Constant/dynamic heart rate training

Another simple option is to use free rides and adjust your effort to maintain the desired HR. This is how many people do long-slow runs and long-slow rides for endurance development purposes, and it can be done on Zwift as well. Pick routes that are either flat or constant climbs, and you’ll find it’s easy to maintain your HR relatively constant. Undulating roads will make this harder.

That’s a more viable option than finding an app with a constant-HR function.

Actually to burn cellular fat, hence your body fat, your best option is to ride in Zone 2 (Heart Rate) for a long session (say 45 minutes or more).

HIIT sessions take you into a different energy system that mostly metabolises glucose - carbohydrates for energy instead of oxidation of cellular fat.

This is true DURING the session itself, but afterward the body will prioritize the metabolism of fat for fuel while it is replenishing the stores of muscle glycogen. This is where the fat loss benefits come in.

Nope, strength training with counting calories is the best way to loss fat and build muscle, WAY better than any cardio. This is backed by science!

And when I say count calories, I mean ONLY calories in, don’t count calories burned. The ONLY way to loss weight and burn fat is in a calorie deficit.

I don’t think it can work the way you want - there is so much lag in your HR with changing power that controlling the power for it is nearly impossible. If you slowed the response sufficiently you might be able to do something - but you’d still need to pick a power to start with.

What I have done is I’ve created a long Zone 2 ERG workout and if I find my HR getting too high I use the bias controls of the workout to reduce the power a bit to keep my HR within a certain range. The bias controls allow for a pretty big range of control so that works well for me.

Is that because you’re assuming you fuel equivalent calories burned on (or after) any workout - Or is there another reason you don’t consider calories burned at all when thinking about an overall daily deficit?

Probably because the strength training raises your resting metabolism in a bigger way than cardio does, and the “calories burned” in a workout does not reflect that.

@Paul-Allen supposition regarding calories burnt is conflating two concepts - energy systems and workout intensity in so far as fat management is concerned.

Cellular fat is a crucial energy source when you workout in HR ZONE 2 and the fat oxidation continues well after the workout. Further, your mitochondrial density increases and that further perpetuates the continual improvement in your aerobic capacity. The benefit continues. Your fitness level goes up tremendously and your pace for HIIT session is bound to show close to 5-10% on the average after 3 months of regularised and consistent training, which becomes handy when the crunch comes at the home stretch.

With HIIT session, you are using mostly glycolic metabolic energy system because of the high intensity of your workout, and relies very little on fat oxidation.

So if you wish to lose fat, your best bet is do at least 75-80% of your weekly workout in zone 2 HR. You may observe a drop of your VO2MAX. But your 20% HIIT workout in the week will probably restore or even increase your VO2MAX beyond its value before the drop.

I am not an exercise scientist. This is from my personal experience.

Being 73 and a runner for the last fifty years, I have aways trained with a heart monitor and was looking forward to doing the same when I joined zwift two months ago and have been looking for some sort of program using heart Rate. Are there any training programs out there using hr?

You might want to watch this. It’s a bit long, and detailed, but very good.

You are wrong. Primarily doing strength training with some cardio mixed in is the best way to loss fat and gain muscle. Endless cardio is not the way, your body will become more efficient over time and you will burn less calories.

When losing weight you should NEVER count calories “burned”, just calories in.

Not if your average power for your 3 hour ride goes from 100 watts to 200 watts you won’t! :blush:

When I said over time I meant days, weeks, months, NOT within the same workout session. I would still suggest strength training as a primary and cardio (running, biking, swimming,…) as a secondary.

Can you explain this one a bit more? I can understand if what you’re saying is consistent strength training over time sets your body up to have a higher metabolism, so focus less on what is happening right now in terms of workouts vs. getting yourself set up to burn more passive calories in the future, but I mean, if you burn more calories today you will probably need to eat more food to fuel what you’re doing and if you end up in a deficit that will have some impact to what your body needs/does. So I’m not sure why you should never consider how much energy you’re expending in a day when thinking about balancing your nutrition.

1 Like

Yes. Me too. The point being that if you go from being sedentary to being aerobically fit over a couple of years and you’re now doing your endurance rides at double the power, you’ll be doing twice the work, and so burning twice the calories. Any efficiency savings will be very small beer in comparison.

1 Like