Average MPH

[Michael Warner]

On 16 Dec 2006 06:58:00 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

> 30km/h seems to be a magic number around here. Not many can keep an
> average higher than that. It's not flat here and the roads are rough,
> so that may be a factor.

Yes, it certainly would be. One of my regular groups rides a 55km flat loop
on good roads with few lights, and on a calm day we can touch 40km/h
average, which means long stretches sitting on 45km/h or so. Any wind
at all, particularly a cross wind, brings that down, though.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

 

[Marz]

nash wrote:
> >>
> >> Okay, we have a communication bread down again.
> >> The poster I was questioning said 20MPH. not KPH
> >> I tried to make that clear.
> >> Then we all think 20MPH for 3 hours is out of the question for an intial
> >> exercise program. I am the OP and thought we should be clear here. I
> >> hope
> >> the exerciser in question read our thread.
> >
> >
> > Nobody is suggesting it is a good idea. No even me and I wrote the
> > comment you swiped from. The point I made was that yes it is possible
> > to burn a whole bunch of caleries during a long fast ride, but only
> > doing this once a week is of very little benefit to weight loss.
> >
> >
> > Laters,
> >
> > Marz
>
> agreed but you stated,
> Longer rides sound great, 3 hours at an average of 20mph is going to
> burn around 2800 calories (depending on 'a whole bunch of factors').
> But if you only do that once a week it'll do almost nothing for you as
> your body will just start storing the fat/energy it needs for the next
> time you go ride.
>
> The OP cyclist never stated he would ride at 20mph. He said 310 minutes/wk
> and that is 5 hours So who might I ask were you talking to.
> I said 20mph for 3 hours would not be recommended. And most agreed.
> But thanks for correcting what the OP must have thought you meant and said.
> You assume he has your gear as well. Come on!

But he asked for examples and thoughts about optimum riding schedules
to help burn of fat, did your smallest chain ring sized IQ miss that?
That was an example from my own experiences, not intended as an example
for the OP to follow. I trust he had the grey matter to comprehend
this.

I think I recommended daily strenous activity for the 45 minutes he has
free and NOT long fast rides once a week. But I also mentioned that
what works for me may not work for him.



Iaters,

Marz

 

[nash]

"Marz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> nash wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Okay, we have a communication bread down again.
>> >> The poster I was questioning said 20MPH. not KPH
>> >> I tried to make that clear.
>> >> Then we all think 20MPH for 3 hours is out of the question for an
>> >> intial
>> >> exercise program. I am the OP and thought we should be clear here.
>> >> I
>> >> hope
>> >> the exerciser in question read our thread.
>> >
>> >
>> > Nobody is suggesting it is a good idea. No even me and I wrote the
>> > comment you swiped from. The point I made was that yes it is possible
>> > to burn a whole bunch of caleries during a long fast ride, but only
>> > doing this once a week is of very little benefit to weight loss.
>> >
>> >
>> > Laters,
>> >
>> > Marz
>>
>> agreed but you stated,
>> Longer rides sound great, 3 hours at an average of 20mph is going to
>> burn around 2800 calories (depending on 'a whole bunch of factors').
>> But if you only do that once a week it'll do almost nothing for you as
>> your body will just start storing the fat/energy it needs for the next
>> time you go ride.
>>
>> The OP cyclist never stated he would ride at 20mph. He said 310
>> minutes/wk
>> and that is 5 hours So who might I ask were you talking to.
>> I said 20mph for 3 hours would not be recommended. And most agreed.
>> But thanks for correcting what the OP must have thought you meant and
>> said.
>> You assume he has your gear as well. Come on!
>
> But he asked for examples and thoughts about optimum riding schedules
> to help burn of fat, did your smallest chain ring sized IQ miss that?
> That was an example from my own experiences, not intended as an example
> for the OP to follow. I trust he had the grey matter to comprehend
> this.
>
> I think I recommended daily strenous activity for the 45 minutes he has
> free and NOT long fast rides once a week. But I also mentioned that
> what works for me may not work for him.
>
>
>
> Iaters,
>
> Marz

It all comes down to insults does it. Like I said I was trying to help no
need to go looney. I disagree with going that fast when you need to lose
weight and everyone but you agrees. What is hard to understand Marz? Is
everyone an idiot from where you are standing too. You are on the wrong
side of a one way mirror.

