Training & Nutrition - Whats Better: Short Fast Ride - Long Slow Ride
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.
Whats Better: Short Fast Ride - Long Slow Ride
Short and Fast?
Long and Slow?
HAHAHA. Dont be perverted people!
Both is best.They provide different types of fitness and complement each other as to weight loss.
04-26-03, 09:33 AM
I have found that if I am pressed for time and just do short fast 15-30 mile rides consistently then I can still ride long rides with no real difficulty. I like to do at least 20 miles at near max effort or max effort regularly. It will provide a good hour or close to it of high intesity training so when I back off the pace on longer rides I have no problems.
It really depends totally on your goal(s). However, I would suggest some of each, regardless.
04-26-03, 10:25 AM
Yeah, what is it better for? Short fast ride is good for developing speed while long slow ride is good for developing endurance. With both, you get a long fast ride.
What are you looking out for? More endurance or more speed? Personally, I feel a lot better after a high intensity workout than a low - moderate intensity workout. I seem to recover better, I noticed it only recently but I guess it just give much greater improvements in fitness.
See I had always heard that a Longer slow paced ride was better for everything then a fast rushed ride.... was i told wrong?
What they were probably saying is long slow rides burn a higher % fat which is not the whole story as it also burns less overall calories/unit of time.With faster you burn less % fat but more overall calories(so still significant fat) and in addition it raises the metabolism more so you continue to burn more fat the rest of the day.I personally use weight training for my high intensity exercise so cycle at a moderate sustainable pace to complement it.
04-26-03, 11:28 AM
plus, when you go slower, you see more scenery, because you aren't head down hammering. Plus, a long slow ride would help you to work on your form and relax, which is something that newer cyclists need. (I'm sorry if you aren't new to cycling, I just saw the 23 posts in your profile there)
Besides, isn't it impressive to tell your friends that you went out for 3 hours on your bike?
yes I am new to cycling, just started last month and have really only road about 10 times but now that the nice weather is here Im starting up daily.
Well you should start out slowly and consistantly not overdoing it and gradually work on increasing the milage and intensity.
Both work for me, but with the time constraints I have, A short fast ride is often all I get that means I am running at my top speed for 3-5 miles it gets my heart rate up, clears my lungs and makes me feel good. A long slow ride can clear the mind better and build endurance. I am curious when you train do you ride till you start to feel the burn or do you keep going untill you are absolutly dragging? usually I ride hard untill my legs start to burn then ride home slow.
So far it seems that the majority feel that longer slower bike riding pays off better in the end then hard fast riding. I figured as much and have been told that before but I wanted to see what everyone else thinks.
04-29-03, 03:31 AM
well, as has been said by a few BOTH are good and provide different training benefits.
it also depends on what "short and long" mean... to me (i ride A LOT and have a training and racing program) a short but hard ride is 1 to 3 hours including sprints and intervals. where i warm up a little and then do 1 to 3 minute near-max-effort intervals or do sprints against friends. and i ride and push REALLY hard. to me this is a VERY important part of my workout as i think i make my most most gains in speed and power.
but i also do longer 5 to 7 hour rides that help build endurance.
if i had to choose one or the other, i'd go with short but ULTRA hard rides rather than long and slow.
but as you are starting out, long and slow is probably the better choice to build your base and get your body used to cycling before the major stresses or interval or sprint training.
04-29-03, 04:42 AM
Traditionally, (in the UK) we do long slow rides over winter, and if you want to go racing, you start doing shorter faster rides in the spring.
A US Olympic coach once said that you must be fit to train, rather than train to be fit. LS rides will get you fit to train.
04-29-03, 04:44 AM
I think it's true that it depends on what "short" and "long" mean and also what the purpose of your biking is. If it's just to stay in shape, I believe there have been recent studies which establish that short, intense, more anaerobic training can be just as effective as longer more aerobic training in cardiovascular fitness. If you're not just trying to save time, this may not be so important in biking, which is a non-impact sport (except for some of those saddles...), but does matter in running, where you are slowly destroying your body IMO.
Really? Ive been reading all over the net that studies show that the sceptical Fast-paced high indurence riding isnt as good as once thought. They continue to say that by riding on a slower pace it will work out many muscles and your cardiovascular system more then a quick fast ride. A direct quote from a nutrition book I recently purchased "If you have the time, take it. It pays off in the end"
So I dont know I hear opposites of each other all over lol.
Well maybe some times Ill go faster then other times.. lol
04-30-03, 05:05 AM
well, it depends on lots of different factors...
i'm speaking mostly for AFTER you have a good base of many many miles and lots of training (i already did my last race of 52km and 1330meters vertical last weekend - in 2:58)
once you are fit, you can get the best gains by REALLY pushing your body like in sprints and intervals - but you also have to be careful about overtraining (i took Monday completely off the bike and Tuesday and Wednesday are SPINNING only - i did 40km yesterday spinning)
if you only always ride long and slow, you will only always ride long and SLOW... and you can't get a super-intense workout in a long workout - it's just hard to do a 7hr ride and keep the intensity up --- and if you do you will need MAJOR recovery afterwards ------ well, actually my race this Saturday will be 7hrs of LONG and hard riding (104km and 3520meters vertical)
and yes, there are different training plans and many call for less high-intensity and more long-slow rides than what i do, but i find it effective.
but almost all competitve racers i know do a fair amount of interval/sprint training... and i personally think of the long slow as doing the basics getting me up to a level to be able to do the interval/sprint workouts which are where i REALLY make my gains.
but yes, you REALLY need both!
04-30-03, 06:04 AM
Better than "what", funny posts on a bike forum?
Didn't vote.... I thought they're both good, but depends on where you are in your training (periodization) schedule.
If you're base building, definitely, the fast and high anaerobic training will not work for you. If you're farther along in your training schedule, and you're ready for the interval and power training, you're definitely ready for the shorter, high intensity training.
It just depends where you are in your training....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.