Poll: higher or lower cadence?

Options
mimilion1
mimilion1 Posts: 30 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
my question is on an exercise bike is it better to up the resistance and pedal at a low rpm or lower the resistance but higher and faster rpms?

For weight loss and muscle tone

Replies

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    mimilion1 wrote: »
    ....but higher and faster rpms?

    80 to 100 rpm, lower starts to add load on the knees so risks injury.

  • mimilion1
    mimilion1 Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    So a lower resistance is better (with higher rpm)?
  • cheshirecatastrophe
    cheshirecatastrophe Posts: 1,395 Member
    Options
    Whatever gives you the hardest workout.

    I personally can push myself harder with a medium resistance and faster cadence, because my lungs and heart are in better shape than my leg muscles.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Options
    mimilion1 wrote: »
    So a lower resistance is better (with higher rpm)?

    You want to keep your cadence in the 80-100 rpm range. Keep in that range regardless of the level of resistance you're using.
  • mimilion1
    mimilion1 Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    So keeping it in the 80-100 rpm range is good for max fat burning? Right, no mater what the resistance is???
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Options
    The higher the resistance the more calories you will burn. Point is so you don't tear up your knees most people should stay in the 80-100 RPM range. Lower is harder on the knees. Over 100 your form probably goes a bit south.
  • mimilion1
    mimilion1 Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    I thought if the resistance is higher then you need to pedal harder (thus more strain on your knees)??
  • rick_po
    rick_po Posts: 449 Member
    Options
    The 80-100 RPM range is safest for your knees. Keep in that range always. When you get in better condition, you can increase the resistance, but always stay in the 80-100 RPM range.
  • Pinnacle_IAO
    Pinnacle_IAO Posts: 608 Member
    Options
    mimilion1 wrote: »
    my question is on an exercise bike is it better to up the resistance and pedal at a low rpm or lower the resistance but higher and faster rpms?

    For weight loss and muscle tone
    I crank up the resistance as high as I can for a fast, intense routine more oriented toward anaerobic strength training than cardio.
  • mimilion1
    mimilion1 Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    What if you're looking for cardio (to lose fat) not to build muscle?
  • mimilion1
    mimilion1 Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    Yeah and I'll stay in the 80-100 rpm range. Thanks Rick ^^
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    mimilion1 wrote: »
    So a lower resistance is better (with higher rpm)?

    Yes, because you avoid injuring yourself.

    Grinding slowly against a high resistance will screw up your knees.
  • tomatoey
    tomatoey Posts: 5,446 Member
    Options
    What's the risk with higher rpms, like 120-140? That's what participants did in some of the studies summarized here
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991639/

    which often found increases in fat free mass and decreases in fat (table here). (I think many of them asked people to increase resistance, as well)

    eg this study (where "The HIIE workload was set at 80–90% of each subject's heart rate (HR) peak at a cadence between 120 and 130 r.p.m and recovery was set at the same amount of resistance but at a cadence of 40 r.p.m.")
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    tomatoey wrote: »
    What's the risk with higher rpms, like 120-140?

    Sustainability. and the balance around effectiveness.

    To maintain a cadence that high the resistance is so low there is minimal strength and endurance improvement.

    AS far as HIIT is concerned, as ever it's about gross effect. Whilst the higher intensity phases are marginally more effective about energy expenditure and balance, they're so short that the benefits around longer duration steady state are far more significant.

    If you look at, for example, the Sufferfest Half is Easy video, that's 45 minutes long and includes 43 15 second maximal effort sprints, broken into two sets, with about 20 minutes of easy effort warm up, cool down and recovery between the sets. For me, that's about 400 calories, of which less than 100 relates to the maximal efforts. If I do a climber, racing or time trialling simulation I can get about 500 cals in the same time.
  • tomatoey
    tomatoey Posts: 5,446 Member
    Options
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    tomatoey wrote: »
    What's the risk with higher rpms, like 120-140?

    Sustainability. and the balance around effectiveness.

    To maintain a cadence that high the resistance is so low there is minimal strength and endurance improvement.

    AS far as HIIT is concerned, as ever it's about gross effect. Whilst the higher intensity phases are marginally more effective about energy expenditure and balance, they're so short that the benefits around longer duration steady state are far more significant.

    If you look at, for example, the Sufferfest Half is Easy video, that's 45 minutes long and includes 43 15 second maximal effort sprints, broken into two sets, with about 20 minutes of easy effort warm up, cool down and recovery between the sets. For me, that's about 400 calories, of which less than 100 relates to the maximal efforts. If I do a climber, racing or time trialling simulation I can get about 500 cals in the same time.

    Thank you! Sustainability makes sense, for sure.

    Those studies found some benefits to those kinds of intervals - groups doing intervals tended to have more muscle mass and less fat than those doing steady state, and their VO2Max showed greater improvements than steady state groups.

    (I was thinking in terms of mechanics and orthopedic stuff, mostly)
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited August 2015
    Options
    tomatoey wrote: »
    What's the risk with higher rpms, like 120-140? That's what participants did in some of the studies summarized here
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991639/

    which often found increases in fat free mass and decreases in fat (table here). (I think many of them asked people to increase resistance, as well)

    eg this study (where "The HIIE workload was set at 80–90% of each subject's heart rate (HR) peak at a cadence between 120 and 130 r.p.m and recovery was set at the same amount of resistance but at a cadence of 40 r.p.m.")

    This is a problem...

    ...most commonly the sprints are performed on a stationary cycle ergometer at an intensity in excess of 90% of maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O2max).

    And...

    ...For example, Talanian et al. [42] carried out an HIIE intervention that consisted of 2 weeks of HIIE exercise performed seven times with each session consisting of ten 4-minute bouts at 90%V˙O2max separated by 2-minute resting intervals. V˙O2max...

    That's not sprinting! Sprinting is 150-170%+ of VO2max.

    That's actually describing steady state cardio level of exertion - 90% VO2max is what a competent runner will do for a 10k run!
  • mimilion1
    mimilion1 Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    Lmaoo thanks for the responses but simply a lower resistance with high rpm is better. For my knees and maximum fat butning(if paired with hiit training and liss)
  • mimilion1
    mimilion1 Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    ?
  • mimilion1
    mimilion1 Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    ?
  • mimilion1
    mimilion1 Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    ???

Categories