Steady state cardio is very rare in the real world. Basically doesn't exist on a bike.
Options
NorthCascades
Posts: 10,970 Member
People talk about “steady state” cardio a lot in here, and I want to talk about the concept.
Peoples’ effort is not steady over time when they exercise, even outside of interval workouts. There are constant variations in effort. Hills, wind, traffic or trail conditions all change your effort level as you exercise outdoors. Indoors or out, people occasionally dial the effort back to rest during a workout. Some machines (like treadmills and ergometers) don’t allow you to rest for more than a second, while others (like an elliptical) let you slow down for longer periods.
Everybody knows this. People even have tools to measure just how unsteady their exercise was: Runners use splits to see how their time compares mile-to-mile or km-to-km. Cyclists don’t use instantaneous power because it jumps around too erratically, they use a rolling average instead to steady it for them. Cyclists use special math called “normalized power” to predict what a steady state effort would look like, compared to what they did. A graph of raw effort looks like a city skyline or a mountain range.
Sometimes people attempt a steady state on a bike: during a time trial or FTP test. Sometimes they do a very good job of it. Doing so requires great concentration and expensive equipment, it is the exception that proves the rule.
Most cardio isn’t steady, and it isn’t an interval workout, either. Most cardio is somewhere in between.
I don’t think the artificial distinction is very important for heart rate monitors as calorie guessers.
Peoples’ effort is not steady over time when they exercise, even outside of interval workouts. There are constant variations in effort. Hills, wind, traffic or trail conditions all change your effort level as you exercise outdoors. Indoors or out, people occasionally dial the effort back to rest during a workout. Some machines (like treadmills and ergometers) don’t allow you to rest for more than a second, while others (like an elliptical) let you slow down for longer periods.
Everybody knows this. People even have tools to measure just how unsteady their exercise was: Runners use splits to see how their time compares mile-to-mile or km-to-km. Cyclists don’t use instantaneous power because it jumps around too erratically, they use a rolling average instead to steady it for them. Cyclists use special math called “normalized power” to predict what a steady state effort would look like, compared to what they did. A graph of raw effort looks like a city skyline or a mountain range.
Sometimes people attempt a steady state on a bike: during a time trial or FTP test. Sometimes they do a very good job of it. Doing so requires great concentration and expensive equipment, it is the exception that proves the rule.
Most cardio isn’t steady, and it isn’t an interval workout, either. Most cardio is somewhere in between.
I don’t think the artificial distinction is very important for heart rate monitors as calorie guessers.
3
Replies
-
Not sure what you're getting at with this, but I do agree with you that performing steady state cardio outdoors will have more variables to consider and at times especially hills will have you exerting more energy for a short amount of time making it a mini interval of sorts.
However, I'm not sure what you mean when you said "treadmills don't allow you to rest for more than a second, while others (like an elliptical) let you slow down for longer periods." Can you elaborate? Because that statement makes literally no sense.
Personally, I perform steady state cardio using the treadmill as well as the elliptical by keeping the speed/incline at the same level all the way through.
Obviously the numbers aren't going to be exact after every mile, but as long as it is in the general range from what it was the previous mile I don't see how that matters considering that steady state cardio is performed generally at a low intensity.1 -
If you're at the front of a treadmill, you can stop for about a second and then start moving again, without falling off the machine.
They enforce some steadiness, compared to an elliptical or a bike. But there's still room for some variation. 0 -
If you're biking on a flat trail, without traffic, you could get pretty close to a steady state ride by keeping the same cadence. I try to do that when running on rail trails or canal towpaths. Sometimes I can get into a groove, usually I can't.2
-
NorthCascades wrote: »People talk about “steady state” cardio a lot in here, and I want to talk about the concept.
Peoples’ effort is not steady over time when they exercise, even outside of interval workouts. There are constant variations in effort. Hills, wind, traffic or trail conditions all change your effort level as you exercise outdoors. Indoors or out, people occasionally dial the effort back to rest during a workout. Some machines (like treadmills and ergometers) don’t allow you to rest for more than a second, while others (like an elliptical) let you slow down for longer periods.
