Cardio-slow pace/high resistance or fast pace/moderate resistance?

slowbubblecar

I'm just curious what most do here and if there are any benefits of one or the other. Assuming your heart rate is the same with both, can you think of any advantages?

I'm specifically thinking about the elliptical, but I'm assuming the same could be said about any type of cardio.

usmcmp

Which ever one you like or are willing to do more is the one with the best benefits. Now, if you have very specific goals then that would change the answer. Such as, if you are trying to build a nice butt and legs by using the elliptical it's best to just go lift weights. If you're preparing for a snow shoe trip then higher resistance is going to be best. If you're using it for cross training as a runner or bicyclist it's probably best to alternate the two.

slowbubblecar

I mainly just do it for the calorie deficit. When I lost weight previously (a few years ago), I noticed I would generally be a lot faster than I am now, but must have been at a lower resistance level but the machines are a little different as well. Now, I generally use a higher resistance which causes me to go at a much slower pace.

I'm not really sure what has caused this change and was curious on if it matters.

NorthCascades

Slow, high resistance = riding up hill. Fast, moderate resistance = riding on the flat.

VeronicaA76

If the equipment you use has a calorie tracker, compare the two. While neither will be accurate for you (unless you can enter your stats) they will be accurate for each other: meaning the one with higher calories used for thier calculation will still be higher calories used for you, even if the calories used aren't what you truly did.

Also, do what you feel is best for you. If you strongly prefer one over the other, do that one, it'll be easier to stick to doing it consistently over the long run.

slowbubblecar

According to my heart rate monitor, the heart rate is about the same so I don't think it really has an impact on calorie burn. I know some people disagree with using heart rate to determine calorie burn, but I like to use it to track effort and think it is better than using the machine or distance.

tomteboda

Personally, I get bored with a single setting, so I use a cross - training program that incorporates variable resistance.

TavistockToad

On a normal week I primarily run so I do one long slow run and 2 shorter slightly faster runs.

I also do 2 sessions on a stationary bike, one steady pace and one with intervals of higher resistance.

VeronicaA76

slowbubblecar wrote: »

According to my heart rate monitor, the heart rate is about the same so I don't think it really has an impact on calorie burn. I know some people disagree with using heart rate to determine calorie burn, but I like to use it to track effort and think it is better than using the machine or distance.

If you feel they are equal in calorie usage. Do whichever one you feel most comfortable with. Or switch back and forth, more like a cross-training type of cardio. All that matters is that you keep heading in the right direction.

AnneThorpe1954

I use my own playlist and change the resistance up and down according to the beat as I go. I have chosen songs especially for their beat, both slow and faster. Overall, I manage to stay within my desired average heart rate, although I do 3-4 high intensity minutes during my daily 45 minute x-trainer session. I wear a Polar heart rate monitor and change down in resistance if my heart rate goes above the limit I have set. I do this because I found the on-screen messages from the heart rate-cardio program on the cross-trainer annoying. If I get a series of slower songs, where I have the resistance up higher, I still get much the same calorie burn but a bit less on distance. I've been doing this for years and find it enjoyable and rewarding.

Azdak

slowbubblecar wrote: »

According to my heart rate monitor, the heart rate is about the same so I don't think it really has an impact on calorie burn. I know some people disagree with using heart rate to determine calorie burn, but I like to use it to track effort and think it is better than using the machine or distance.

Since the machine is measuring actual work performed, the machine calorie numbers are the ONLY way to accurately compare workouts on the same machine. Even if the number is an 30% exaggeration, the difference in numbers among two or more workouts is a real difference.

The problem with using heart rate is that heart rate does not take into account improvements in fitness. I could do 500 calories in 45 min on a cross trainer with an avg HR of 135. 3 weeks later, after a training improvement, I might do 550 calories in that same 45 min (by being able to sustain a higher workload), with the same avg HR of 135. The HRM would show no change in calories burned because HR was the same, but that would not be accurate.

Azdak

Back to the original question: because of differences in muscle mass and muscle fiber types, the ideal resistance:speed ratio can vary between individuals. For example, some one with a higher % of Type 1 fibers is better with higher rpms; that's because higher resistance can cause stronger muscle contractions which can impede blood flow.

In general, lower resistance/higher speed is probably better for endurance workouts, higher resistance better for intervals.

NorthCascades

I guess I would suggest faster with less resistance as they output should be equal, but you'll be producing lower peak force so you'll experience less impact.

spiriteagle99

One issue with high resistance is you need to make sure it's not so high that you put a lot of stress on the joints. DH screwed up his knee for a week by increasing the resistance on his stationary bike too much.

slowbubblecar

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. Maybe I will mix it up more. Recently, I've been using the life fitness elliptical at the gym at a resistance of 19 and a pace of 4.5 or so. I may try to drop the resistance more and to go for a pace of 6 or so some days. I haven't had any joint issues yet, but I can see how doing a bit less would be easier on them.