Cycling ??????????

Anthony_1980

when in gym cycling is it better to have high resistance ( harder ) and fast to lose weight or fast and easy resistance ??

i currently do 30 mins a day on level 9 or 10 and its hard but not overly hard and do about 6 miles on it

which is best way on the bike to lose weight ??

justsomebloke

all I will say is that if you haven't tried one already, get to a spinning class and give it a go;)

Anthony_1980

ahh none near me at all

Colm_OReilly

Power output will determine your results. Are you covering a greater distance in less time on high or low resistance?

Some Tour cyclists have heavy gears while others have light gears. It's a matter of personal preference. This type of thing is even more evident on rowing machines, where people naturally assume that the higher they go the better a workout is. If two people of equal weight are rowing, the faster paced one is doing more work, regardless of what cadence and drag factor they're rowing at.

davyjose

I would have thought, being fairly pedantic, that a lower gear (ie, fast and easy) would allow for less momentum, than a higher gear. So for one turn of the pedal you'll free wheel a lot further with a high gear. That said there's probably little difference in cals burned. Although a higher gear might build muscle.
I dunno, trial and error is probably the way to go.

Edit: My bad, re-reading this - I thought you meant cycling on a road - different thing althogether.

Cheeky_gal

Personally, I would think a higher gear, slower speed would be more effective than a lower gear, higher speed. Sure at the end of the day, isn't it all about what gets your heart rate up, hence for me it'd defo be higher gear. Low gear, high speed for me is just a joy-ride tbh so I'd go with the higher gear.

lucyburn

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

Personally, I would think a higher gear, slower speed would be more effective than a lower gear, higher speed. Sure at the end of the day, isn't it all about what gets your heart rate up, hence for me it'd defo be higher gear. Low gear, high speed for me is just a joy-ride tbh so I'd go with the higher gear.

Thats exactly how i do it(maybe am wrong:o)
The harder the setting the faster your heart rate goes,so i always have it set to 8,9 or 10.

hunnymonster

davyjose wrote: »

I would have thought, being fairly pedantic, that a lower gear (ie, fast and easy) would allow for less momentum, than a higher gear. So for one turn of the pedal you'll free wheel a lot further with a high gear. That said there's probably little difference in cals burned. Although a higher gear might build muscle.
I dunno, trial and error is probably the way to go.

I'm a grinder and the guys I cycle with keep telling me to drop the gears and increase me cadence as I will tire less. Maybe that is why my marathon in my last Ironman was so awful. I think the reduced fatigue is the main advantage to keeping it easy.

In terms of fitness benefits rather than performance, I really have no idea. Some of the cycling websites should explain it though.

Colm_OReilly

Sure at the end of the day, isn't it all about what gets your heart rate up

HR isn't an exact corrollary of intensity or effort, so it shouldn't be the be all and end all.

In terms of fitness benefits rather than performance, I really have no idea.

If you focus on improved performance, fitness is an inevitable result. Provided, of course, that you don't sacrifice everything for improved performance in one domain.

hunnymonster

Colm_OReilly wrote: »

If you focus on improved performance, fitness is an inevitable result.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. For example, there is some work correlating marathon world records with the weight (height adjusted) of the runner at the time the record was set. If extrapolated to produce my ideal race weight I would be 49 kgs. To put this in context, I suffered from anorexia nervosa for 10 years. During that time I was on a couple of re-feeding programmes. The minimum weight that a hospital would make me obtain to be discharged was 48.5 kgs. Note, that is not the weight they felt was healthy (more like 56 kgs for me) but it was the minimum weight that they felt I would not die at. I might perform better at 49kgs but I don't think I would be fitter in a more holistic sense of the word.

Jumpy

hunnymonster wrote: »

I'm a grinder and the guys I cycle with keep telling me to drop the gears and increase me cadence as I will tire less. Maybe that is why my marathon in my last Ironman was so awful. I think the reduced fatigue is the main advantage to keeping it easy.

In terms of fitness benefits rather than performance, I really have no idea. Some of the cycling websites should explain it though.

Ah yes, but then you get the lactic acid pain.

BossArky

From my experience you are better off going with a higher cadence (faster leg spin) in a gear two or three from top, as opposed to pushing a top gear over a long period.

On the road a higher cadence will allow you to take wind changes and slight inclines in your (st)ride without loosing momentum.

My right knee still aches a bit every now and again and I'm sure it is to do with the long distance cycling I used to do a few years back, whilst pushing a top gear. I have come to this conclusion because it was the only real exercise I was doing back then i.e. no squat etc.

18 months ago whilst doing the Blenheim triathlon on a super hilly course I decided to go all out in top gear. Legs were absolutely dead for the run. Should have geared down.

To sum up... watch out that you are not putting undue stress on your knees whether it be on a gym or road bike.

noieralc

In a spinning class, you tend to mix it up in terms of resistance. So, on an exercise bike, I'd suggest trying the same.
Start off slow and easy for a warm up, then do bursts of sprints, and high resistance with periods of low resistance to recover.
But that's just the opinion of an amateur who has been doing spin and road cycling for a couple of years!

rubadub

The OP is talking about a bike in a gym, so freewheeling and wind etc are not a factor.

If you look at pro cyclists they will want to cycle in the most efficient manner possible, while people in a gym usually want to burn as many calories as possible. If you go to the cycling forum you will always see them warning about the inefficencies of mountain bikes. I think these are great if burning calories is your main goal. For the same energy expenditure you can not go as far, meaning you will also go slower, so it is safer, less wear as less miles are done, more comfortable on potholed roads etc. But some like the adrenaline rush of the speed on a road bike.

Junior cyclists in clubs are not (or were not at one stage) allowed high gears above a certain ratio, I was told this was so they did not bulk up. A bike is essentially a machine with resistive forces so you should be able to build muscle in higher gears. My mate warned me of knee trouble from high gears, but he is talking of 8 hours in the saddle a day, while I do 40-45mins.

Lower gears allow a high spinning speed so is more like cardio, while really high gears can be like resistance training. When I was overweight I only used high gears, I would be sweating like mad in low gears and was well able for high gears. But this was commuting, in the gym I would have gone for low gears, sweat like mad, get my resistance training from weights.