The Wednesday Wellness threads are meant to encourage users to ask for and provide advice and motivation to improve their lives. It isn't intended as a 'containment thread' and any content which could go here could instead be posted in its own thread. You could post:
-
Requests for advice and / or encouragement. On basically any topic and for any scale of problem.
-
Updates to let us know how you are doing. This provides valuable feedback on past advice / encouragement and will hopefully make people feel a little more motivated to follow through. If you want to be reminded to post your update, see the post titled 'update reminders', below.
-
Advice. This can be in response to a request for advice or just something that you think could be generally useful for many people here.
-
Encouragement. Probably best directed at specific users, but if you feel like just encouraging people in general I don't think anyone is going to object. I don't think I really need to say this, but just to be clear; encouragement should have a generally positive tone and not shame people (if people feel that shame might be an effective tool for motivating people, please discuss this so we can form a group consensus on how to use it rather than just trying it).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Step two in the path to a Century Ride is completed, I made it 50 miles on Saturday morning. The final ten miles were definitely a different animal compared to the prior rides I've done, I don't think I technically "bonked" or whatever the preferred technical term is, but I was definitely on the struggle shuttle. Near the end of both rides, I start adjusting constantly. Jacket on-jacket off, different handlebar positions, saddle postures, different podcasts or audiobooks. I feel like I just can't get comfortable, which makes sense at that point, but I need to work on ignoring the discomfort and just locking in, there is no combination of things that makes riding a bike that far comfortable.
This time rather than a long ride to a destination where my wife would pick me up, I did it out-and-back, which worked much better. As I wore down on energy, the streets got more familiar rather than less familiar. Which was a good choice, I was more comfortable in the saddle despite fatigue, I knew where I was going and which streets would be safe/efficient. I'm realizing in retrospect that some of the confusion and getting lost at the end of the 50k ride was more related to fatigue than it was to the route itself. And the traffic concerns can easily be lessened by knowing the route better.
It might be too late in the season to practically shoot for the 100km ride this year. I think I have the physical capability to slug it out if I needed to, but the combination of temperature/daylight/location would work out such that I don't think I could do it in the way I want to do it, if that makes any sense. So it's sort of back in the lab for me. I need to increase my speed to hit 100 miles. I did 53 miles in four hours flat, so around a 12mph pace. That would make a 100mi ride way too long to be practical, I want to be holding around 15mph at least, and to do that I feel like I need to be able to hold 18mph for a few miles, which I really can't seem to do right now. My problem seems to be with cadence, I can't manage to move my legs fast enough for very long to sustain higher speeds. I picked up a used Peloton bike for my wife a year back, I suppose I'll use that pretty extensively this winter, they have a lot of rides built around varying cadences, so hopefully that will help. I'm not going to be able to ride my bike outside as often with the shorter daylight hours, but I'm hoping to get out to a bike trail one morning a week and hit at least ten to fifteen miles to keep the groove greased.
My target is right now to try for the 100km in early spring, and if that goes well the 100mi in late spring, or if it doesn't I'll aim to do 100mi next fall. My secondary worry being that I need to do a better job of choosing a route, that the friction is going to catch up with me over the course of a really long ride.
This is more cardio than I've done in years, and that's been good for me, no question about it.
Is it actually cadence or is sustained power the problem? Because if you just prefer to pedal slower, you could get into a higher gear. If your highest gear is to fast at 18 mph (improbable, but not impossible) this means switching bikes (or switching cassettes/chain ring if you like the bike).
I guess sustained power is the problem in that I don't actually care how I get there I just want to sustain speed. But 1) I've read that 80-90 cadence is typically the recommended sustainable endurance pace, I'm closer to 60. Even if I ultimately settle at 60, I feel like not being able to sustain 90 is probably bad for reasons too stupid to even understand; 2) I struggle on steep climbs, where I feel like downshifting and pumping at a higher cadence is probably the answer, as at a lower cadence I get bogged down.
I've tried a variety of bikes and somehow land at nearly the same speed on the same courses, so I'm the problem.
There is some natural variation, and it's sometimes argued that it's not clear if it's a selection effect that efficient cyclist ride with a higher cadence or if a higher cadence is just more efficient.
Controlling for constant power, the subjective feeling and from experience, <70 RPM will toast your legs in no time. Presumably from greater muscle tearing from greater muscular tension, lower lactate clearance, less oxygen and glucose uptake since the venous system is passive, etc. But just like when someone tells you the sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering, the question is then why isn't the sky ultraviolet. Why is >110 RPM inefficient if turning over the pedals faster is so much better? For cadence, I suspect this is because you become less smooth if you exceed the speed at which you can maintain neuromuscular control.
In fact, your body more or less just does this regulation for you. As with many things: slow is smooth, smooth is fast. All of this to say cadence will naturally improve as you gain neurological coordination from practice. I haven't kept up with the latest meta, but circa mid 2010s, most sports scientist thought there was limited or no evidence for the effectiveness of pedaling drills while most professional coaches and elite level cyclits thought there was value in doing them. Two that come to mined:
Assuming the drive train is in at all decent shape, don't under estimate areo and rolling resistance. Even at modest speeds it can really add up. I can't readily find it, but there used to be a calculator where you could put in various different bike configurations. My rough recollection is that even at 100 W, going from arms extended, relaxed cut jersey, & cheap clinchers to sphynx like tuck, fitted jersey, and tubulars was like 11 → 15 mph for an average sized cyclist. Fortunately, with modern tiers tubeless and high quality clinchers are almost as efficient as tubulars were back in the day. There's no way not to look goofy in form fitting cycling clothing though.
http://www.bikecalculator.com/
I guess I don't know OP's position on this issue, but I've definitely heard this from Crossfit/Hyrox types who were all about the Ranger panties, which struck me as a more or less indefensible distinction.
I have been digging into this a bit recently and while I think the smart money is broadly on "freely chosen cadence and pedal how it comes naturally", I've seen a couple of interesting results that I'll use this as an excuse to infodump:
-Hansen et al 2006 tell trained cyclists to pedal at energetically optimal cadence (much lower than freely chosen cadence), subjects report lower perceived effort and exhibit same or better performance: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16906415/
-Cueing subjects to unweight their hands while pedalling, without changing position, can improve hip extensor recruitment and potentially performance. I learned about this from this podcast with Jim Martin: https://spotify.link/dwetkKwcSXb Apparently the researcher's name is Ernie Rimer, though I can't find a published paper or presentation.
-Single-leg cycling with a counterweight to smooth out the pedal stroke may be a useful way to overload the musculature of the trained leg relative to what could be done double-legged, see e.g. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.01247.2010 and the podcast I linked above.
My attitude to cycling clothing so far has been similar to my attitude towards cowboy western wear: one item at a time is fine, two is pushing it, three is a costume. So I feel fine wearing the jersey when I'm casually riding around by the river in track pants, and on a longer ride I'll wear the shorts or bibs with a t shirt or windbreaker, but somehow wearing them together just feels too costumey for me, like I'm pretending I'm a much better cyclist than I am. And then I'm not even sure if the jersey and shorts I bought off theblackbibs is even what we're talking about here in terms of aerodynamics. My wife claims the zip up cycling jersey looks sexy, I feel like an overstuffed sausage.
I suppose at 100 miles I'll probably get over that feeling, since at that point I'm really doing something.
To be fair, I take this attitude with most hobbies. A year of BJJ and I still refuse to buy a rashguard.
I was gonna mention this, but I don't actually know how and when these are worn.
It's probably most of the way there. I don't readily know how much energy is saved by going from a Lance-era fit to a present-day fit, but I suspect it's small compared to the difference between baggy t-shirt and Lance-era fit, and you may already have fewer wrinkles than a Lance-era fit.
Kek. Good rule for western wear (though I think you gotta discount jeans, unless worn conspicuously high and tight), but I absorbed more or less the opposite rule for cycling kit at a formative age; there's no reason not to wear a t-shirt over trishorts or bibs but I feel goofy as hell doing it. My dad did some amateur racing in the 80s, so maybe I got it from him.
It's just a tight fitting stretchy shirt for grappling, it gets caught minimally, while also giving you more friction than bare skin. I'll probably pick up a couple this year, but up until now I've gotten along ok in a regular athletic material long sleeve shirt. Partly because the aesthetic on most rashguards is disgustingly stupid, and it clearly has no use outside bjj.
I also sweat like a whore in church, so my game has somewhat developed around being very slippery.
Jeans are generally free, though degree of stitching also plays a part. I'm mostly thinking in my own closet of denim shirt, large belt buckle, cowboy hat, roper boots; they all have their own score. The stetson is obviously tough to begin with, I'll wear it occasionally to stay dry in the rain or snow anyway, but it takes up all available points. The belt buckle is a fun detail with a normal outfit, the boots just look like plain leather shoes normally, combine them and I look like I'm going line dancing or I'm running for Congress in Texas.
I suspect the difference is "at a formative age" you were cycling. I was not, I'm coming at it sucking at it in middle age, and I feel like a full kit wanker if I'm struggling up a hill in my neighborhood dressed like a serious cyclist (to a non-cyclist eye). Idk, I'll probably get over it for the big ride next time, by mile 40 I'm just moving through the world like a selfish ghost anyway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link