 

[Marz]

nash (a simple fellow) wrote:
> It all comes down to insults does it. Like I said I was trying to help no
> need to go looney. I disagree with going that fast when you need to lose
> weight and everyone but you agrees. What is hard to understand Marz? Is
> everyone an idiot from where you are standing too. You are on the wrong
> side of a one way mirror.

Insults are always fun; frog face! You not trying to help, you're
trying to find support for your inadaquacies. Feeling inadaquate around
over riders is totaly normal, I do on most rides as my peers like to
hack it at about 25mph, which is too lung busting for me.

Do you disagree that I need to go that fast to loose weight, that
anyone should need to go that fast to loose weight, that the OP needs
to go that fast to loose weight or that you need to go that fast to
loose weight? Which is it?

To really loose weight through exercise, that exercise needs to
strenuous and often and for me thats thumping out 20mph for 3 hours and
over, more than twice a week. Something I've not had time for this year
and hence the arrival of an additional 20 pounds. I never recommended
the OP or anyone try this.

I understand that you may have failed English comprehension at high
school.

Everyone is an idiot, me included, we're born stupid and we die stupid.
Knowledge is infinite and our capacity finite, therefore our lack of
knowledge is also infinite.

And I like my side of the mirror, I get to look in on y'all with out
y'all seeing me.

Laters,

Marz

 

[Stephen Harding]

Tom Keats wrote:

> I guess it's good if a rider wants to integrate a
> workout with his or her commute, or is simply and
> exhuberantly feeling their oats.

I'm fortunate in that my work environment for the last
15 years or so has been "casual" to say the least. I
can arrive at my office in a ball of sweat and no one
much cares. A little sponge bath at the bathroom sink
and I'm good to go in my cutoffs and T's.

So I do try to incorporate a "workout" on my ride in or
home from work a day or two per week during the summer.
My "lean on it" days I think do me some good, although
I could really care less what my overall speed ends up
being.

During winter that is all out the window. The object
then is NOT to sweat, and that often means average
speeds of 12-14 mph or less if the road is mostly clear.


SMH

 

[John Kane]

nash wrote:
> "John Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Michael Warner wrote:
> >> On 15 Dec 2006 11:27:11 -0800, John Kane wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm a fairly slow rider and seldom average more than 20 km/h on a
> >> > commute or even when on a solo ride. Thirty-two km/h is for the lyca
> >> > louts with 10 year of steady training.
> >>
> >> It doesn't take 10 years, just a good aero position on a decent bike and
> >> a couple of years of regular solid riding. And age doesn't make much
> >> difference.
> >
> > Age?
> >
> > Well it depends on where and how you're riding ISTM. I can easily hold
> > 32 km/h for a hour or two on a group ride in the country (assuming wind
> > and hills permit, of course) but 32 km/h when traveling or commuting
> > is, I think, another matter.
> >
> > I'm talking elapsed time over distance, not time on the bike. I have
> > done a number of rides over the same route and come in pretty
> > consistantly for 100 km at 20 km/h which includes lunch, pit stops,
> > etc. Oh and with panniers.
> >
> > An old friend who was in a German cycle troop in WWII seemed to agree
> > with me that a 20 km/h time was reasonable. Of course he was riding
> > single speed and fully equipped for combat
> >
> > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
> Okay, we have a communication bread down again.
> The poster I was questioning said 20MPH. not KPH
> I tried to make that clear.

Not really, My 32 km/rh~=20 mph. I was just discussing what I felt was
a practical speed.
> Then we all think 20MPH for 3 hours is out of the question for an intial
> exercise program. I am the OP and thought we should be clear here. I hope
> the exerciser in question read our thread.

Oh totally. It's a little like taking a couch potatoe and saying that
he should be running 3.5 hour marations for a start and then he can
pick up the pace.

Personally I'd start out with something slow and short. Maybe no more
than 5-10 km at, at most, 15-20 km/h. I've even seen very
out-of-shape people do something like 2-3 km to start with. Mind you ,
in one case here we were talking morbidly obese.

My guess is that the first thing to do is get the rider comfortable on
the bike and give him/her a week or two for the cycling specific
muscles to get broken in before really doning much else. Then they can
start increasing time and/or speed.

As something of an aside, the most recent reseach that I have seen [1]
suggests that even very moderate amounts of exerice (IIRC something
like 20 minutes walking 3 times a week) can have ah impressive effect
on health though not on weight.

1. I don't think it's in print yet, I just had a chance to sit in on a
presentation. There is similar evidence from a couple of Danish
studies published last year.

 

[John Kane]

Marz wrote:
> DougC wrote:
>
> > Michael Warner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:54:42 -0600, DougC wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Do you really think 20mph is normal.
> > >
> > >> No, not for ordinary people riding alone.
> > >> It is believable if they are in good physical shape, and pacelining.
> > >
> > > Are you serious?
> > >
> > > I ride with lots of people who can easily hold 32 km/h or better on
> > > the flat without wind indefinitely. I would expect anyone who
> > > races to do considerably better, maybe 36 km/h.

> If someone is averaging about 20kmh, while riding a heavy commuter bike
> (> 14kg), while wearing work clothes and/or water proofs, in traffic
> and> > >
> > > Stick us in a paceline, and we can easily sit on 40.
> > >
> >
> > Well sure--on the moon, over a one km distance, I could hold about 150
> > km/h. Does that count as my average? Or do the circumstances inflate my
> > personal performance?
> >
> > Let's offer some definitions:
> > How about riding alone, on an out-and-back course, non-stop, 80km
> > one-way, could most ordinary bike riders average 32 km/h? I'd bet not.
> > ~
>
>
> Only becasue they're not trying hard enough. But I'm considering an
> 'ordinary' rider to be someone who rides more than one hour at least
> couple times a week and has done for some time.
> A nice road bike, with drops, some skinnies and a reasonable set of
> lungs, maybe a bit of training and I'd bet most folks in this group
> could handle an average of 32kmh for 80km.

I rather doubt that, at least riding solo. In a group maybe but a one
hour ride and an 80km ride are not the same animal.

To ride long distances you need to practice riding long distances.

 

[Marz]

John Kane wrote:
> Marz wrote:
> > DougC wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Warner wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:54:42 -0600, DougC wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> Do you really think 20mph is normal.
> > > >
> > > >> No, not for ordinary people riding alone.
> > > >> It is believable if they are in good physical shape, and pacelining.
> > > >
> > > > Are you serious?
> > > >
> > > > I ride with lots of people who can easily hold 32 km/h or better on
> > > > the flat without wind indefinitely. I would expect anyone who
> > > > races to do considerably better, maybe 36 km/h.
>
> > If someone is averaging about 20kmh, while riding a heavy commuter bike
> > (> 14kg), while wearing work clothes and/or water proofs, in traffic
> > and> > >
> > > > Stick us in a paceline, and we can easily sit on 40.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well sure--on the moon, over a one km distance, I could hold about 150
> > > km/h. Does that count as my average? Or do the circumstances inflate my
> > > personal performance?
> > >
> > > Let's offer some definitions:
> > > How about riding alone, on an out-and-back course, non-stop, 80km
> > > one-way, could most ordinary bike riders average 32 km/h? I'd bet not.
> > > ~
> >
> >
> > Only becasue they're not trying hard enough. But I'm considering an
> > 'ordinary' rider to be someone who rides more than one hour at least
> > couple times a week and has done for some time.
> > A nice road bike, with drops, some skinnies and a reasonable set of
> > lungs, maybe a bit of training and I'd bet most folks in this group
> > could handle an average of 32kmh for 80km.
>
> I rather doubt that, at least riding solo. In a group maybe but a one
> hour ride and an 80km ride are not the same animal.
>
> To ride long distances you need to practice riding long distances.

Yea, maybe you're right and yes you do need to practice and train, but
it doesn't take years and for some it may does take one season to get
up to speed. I should have added a tongue-in-cheek icon to that post.

If that's a goal of theirs and I'm not saying it should be.


Laters,

marz

 

[Chris Neary]

>I have recently changed my mind about my climbing ability. I no longer
>see my weight as a handicap. I merely must produce more power than my
>riding mates. And as we are all well below our real potential, that
>should pose no problem, right? Right?

Every time I've seen someone dramatically improve their climbing ability, it
has been in conjunction with a significant weight reduction. In short, they
improved their conditioning while simultaneously reduced the amount of mass
which needed to be moved.

Besides, what's to stop your riding mates from improving towards their
potential so they can still drop the new, stronger, but still big, you?


Chris Neary
[email protected]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

 

[[email protected]]

Chris Neary wrote:
> >I have recently changed my mind about my climbing ability. I no longer
> >see my weight as a handicap. I merely must produce more power than my
> >riding mates. And as we are all well below our real potential, that
> >should pose no problem, right? Right?
>
> Every time I've seen someone dramatically improve their climbing ability, it
> has been in conjunction with a significant weight reduction. In short, they
> improved their conditioning while simultaneously reduced the amount of mass
> which needed to be moved.

I had reached a plateau at about 230lbs that wasn't getting any lower.
I wasn't really trying that hard mind you, but the excess fat wasn't
gong anyplace by itself. A few months ago circumstances got me to put
my riding into high gear, and now I am more like 210-215. This is a
pretty significant difference, but I feel that by far my recent
climbing improvement has come more from better fitness than from less
weight.

> Besides, what's to stop your riding mates from improving towards their
> potential so they can still drop the new, stronger, but still big, you?
>

Nothing is stopping them. But that is just it, at all but the highest
levels, everyone has so much unrealized potential, that it is just a
matter of taking what is there. I chose not to stop!

I used to train somewhat scientifically with zones, etc, but I came to
the conclusion that at the hobby level, there are so many other factors
involved that overshadow by whole orders of magnitude any performance
gians I may have realized by some structured, scientific approach to
training that it wasn't worth it. I have since been using the Merckx
"Ride lots" method. I ride almost every day, about 10-12 hours per
week. On days I feel like it, I go like stink the whole time, and
sprint the crest of every hill such that I am completely fried at the
top. Other days I just cruise. No system at all, just ride my fixed
gear 48x18 everywhere. No heart rate monitor, not computer, or
speedometer. The improvement has been huge. 2 years ago when I started
riding again I could put out about 260 watts at my threshold. A year of
moderatley scientific training got that to about 290W, where it stayed
for a while. Three months of "Ride lots" and my output is now I
estimate at 400W. The power is just there for the taking. At an elite
level the margins are so thin that nobody really has room for big
improvement, but not so at the hobby level.

Joseph

 

[nash]

Actually Marz,
I stay essentially the same weight summer and winter weather I am bike
riding or not. I lose muscle tone. And I miss the endorphins.

I like the idiots comment. Stubborness is something else again.

