Speed vs Time

samammay

I have found that I really enjoy riding my mountain bike. Am I better off increasing speed or time?

Say, for instance, I ride 60 minutes at 12mph normally and want to increase my calorie burn. Am I better off trying to go faster for the same time or same pace but longer?

hilts1969

I have found that I really enjoy riding my mountain bike. Am I better off increasing speed or time?

Say, for instance, I ride 60 minutes at 12mph normally and want to increase my calorie burn. Am I better off trying to go faster for the same time or same pace but longer?

You will probably get a lot of good advice about time vs pace calorie burn but for me exercise is about getting as fit as possible, once i was running at 12 kmh for a hour reguarly one weekend i just decided to carry on running i did 25km, i think settling for one pace and just increasing distance may burn plenty of calories but fitness and interest wise it is not the optimum.

I would mix it up with a long cycle followed by one which tries to beat your current best time, also throw in fast / slow cycles so you are working your heart and recovery more.

You will suddenly find your 12 mph norm becomes 15mph

Exercise like cycling or running is all about beating yourself

DavPul

why do you have to choose?

samammay

Because I like math and want to know which is more efficient.

DavPul

math is cool and all, but if we're talking likes and dislikes....

do you like to ride further or do you prefer to ride faster?

Mr_Knight

If the goal is burn, you're better off increasing speed. You get the benefit of increased distance + increased resistance/drag. That said, for many people it seems to be easier to increase distance by just going longer at their current pace.

At the end of the day, the difference isn't ginormous, so I would go with whichever one you enjoy more.

samammay

math is cool and all, but if we're talking likes and dislikes....

do you like to ride further or do you prefer to ride faster?

At the end of my ride I feel like I could go another few miles. I dont feel that it would be as easy to do it faster.

Which is probably my answer... do the one that is harder.

While it would sound easy just to increase time on the bike, I run into real world problems such as my boss doesnt care if I like riding my bike in the morning.

But damir00 says the difference isnt ginormous... so I will take that as a "go as long as you can and when that fails, go further in the same time"

coolraul07

If the goal is burn, you're better off increasing speed. You get the benefit of increased distance + increased resistance/drag. That said, for many people it seems to be easier to increase distance by just going longer at their current pace.

At the end of the day, the difference isn't ginormous, so I would go with whichever one you enjoy more.

^THIS. The math is universal, but the answer isn't and relies upon the specifics. For example, I did the math for my treadmill workouts and found workouts with equivalents burn for both 'speed' and 'duration'. In the end, I much preferred increased duration, but will substitute increased speed when I'm short on time.

lucan07

From what I have read burning fat is better done at lower intensity I used to do everything flat out, and then brought a Heart Rate Monitor now I control my pace to keep heart rate approximately 75% of my max 220 - 54 = 166 * 75% = 124.5bpm. I now exercise for longer but the results are far better as I understand it at higher levels you burn less body fat from personal experience it appears to work for me at any rate.