Everybody knows this. People even have tools to measure just how unsteady their exercise was: Runners use splits to see how their time compares mile-to-mile or km-to-km. Cyclists don’t use instantaneous power because it jumps around too erratically, they use a rolling average instead to steady it for them. Cyclists use special math called “normalized power” to predict what a steady state effort would look like, compared to what they did. A graph of raw effort looks like a city skyline or a mountain range.
Sometimes people attempt a steady state on a bike: during a time trial or FTP test. Sometimes they do a very good job of it. Doing so requires great concentration and expensive equipment, it is the exception that proves the rule.
Most cardio isn’t steady, and it isn’t an interval workout, either. Most cardio is somewhere in between.
I don’t think the artificial distinction is very important for heart rate monitors as calorie guessers.
Heart rate monitors are training tools. No one should use them to guess calories. As training tools, they work well for 'steady state cardio'. Sometimes my purpose is to keep my heart rate steady (long slow run or a tempo run). Sometimes it is move it from zone to zone (speed work). Other uses include seeing trends. Work out too much = higher ave heart rate. There are other uses as well - but none of them include calorie counting*.
*I know Garmin and other companies use HR in their equations. It aids some with things like running but fails miserably with things like cycling.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »If you're at the front of a treadmill, you can stop for about a second and then start moving again, without falling off the machine. They enforce some steadiness, compared to an elliptical or a bike. But there's still room for some variation.
All you have to do is change the treadmill speed if you want a rest, and most are programmable so that speed can change automatically.0 -
I don't think "steady state" refers to an exactly constant workload:"; it's more of a relatively consistent and stable HR/VO2 response to exertion. There are always breath-by-breath, R-R minute variations in exercise response. Those are not significant, and do not negate the term "steady state".
It is not unusual at all for a runner on mildly undulating terrain to experience small variations in speed and effort, yet run splits for, say, half miles, that are within a couple of seconds of each other.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »People talk about “steady state” cardio a lot in here, and I want to talk about the concept.
Peoples’ effort is not steady over time when they exercise, even outside of interval workouts. There are constant variations in effort. Hills, wind, traffic or trail conditions all change your effort level as you exercise outdoors. Indoors or out, people occasionally dial the effort back to rest during a workout. Some machines (like treadmills and ergometers) don’t allow you to rest for more than a second, while others (like an elliptical) let you slow down for longer periods.
Everybody knows this. People even have tools to measure just how unsteady their exercise was: Runners use splits to see how their time compares mile-to-mile or km-to-km. Cyclists don’t use instantaneous power because it jumps around too erratically, they use a rolling average instead to steady it for them. Cyclists use special math called “normalized power” to predict what a steady state effort would look like, compared to what they did. A graph of raw effort looks like a city skyline or a mountain range.
Sometimes people attempt a steady state on a bike: during a time trial or FTP test. Sometimes they do a very good job of it. Doing so requires great concentration and expensive equipment, it is the exception that proves the rule.
Most cardio isn’t steady, and it isn’t an interval workout, either. Most cardio is somewhere in between.
I don’t think the artificial distinction is very important for heart rate monitors as calorie guessers.
Heart rate monitors are training tools. No one should use them to guess calories. As training tools, they work well for 'steady state cardio'. Sometimes my purpose is to keep my heart rate steady (long slow run or a tempo run). Sometimes it is move it from zone to zone (speed work). Other uses include seeing trends. Work out too much = higher ave heart rate. There are other uses as well - but none of them include calorie counting*.
*I know Garmin and other companies use HR in their equations. It aids some with things like running but fails miserably with things like cycling.
I found my Garmin 500 computer with HRM to be relatively accurate...accurate enough anyway when I was using the MFP method.1 -
Come on down to Southeast Texas. It's flatter than a pancake. The biggest hills we have are highway overpasses.
Regarding steady state, I often hear it used along with low intensity, LISS. Walking at a regular pace is quite easy and would qualify as steady state.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I don’t think the artificial distinction is very important for heart rate monitors as calorie guessers.