 

[Set]

On 18 Dec 2006 09:33:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>I used to train somewhat scientifically with zones, etc, but I came to
>the conclusion that at the hobby level, there are so many other factors
>involved that overshadow by whole orders of magnitude any performance
>gians I may have realized by some structured, scientific approach to
>training that it wasn't worth it. I have since been using the Merckx
>"Ride lots" method. I ride almost every day, about 10-12 hours per
>week. On days I feel like it, I go like stink the whole time, and
>sprint the crest of every hill such that I am completely fried at the
>top. Other days I just cruise. No system at all, just ride my fixed
>gear 48x18 everywhere. No heart rate monitor, not computer, or
>speedometer. The improvement has been huge. 2 years ago when I started
>riding again I could put out about 260 watts at my threshold. A year of
>moderatley scientific training got that to about 290W, where it stayed
>for a while. Three months of "Ride lots" and my output is now I
>estimate at 400W. The power is just there for the taking. At an elite
>level the margins are so thin that nobody really has room for big
>improvement, but not so at the hobby level.
>
>Joseph

Hi Joe. This is the idea I'm trying to get across in another thread.

I think there is a breakout factor in training (and in weight management)
at about the 10 to 12 hour per week level of training.

As you mentioned you tried other methods, but you were probably only
logging about ~7 hours per week. (15mph x 7)

It may be at the higher level of 10-12 hours per week the caloric
expenditure vs the efficiency is high enough that it's not easy to
(over)eat enough to exceed output such that there's a negative balance.
Thus diet becomes less meaningful (though still important).

It may be that for some people who have problems with carb weight
gain/addiction, at this level, you can switch over to more carbohydrates.

I do know that when I push it up from riding 100mi/wk on the flat, to about
140-160 mi/wk, the weight starts coming off. This is on the flat. I think
I'd have other problems with 160 hilly miles.

It may be easier to up it to the 'ride lots' level and get into negative
calorie balance that way then to try and cut the calories while doing less
riding, regardless of the tempo.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Marz]

nash wrote:
> Actually Marz,
> I stay essentially the same weight summer and winter weather I am bike
> riding or not. I lose muscle tone. And I miss the endorphins.
>
> I like the idiots comment. Stubborness is something else again.

My wife's recommened I take drugs for my stubborness problem, but I
won't, no way, never!


Laters,
Marz

 

[gds]

nash wrote:
>> But your result that day would be better than actual because you had 30
> minutes to rest. You could not use those results unless you compared it to
> another day with a 30 minute mishap.

Perhaps, I think it is actually hard to say. By stopping we did get
some rest benefit. But we also lost the very fast lead group that we
had been riding with and did the last third on our own. So, we gained
something from the rest and lost something by losing the pack. My guess
is we lost more than we gained.

 

[Mark Hickey]

"John Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:

>To ride long distances you need to practice riding long distances.

That's not bad advice, but it's not entirely true. You can substitute
intensity for distance and still put in a credible performance in a
long ride. Mind you, you can't train by riding single hours at 25mph
and expect to ride a century at that speed - but assuming your long
rides are at a lower intensity, you'd be surprised how well you can do
on no training other than a lot of short, hard rides.

In fact, I found early on that riding long slow distances allowed me
to ride long or short slow distances. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[nash]

>but assuming your long
> rides are at a lower intensity, you'd be surprised how well you can do
> on no training other than a lot of short, hard rides.>>>

Just know that hard short rides are affecting the anaerobic muscles not the
aerobic. So theoretically there is suppose to be a difference. Where they
cross over is individual to an extent. All round fitness is the best at any
rate. They help each other out. The Incredible Hulk is not going to do
long aerobic races well.

 

[Stephen Harding]

John Kane wrote:
> nash wrote:

> My guess is that the first thing to do is get the rider comfortable on
> the bike and give him/her a week or two for the cycling specific
> muscles to get broken in before really doning much else. Then they can
> start increasing time and/or speed.

I agree completely with this. It could take a couple weeks just
to get the bike dialed in correctly for comfort while riding.
>
> As something of an aside, the most recent reseach that I have seen [1]
> suggests that even very moderate amounts of exerice (IIRC something
> like 20 minutes walking 3 times a week) can have ah impressive effect
> on health though not on weight.
>
> 1. I don't think it's in print yet, I just had a chance to sit in on a
> presentation. There is similar evidence from a couple of Danish
> studies published last year.

I remember similar results from (I think) a few years ago. Even
seemingly minor efforts at walking a few times a week have significant
health benefits.


SMH

 

[Terry Morse]

"nash" wrote:

> Just know that hard short rides are affecting the anaerobic muscles
> not the aerobic.

That's not true. All intensities from level 2 (endurance) to level 5
(super-threshold) produce aerobic improvements. Hard short rides
improve the aerobic system more quickly than long slow rides.

Some of the aerobic adaptations, and which level of intensity
increases them the fastest:

Plasma Volume: super-threshold (level 5)
Mitochondria: threshold (level 4)
Lactate Threshold: threshold (level 4)
Muscle Glycogen Storage: tempo (level 3)
Slow Twitch Muscle Growth: super-threshold (level 5)
Muscle Capillarization: super-threshold (level 5)
VO2 Max: super-threshold (level 5)

(Source: Coggan, Training With a Power Meter)

All of these adaptations occur at other intensity levels, just more
slowly.
--
terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com

 

[nash]

"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "nash" wrote:
>
>> Just know that hard short rides are affecting the anaerobic muscles
>> not the aerobic.
>
> That's not true. All intensities from level 2 (endurance) to level 5
> (super-threshold) produce aerobic improvements. Hard short rides
> improve the aerobic system more quickly than long slow rides.
>
> Some of the aerobic adaptations, and which level of intensity
> increases them the fastest:
>
> Plasma Volume: super-threshold (level 5)
> Mitochondria: threshold (level 4)
> Lactate Threshold: threshold (level 4)
> Muscle Glycogen Storage: tempo (level 3)
> Slow Twitch Muscle Growth: super-threshold (level 5)
> Muscle Capillarization: super-threshold (level 5)
> VO2 Max: super-threshold (level 5)
>
> (Source: Coggan, Training With a Power Meter)
>
> All of these adaptations occur at other intensity levels, just more
> slowly.
> --
> terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com

Well, I have never seen a chart like that.
I thought if you sprinted you are improving fast twitch white muscle and
endurance you improve slow twitch red muscle.
What is a Power Meter and what constitutes the levels?
My Dad does heavy lifting to build fitness. He says that is all he needs.
Is it true then according to your list?

 

[Bill]

nash wrote:
> "Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "nash" wrote:
>>
>>> Just know that hard short rides are affecting the anaerobic muscles
>>> not the aerobic.
>> That's not true. All intensities from level 2 (endurance) to level 5
>> (super-threshold) produce aerobic improvements. Hard short rides
>> improve the aerobic system more quickly than long slow rides.
>>
>> Some of the aerobic adaptations, and which level of intensity
>> increases them the fastest:
>>
>> Plasma Volume: super-threshold (level 5)
>> Mitochondria: threshold (level 4)
>> Lactate Threshold: threshold (level 4)
>> Muscle Glycogen Storage: tempo (level 3)
>> Slow Twitch Muscle Growth: super-threshold (level 5)
>> Muscle Capillarization: super-threshold (level 5)
>> VO2 Max: super-threshold (level 5)
>>
>> (Source: Coggan, Training With a Power Meter)
>>
>> All of these adaptations occur at other intensity levels, just more
>> slowly.
>> --
>> terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com
>
> Well, I have never seen a chart like that.
> I thought if you sprinted you are improving fast twitch white muscle and
> endurance you improve slow twitch red muscle.
> What is a Power Meter and what constitutes the levels?
> My Dad does heavy lifting to build fitness. He says that is all he needs.
> Is it true then according to your list?
>
>
Your dad is probably pushing to an early heart attack while **looking**
fit. If he is not doing cardio work he can look like Arnold, the
Terminator, and still have a weak heart. Your dad is seriously on the
wrong track. I just went out for one of my sprint runs and went far
enough to hit a peak of 180 but by the time I had walked back home I was
down to only 80. Now, 15 minutes later I have settled down to only 66,
and will be back under 60 within the hour. I'm fit, he has muscles.
Bill Baka