobic training and high level, hard aerobic training is best done on hard, fast, shorter rides so I'm with those that suggest both the 35mi slower rides and faster 20mi rides are equally important. I would note, though, that the shorter, harder ride is probably doing more for your cardio than the longer ride. You could continue to shortern that short ride so it's shorter and even faster and harder and that would continue to increase the cardio benefit. The hard fast riding is what helps build the cardio that allows the long rides to happen but the entire body and muscle training needed for long rides has to occur as well. That's why most serious cyclists find themselves doing fun rides of long distance at a pace that can be maintained and do one hour rides about as hard as you can. That's how it is for me, anyway and I'm a older non-racer that just enjoys riding as well and as quickly as I can. My one hour rides all include a half dozen sprints. I do actual high intensity intervals in spinning classes where I can push till I'm dripping with sweat and near collapse. THAT level of stress on the body helps the body to react to build endurance and it's hard to do that when you're actually riding. That's probably the biggest "sell" for indoor training.

Jim from Boston

Speed vs distance for overall conditioning?

I can’t cite data, but just this morning I posted to this Fifty-Plus Forum thread, “Heart Rate”:

Doctor Morbius

Intervals provide the best bang for the buck workout.

wolfchild

Neither one is better...For overall conditioning you need to include both...Spend most of your time at a lower intensity and do a short duration HIT 2-3 times per week.

caloso

That strenuous but conversational area is known as the sweet spot. For the more quantitative, it's in the 80-90% of functional threshold power (your maximum average power for 60'). Training by HRM or PM is more precise, but RPE is surprisingly effective if you work at it.

ltxi

x2...

Looigi

Speed and distance are irrelevant. It's duration and intensity of effort that matter. You can do it on a stationary trainer at zero speed covering zero distance.

ltxi

Another x2....get the heart rate up and keep it there for mebbe a half hour every other day at least and you're good to go wrt cardiac fitness

RISKDR1

What is interesting is that the advise varies somewhat for every post which tells me that what is better is very goal specific. In my opinion ( and my cardiologist's) if you are just seeking overall cardiac HEALTH, then favor frequent bouts of moderate to low intensity riding. If you are seeking maximum performance then you need to do more HIT training.

spdracr39

Speed is irrelevant. Train by either power or heartrate. In the end it depends on your goal but the shorter all out rides will make you stronger for a while then you will plateau. The lower intensity distance rides will make the best overall improvements over time. Once you have established a good base endurance then adding in intervals will make you faster because your cardio base has been established and can keep up with the building of muscle. If you just ride hard all the time you get stronger but can't hold it because your cardio won't hold out and you build lactic acid to fast.

chasm54

Up to a point. I'd be interested in the evidence base for your cardiologist's opinion, because in general I think the data is scarce. And there's some evidence that short bursts of very intense, maximal effort exercise produce marked improvements in various metabolic markers even in the very elderly.

However, in general, I'd agree that high-volume, low-intensity should form the bulk of any traing program. But it should be supplemented with some high-intensity work. The low-intensity stuff won't maintain a high VO2 max, and when last I looked there was a strong negative correlation between high VO2 max and premature death from heart disease.

jfowler85

This argument is what's irrelevant. We typically measure the speed of the wheels vs trap speed, which can be accomplished while stationary. Distance is measured the same way, again this can be accomplished while stationary. I.e., these measurements are made relative to the wheel's motion on its own axis, not the cyclist's movement through space.