It's not a yes or no - it's a sliding scale. Further away from steady state you get the more variable it is.
I managed to calibrate my HRM to very closely match calorie estimates from a power meter for steady state training but when doing long duration intervals it would grossly exaggerate calories.
200watts steady state according to my HRM was a far lower calorie burn than 180/220 intervals that averaged out at 200watts for the same duration.
Here's a steady state training session with a nice bit of cardiac drift as I got a bit too warm....
0 -
I don't think "steady state" refers to an exactly constant workload:"; it's more of a relatively consistent and stable HR/VO2 response to exertion. There are always breath-by-breath, R-R minute variations in exercise response. Those are not significant, and do not negate the term "steady state".
It is not unusual at all for a runner on mildly undulating terrain to experience small variations in speed and effort, yet run splits for, say, half miles, that are within a couple of seconds of each other.
So there are minor variations from moment to moment just because, but then there are red lights (enforced rest period), gusts of wind, hills, etc, with a bigger and longer lasting effect.
I won't be surprised if a runner gets similar split times of the terrain is undulating similarly (feet of elevation gain per mile stays relatively constant) but that's an average over time. Within each mile, she might burn matches on the way up the hills and recover coming down the other side.0 -
If you train to win a bicycle race your training, while not at all steady state, will be very concerned with cadence. The first winter they put you on rollers and train at cadences up to 300 rpm (250 if you're an FNG).
0 -
I didn't read what your point was because steady state while eating candy is the only cardio I will ever do.0
-
I walk on dead flat ground at a syeady pace, how is that not classed as steady state cardio?
What about a treadmill or exercise bike travelling at a constsnt pace?0 -
I would agree with the cycling because I came to this conclusion some years ago when comparing it to my other forms of training. It is fairly hilly where I live so my rides generally go flat, up, down, flat, up down. Sometimes I do just have a series of hills with very little flat road between. There is hardly any time I am cycling where I am not going up a hill or down one. It certainly makes it more challenging and keeps my heart rate variable. There also the inevitable traffic light stops or road crossings (some of my routes are on cycle paths) The not so fun part is when someone on a road bike speeds past me going up a hill. I don't imagine I will ever be a fast cyclist due to my having 65% lung function, but boy does it frustrate me when I come to a slow crawl going up a hill.0
-
@Graelwyn75Graelwyn75 wrote: »I would agree with the cycling because I came to this conclusion some years ago when comparing it to my other forms of training. It is fairly hilly where I live so my rides generally go flat, up, down, flat, up down. Sometimes I do just have a series of hills with very little flat road between. There is hardly any time I am cycling where I am not going up a hill or down one. It certainly makes it more challenging and keeps my heart rate variable. There also the inevitable traffic light stops or road crossings (some of my routes are on cycle paths) The not so fun part is when someone on a road bike speeds past me going up a hill. I don't imagine I will ever be a fast cyclist due to my having 65% lung function, but boy does it frustrate me when I come to a slow crawl going up a hill.
If you lived in Norfolk or somewhere relatively flat and had a multi-geared road bike that allowed you to modulate your intensity through use of gears and cadence you might come to a different conclusion.
Where I live I can pick a flattish course (following the Thames broadly speaking) where, subject to traffic, I can keep my HR intensity within narrow parameters.
I would call this steady state despite the troughs where I've stopped at lights or to refuel. Those bried drops are pretty irrelevant over the entire duration IMHO.
This is (if I remember correctly...) a ride nearer to where you live - a ride centred on Winchester with constant elevation changes.
1 -
@Graelwyn75Graelwyn75 wrote: »I would agree with the cycling because I came to this conclusion some years ago when comparing it to my other forms of training. It is fairly hilly where I live so my rides generally go flat, up, down, flat, up down. Sometimes I do just have a series of hills with very little flat road between. There is hardly any time I am cycling where I am not going up a hill or down one. It certainly makes it more challenging and keeps my heart rate variable. There also the inevitable traffic light stops or road crossings (some of my routes are on cycle paths) The not so fun part is when someone on a road bike speeds past me going up a hill. I don't imagine I will ever be a fast cyclist due to my having 65% lung function, but boy does it frustrate me when I come to a slow crawl going up a hill.
If you lived in Norfolk or somewhere relatively flat and had a multi-geared road bike that allowed you to modulate your intensity through use of gears and cadence you might come to a different conclusion.
Where I live I can pick a flattish course (following the Thames broadly speaking) where, subject to traffic, I can keep my HR intensity within narrow parameters.
I would call this steady state despite the troughs where I've stopped at lights or to refuel. Those bried drops are pretty irrelevant over the entire duration IMHO.
This is (if I remember correctly...) a ride nearer to where you live - a ride centred on Winchester with constant elevation changes.
Yeah. I am based fairly close to the New Forest and Winchester. I generally cycle the New Forest. I would doubtlessly have a different experience and view if I lived near Norfolk again. I certainly envy you having flatter cycling routes. It doesn't matter which direction I go in, there are either bridges to get up or hills to overcome lol. I am still trying to figure out a way to get my speed up whilst going up the hills. It may be I just need to push my legs harder than i am in order to develop those muscles better. I don't imagine a three year break from cycling did me many favours.
1 -
I didn't read what your point was because steady state while eating candy is the only cardio I will ever do.
@bbel - I think the point is that you should consume the candy at a regularly recurring interval and chew each piece the same number of times before swallowing to maintain both a stable heart rate and a consistent flow of glycogen to your muscles.
@NorthCascades , I agree with your points about the concept of steady state. When I see "steady state" cardio in an MFP post, I'm thinking that the comment is making a generalized distinction between an activity such as running or cycling, and other prevalent types of exercise, often performed in a gym, sometimes with weights, or just bodyweight exercises that boost heart rate. I agree that the actual variances from minute to minute are not very important, and are smoothed out (normalized) over the relatively long duration sessions performed by runners, cyclists, etcetera.
The other thing that strikes me about these discussions on MFP is that it seems like there are often different objectives for HR questions depending on the poster's goals. For example, there is much discussion about "calorie burn" because many people here have weight loss as a primary goal and they want to understand how cardio exercise fits into their daily calorie consumption equation. This often leads to an intense focus on "calorie burn" in discussions here. (I burned 900 calories on the elliptical!!)
In my case, (and I suspect maybe yours as well) I'm not focused at all on dissecting the "calorie burn" values, but rather, I'm using HR and Power to understand the performance level I am at during a workout and to record the associated fatigue that is building over a particular time period, such as a four week training block.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I don't think "steady state" refers to an exactly constant workload:"; it's more of a relatively consistent and stable HR/VO2 response to exertion. There are always breath-by-breath, R-R minute variations in exercise response. Those are not significant, and do not negate the term "steady state".
It is not unusual at all for a runner on mildly undulating terrain to experience small variations in speed and effort, yet run splits for, say, half miles, that are within a couple of seconds of each other.
So there are minor variations from moment to moment just because, but then there are red lights (enforced rest period), gusts of wind, hills, etc, with a bigger and longer lasting effect.
I won't be surprised if a runner gets similar split times of the terrain is undulating similarly (feet of elevation gain per mile stays relatively constant) but that's an average over time. Within each mile, she might burn matches on the way up the hills and recover coming down the other side.
It's an interesting discussion. I guess you would define it by the overall range of intensity and frequency/duration of intensity changes.
If you are working out in what would be considered the "steady state" range, say 50-60% of VO2 max, then you can tolerate probably 5-10% swings in intensity and still be in "steady state". In that range, small/modest increases in lactate will be easily cleared, heart rate and breathing will recover quickly from a short interval of increased exertion. So many of the things you describe--red light, shorter or more modest inclines, etc--would still be "steady state" IMO.
I would also consider a run/ride in which there were a couple of more substantial hills to be "steady state" overall, as long as it represented a smaller percentage of the total.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if you would have to define it by the overall training effect, not necessarily by the variations in the course itself.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions